Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468
True? Anyone ever been denied more fuel after it was requested?
True? Anyone ever been denied more fuel after it was requested?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Up there
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that what you're talking about is flying with 'Min fuel'. Which means basically flying with the fuel calculated for the paperwork based on the wind conditions, flight level etc and built into that are the normal contingencies which have always been there for go arounds and diverts etc.
What is happening now is that the fuel prices and the governments crusade against aviation are making all airlines struggle with the cost of fuel and it's now the biggest cost, at least it is in my operation. The problem is not a matter of safety in terms of normal operations but more a matter of inconvenience because if for whatever reason such as weather that you have to hold...then you have to divert in order to land with the minimum legal amount of fuel on board.
In days gone by we used to have the option of carrying extra fuel for 'comfort value' but now the prices are so ridiculous that airlines are having to adjust to it and reduce the comfort value fuel, or even be rid of it. So if the proverbial hits the fan and there are going to be any delays to the approach then all the passengers are going to end up in another city or in some cases another country which will incur costs to the passenger and major costs to the airlines involved. This isnt the fault of the airlines but the fault of the fuel prices and the british government.
What is happening now is that the fuel prices and the governments crusade against aviation are making all airlines struggle with the cost of fuel and it's now the biggest cost, at least it is in my operation. The problem is not a matter of safety in terms of normal operations but more a matter of inconvenience because if for whatever reason such as weather that you have to hold...then you have to divert in order to land with the minimum legal amount of fuel on board.
In days gone by we used to have the option of carrying extra fuel for 'comfort value' but now the prices are so ridiculous that airlines are having to adjust to it and reduce the comfort value fuel, or even be rid of it. So if the proverbial hits the fan and there are going to be any delays to the approach then all the passengers are going to end up in another city or in some cases another country which will incur costs to the passenger and major costs to the airlines involved. This isnt the fault of the airlines but the fault of the fuel prices and the british government.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legal minimum fuel is not always enough.
Fortunately I fly for a company that allows the Captain to take more than the minimum required, should he or she so wish.
The day I am dictated to as far as fuel requirements go, is the day I give up flying.
Fortunately I fly for a company that allows the Captain to take more than the minimum required, should he or she so wish.
The day I am dictated to as far as fuel requirements go, is the day I give up flying.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Forced" to fly with low fuel.
The story has a high bovine fecal matter index...
Actually, it's a "recycled" story. A local Texas station that one of the reporters is based at first ran the story in mid-February, right in the middle of a "sweeps" ratings period here in the USA. For those not aware, that's when US media puts on their most sensationalized stuff in the hopes of increasing their viewership numbers, so they can also raise ther advert rates.
Anyway, a major fallacy in the story is that PICs are "forced" to do stuff. Here in the USA, FAA-licensed dispatchers plan the fuel loads, put that info on a dispatch release, sign the release electronically, and then ship it to the station. Once the PIC gets the release, s/he reviews the dispatcher's work, and if satisfied with the fuel load (among other things) the PIC signs the release and in so doing are legally attesting (by US FARs) that they are in agreement that the flight can be operated safely as planned by the parameters set forth in the release. Conversely, if they don't agree with the fuel load or something else (alternate, etc.) they *shouldn't* sign and should communicate with the dispatcher and find something that they can agree on.
If one of my PICs wants more gas, they usually get it, but I want to know why so if they've caught something that will affect other flights, I can make the needed changes to those other flights. If someone wants to arrive their 737 at the destination with full wing tanks for some personal "comfort level" kind of concern, then we have a problem. The bottom line here is that NOBODY is holding a gun to their heads, making them sign the release, left alone flythe thing.
Also keep in mind AA pilots were a major (though not total) source for the report, and everyone but the reporter seems to know about the jihad that AA management has with its workforce, and vice versa. With contract talks long ongoing, claims that running out of coffee is a flight safety concern don't seem to be fr down the road.
Do flights sometimes get into low-fuel situations? Sure they do, and when they do, the necessary steps are taken to get the flight on the ground somewhere. even if it's at an alternate.
Actually, it's a "recycled" story. A local Texas station that one of the reporters is based at first ran the story in mid-February, right in the middle of a "sweeps" ratings period here in the USA. For those not aware, that's when US media puts on their most sensationalized stuff in the hopes of increasing their viewership numbers, so they can also raise ther advert rates.
