'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had a problem with the regs. It gave me a minimum start datum.
It seems some of you never worked or know about working in a lowcost environment.
When unrealistic diversion routes are being planned and presented as the minimum I think authorities have to act.
Let's consider a nice day, what reasons would lead to a diversion from destination to the alternate. Mostly this would be unexpected weather or the airfield closing for one or the other reason. Reasons that will likely affect many other aircraft that will also divert. If the destination airfield is busy this will create a large traffic flow, possibly to an airfield with much less capacity.
Yet we plan our alternate fuel in the most direct routing without any delay being anticipated. Is that realistic?
In my opinion unrealistic alternate fuel is being calculated in all airlines.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 17:43.
''In my opinion unrealistic alternate fuel is being calculated in all airlines''.
it probably is, but of course the Commander has the power to take more - and in most cases will. Unless he is under pressure, perhaps in fear of his job to take the bare minimum. This is when the regulatory authorities need to take action!
it probably is, but of course the Commander has the power to take more - and in most cases will. Unless he is under pressure, perhaps in fear of his job to take the bare minimum. This is when the regulatory authorities need to take action!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest ICAO bits
http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf
BA is using 95 and 99th% SCF figures these days.
Most of the other long haulers are using 3% ERA or a flat :20 CONT (whichever is lower).
Latest ICAO annex 6 makes specific mention of statistic contingency fuel.
BA is using 95 and 99th% SCF figures these days.
Most of the other long haulers are using 3% ERA or a flat :20 CONT (whichever is lower).
Latest ICAO annex 6 makes specific mention of statistic contingency fuel.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems some of you never worked or know about working in a lowcost environment.
I had been TRE in 2 LoCo's for 14 years. My contention is that crews should be educated in making sensible fuel calculations. Sensible can be minimum. They should be trusted and not pressurised into cutting corners. There should be a monitoring system to ensure crews are not being wasteful whilly nilly. If they are they are not exercising good judgement. Taking a little bit extra means nothing. A tank of fuel is a tank of time. If you need it take it; if you don't then don't. Desk jockeys should not be calling the shots on the day. Is it true some airlines pre-load fuel to minimum for first flights? If so this could be seen as pressure as it could cause a delay if more fuel was requested. This delay would need explaining and some might be willing to depart, uncomfortably. The problem would come if you delayed, took extra, and then landed with it still in the tanks. Difficult to justify with hind-sight. But at dispatch your gut & experience feeling told you it was needed to be safe and comfortable. That should be respected. Crews need to be trusted. If they have created this situation for themselves by always taking a bit extra for wife & kids then it is reasonable to ask for an explanation and to take steps if there is none. It is a business with massive costs and there needs to be trust and respect for the professionalism of both sides. That seems to be under threat and needs redressing.
I had been TRE in 2 LoCo's for 14 years. My contention is that crews should be educated in making sensible fuel calculations. Sensible can be minimum. They should be trusted and not pressurised into cutting corners. There should be a monitoring system to ensure crews are not being wasteful whilly nilly. If they are they are not exercising good judgement. Taking a little bit extra means nothing. A tank of fuel is a tank of time. If you need it take it; if you don't then don't. Desk jockeys should not be calling the shots on the day. Is it true some airlines pre-load fuel to minimum for first flights? If so this could be seen as pressure as it could cause a delay if more fuel was requested. This delay would need explaining and some might be willing to depart, uncomfortably. The problem would come if you delayed, took extra, and then landed with it still in the tanks. Difficult to justify with hind-sight. But at dispatch your gut & experience feeling told you it was needed to be safe and comfortable. That should be respected. Crews need to be trusted. If they have created this situation for themselves by always taking a bit extra for wife & kids then it is reasonable to ask for an explanation and to take steps if there is none. It is a business with massive costs and there needs to be trust and respect for the professionalism of both sides. That seems to be under threat and needs redressing.
I think that the kind of article that triggered this thread uses the word "risk" in a more emotional way than is really necessary.
