Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel

[Landing Drinks]

I had not read the US news article; just guessed at the prmary driver of this trivia...

I have read it now....... get this message loud and clear...

"Continental Airlines, for example, issued two bulletins last year expressing concern over the number of refueling stops that some flights were making en route to Newark, N.J., one of which observed that “adding fuel indiscriminately (for Mummy) without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding.” "

I like the pension funding bit... Has BA and BALPA read this one..?
It will be BA on their own once letigation reduces BALPA to its knees..

The Pikey is employing the same tactics as before, so no great surpises in store for ANYONE here how it is panning out.

Poacher turned game keeper, he is ex PIC and after PIC T&C's everywhere.. "thinking of number one says his ex FR LHS PIC squeeze"

Get over it ~ it will happen!, as it has throughout all industries in the EU... you're next.

This piece says it all!!, if critical thinking needs to be highlighted (nee taught), then this aspect needs introducing at the selection stage and process for PIC's...
This should replace a healthy part of the "what's in it for me" part of the recruitment process ~ it is the main thread on this forum "WHO GIVES ME WHAT OR MORE"" recruiters should spin this around and ask "what's in it for us if we employ you PIC" Are you going to make my airline,

• Safe
• Viable
• Profitable
• Successful

Business awareness and acumen is certainly driven through Maintrol and SOCC centres... These places can and DO MAKE MONEY for the business.

If its all about remuneration..??
GET INTO HEDGE FUND MANAGEMENT...
I hear in two years you can over come the need to bid for your next roster or even worrying about buying and operating your own P51D.
Yahda Yahda



In terms of risk!!, Oh please... Lets not over glorify "who is in charge!" or has the final say... If that is the case; no wonder team spirit no longer prevails...

Without Engineers, accounts staff, cleaners, fuellers, security staff, loaders you could not do your job... !

I do not want to cover the departure of a long in the tooth PIC who got board chasing destn wx (expereince told him "vis' improving and it was going up") he departed with min fuel when his destn, alt AND departure were all clamped in low vis... Temperature inversion as the sun rose and GUESS WHAT.. Low vis became FOG........

ATC was holding all traffic 75mls north of Destn... PIC hit the ground 100mls North of destn and incurred diversion fees, coaching fees, delays and and and... Yeah yeah he finally got to Destn later in the day, WHITE as sheet as he signed off...

He only does a "few sectors" per day...let those who do MANY MANY more on many many types help make your expereince a pleasent one.......

Best let to it go in this instance... "I'm in charge" was desperate for friends after this one....

TOGETHER then WE ALL MIGHT MAKE MONEY... I only say MIGHT as we all know it is the financial institutions/climate that dictates if a carrier will be successful.

Greedy T&C's and expectations on the other had, will kill any company it prevails in...

Aviation is capital intensive, high risk and subject operating cost vagaries it has no control over...
Best of all it has "end users" who do not like paying top dollar to use it...

Put that way, its lose lose..!!

So its best if we keep the harmony and team working there... as it is the only way this fantastic industry will ever deliver the memories our retiring PIC now regale us with...

Landing Drinks... those (after all) were the days..........

Oppps GMT -6hrs and its waffles n eggs here today...

[Avionero]

I agree. Such statements are the reason for the arrogant-smartass-impression some have within the industry.

I am not familiar with US-procedures. I just know, the dispatcher has to release the flight somehow. But why does he care how much fuel they eventually depart with as long as it´s euqal or more than MinBlock?

[groundbum]

more worrying

in fact I was more worried by the first sentence of the first pilot report they quoted verbatim in the coloured box "with the fuel they gave me I had to declare min fuel"

it's the "they gave" bit. Surely a proper proud Captain, Lord and Master for all he/she is strapped to and flies would say "with the fuel I accepted" dah dah dah.

Small semantics maybe, but it would tell me that the captain that filed that report see's himself as a mere yoke twiddler who if he questions the big bad system gets a foot on his neck quick and bye bye next promotion, pension etc etc! That's scary, this submissive poor little me attitude!

Another mere semantic, but very important, was Captains dislike dispatchers asking "why do you want more fuel" but the dispatcher poster stated he asked this so he could understand the Captain's thought process better and learn from it so he could guide other crews later that day etc. So if the dispatcher said "to help me see things I might have missed could you help me understand why you want more fuel" then everybody is happy. Same words, more verbiage.

G

[VAFFPAX]

groundbum, exactly.

S.

[johnmhunt]

Fuel Cost

The suggestion that 1000kg of extra weight can result in 450 kg extra fuel burn is surely a typo. At airline cruise altitudes and speeds the induced drag (the drag resulting from and directly proportional to the pounds of lift required) is somewhat less than the parasitic drag. A 5% increase in total aircraft weight should therefore result in about 2% increase in fuel consumption to pay for the added load. There is also a very small cost increment to pay for the capital cost of the short term cost of the allegedly excessive investment for fuel.

[cwatters]

It sounds like this is verging on a strength of personality/CRM like issue in some cases?