Anyway, a major fallacy in the story is that PICs are "forced" to do stuff. Here in the USA, FAA-licensed dispatchers plan the fuel loads, put that info on a dispatch release, sign the release electronically, and then ship it to the station. Once the PIC gets the release, s/he reviews the dispatcher's work, and if satisfied with the fuel load (among other things) the PIC signs the release and in so doing are legally attesting (by US FARs) that they are in agreement that the flight can be operated safely as planned by the parameters set forth in the release. Conversely, if they don't agree with the fuel load or something else (alternate, etc.) they *shouldn't* sign and should communicate with the dispatcher and find something that they can agree on.
If one of my PICs wants more gas, they usually get it, but I want to know why so if they've caught something that will affect other flights, I can make the needed changes to those other flights. If someone wants to arrive their 737 at the destination with full wing tanks for some personal "comfort level" kind of concern, then we have a problem. The bottom line here is that NOBODY is holding a gun to their heads, making them sign the release, left alone flythe thing.
Also keep in mind AA pilots were a major (though not total) source for the report, and everyone but the reporter seems to know about the jihad that AA management has with its workforce, and vice versa. With contract talks long ongoing, claims that running out of coffee is a flight safety concern don't seem to be fr down the road.
Do flights sometimes get into low-fuel situations? Sure they do, and when they do, the necessary steps are taken to get the flight on the ground somewhere. even if it's at an alternate.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeniorDispatcher <<If one of my PICs wants more gas>>:
What a load of crap! First of all, they're not "your" PICs; secondly, the Captain is in charge, not you; thirdly, envy of any kind will get you nowhere - don't get carried away trying to make a profession out of being a glorified loadmaster.
What a load of crap! First of all, they're not "your" PICs; secondly, the Captain is in charge, not you; thirdly, envy of any kind will get you nowhere - don't get carried away trying to make a profession out of being a glorified loadmaster.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniordispatcher - you are delusional, you are laughable and you should have worked harder at school if you wanted to be a "PIC"!
We are Captains - we say jump - you say how high
We are Captains - we say jump - you say how high
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: evicted
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^
^
^
|____________
In the US, a dispatcher is more involved in the decision making then some other parts of the world. When I used to work there, in the end if I needed fual that a dispatcher couldn't/didn't want to justify, they marked it down as "Captain Request" and end of story. He's happy that he's not going to lose the 'min fuel' competition that some dispatch departments run from time to time, and I get the fuel I need.
^
^
|____________
In the US, a dispatcher is more involved in the decision making then some other parts of the world. When I used to work there, in the end if I needed fual that a dispatcher couldn't/didn't want to justify, they marked it down as "Captain Request" and end of story. He's happy that he's not going to lose the 'min fuel' competition that some dispatch departments run from time to time, and I get the fuel I need.
Dogma & dontdoit,
Being a bit harsh there even if heading in the right direction
I wouldn't have thought it a problem. Just load what the commander requires and any objectors from above are told "That's what was wanted - take it up with the skipper!"
Being a bit harsh there even if heading in the right direction
If someone wants to arrive their 737 at the destination with full wing tanks for some personal "comfort level" kind of concern, then we have a problem.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't even get page one on the article, it seems to have the usual well done research behind it, and starts out with technical errors. No point in reading on...
I agree with dontdoit and Dogma...
nic
I agree with dontdoit and Dogma...
nic
Paxing All Over The World
Dogma
SeniorDispatcher did not suggest that they were in charge of anything other than the preparatory stages and then the Captain accepted or rejected the advice.
dontdotit
The use of the term 'my PICS' was clearly a collective that might be the same as 'my PAX' or 'my clients'. It simply conveyed the group of people with whom SD deals in their working day. And, secondly, they never suggested that they were in charge!
In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!! Doubtless, there will be some who are running a lottery about who can ship the least fuel but I have no doubt that Captains have run a fair few lotteries themselves on different aspects of flights over the years ...
Wow. Lucky we don't have any egos in here.
We are Captains - we say jump - you say how high
dontdotit
First of all, they're not "your" PICs; secondly, the Captain is in charge, not you;
In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!! Doubtless, there will be some who are running a lottery about who can ship the least fuel but I have no doubt that Captains have run a fair few lotteries themselves on different aspects of flights over the years ...