For the vast majority of the time, a fuel shortfall at some stage in flight means that you have to land somewhere else, refuel, then continue to destination (or not). The "risk" is a purely commercial one, that you're going to have to spend more on fuel, landing fees, etc. than you would if you'd made it in one hop.
I'm quite happy to take 90-95% SCF (which can be 5mins) as long as I have options en-route. My company has worked out that this saves money overall but they also ask me to take more, should I decide that it is needed to make my arrival at the correct airport more of a certainty.
If crews have a plan (an a plan B, C...) and stay within the boundaries of EU OPS or whatever, I can't see an issue. If pressure is being applied by the operator to carry on outside the rules when fuel is tight, then that's a totally different matter and should be brought to the attention of the regulator immediately. AFAIK that isn't what's happening here?
For the vast majority of the time, a fuel shortfall at some stage in flight means that you have to land somewhere else, refuel, then continue to destination (or not). The "risk" is a purely commercial one, that you're going to have to spend more on fuel, landing fees, etc. than you would if you'd made it in one hop.
I'm quite happy to take 90-95% SCF (which can be 5mins) as long as I have options en-route. My company has worked out that this saves money overall but they also ask me to take more, should I decide that it is needed to make my arrival at the correct airport more of a certainty.
If crews have a plan (an a plan B, C...) and stay within the boundaries of EU OPS or whatever, I can't see an issue. If pressure is being applied by the operator to carry on outside the rules when fuel is tight, then that's a totally different matter and should be brought to the attention of the regulator immediately. AFAIK that isn't what's happening here?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think any statement by the most anti aircraft and anti high paid professionals political party in the Netherlands needs to be assessed with extreme care... 
The lead person of DEGAS, a former KLM capt and the former chairman of DALPA was in the press with a very good assessment of the use of extra fuel and the trade offs this has in safety, environmental cost and financial terms... A much needed balanced and informed view!
In short: a lot of noise in the press by people who have no clue.... and who the fearful will vote for because of this scaremongering...
Rant over
The lead person of DEGAS, a former KLM capt and the former chairman of DALPA was in the press with a very good assessment of the use of extra fuel and the trade offs this has in safety, environmental cost and financial terms... A much needed balanced and informed view!
In short: a lot of noise in the press by people who have no clue.... and who the fearful will vote for because of this scaremongering...
Rant over
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CPT Embraer
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been a Flight Dispatcher for KLM and I can tell you that they have a very healthy and safe fuel philosophy.
They monitor their fleet 24/7 and they have realtime info about the amount of fuel they aircraft are carrying. Flight Dispatch does pro-active checks of weather and traffic situation at destination and they give crews advice about this in case of interruptions (or possible expected interruptions) of trafficflow at destination.
Yes, crews are asked to think about the amount of fuel they want to carry, but they are totally not unsafe. It has happened maybe a few times an extra landing was planned for extra fuel-uplift, but this was because they had more headwind/lower Flightlevel than expected and has only happened a few times in the last 10 years of active dispatching. They did this to stay on the safe side of the legal limits and out of trouble!! So in my opinion you can't compare this with actual flying into your Emergency Fuel at all!!!
And crews easily take 20 mins extra fuel if weather deteriorates. And in case of expected delays/diversions the crews will get an alternate that makes sense. So not all to Rotterdam, but for instance Brussels/Antwerp when coming from the south, or Dusseldorf when coming from the east.
If weather is really much worse than expected and the longhaul flight are already arborne, then the flowcontroller (monitoring slots) and Operations (monitoring overall flow of fleet) gives other airplanes (short haul) some delay, cancellations or rerouting via a different IAF to prevent holdings/delays to other flights. I know about a situation that we gave an airborne flight the advise to divert to Düsseldorf, but the Captain had taken extra fuel and was willing to hold at Amsterdam. But in that case he would have caused extra delays to other (more important) aircraft. So we explained the situation and he diverted to Düsseldorf and flew to Amsterdam after weather improved and trafficflow permitted his flight.
