'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PIC does not ever have to accept dispatch fuel if he disagrees with it.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those times
Sometime in the early 1970s a PAA 747 enroute to JFK held and held for weather. Finally decided to go to his alternate EWR. EWR is only about 15nm as the crow flies but ATC sent him three quarters of the way to PHL before turning him toward EWR. Landings were to the SW. As he got within 15 nm of EWR he declared an emergency after running out of fuel on one or maybe two engines. He requested to land NE and was approved. The aircraft was able to leave the runway at the end, but there it sat. Out of fuel. All 4 engines were fuel starved.
He was still ther some time later when I taxied out for TO. I shuddered and got a sick feeling in my stomach as I realized what had almost happened.
BTW it was legal then to use all your fuel getting to an airport. I hope it has changed.
He was still ther some time later when I taxied out for TO. I shuddered and got a sick feeling in my stomach as I realized what had almost happened.
BTW it was legal then to use all your fuel getting to an airport. I hope it has changed.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what happens if your destination closes?
Hi
If I understand the "rules" rightly from discussion here, every plane takes on board fuel to go to the alternate. That sounds very good, but if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?
Isn't a bit of spare fuel something a captain should be allowed to take on board if he feels like it?
If I understand the "rules" rightly from discussion here, every plane takes on board fuel to go to the alternate. That sounds very good, but if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?
Isn't a bit of spare fuel something a captain should be allowed to take on board if he feels like it?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 89
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be nice to tanker fuel if you had the weight margins,but:
In loose terms on a heavy jet,
on burns 10% of the excess fuel for every 1000 nm that it is carried.
Eg,
nzaa to phnl 3800 nms :load 10000kgs of 'mum and the kids fuel,
you will arrive with only 6200kgs of the excess ..
Expensive isn't it
In loose terms on a heavy jet,
on burns 10% of the excess fuel for every 1000 nm that it is carried.
Eg,
nzaa to phnl 3800 nms :load 10000kgs of 'mum and the kids fuel,
you will arrive with only 6200kgs of the excess ..
Expensive isn't it
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expensive isn't it
Last edited by Squawk-7600; 4th Jan 2013 at 06:42.
...if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?
When airports say they are full, it normally means that all the stands are occupied, so there are still taxiways and even the runway(s) left to put aeroplanes. You'd probably have to declare an emergency but that's better than running out of fuel mid-air. If the problem is an aircraft stuck on the runway, then you could land on what's left, performance permitting, or even on a taxiway. If it's a security issue, then you could land anyway and deal with it afterwards. If visibility is the problem and a precision approach is available (ILS/MLS) then, again, you'd just do it; if there are non-precision approaches only, or none at all, most modern aircraft will get somewhere close to the centreline and touchdown zone using GPS. There may be smaller airports within range that are not approved for your aircraft type and have no facilities but nonetheless provide a length of tarmac which is adequate to stop on. A controlled off-airport landing/ditching is preferable to an uncontrolled crash, in extremis.
Commercial aviation is overflowing with laws, rules and procedures. We do our best to observe and follow them but sometimes you just have to concentrate on getting the aircraft safely on the ground and sod everything else. Most pilots that I know have a series of fallback options for when things really start going wrong: plans A..D are within the rules, plans E..J aren't and from plan K you're just hoping you can walk away from it.
Fuel decisions and, really, most of aviation are based on statistical likelihood. This is a combination of regulation, experience and commerce. There is no 100% assurance of a safe flight, no matter how much fuel you take or how well maintained the aircraft is but if you keep "an eye to windward" and are prepared to fall back (gracefully at first) as far as is needed down the list of possibilities, then things will probably turn out OK.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand the "rules" rightly from discussion here, every plane takes on board fuel to go to the alternate. That sounds very good, but if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?
That might give a more robust system.
Last edited by ross_M; 4th Jan 2013 at 08:37.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport-x does (well,, always used to - ATC comment??). It is/was notified when the flight plan specified it as an alternate and I can recall airports 'refusing' nomination if overloaded..
For those worried about the 'what-if' scenario, review 9/11 diversions. Not one came to 'harm'.
For those worried about the 'what-if' scenario, review 9/11 diversions. Not one came to 'harm'.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree in long-haul, carrying additional fuel is a serious undertaking
Large airlines like Ryanair fly much more than 1000 flights...you do the math!
No wonder these airlines stress so much about the small fuel savings we can easily achieve, like taxi in and out on one engine (20 kg), delaying the engine start till the end of the pushback (10 kg), less drag approaches (20 kg). It saves tons of fuel across the fleet. Daily.
May I compliment Full Wings with his excellent post. You managed to capture the essence of a difficult (and sometime even emotional it seems!) subject.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko please read my post again, it has nothing to do with how many flights a company does, whether it is 1 or 1000 per day, as it is all relative to the revenue, which is obviously also proportionally bigger for a larger airline. It is all a question of cost and revenue, and what is the difference between the two. Revenue is derived on a per seat basis. For valid comparison the costs should also be compared accordingly. The cost to carry is an enormous factor in longhaul sectors, as described by bbg. However on shorter sectors it is not as big a factor as some in the PR department would like to make out IF CONSIDERED ON A PER SEAT BASIS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a very interesting paper by KLM on fuel efficiency. KLM does a lot to reduce consumption of fuel. Hedging, other procedures, cont90/cont99, make stuff in the cabin lighter etc.
