'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician

[Squawk-7600]

The other poster was simply trying to get people to understand the RELATIVE cost saving versus the TOTAL REVENUE collected and pointing out what minimum fuel levels do to your risk levels.

Spot on, thank you. The point being, that the cost to carry are NOT huge savings when considered on a sector or seat basis, and only appear to be "huge" (as some would describe them) when presented as an accumulated figure. ANY saving appears to be "huge" when presented this way. Load 50 kg less lavatory water per sector. Bam! There's a lazy 30 million saving per annum fleet saving there. Remove paper charts from the flightdeck. There's another 5 million saving. So it goes on. You can't blame airlines for doing this.

However, as pilots, we need to guard against these accumulated figures influencing our decisions. Beancounters present these figures in this way because they appear to be large, but in fact they're not when considered in the appropriate context; the context in which we're making the decision. Taking less fuel than should be carried under the circumstances because you think you're saving the company 30 million by doing so is just idiotic. You take what you think is appropriate for YOU under the circumstances, and no more.

[Richthoven]

Alternate Fuel

Just think: If you have to fly to an airport which traffic capacity has been based on 4 runways (like MAD) and dispatchers using “push a button” alternates (like VLC) having just a single runway system. What if you have a tempo FCST? Like me, of course I will be there always at the first minute of the “tempo” and therefore should plan enough fuel to hold the minutes 2 to 30. If I´d skip that idea, then I´d better go to the alternate. OK. But I will end up in a situation of an alternate that has to manage the diverting traffic of a high volume airport with just a single runway. So what should be the rule about planning alternates?

[gulfairs]

A heavy jet, operator allows up to 2000kg of fuel for start and taxi to departure runway and another 2 tons to get to 450 feet.
The CAA of this part of the world, and in Europe on short haul,
( i also flew for Ryanair back before the gulf war) demand something like a to b plus 3% from ETP to B plus B to C, plus 30 minutes.
On short haul from England to the Med. this is not a whole lot of fuel but is adequate, and if the crew are running a decent how goes it log, the chances of getting caught out are extremely small.
How many emergencies are called in a year because of fuel shortage, unless there has been an accident that closes the only reachable airport.
A lot of this forum sounds like wannabys spouting hot and wet air.(dribble).

[Bengerman]

bbq, agreed. Common sense rules the roost in most situations.

If the fuel plan is clearly nonsense then make up your own plan that isn't! Grow some balls and put on extra fuel if it is needed. If it is not needed and the plan is sensible, go with the plan.

Come on boys, this is not brain surgery!!

[PENKO]

Meikleour, I do take on board your point about the relativity of the fuel savings and trust me, I have no hesitation to load as much fuel as I feel necessary on the day. As I wrote earlier, on a bad wx day I'm a 'load her up' kind of guy and I don't care one ounce for the cost. On good days, depending on destination, I am happy to take the fuel saving blabla from the beancounters into account. In our company I do not perceive ANY pressure to save fuel. Yes we are made aware of the potential savings, but is that such a bad thing?


But what would your fuel policy be then? Would you be a fan of a standard additional company contingency of 15 minutes? Would all pilots who take extra for grandma stop doing that if the company would plan an additional 15 minutes contingency fuel all the time? Somehow I highly doubt it! Even if the company would plan for an additional 20 minutes there will still be pilots who just wan to add their little bit of fuel for grandma on a CAVOK day! I see it happening every day on routes where you KNOW the actual track miles to be far less than planned: still some of our colleagues insist on adding a couple'a hundred on a CAVOK day, not even noticing that we'll now land with half an hour extra fuel on a daily basis...


Squawk-7600:

Taking less fuel than should be carried under the circumstances because you think you're saving the company 30 million by doing so is just idiotic.

Nobody is saying you should take less fuel than you are comfortable with. What I am saying is that extra fuel is not for free so a bit of critical thought on fuel is highly professional on a worryfree CAVOK day. Can we agree on that statement?

[Squawk-7600]

Nobody is saying you should take less fuel than you are comfortable with. What I am saying is that extra fuel is not for free so a bit of critical thought on fuel is highly professional on a worryfree CAVOK day. Can we agree on that statement?

Likewise I don't believe anyone has suggested for a moment that taking additional fuel is free. What I'm trying to assert however is that it's a complete nonsense to look at it as a fleet-wide accumulated figure, especially in a large fleet where the figures appear to be "huge" to quote your expression, and then have that influence one's fuel order. In fact the revenue is ... errr, even "huger" and the percentage saving is precisely the same whether the fleet has 1 aircraft or 100, it's just that the figures don't impress as much in the former case. Furthermore that percentage is sweet FA on average sector lengths of 1 hour and change that we're considering here, indeed pence if considered per seat. So to reiterate the point once again, management and PR departments would like to give the impression that taking additional fuel is a ruinous exercise that will surely bankrupt the company in a week, result in 2 headed babies being born, and armageddon come the next full moon. The figures bandied about tend to support that case ... well I'm not sure about the moon bit. While accumulated figures may fool the public, I would hope that an intelligent pilot would know precisely the situation, and that it amounts to bugger all on short sectors, some of the comments here leave me in grave doubts that some actually fully appreciate that fact.

