Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel

[Caudillo]

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.

Going on that assumption of a 4% penalty per hour, at each hour, the extra ton would consume approx 36%/360kg rather than 44%/440kg.

You need to think of it like an interest rate, albeit, an inverse one. You assume your penalty percentage doesn't alter at any point. So given that your extra fuel is self consuming, this 4% is applicable to a decreasing load, giving a smaller absolute figure.

This idea may help explain the surprise you experience when opening your bank statements.

[Dogma]

A good Dispatcher is worth his weight in gold - but lets not pretend that Senior Red Cap will be in jail/grave for having neglected the conduct the flight in accordance with the telephone directory of Rules and Regs! Some of the more pompous dispatchers I have meet go on about my Flight... my PIC's.... my crew etc, these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!

The Skipper / FO carry the can

[Landing Drinks]

DOGMA

"these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!"

The Skipper / FO carry the can

Oh please... Where do you get this outdated, shallow tripe from.... it all sounds too much for you....
this is not the industry for you dear boy....

Headset, three screens each, a desk and paperwork of interest??, consessions, subsidised meals, free car parking and uniforms, share options..... Sound GOOD ?????











British Gas are recruiting... (Got to make it sound appealling)



Flying school by any chance ?, pay back time ??

Something happens as they cross the throttles from RHS to LHS...

[PositiveRate876]

Quote:
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.
Going on that assumption of a 4% penalty per hour, at each hour, the extra ton would consume approx 36%/360kg rather than 44%/440kg.

You need to think of it like an interest rate, albeit, an inverse one. You assume your penalty percentage doesn't alter at any point. So given that your extra fuel is self consuming, this 4% is applicable to a decreasing load, giving a smaller absolute figure.

This idea may help explain the surprise you experience when opening your bank statements.

I don't know what percentage this comes out to, but this is straight from a flight plan of my flight last month...

FLIGHT TIME.......................................13:10
Fuel to Carry an additional 1000kgs.........563kgs

[joehunt]

Actually you got me thinking, with that one.

I am looking to do a brown nose job with my company, as it is time for another.

If I carried 1000kgs less than flight plan, would I make a half a ton of fuel for the company and keep the accountants happy?

[VortexGen300]

(UN)Happy accountant or (UN)happy pax?

Hi

The accountant's happiness might be short lived - as the excess on the insurance payment might be more than what he saved?

The pax and your family might also not be too happy as you might either be on permanent leave without any pay - or doing time in "pearly gates" - as for the pax either sueing the air line or with you in the "pearly gates".

Mind you there (in pearly gates) we would no longer be argueing this issue?


VG300

[BOAC]

Re the penalty for 'extra' fuel - everyone seems to be getting hung up on the percentage figure. For example, I am used to 3.5% for 737 Ng and 4.5% for the Classic, per hour per Tonne. Although pretty reliable, these are GUIDELINE figures to help me to assess the effect of loading extra, and do not relate DIRECTLY to the increased fuel burn for the higher weight, but also 'allow' (approximately) for the fact that I may not achieve the flight planned levels at the higher weights and will therefore burn even 'more'. "4% p/h p/T" helps me to plan to arrive with 1000kg 'extra' after a 4 hour flight, by uplifting 1200kg extra. It also allows me to assess the efficacy of tankering fuel and to try to ensure I am not over MLM on arrival

For 'Bealzebub' -

It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel.

- we'll all be a bit stuck when aviation gets to do 25+ hour legs..... Will that mean we should take less than FP fuel? How did Dick and Jeana get round the world in the Rutan (216 hours)? Answers on the back of a fag packet.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Dispatchers

I can only post as former dispatcher. I have an honours degree, a management diploma, and a reasonably level head. I worked for a couple of years as a dispatcher in the UK, initially as a stepping stone to another career, but liked it a lot, so stayed a couple of years.

I met plenty of really good, professional but friendly folks up front, and a fair number of £$%$holes along the way. The good ones valued my input, however small, my aim being to send them away on time or early, safely, and hopefully with a smile.