The paper shows that things like:
-starting the engines after pushback
-lower descend rate
-tank at the lastest when all load figures are known
-apu shutoff when ground power unit is available
-flap 10 iso 15
-n-1 taxi in
-idle reverse
-start apu later at boarding time
will lead to a cost reduction of Euro 4.050.800 per year on the B737 fleet. Per flight the reduction in fuel is around 62 kg when above procedures are done.
KLM does 6333 stretches with the B737 per month. Ryanair will do much more.
The paper shows that things like:
-starting the engines after pushback
-lower descend rate
-tank at the lastest when all load figures are known
-apu shutoff when ground power unit is available
-flap 10 iso 15
-n-1 taxi in
-idle reverse
-start apu later at boarding time
will lead to a cost reduction of Euro 4.050.800 per year on the B737 fleet. Per flight the reduction in fuel is around 62 kg when above procedures are done.
KLM does 6333 stretches with the B737 per month. Ryanair will do much more.
Last edited by 1stspotter; 4th Jan 2013 at 10:19.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotter you are quite correct. What some seem to forget is the weight causes the issue, in this case the weight being discussed just happens to be fuel. On the other hand there are many ways a company can save fuel directly, and the initiatives you described are just some of them.
Of course airlines are going to try to save money, and carrying less weight (in the form of fuel) is one way. Nobody can blame an airline for that. However the cost of carrying needs to be kept in appropriate perspective.
Of course airlines are going to try to save money, and carrying less weight (in the form of fuel) is one way. Nobody can blame an airline for that. However the cost of carrying needs to be kept in appropriate perspective.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can throw any statistic you like onto the problem, and I can't fault you for that. But the bottom line is that the fuel savings are huge in a business where the margins are very tiny. So every kg counts even or maybe especially in short haul low cost.
You talk about perspective, well, remember that these huge airlines only made about 300-500 million profit. That's not much. Saving 30 tons of fuel or more on a daily basis has a large impact. The proper perspective is: don't sweat about these figures. Save fuel when you can, don't economize when you can't.
You talk about perspective, well, remember that these huge airlines only made about 300-500 million profit. That's not much. Saving 30 tons of fuel or more on a daily basis has a large impact. The proper perspective is: don't sweat about these figures. Save fuel when you can, don't economize when you can't.
Last edited by PENKO; 4th Jan 2013 at 10:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KLM expected to pay around 1.800.000.000 euro on fuel costs in year 2010/2011.
The target was a fuel reduction of around 1 % by using sophisticated fuel calculations, other procedures, weight reduction etc.
It is not hard to imagine that common sense and fuel awareness can save a lot of money.
The target was a fuel reduction of around 1 % by using sophisticated fuel calculations, other procedures, weight reduction etc.
It is not hard to imagine that common sense and fuel awareness can save a lot of money.
Squawk-7600: I wish more people would make your point and not allow themselves to be brainwashed by the "beancounter" approach. Revenue is as important to a company as costs. When you consider the average fares charged, even by the LoCos, it is obvious that a few pence/cents on the ticket would more than cover the marginal costs of the extra fuel carried to give crews more flexibility.
Unfortunately the current attitude by airline managers towards what is a "suitable fuel" to be carried simply pushes the safety margins in terms of time available to crews whenever anything goes array. Quite frankly, the supposed savings are rather nebulous when you consider a) fuel gauging errors b) fuel loaded by the bowser to the nearest 100kg c) assumed pax/cargo weights d) arbitrary diversion routings.
It appalls me to think that there are crews around who think that they are doing a good commercial job by flying round on marginal fuel loads whilst the commercial departments of the airline refuse to charge realistic fares!! The idea that 50p/£1 on a ticket might be a deterrent to travelling by air is not borne out by the spend per head of those same pax when they are onboard or in the shop before flight.
As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!"
Unfortunately the current attitude by airline managers towards what is a "suitable fuel" to be carried simply pushes the safety margins in terms of time available to crews whenever anything goes array. Quite frankly, the supposed savings are rather nebulous when you consider a) fuel gauging errors b) fuel loaded by the bowser to the nearest 100kg c) assumed pax/cargo weights d) arbitrary diversion routings.
It appalls me to think that there are crews around who think that they are doing a good commercial job by flying round on marginal fuel loads whilst the commercial departments of the airline refuse to charge realistic fares!! The idea that 50p/£1 on a ticket might be a deterrent to travelling by air is not borne out by the spend per head of those same pax when they are onboard or in the shop before flight.
As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!"
Also from an operational point of view it's not so much what fuel you carry but how much you burn! Happy motivated and well trained crews can tactically saves masses of fuel for a Company by the way they operate - and am not meaning pestering ATC for directs all the time!