[737Jock]

Ok lets calculate it, say an airline could save 30kg per day on every flight and has 189 seats on every aircraft. This airlines does 1000flights a day.

30 * 1000= 30.000 kg of fuel. No small amount indeed. Fuel is about $1000 per metric tonne, so 30.000kg will cost about 30.000 dollar, its a bit less but ok.

189*1000= 189.000 seats. Which works out to be a saving of 0,158$ per seat.

Which is offcourse the exact same thing as 30kg/$ divided by 189seats. The saving is exactly the same.

$0,158 is €0,1209 or Ł0,0983 at current exchange rate.
Thats 9p per seat!
Burning 30kg because more fuel is carried obviously also costs 9p per seat.

Every 10kg burned costs about 3p per seat, on a 189 seat aircraft. Its all about the context really.

So yes delay engine start, do single-engine taxiout/in, do low drag approaches. But also accept/request a visual approach on a cavok day instead of flying a full procedural arrival. Manage the energy with speed if you can instead of pulling speedbrake as soon as the FMS says you are too high. Program the winds into the FMS. Be proactive with atc and ask for shortcuts.
How much use is a low drag approach when people start configuring the aircraft earlier than when using full flap?

But don't save on fuel that you think you might need. And i'm not talking fuel for mum here.

Sure carrying extra fuel burns extra fuel, but so does bad descent planning, laziness to program the FMS correctly, bad piloting techniques, bad energy management, pulling speedbrake when the problem can be solved by increasing speed, etc...
Of all those things I think carrying extra fuel is the lesser evil. Problem is of all those things is that the only thing that can be properly measured is fuel upload.

Just my 2cents.

[Meikleour]

PENKO: As is usual with PPRUNE people tend to go off on tangents.

Every man and his dog knows to take extra fuel when the weather is bad. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is when you have a company fuel policy that plans short range flights to arrive at LGW (say for example) which are very busy and single runway ops. with as little as 6mins. destination loiter fuel above minimum diversion fuel. Typical nice summer day - weather not an issue.

The real issue is the pressure then applied to crews to "commit to destination" at a single runway destination in the event of delays. This is reasonable with multiple runways however I suggest to you that this might be unwise at a single runway destination. As the other poster was trying to explain, commercially the gain is not commensurate with the increased operational risk.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Meikleour

As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!"

- was he perhaps the one that died in the AF Concorde crash where 'no air in the tank' was a major contributory factor? "grizzled old FE/s" are not always right.

The real issue is the pressure then applied to crews to "commit to destination" at a single runway destination in the event of delays

- this is contrary to EUOPS which gives the commander the discretion to do so - but not as a regular planning event, and only (my bold and underline)
"2. however, if, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected usable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than:
(i) the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel".

No mention of 'insufficient' holding fuel. Where is this 'pressure' coming from? If from the company, point out the regs to them. Incidentally, I frequently arrived at LGW on a nice day at a quiet time with no requirement for any holding. The odds are you would be vectored 'straight in' and not fly most of the arrival.

[737Jock]

with as little as 6mins. destination loiter fuel above minimum diversion fuel

So the inflight fuel check worked out perfectly BOAC.

The issue here is about landing assured. In our manual:

Note:
A landing is “assured” if, in the judgement of the Flight Crew, it could be completed in the event of any forecast deterioration in the weather and plausible single failures of ground and/or airborne facilities, e.g. CAT II/III to CAT I.

Basicly our manual states a flow diagram, which enables crews to commit to destination if landing is assured and EAT or maximum delay known.

Offcourse there is always the option to divert. But the question I believe meikleour is asking is how wise it is to go to a busy single runway environment with only 6minutes extra. Realising that the alternate is in the same TMA and also busy (although not as busy as LGW) and single runway.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by 737J

So the inflight fuel check worked out perfectly BOAC.

- exactly, but I read '6 mins' as a 'problem'?

When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways' (which can cross). Although that has 'disappeared', you still need to satisfy yourself that an abort on the runway possibly with evacuated pax would still allow you to 'complete the landing' and whether an abort is 'plausible'. If you believe that is ok, then do it. I never did.

[Meikleour]

737Jock: EXACTLY! Thanks.

[BOAC]

OK, my apologies, I misread your post. It was not a problem.