Sadly, Dogma's (and the other poster around the same time) initial comments reminded me of the "I'm better than you" brigade. Even a turnround co-ordinator (rather than a US-style dispatcher) contributes to a team effort on the ground. Being able to magic up a GPU, or the unaccompanied bag of the missing passenger was something I regularly aimed for, but treating fellow team members as something on your shoe was something I rarely tolerated. Despite my lowly payscale, a quick "listen sunshine, pretend for a moment I am a human being trying to help you" often worked wonders......

[sevenstrokeroll]

perspective

the 4 percent figure per hour got me thinking. for you ultra long haul boys, this becomes a huge figure.

Coming from a background of things like Boston to New York and how much a passenger, who could take a train or drive this distance, would be annoyed at diverting to a different airport, it is all a matter of perspective.

Ultra long haul flights should probably be given a priority to save the fuel cost, while short range flights must carry more fuel to save pax problems.

[Dogma]

OntimeexceptACARS - I think we would have got along fine... its all about team work... the Skipper is the leader of the team. I can't imagine Pilots off loading Cargo for fuel unless it was necessary, on the flip side tankering up to the gunnels when LDA limited!

Hats off to all the talents of the Red Cap

[imaryan]

ERJ perspective

I am an ERJ 145 CA for a US regional. My company normally files us with min fuel plus 500lbs ( thats about 15 minutes worth). I am allowed to take 1000lbs extra, IF it does not affect payload. On ERJ if you are full (48-50) pax you will have to bump passengers and bags to get that extra fuel. You have to get PERMISSION from dispatcher to do that. You will get called in to explain why did you bump passengers when flight plan showed legally acceptable fuel load. Predicted delay or weather expected at destination, is dismissed as a good reason because thats the acceptable legal fuel no mater what.. They would rather you divert then bump a passenger. Their research shows it is much cheaper to do thing that way. Make no mistake flying with a minimum legal fuel is the policy at a lot of regional carriers.

[sevenstrokeroll]

so erj's burn about two thousand pounds an hour?

I understand the plight of the modern transport pilot.

delays mean you need 3 hours of fuel for a 45 mn flt.

but you will really only get 2 hours if you are lucky.

round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.

[Old Fella]

Fuel loading

From my point of view, having flown with far too many different Captains to recall, it seems that the initial responses made by "Dogma" and "dontdoit" to the post of "Senior Dispatcher" were what I would expect from the minority of Captains with "overblown opinions of themselves" with whom I flew.

From a dispassionate standpoint, everything "Senior Dispatcher" had to offer was reasonable and to be dismissed as "nothing more than an overrated loadmaster" was unfair. The comment that "I'm the Captain and when I say jump, you ask how high?" says it all. Prick your balloons fella's, before someone else pricks them for you.

[airsupport]

I have been reading this thread with interest, and although not a Pilot or a Dispatcher, from my 40 something years in the Industry Worldwide I just cannot believe any Pilot would be forced to fly with low fuel.

Some years ago now while working a contract we had a Base Manager who did all the functions of a Dispatcher (as well as other things), a new Base Manager arrived during the contract and almost as soon as he arrived on base he tried to cut back on the Pilots taking more fuel than necessary by his flight plans, as Base Engineering Manager he showed me the letter he was putting out to all the Pilots telling them they were to only carry fuel as per his flight plans.

After I could bring myself to stop laughing, he asked me what was wrong, and I just told him you will see.

As I knew would happen, after they read the letter ALL of the Captains took a lot more fuel than needed every flight, until finally the letter was withdrawn.

Over my career I have even had "input" into how much fuel we have needed on a certain flight, but the final figure is ALWAYS up to the Captain.

[doubleu-anker]

Just pricked myself.

There I go on my toes. Do you think I am one of those?

[Old Fella]

Pricked balloons

"doubleu-anker". If you wish to put yourself in the same category as "Dogma" and "dontdoit" in terms of self esteem, go for it. My point was that some Captains are so full of their own importance they should be flying alone. "SeniorDispatcher" made the mistake of calling his company PIC's "his PIC's" and immediately got those with overgrown ego's so puffed up they need to be pricked.

Get a grip mate, no one questions that the PIC has the last say, it is just nice that most understand that they are just another part of the overall team.

[FullWings]

I think the problem is that the title of the thread is somewhat alarmist. In this context "low fuel" means "less than I would take if I owned the company".