Wow. Lucky we don't have any egos in here.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 58N10W
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a rye ball comment from some newbie to the business or some clown that knew it would make mischief....
Required fuel would never be in question, what would be is the 25% extra for "mother"..
It really is so simple,
fuel is payload,
increased payload increases fuel burn &, low & behold, INCREASES COSTS!
Increased costs means less to spend on the T&C's of the bleating masses beyond the forward bulkhead...
As the dispatcher has mentioned; it is never a question if the consensus of opinion is once you have left the gate it is too hard and costly to fuel again... SO THEY WILL ALWAYS AGREE WHAT IS REQUIRED...
If a little "pencil sharpening" can save maybe 100kgs per sector, per tail number, per day... LOW & BEHOLD, each quarter the airline may be able to afford some coffee & biscuits for the Flt Deck instead of looking at how that can reduce seven cabin crew to six... to pay for you.
Rest assured PIC's; your sectors (and their performance) are studied and planned way before you come on duty or even get rostered for it... .. data from all previous activities of the tail number and sector, day in, day out are available to help the Dispatcher make his decision before issuing a release...
Additionally, if the clown who started this thread is indentified as problematical, then his roster can and will be MANIPULATED to reduce his exposure to routes he/she causes worries on.... Stats are great at highlighting performance issues..
Bit like a call centre, sat in one place and there to do one task... like for like the varinaces betwen individuals performance (human factors no less) can all be compared...
Its good fun, just like interview stage of PIC.. keen and eager ~ stay that way.
Yes PIC, the bucks stops... but please never underestimate the expereince of those who release 20-30 flights per day.. at best you do four sectors.. on one type....
call that exposure?
Reminds me of the trash that went around when two engines first hit the Atlantic and Pacific... 60mins Etops, 90-120-180... (The more engines the better)
The engines/airframes and fuel burns are now ledgendary... Careful flight management at the time, with very helthy choices pre flight by the dispatcher allowed each trip to "make fuel"... a real class act and team work...
Such activities gave PIC's an industry that boomed.. and created jobs beyond anyone's wildest dreams....
Have a little respect, now more than EVER!
It is not just about what goes on beyond that forward bulk head... if the business is economical in all areas of operations.. there should be enough to fund everyones T&C's.. not just those of the few who bleat and have too much time on their hands
Personally; I feel every sector should be given a "Cost index" and the front enders should be given a target of acheiving the "cost index" to assist the company in hitting its financial targets... Help to keep everyone in a job that would !!!!
Still want a bit extra for "mother"...
Required fuel would never be in question, what would be is the 25% extra for "mother"..
It really is so simple,
fuel is payload,
increased payload increases fuel burn &, low & behold, INCREASES COSTS!
Increased costs means less to spend on the T&C's of the bleating masses beyond the forward bulkhead...
As the dispatcher has mentioned; it is never a question if the consensus of opinion is once you have left the gate it is too hard and costly to fuel again... SO THEY WILL ALWAYS AGREE WHAT IS REQUIRED...
If a little "pencil sharpening" can save maybe 100kgs per sector, per tail number, per day... LOW & BEHOLD, each quarter the airline may be able to afford some coffee & biscuits for the Flt Deck instead of looking at how that can reduce seven cabin crew to six... to pay for you.
Rest assured PIC's; your sectors (and their performance) are studied and planned way before you come on duty or even get rostered for it... .. data from all previous activities of the tail number and sector, day in, day out are available to help the Dispatcher make his decision before issuing a release...
Additionally, if the clown who started this thread is indentified as problematical, then his roster can and will be MANIPULATED to reduce his exposure to routes he/she causes worries on.... Stats are great at highlighting performance issues..
Bit like a call centre, sat in one place and there to do one task... like for like the varinaces betwen individuals performance (human factors no less) can all be compared...
Its good fun, just like interview stage of PIC.. keen and eager ~ stay that way.