I've been preparing flights to Madrid, and those flightplans always needed extra attention due to trafficflow at Madrid. They standard got extra fuel based on statistical info and we planned the longer routing (arrival via the south and landing in northerly direction). And inflight we monitored trafficflow to advise on possible delays. And Captains could easily take extra fuel without any explanation
May I also inform you that KLM Dispatch is using CFMU...! After login on the CFMU (Eurocontrol website) you can exactly see all traffic and slots (airborne and 'planned' traffic with EAT). So we could determine how many aircraft would land within a certain time period at a destination. This means flights are given advise to increase/decrease their speed to stay out of these moments of increased trafficflow and to limit any holding delays or unwanted fuelburn.
In my opinion traffic management (and fuel decisions) are very well integrated in a safe environment at KLM. And in my opinion very few airlines are so wel prepared and monitoring their fleet. Yes, it may have happened that an aircraft had to divert, but this was only to stay out of trouble and to cause as little as disruption overall to its fleet!
They monitor their fleet 24/7 and they have realtime info about the amount of fuel they aircraft are carrying. Flight Dispatch does pro-active checks of weather and traffic situation at destination and they give crews advice about this in case of interruptions (or possible expected interruptions) of trafficflow at destination.
Yes, crews are asked to think about the amount of fuel they want to carry, but they are totally not unsafe. It has happened maybe a few times an extra landing was planned for extra fuel-uplift, but this was because they had more headwind/lower Flightlevel than expected and has only happened a few times in the last 10 years of active dispatching. They did this to stay on the safe side of the legal limits and out of trouble!! So in my opinion you can't compare this with actual flying into your Emergency Fuel at all!!!
And crews easily take 20 mins extra fuel if weather deteriorates. And in case of expected delays/diversions the crews will get an alternate that makes sense. So not all to Rotterdam, but for instance Brussels/Antwerp when coming from the south, or Dusseldorf when coming from the east.
If weather is really much worse than expected and the longhaul flight are already arborne, then the flowcontroller (monitoring slots) and Operations (monitoring overall flow of fleet) gives other airplanes (short haul) some delay, cancellations or rerouting via a different IAF to prevent holdings/delays to other flights. I know about a situation that we gave an airborne flight the advise to divert to Düsseldorf, but the Captain had taken extra fuel and was willing to hold at Amsterdam. But in that case he would have caused extra delays to other (more important) aircraft. So we explained the situation and he diverted to Düsseldorf and flew to Amsterdam after weather improved and trafficflow permitted his flight.
I've been preparing flights to Madrid, and those flightplans always needed extra attention due to trafficflow at Madrid. They standard got extra fuel based on statistical info and we planned the longer routing (arrival via the south and landing in northerly direction). And inflight we monitored trafficflow to advise on possible delays. And Captains could easily take extra fuel without any explanation
May I also inform you that KLM Dispatch is using CFMU...! After login on the CFMU (Eurocontrol website) you can exactly see all traffic and slots (airborne and 'planned' traffic with EAT). So we could determine how many aircraft would land within a certain time period at a destination. This means flights are given advise to increase/decrease their speed to stay out of these moments of increased trafficflow and to limit any holding delays or unwanted fuelburn.
In my opinion traffic management (and fuel decisions) are very well integrated in a safe environment at KLM. And in my opinion very few airlines are so wel prepared and monitoring their fleet. Yes, it may have happened that an aircraft had to divert, but this was only to stay out of trouble and to cause as little as disruption overall to its fleet!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As FullWings says, the measure of 'insufficient fuel' 'too less as possible fuel' to paraphrase is when aircraft are regularly tech stopping or diverting due to lack of fuel, and believe me, management and the beanos would soon notice and I'm sure things would change. The number of regular fuel 'emergencies' should be a guide to the wisdom of current policy.
I would hope any pilots+ Ops Staff with an interest in Fuel Planning in the 21st century might visit my tech log thread on fuel planning.
I have an in-built resistance to SCF since I think it is contrary to the 'traditional' intention of CF, but am happy to accept a statistical 'extra fuel' added on a CFP for 'expected' ATC delays at destination.
Is it time to look at changing our planning system to reflect the vastly improved information available to crews and ops both pre-flight and en-route?