[2Planks]

The Sandman - you beat me to it - thanks. If dontdoit and dogma are actually Professional Aviators I never want to fly with them on the days I don't have a share in my own destiny. Egos like that should have been flushed out by the CRM process years ago. I suspect, if real, that they spend a significant time of their airborne lives only 'one more hole in the cheese' away from being a smoking pile.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

The posts here by well-meaning passengers are broadly similar to me appearing on a website for heart surgeons. I would then make clear and certain medical judgements on the basis that I have been anaesthetised previously and thereafter operated on by a number of excellent surgeons several times before in my life! In a nutshell, delighted as we are to have non-professionals observe our discussions, this is a subject that they are totally unqualified to participate in.

Regarding the words of SeniorDispatcher, they are most unfortunate and reveal a great deal about his/her misunderstanding as to their relative position to the Captain of the aircraft. There is no doubt that dispatchers are great people who know considerably more than most pilots on a whole host of ground-related matters in aviation. However, when it comes to fuel policy there is only one person who should be able to make that decision - that is the Captain of the aircraft.

I am aware that Dispatchers in the States have a career structure that simply does not exist to the same extent here in Europe. They do Universty-type courses that include all sorts of things like fuel planning which our dispatchers do not do. However, a new First Officer does the equivalent of that, but then has to do years as an apprentice before becoming a Captain himself and gaining the final authority to decide how much fuel is required on a particular day. Why is that? It is because the Captain will have many years' experience and is able to make the correct decision based on seeing numerous situations previously which have shaped his judgement of particular airports and weather conditions. No Dispatcher could ever have that experience and they are therefore not qualified in any way to decide how much fuel to load on an aircraft.

SeniorDispatcher's post should be a warning to everyone as to what would happen here in Europe if that same level of authority was given to a Dispatcher. To all those pax out there who think the Dispatchers are 'qualified' to decide fuel loads, just ask yourself this - when you next get taken into hospital to have your appendix taken out, would you feel happy if as you lay there, the doctors had to agree with the porter who has just wheeled you into the operating theatre how much anaesthetic you should have? I don't think so.

[BusyB]

I seem to remember from days of the BA "Sword" CFP it was understood to mean

Swiftest way of reaching Diversion

Shortest way of running dry

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword

[PAXboy]

Norman Stanley Fletcher

To all those pax out there who think the Dispatchers are 'qualified' to decide fuel loads

Speaking as the humble PAX wot I am ... I did not suggest for a second that a dispatcher is qualified to decide fuel loads! I thought that I had questioned why two people (appearing to be pilots) were so horribly dismissive of someone (appearing to be) a US based dispatcher?

Certainly there has been some k@k journalism and that was discussed in PPRuNe when this subject first aired in February. The post by SeniorDespatcher was read by this PAX as an explanation of the process and the way in which they aim to place default numbers in the boxes so that the pilots have a starting number, based on historical data. Nothing more than that. Yet, pilots in the thread have taken this as a grave insult and challenge to their authority.

I realise that I am treading on toes but only because I wonder why pilots want to stamp on the toes of a dispatcher?

[Bealzebub]

Fuel Cost

The suggestion that 1000kg of extra weight can result in 450 kg extra fuel burn is surely a typo. At airline cruise altitudes and speeds the induced drag (the drag resulting from and directly proportional to the pounds of lift required) is somewhat less than the parasitic drag. A 5% increase in total aircraft weight should therefore result in about 2% increase in fuel consumption to pay for the added load. There is also a very small cost increment to pay for the capital cost of the short term cost of the allegedly excessive investment for fuel.

It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel. Therefore if you are carrying an extra tonne of fuel for 11 hours, it will indeed consume about 44% of its own mass (440kg) simply to carry the extra.

[Pugilistic Animus]

PaxBoy: the dispatcher is responsible for creating a legal flight plan and the captain is responsible for assuring it is really legal---if for some reason the captain decides to take more fuel--[not always 'just for comfort'-but due other operational considerations] then NO one should question it---

Captains're mad at dispatcher---- for not realizing that the frequent delays at xxx airport due to xxx factor[s]---being legally responsible --- he doesn't want to or have to justify every pound of fuel he want to take over minimum--but in the interest of CRM he should share why with dispatch so that THEY LEARN---


Dispatchers're mad at the captain ----because he's gone through intensive training actually a little more involved in certain areas of theory than the atpl knowledge and practical test standards [a few more advisory circulars and topics] and the training is intense and very involved- so they do want their specialized bodies of knowledge respected by the captains---



and the two sides can't seem to see the others troubles---

[Bealzebub]

To put this into perspective :

The Captain is the legal authority for the ultimate safe conduct of the flight. Any deficiencies would ultimately fall onto their shoulders. When they sign the various legal documents, such as the tech log, and the loadsheet, they do so acknowledging that they are satisfied the aircraft is fit to fly in respect of its technical state and loading at that point in time. That technical state and loading may well have devolved to other individuals and agencies, but the certification requires that the Captain (and they alone) must satisfy themselves that whoever has been involved, they are satisfied the aircraft can safely and properly dispatch in that condition.