Yes PIC, the bucks stops... but please never underestimate the expereince of those who release 20-30 flights per day.. at best you do four sectors.. on one type....
call that exposure?Reminds me of the trash that went around when two engines first hit the Atlantic and Pacific... 60mins Etops, 90-120-180... (The more engines the better)
The engines/airframes and fuel burns are now ledgendary... Careful flight management at the time, with very helthy choices pre flight by the dispatcher allowed each trip to "make fuel"... a real class act and team work...
Such activities gave PIC's an industry that boomed.. and created jobs beyond anyone's wildest dreams....
Have a little respect, now more than EVER!
It is not just about what goes on beyond that forward bulk head... if the business is economical in all areas of operations.. there should be enough to fund everyones T&C's.. not just those of the few who bleat and have too much time on their hands
Personally; I feel every sector should be given a "Cost index" and the front enders should be given a target of acheiving the "cost index" to assist the company in hitting its financial targets... Help to keep everyone in a job that would !!!!
Still want a bit extra for "mother"...
Hi
My first time post as newbie to the group and SLF to boot, so be gentle please.
Isn't it like putting fuel in a car ? ,apart from the car doesn't fall from the sky when empty obviously.
My point is that when i prepare for a car journey I decide how much fuel to put in and then a comfort factor. If I end up with some left over at the end of the journey then all well and good.
It doesn't matter because it goes toward the next journey.
So the next journey you have the comfort factor already there and if you need it (searching for a parking space?) then it's not a problem, just put it back in next time you fuel. And if I find a garage cheaper than anywhere else I fill up.
And so on until I decide to change the car and on it's final journey it's running on fumes.
Do accountants cost justify each trip? Is there no allowance for fuel already on board?
I appreciate to fill up has a cost impact in terms of fuel economy, and a full tank on an airliner is considerably more than a car so return on capital employed becomes a factor. But if the comfort factor is always in the tanks then the extra cost per flight is mimimal?
My first time post as newbie to the group and SLF to boot, so be gentle please.
Isn't it like putting fuel in a car ? ,apart from the car doesn't fall from the sky when empty obviously.
My point is that when i prepare for a car journey I decide how much fuel to put in and then a comfort factor. If I end up with some left over at the end of the journey then all well and good.
It doesn't matter because it goes toward the next journey.
So the next journey you have the comfort factor already there and if you need it (searching for a parking space?) then it's not a problem, just put it back in next time you fuel. And if I find a garage cheaper than anywhere else I fill up.
And so on until I decide to change the car and on it's final journey it's running on fumes.
Do accountants cost justify each trip? Is there no allowance for fuel already on board?
I appreciate to fill up has a cost impact in terms of fuel economy, and a full tank on an airliner is considerably more than a car so return on capital employed becomes a factor. But if the comfort factor is always in the tanks then the extra cost per flight is mimimal?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OXF
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I see in the report, the thing that annoys the pilots most is the "do you really need that extra amount of fuel?" question from the dispatcher. The article is clear in pointing out that the PIC has ultimate authority, but that that does not mean the dispatcher can't query the request for extra fuel. Dispatch cannot overrule the PIC, but they can question the need for extra fuel.
Separately, but related, MSNBC also refers to the fuel hedges by airlines, which in some cases come to an end. South West apparently faces an increase in fuel costs equal to its profit in 2007, so they've resorted to flying more direct routes (including over water) to save fuel.
It's not a case of questioning your authority, but a case of giving you as much as you need, not a gallon more. Ultimately if you as PIC are not happy with the fuel amount you've been given, ask for more. Just be prepared to say why.
S.
Separately, but related, MSNBC also refers to the fuel hedges by airlines, which in some cases come to an end. South West apparently faces an increase in fuel costs equal to its profit in 2007, so they've resorted to flying more direct routes (including over water) to save fuel.
It's not a case of questioning your authority, but a case of giving you as much as you need, not a gallon more. Ultimately if you as PIC are not happy with the fuel amount you've been given, ask for more. Just be prepared to say why.
S.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Sunny, the trouble is..you have to burn fuel to carry extra fuel. On a long flight in my steed mr Boeings' 767-300, it can cost 450kg of extra fuel burn per 1000kg of extra fuel carried.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel & Forcing to carry less?
Well
Maybe it should be seen for what it really is
Cheap journalistic sensationalism?
I don't doubt that such events might have occurred but if it were properly researched it would probably have shown the pilot to be on the "over cautious" and the dispatcher being "less cautious".