[737Jock]

When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways' (which can cross). Although that has 'disappeared', you still need to satisfy yourself that an abort on the runway possibly with evacuated pax would still allow you to 'complete the landing' and whether an abort is 'plausible'. If you believe that is ok, then do it. I never did.

I'm not sure, but thats not whats in our manuals.

But aren't you confused with the planning stage and departing without an alternate?

Dispatch to a destination is permitted with no destination alternate aerodrome provided that the conditions stated in Section 8.1.2.2.2.4, “Destination Alternate and 3% ERA Alternate Aerodromes” are met.

The fuel required is:

- Taxi Fuel.
- Trip Fuel as per Basic Planning.
- Contingency Fuel calculated as for Basic Planning.
- Additional Fuel not less than the fuel necessary to fly for 15 minutes at 1500*ft (450 m) above aerodrome elevation in ISA.
- Final Reserve Fuel.
- Extra Fuel if required by the Commander.

The requirements are:

At least one usable destination alternate aerodrome must be selected for each IFR flight unless:

Either

- Dispatched under the Alternative Flight Planning Procedures in Section 8.1.7.4.5, “No Destination Alternate Aerodrome Procedure”.

- The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing, or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours.

- Two separate runways are available and usable at the destination and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival (ETA) at the destination, the ceiling will be at least 2,000*ft or circling height +500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5*km.

Note:
Runways on the same aerodrome are considered to be separate runways when.

They are separate landing surfaces which may overlay or cross such that if one of the runways is blocked, it will not prevent the planned type of operations on the other runway.

Each runway shall have a separate approach procedure based on a separate navigation aid.

Or

The destination aerodrome is isolated.

Eventually you have to commit somewhere, be it a taxiway.

[BOAC]

But aren't you confused with the planning stage and departing without an alternate?

No, landing 'assured' is normally an expression used in the in-flight section, not the planning section. "When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways" WAS in the in-flight consideration section. It all comes down to an individual assessment of what constitutes an 'assured landing' doesn't it? Why not ask your company what defines an assured landing and whether a blocked single runway would be a 'plausible single failure of ground facilities'? If the say no, and if you personally are content to 'risk' this (presumably on a potentially regular 'SOP' basis rather than that awful 'one-off event') that is your decision as long as the other pilot agrees. If you want a laugh, BA at one stage told us (LGW crews) we could use LHR as the 'second runway' for LGW, and I actually flew with a few brain-washed BA cadets who thought that was a jolly good idea.

For me I was far happier to divert from LGW to BOH with SOU en route or to STN with LTN and SEN in range than risk mumbo-jumbo airways blocking the airfield.

Yes, I agree, you DO need to land somewhere eventually.

[FERetd]

FIGJAM??

BOAC Quote:-"- was he perhaps the one that died in the AF Concorde crash where 'no air in the tank' was a major contributory factor? "grizzled old FE/s" are not always right."

Surely if that was the case he would have said it in French.

So "grizzled old F/Es (not FE/s) are not always right". Are grizzled old Captains always right? Evidently not.

You sound a bit like a FIGJAM to me, with over 16000 posts to show for it.

[BOAC]

Oh poor sensitive F/E AND a sense of humour caption too............QRH!!??

Happy new year to you - if possible.

You sound a bit like a FIGJAM to me, with over 16000 posts to show for it.

- still trying to catch Beagle up (and watching Lightning Mate coming up 'behind' - and I KNOW that is not a good scenario).

[FERetd]

FIGJAM

BOAC, Why don't you just...... no wait, wait, I am getting off topic here. But I think you know what I was going to say.

Happy New Year to you, as well.

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

[737Jock]

BOAC Ok I can accept that fully, in an ideal world we would commit to a multiple runway airport. But that jar-ops definition seems impractical.

But what about the following...LGW has delays of around 20 minutes but you don't have holding fuel. STN is the alternate, but is at least 25 minutes to divert to and also a single runway.

Weather is nice in both airfields, why divert to STN? A diversion from alternate + reserve fuel to a single runway is also a commitment to that airport. After all you will land close to CNR.

Committing to LGW would result in landing with final reserve plus 5 minutes.

So should all alternates be multi-runway?

Offcourse the answer is don't arrive with minimum fuel at busy single runway airports, but even then you can still get into this situation.

[bubbers44]

I was put in that situation landing south at SFO, alternate OAK, same distance. We were put on a 15 mile final and we were approaching minimum fuel to miss and go to alternate. We had holding and finally approach clearance in a B737 but had to go downwind 15 miles to turn base to return. I knew I legally now didn't have all the legal fuel to miss and divert to OAK but I was lined up on approach to SFO and would land with less fuel diverting to Alt than just landing so I did. Legalities make aviation safer unless you find common sense makes it even safer to do what you feel will work better.