In short experienced crews can save a lot of gas!
In short experienced crews can save a lot of gas!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite frankly, the supposed savings are rather nebulous when you consider a) fuel gauging errors b) fuel loaded by the bowser to the nearest 100kg c) assumed pax/cargo weights d) arbitrary diversion routings.
I do agree with your point that commercial pressures from the beancounters should not de a deciding factor. However as a professional you will have to decide for yourself if that extra fuel you take is the best you can do or just plain laziness/arrogance/insecurity.
PENKO: What makes you think my points are constants?
a) sitting in the hold, as a commander, would you rather be assured of how much fuel you can actually count on or or would you just rather hope that the FOB is accurate.
b) are you not aware that bowser uplifts are affected by fuel gauge accuracy?
c) I assume you are aware that the computer flight plan that has been prepared for your flight has a ZFW using probably optimistic weights for the pax? Have you never wondered why few airlines actually weigh their passengers ? (apart from the logistical problems)
d) diversion routings and assumed levels - have you not experienced the flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx. This should give you an inkling as to what happens when there is a major disrupting event at either LHR or LGW.
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.
a) sitting in the hold, as a commander, would you rather be assured of how much fuel you can actually count on or or would you just rather hope that the FOB is accurate.
b) are you not aware that bowser uplifts are affected by fuel gauge accuracy?
c) I assume you are aware that the computer flight plan that has been prepared for your flight has a ZFW using probably optimistic weights for the pax? Have you never wondered why few airlines actually weigh their passengers ? (apart from the logistical problems)
d) diversion routings and assumed levels - have you not experienced the flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx. This should give you an inkling as to what happens when there is a major disrupting event at either LHR or LGW.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meikleour - a few points to remember
a) F Reserve is sufficient to cope with ANY known normal gauge inaccuracy
b) Bowser uplift IS of course affected by bowser gauge errors and cheating swindling bowser drivers (should they exist, he added hastily) but is, of course, double-checked against your gauge readings, isn't it?
c) Do I assume you regularly adjust all your performance calculations (including landing weight when tankering) to allow for these errors? If not, why not?
d) It is a pretty silly Captain who, faced with "flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx" does not review his fuel diversion figure and of course, does not look at div fuel on the CFP anyway and adjust it if he/she feels necessary.
Out of interest, what is your 'comfort zone' for extra fuel? Does your company penalise you for taking it? How often have you needed it?
a) F Reserve is sufficient to cope with ANY known normal gauge inaccuracy
b) Bowser uplift IS of course affected by bowser gauge errors and cheating swindling bowser drivers (should they exist, he added hastily) but is, of course, double-checked against your gauge readings, isn't it?
c) Do I assume you regularly adjust all your performance calculations (including landing weight when tankering) to allow for these errors? If not, why not?
d) It is a pretty silly Captain who, faced with "flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx" does not review his fuel diversion figure and of course, does not look at div fuel on the CFP anyway and adjust it if he/she feels necessary.
Out of interest, what is your 'comfort zone' for extra fuel? Does your company penalise you for taking it? How often have you needed it?
BOAC:
a) your point is noted -however remember how the authorities quoted FOB figures to the EXACT digit to claim whether or not the 3 FR diversions had complied with the rules. Such accuracy is a nonsense.
d) I was simply using the wx analogy to illustrate what happens in very busy TMAs when something goes wrong - not necessarily weather related. In my opinion the fact that most airlines structure their fuel policies around only weather means that there is a higher risk of crews being caught out in the summer when they "are not required to carry extra fuel."
In the 70's when I operated B707 freighters to African destinations with a fuel policy that allowed single runway + no Alternate - I was unfortunate to be caught twice with blocked runways ( both of which were cleared in time, fortunately )
My personal "bitch" is with company fuel policies which encourage crews to "commit" to single runway destinations when they really should have sensible destination holding fuel. I personally have had many more diversions due to blocked runways rather than weather diversions. Perhaps your experience is different?
I do not have a single extra figure: there are too many differing situations for that.
a) your point is noted -however remember how the authorities quoted FOB figures to the EXACT digit to claim whether or not the 3 FR diversions had complied with the rules. Such accuracy is a nonsense.
d) I was simply using the wx analogy to illustrate what happens in very busy TMAs when something goes wrong - not necessarily weather related. In my opinion the fact that most airlines structure their fuel policies around only weather means that there is a higher risk of crews being caught out in the summer when they "are not required to carry extra fuel."
In the 70's when I operated B707 freighters to African destinations with a fuel policy that allowed single runway + no Alternate - I was unfortunate to be caught twice with blocked runways ( both of which were cleared in time, fortunately )
My personal "bitch" is with company fuel policies which encourage crews to "commit" to single runway destinations when they really should have sensible destination holding fuel. I personally have had many more diversions due to blocked runways rather than weather diversions. Perhaps your experience is different?
I do not have a single extra figure: there are too many differing situations for that.