If you're operating under JAR (and other schemes), then there will be a legal minimum fuel that will allow you to taxi out, take off, cruise, descend, hold for a short while at your destination (if you haven't used that fuel for something else), shoot an approach, go-around, divert to your alternate and arrive with 30mins fuel left. This is regarded as "safe" in most aviation circles. It is not necessarily the most prudent thing to do in all circumstances, especially if there are likely to be delays or the weather is poor; taking minimum fuel, however, is not "unsafe", it just means that the decision to divert, etc. has to be taken earlier.

If you regularly fly to an airport that often has inbound delays that exceed your capacity to absorb, then you'll be diverting a lot and your passengers won't like you. It's not unsafe it's uncommercial. The same could be said of loading large quantities of extra fuel for no good reason.

[ssg]

This is a moot point.

Are there airliners out there flying on fumes - Yes

I talked to a Continental captain that was told to take on the minimum amount of fuel, the idea being that carrying a little extra fuel for safety to altitude, cost's money. He cited and example of an airliner flying from Florida to Texas that had to land in New Orleans because he made a couple of turns around some thunderstorms, ran low on fuel and couldn't continue the trip.

Unnacceptable.

First of all, I would be really concerned about what the airliners consider proper reserves. Under IFR conditions, enough fuel to get to the destination, shoot an approach, a couple of turns in a hold, at the lower altitude, then climb enroute, fly to alternate, shoot an approach, is considered pretty safe, but a minimum. + 45 minutes..

Some would interpret the rule, to make weight and balance, and carry less fuel that it might mean, fly to the distination at the highest alt, long range fuel setting, not ever go down, fly right to alternate, stay at alt and long range fuel setting for 45 minutes, drop down at the last second...much less fuel required in second scenario.

It get's worse....taking off over gross, burning more fuel to move a heavier aircraft, fudging these numbers a little on the short side, not ever flying at the high alt, or with the reduced power setting...now the captain is on fumes.

Worse case scenario are captains that fly around on such low fuel, that any little itty bitty glitch, like flying 35 miles around a thunderstorm diverts the aricraft to an alternate.

Strong or weak captains aside, this situation is unnacceptable, because I guarantee if there is no built in fudge factor tward safety, everyone on the ragged edge, it will only take on plane a little heavier then calculated, a little weather, a weak crew that didn't do propper exact planning, an incompetent dispatcher, ect ect.

And for what? No one is talking about taking extra fuel, but enough that is legaly required, which is enough...so IF airliners are flying around on fumes, they didn't take the legaly required amount of fuel.

The arguments can be made...'well gee, they made us stay low' 'Gosh, we had to fly around thunderstorms' ...yeah?....for two hours?

Personaly, I think this is a way for management to force the union into believing they are doing everything they can to cut costs...like taking the pillows off the Delta planes...silly.

[Ashling]

I regularly fly to the legal minima and certainly am not on "fumes". In 4 years of commercial flying and some 1800 sectors I have landed below CNR (final reserve plus alternate fuel) once, thats about 0.055%, and not yet come close to needing to divert for fuel reasons.

If I judge circumstances require it I will carry extra fuel.

If I judge it is safe to do so I will reduce my trip fuel to take into account a shorter taxi/departure/arrival (company plans assume longest taxi/deparure/arrival)

I am a professional commercial pilot. Safety underscores everything but I do have a professional responsibility to think commercialy as well. If you need to do not be afraid to carry extra but do it thoughtfully for good reason. If you have a legitimate reason for carrying extra and someone puts you under pressure not to then tell them were to go but if you are in the habit of carrying extra for no real reason do not be surprised if your brought to book about it.

While my company encourages me to carry plan fuel they also make it clear I should carry more when it is needed and I have never once felt any pressure from management not to and have never had a fuel decision questioned. They also accept that sometimes the unexpected does happen and very occasionaly a crew will divert due to fuel. They have committed to supporting the crew and applying a no fault policy in this case.

If you find yourself in a company that does apply undue pressure then I would suggest your best course of action as a professional pilot is to leave that company having reported them to the regulator.

[airsupport]

There is a very old saying (something like), the ONLY time you can have too much fuel on board is if the Aircraft is on fire.