Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

How much fuel?

Old 27th Jun 2018, 07:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cayley's County - Yorkshire
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How much fuel?

Interesting report from Flight Global - SIA 777 getting airborne with 41t more fuel than expected.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rnback-449734/
CAEBr is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 07:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: .
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Personally speaking , if the pilots did not realise something was amiss with longer ground run , rotation speeds , and initial optimum/ Max altitudes then one needs to question there overall experience

Singapore appears here quite often for topics related to safety .....
Cloudtopper is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 07:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Doha
Age: 11
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How the hell can the actual uplift and calculated uplift discrepancy not tell them there was something wrong.

Who filled in the tech log and who who signed the tech log.
Black Pudding is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 07:50
  #4 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 75
Posts: 3,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems to me that the crew were not at fault here. The basic error would appear to be the fact that the ground staff did not dip ALL the tanks. Basic requirement I would have thought.
Herod is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 08:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Herod - I disagree with your interpretation. The wing tanks were assumed to be full so the sum of their contents was added to an incorrectly dipped centre tank. Measuring the wing tanks would not have changed the numbers. What I find interesting is that the blame fell in the shoulders of the techie and none on the manufacturer. After all, how difficult can it be to dip a tank? Maybe Boeing’s ‘Magastick’ checking procedures need reviewing as does their QA process for installing programable fuel sensors that enable spurious tank values to be displayed. And how many times has this happened before? I also find it interesting that the additonal 41 tonnes went unnoticed in performance terms but as I only fly bug smashers I’ll let someone more qualified comment.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 08:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beats the hell out of departing with 41 tons less than expected.
Landflap is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 09:11
  #7 (permalink)  

Uncle Pete
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back to basics!!! What fuel load did it arrive with on board and how much did they put on. Now that can't be hard, or can it?
MaximumPete is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 09:15
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not familiar with the Magastick procedure but sounds like confusion coupled with confirmation bias as it sounds like absolutely no discrepancy was found first time round?
am111 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 09:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Here
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So how much above MTOW was it? No way could it be below it, on a 13 hour sector, with 40t too much gas.
crwkunt roll is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 10:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FFS, an uplift way exceeding the planned fuel load needs investigating. Simple. The only thing I would accept is a full magnastick check of all tanks as well as a reasonable explanation of how come the uplift was so much higher than calculated. In my mob we went through fuel measuring problems in the B747SP era when the fuel tended to stratify. We did, however, delay for long enough to resolve each discrepancy.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 11:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back to basics!!! What fuel load did it arrive with on board and how much did they put on. Now that can't be hard, or can it?
Did I miss something? That's what they were concerned with, hence dripping the tanks. It was the dripping that wasn't done correctly. I sympathize with the crew if they were told 86 T onboard after the check.

There was an Air France A319 that ran one tank dry despite it showing over 1000 kg remaining. Google it!
Funny little things those indication systems.
172_driver is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 11:25
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whenever a fuel measuring stick check is required to verify the fuel uplifted / fuel quantity inside the tank due to MEL applied, Fuel Measuring Stick Manual has to be used. It is quite time consuming to look up for correct fuel quantity value using this manual and human error might occurs.

To reduce the inconvenience caused, Boeing has released an iPad app, Boeing FMSM, to calculate fuel quantity using the fuel measuring sticks. The Boeing FMSM app is an electronic version of the referenced FMSM available in MyBoeingFleet. The Boeing FMSM app performs all the calculations and table lookups. The app can perform two different functions:

 Identify the fuel sticks to be checked for a given fuel load

 Calculate the fuel quantity for a given fuel stick reading
spannersatcx is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 13:04
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The technicians, it says, had "limited" experience in performing the check and that the magnastick readings were "likely not correct".
I can quite believe that. I worked for several airlines in the Middle East before I retired and a decision to fuel stick an aircraft was a big deal (with possible delay indications) simply because the Engineers and Technicians had no experience of the task. Many didnt understand the concept and were totally lost when it came to reading the charts - this was not because they were bad engineers or technicians it was just that those airlines tend to use new modern aircraft where the fuel systems are usually accurate and reliable, they just dont ever need to stick the tanks. I grew up on DC10's and other old birds were we did stick checks before each flight so a task that was easy for me to carry out on a 777 (say 15-20 minutes) could take 2 hours for inexperienced technicians.

When I say they didnt get the concept it appears that the SQ guys didnt either - you do a stick check when you dont trust the onboad fuel system and want to know exactly what fuel is onboard so checking all the tanks is obviously needed.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 14:26
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am finding it quite peculiar that official report says nothing about aircraft all up weight, performance and envelope basically omitting the basic items for ICAO report standards.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 15:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought every airline crew had to perform a fuel verification checking the uplift against the arrival fuel. It’s a basic safety precaution.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 15:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They did spot a discrepancy...

Although the aircraft's cockpit and refuelling-panel indicators showed total fuel of 86t, the refuelling had taken longer than expected, and the ground personnel found that the dispenser had apparently delivered 121.5t to the aircraft.

The ground team was uncertain about the discrepancy, initially believing that the fuel-flow counter might not have been reset before the fuel was dispensed.
This prompted them to dip the centre fuel tanks and somehow managed to come to the same 86t figure the aircraft came to. Their logical but false conclusion must have been that the discrepancy lay with the fuel bowser and not the aircraft.
am111 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 15:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Flagstaff, AZ. USA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sailvi767 View Post
I thought every airline crew had to perform a fuel verification checking the uplift against the arrival fuel. Itís a basic safety precaution.
Well, at my carrier ( one of the US Big 3) we don't even get a fuel slip any more, unless there is some MEL or non-standard procedural requirement for one. If the totalizer number agrees with the ECAM fuel page numbers, you're good to go with no fuel slip.
dweeks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 18:15
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another Sloppy report!

So, Here we have armchair experts PAYED to investigate and they dont even come up with a proper ICAO standard report .
Namely the fact all the V1 V2 and Vr and Vref was WRONG with a factor close to 1.3 or 1.2.
On the 737 one ton equals ca 1 knot, so if I take off with speeds for a a 10 to lighter aircraft I would use Vspeeds that are ca 10kts to slow.
I would ask you 777 drivers to do a quick calculation for the two scenario we have here : 1 the calculated one and 2 the actual one.
Also C\G is wrong as the 777- 200ER Center Tank is more forward.
Boeing and the Airline got of hook this time as I can not think of how this could have gone the other way, Gimli Glider style.
Standing by to be corrected.
Cpt B
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 18:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dweeks View Post
Well, at my carrier ( one of the US Big 3) we don't even get a fuel slip any more, unless there is some MEL or non-standard procedural requirement for one. If the totalizer number agrees with the ECAM fuel page numbers, you're good to go with no fuel slip.
Wow, lots of trust in your fuelers, they must be highly trained.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2018, 19:45
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And this fueler was 62 years old and had 40 year experience!
BluSdUp is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.