It would have been in contradiction with Regulations and could cause an operator to loose its license if they did what was portrayed by the said reporter?
I can't imagine that an operator would be as stupid or a pilot as brave as this person made them out to be? I am afraid it sounds a bit far fetched?
He heard a bell but had no idea where the sound was coming from. Probably a pilot expressing the idea to another pilot that he thought the fuel to be at the limit - and the story was streched - to "forced to carry less than required?"
The reg's on fuel in US are far more stringent that the rest of the world so they will not get away with it?
Stirring
VG300
Maybe it should be seen for what it really is
Cheap journalistic sensationalism?
I don't doubt that such events might have occurred but if it were properly researched it would probably have shown the pilot to be on the "over cautious" and the dispatcher being "less cautious".
It would have been in contradiction with Regulations and could cause an operator to loose its license if they did what was portrayed by the said reporter?
I can't imagine that an operator would be as stupid or a pilot as brave as this person made them out to be? I am afraid it sounds a bit far fetched?
He heard a bell but had no idea where the sound was coming from. Probably a pilot expressing the idea to another pilot that he thought the fuel to be at the limit - and the story was streched - to "forced to carry less than required?"
The reg's on fuel in US are far more stringent that the rest of the world so they will not get away with it?
Stirring
VG300
Guest
Posts: n/a
First of all. I understand my companies fuel policy-although I take issue with the old line about the extra burn due to the extra fuel that you've loaded. I don't believe an extra 500kg really increases the sector fuel burnt by any more than a tiny amount.
Secondly-and I write as someone who rarely takes 'min fuel'- there are so many 'unforseeable' events which can occur on a flight, and having some extra gas on board makes dealing with them a bit easier. Weather, congestion, ice, holding, tech problems, pax problems, you name 'em.
Thirdly. I sign for the a/c. You want to take less than me? YOU sign for it.
Secondly-and I write as someone who rarely takes 'min fuel'- there are so many 'unforseeable' events which can occur on a flight, and having some extra gas on board makes dealing with them a bit easier. Weather, congestion, ice, holding, tech problems, pax problems, you name 'em.
Thirdly. I sign for the a/c. You want to take less than me? YOU sign for it.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sunnybunny
Eh, no it's not. I'm sure many pax believe that to be so; but there are structural limits to the weight a particular aircraft can be to taxi, fly, land and even to be loaded with, without the fuel on-board.
If you were to always fill the tanks, you would have to restrict the payload - Passengers and cargo on some flights, because you would possibly go over the max take off weight. similarly, on short haul flights you may be able to take off OK and still take all the pax and cargo, but on arrival at your destination you may then be too heavy to land! So then you would have to dump or burn off that expensive fuel before you get down to max landing weight.
Also, the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you will use to carry the extra unneeded weight.
So no, you only load the fuel you need, plus contingency amounts to cover weather and,or congestion delays and enough to divert to the planned alternate airports should there be a problem at the planned destination.
Therefore an experienced Captain, will decide how much he might want to adjust a computed figure to allow a safe and fuel efficient flight.
Isn't it like putting fuel in a car ?
If you were to always fill the tanks, you would have to restrict the payload - Passengers and cargo on some flights, because you would possibly go over the max take off weight. similarly, on short haul flights you may be able to take off OK and still take all the pax and cargo, but on arrival at your destination you may then be too heavy to land! So then you would have to dump or burn off that expensive fuel before you get down to max landing weight.
Also, the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you will use to carry the extra unneeded weight.
So no, you only load the fuel you need, plus contingency amounts to cover weather and,or congestion delays and enough to divert to the planned alternate airports should there be a problem at the planned destination.
Therefore an experienced Captain, will decide how much he might want to adjust a computed figure to allow a safe and fuel efficient flight.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: eire
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dogma and dontdoit - re: your highly imperious and dismissive comments to the dispatcher who was simply casting some very reasonable light on what seems to be a possibly overblown journo's story - unless you are trying a wind up, you are both wayyy out of line and in any event simply provide traction to the likes of MOL in getting a toe in the door with public opinion regards pilot "prima donnas". You've just reinforced his (or any other like-minded management's) position in the eyes of any non-aviation types reading your ridiculously irresponsible and possibly intentionally inflammatory posts.