In the execution of this process, the Captain (Commander) will have been provided with a whole raft of input : Flight planning computations; Weather forecasts; Notam information; Crew hour limitations; Aircraft servicibility reports; Load projections and content; ATC delays. On top of this they will have discussed most of these aspects with the First Officer, engineers, Senior Cabin crew, dispatchers, etc, as and where it is relevant and applicable.

As far as fuel dispatch is concerned. The information will have either been calculated by a computer programme, based on a set of variable inputs. From a dispatcher based on similar information and further real time information. Or manually from tables, and human computation. Whatever the method employed, the Captain has the authority, and indeed it is part of his legal mandate, to ensure that whatever adjustments that he considers necessary are applied. This may be a result of his experience, knowledge or simple gut feeling. If the company wish to question his decision, it is their right to do so, and normally they should be satisfied with the explanation given. If anybody else wishes to question the decision, they would be right do so in preventing an error or pointing out a possible error or deficiency. Provided such an error was not the issue, then the Captains decision would be final.

[buswind]

Capt A320 Family

no, but you must give an explanation as to why you are requesting more fuel than required per flight plan.

[doubleu-anker]

Oh, you want an explanation.

OK, how about this one? Captains decision.

[Rick777]

I thought Senior Dispatcher gave a very good explaination of how things are done in the US. The dispatcher and the captain are jointly legally responsible for the safe operation of the flight. There is a little extra information to go with it though. The dispatcher often has detailed in for on winds that the captain doesn't have as well as a lot of computer processing power. At my airline at least either the dispatcher or the captain can add fuel unilaterally, but must get permission from the other to DECREASE fuel. The number the dispatcher enters is not just a default number, but is arrived at by some pretty complicated programs. I very seldom add fuel and the only time I have ever ran really low I thought I was starting out with a lot extra-a lot of things just went wrong on the same flight. Of course the captain always has the ultimate authority to do what he thinks best but he doesn't need to be a ass about it unless he has some serious self esteem issues like a few posters here seem to have.

[42psi]

Strikes me that the industry has sadly moved nearer the "jobsworth" it seems.


When I started out load planning/dispatching we didn't have them new fangled computer thingys yet and used a combination of checking the weather, tables and manual calcs to arrive at a fuel figure (and don't get me started on some of the new breed who can only punch in numbers with no actual understanding!!)

But .... we were very clear that the person who had the final say was the one that had to leave the ground.


It was also a matter of professional pride that we felt the job was done well when the Capt. agreed our fuel figure unchanged.

It was re-assuring that if we'd proposed max fuel or min fuel or whatever in between when that was agreed as suitable. Of course we knew we were right ... but corrobaration that we were both right (or wrong!) was always welcome.


But ..... the place for "challenging" the Capt's decision on fuel is not on the day, pre-flight etc.

I find that tone a tad disturbing really .... we worked as a team and decisions such as this were made in that spirit ... it's a sad day if the beancounters have created a possible tension were one did not exist...

[sevenstrokeroll]

Yes, we do things differently here in the USA. Dispatchers play an important part. As the captain, we check the fuel for our flight...we don't make up the flight plans anymore, we are too busy with a load of other crap. But we do check it and if we want more fuel we ask for additional fuel. IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY NO, we could :

1. be a wimp and do what THEY tell us to do.

2. Say, get me the fuel or we will be delayed, while you try to find one of the above.

NOw there is pressure to use "min fuel". There has always been a payload tradeoff for fuel and a wise captain knows what to do.

Why has it come to the attention of the media now? Who cares why?

It is true. But it has also been done in the past. I recall the following conversation going into KSFO: Bay approach, American XXX, were min fuel for SFO.

Roger, say diversion airport?

You don't understand, were min fuel to SFO...we just don't want or can't tolerate any unneccessary delays.

Roger, You will be over the outer marker in SFO in 30 minutes, or you can be over the outer marker to OAKLAND airport in 5 minutes...its your choice. ARE YOU DECLARING A LOW FUEL EMERGENCY (this is different than min fuel)?

Negative, request vectors to Oakland.


Now, after they diverted to Oakland, refueled, got re released it took another 30 minutes to fly to SFO (straight line distance is less than 11 nautical miles).

Who was smart for taking "min fuel " that day?


Quite simply, every major airport in the USA has delays, even with the nicest weather and a pilot who doesn't take fuel to cover those delays is a chump.

Diverting, because you are trying to please your company dispatcher or bean counter is nuts.

rotsa ruck...even in perfect wx, hit the marker with all legal requirements, but if you aren't prepared to hold for an hour, you will end up using more fuel with a divert and you will piss off the passengers (what you europeans call SLF and what we call SIR)

[acmi48]

if its written clearly in the ops manual what the fuel policy is then the issue
would be between the respective individuals if a policy is not followed.

[40&80]

So you want to be a training Captain with GF?
Yes.
What do you know about the company fuel policy?
Well it is very very good and probably with a big insurance company like Norwich Union.
Welcome to the management team.