I would hope any pilots+ Ops Staff with an interest in Fuel Planning in the 21st century might visit my tech log thread on fuel planning.
I have an in-built resistance to SCF since I think it is contrary to the 'traditional' intention of CF, but am happy to accept a statistical 'extra fuel' added on a CFP for 'expected' ATC delays at destination.
Is it time to look at changing our planning system to reflect the vastly improved information available to crews and ops both pre-flight and en-route?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flytdeck, sorry mate, but this is bollox:
Look, fuel loading at departure is a planning exercise. Take all available information, check it out with the flight plan, take a sensible amount of fuel to achieve task, complying with all national and company regulations but still economically sensible and launch.
En -route things happen which cause changes to the plan, but that's ok because we have dispatched legally and we can update the plan as we go. We can burn contingency if necessary, we can also burn diversion fuel if we meet the requirements to do so.
So despite getting to destination with less than planned, we are still legal, we plan to land with more than reserve (30mins) fuel.
Due to further unforseen circumstances (say G/A at destination due previous aircraft slow to vacate) we actually land with 29 minutes fuel remaining having made all the right radio calls and informed all the required people.
JOB DONE!
Not a rule of thumb, but a CARDINAL rule. If a commercial aircraft lands with less than 30 minutes worth of fuel, then the flight crew has not done their job properly.
En -route things happen which cause changes to the plan, but that's ok because we have dispatched legally and we can update the plan as we go. We can burn contingency if necessary, we can also burn diversion fuel if we meet the requirements to do so.
So despite getting to destination with less than planned, we are still legal, we plan to land with more than reserve (30mins) fuel.
Due to further unforseen circumstances (say G/A at destination due previous aircraft slow to vacate) we actually land with 29 minutes fuel remaining having made all the right radio calls and informed all the required people.
JOB DONE!
Bengerman,
Agreed. All common sense.
When I'm a passenger, I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.
It doesn't matter what you loaded to start with, it's how the end game is played that sorts the professionals from the amateurs...
Agreed. All common sense.
When I'm a passenger, I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.
It doesn't matter what you loaded to start with, it's how the end game is played that sorts the professionals from the amateurs...
.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FullWings (yes please!) said;
''I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.''
This is the crux of the matter.
''I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.''
This is the crux of the matter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick internet search reveals claims of having had to use final reserve fuel.
could you please share some links showing KLM aircraft having had to use final reserve fuel?
I found one incident of a Fokker 70 of KLM Cityhopper which landed in Bremen in 2004 with 750 kg of remaining fuel.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/ra...ort_report.pdf
Otherwise there have been very few unplanned landings in recent years because of unexpected headwind, lower than desired flightlevels etc. I think it is around 1 unexpected landing every 2 years thans to KLM using CONT90 or CONT99.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a pity that that report simply states '750kg' without referencing it to a time scale or the final reserve from the flight plan for that flight.
I've just had a look at the holding fuel tables for the F70. At 34T (a typical landing weight for a full flight) and a hold at 1500ft the fuel flow is 1540 kg/hr. 750 kg would put them only 20kg under which equates to less that 1 minutes flying time.
I've just had a look at the holding fuel tables for the F70. At 34T (a typical landing weight for a full flight) and a hold at 1500ft the fuel flow is 1540 kg/hr. 750 kg would put them only 20kg under which equates to less that 1 minutes flying time.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All airlines now dispatch with minimum legal fuel plus what delays are expected. The captain decides if it adequate and adds what he feels is necessary. I rarely added fuel if it was reasonable but once out of Honduras to MIA realized we would probably hold so put on extra fuel.
We hit a turkey buzzard right after take off right above my window so hard I thought we had popped rivets so instead of FL410 went to FL280 in case we depressurized. I couldn't have done it without the extra fuel to land at MIA. The PIC does not ever have to accept dispatch fuel if he disagrees with it.
We hit a turkey buzzard right after take off right above my window so hard I thought we had popped rivets so instead of FL410 went to FL280 in case we depressurized. I couldn't have done it without the extra fuel to land at MIA. The PIC does not ever have to accept dispatch fuel if he disagrees with it.