Can't find the reference at the moment but I'm sure there was as AIC in which the CAA vetoed any company keeping fuel league tables or similar, The 'threat' was quite pointed stating that an operator would put it's licence at risk if they didn't follow the directive.

Someone tell me I wasn't dreaming!!

When I flew the DC-10 on the N-register the company I worked for used to publish "absolutely without prejudice" fuel burn tables on a monthly basis.

Now, unlike our BA colleagues, I was very interested in these tables for I wanted to learn how to operate my aircraft as efficiently as possible. I learned a lot of good techniques and was usually in the top three but I could never quite get up to Jack's standard! He was always at the top and it was almost impossible to get him to part with his deep secrets.

Provided that league tables are used in a non-threatening way then I think they are really good at getting yourself up to speed.

However, if all you want to do is p*ss fuel out the back the way you have always done and can't be bothered to get really efficient then do remember that we are now up to $74 a barrel and pensions have to be paid.

JW411

When I (heavens how I dislike that phrase!) joined BA we had the SWORD flight planning system, the forerunner to CIRRUS. Nobody trusted it and when I joined even the trainers took more fuel 'just for mother' and told trainees that the only people who took 'SWORD fuel' were management.

The company have spent much effort educating us in the whole philosphy behind the planning and made us all very aware of the cost of unjustified fuel carriage.

I know that I and my colleagues, almost to a man, take fuel carriage very seriously but have no hesitation taking extra, and in long haul we are talking several tonnes, BUT I have never in recent times seen extra fuel carried without good reason.

I do recall being told by the man himself (a manager since disgraced and left for pastures new) that he and another manager 'competed' to see who could be the most frugal captain in terms of fuel carriage, to the point of reducing flight plan contingency to absolute legal mimimums. I call that plain stupidity when one upmanship replaces common sense.

Conversely weaker individuals, such as onanairbus, can perceive league tables as unfair pressure. In BA they are not. For all our management's other faults in the case of flight safety and fuel carriage rarely will a captains decision be questioned providing one was making the best judgement given the facts on the day. The last person I can recall being questioned was a now retired 747 plonker who routinely carried an extra 20 tonnes. Even then I do not believed he stopped doing so!

The new procedure for making last minute changes by sending through the latest ZFW at ETD - 0.30 (or whatever the time is) sounds good in practice but in reality the fueller has usually gone by then and it pales into insignificance when at virtually every station in that land of frugal energy use, the USA, the APU is left running and ground power almost never used during a transit or nightstop.

The place to be in a fuel league is in the middle, unless you think you're better than the rest.;)

onanairbus..
..have you got offanairbus yet to view the vitriole?

Nurj

PS M Mouse, what a scholar.

Take the fuel load your company wants.

Divert at the first need to do soe.

Things seem to change...Strange....???.

Good luck..........

What was the close in alternate BA flight planned on which had its single runway blocked?
It is very lucky that the Captain had that two tons extra if indeed the facts are accurately reported.
I wonder if anybody makes a table of arrival fuels at LHR or anyother place and publishes it.
It seems adverse weather and an inaccurate ZFW and perfect ATC and optimum diversion flight levels are the only considerations used for an alternate fuel load in computor flight planning.
After a double Cat 3 equipment failure in Switzerland (of all places), plus back up ILS generator failure! Is it little wonder pilots do not trust their ZFW as spot on or their on the ground equipment to remain servicable or their flight ops to inform them immediately of close in diversions or destinations going out for any reason other than weather.
Last time I checked there were no gas stations in the sky for airliners.

I have seen graphs in BA inhouse fleet magazines where departure fuel over flight plan minimum and arrival fuel over flight planned arrival fuel were compared.

The articles always make interesting reading but serve to better inform rather than coerce.

The alleged jumbo story may have an element of truth. If it was BKK then Utapao is sometimes used as the fuel alternate if weather is suitable. I find the alleged figure of 2 tonnes remaining a little hard to believe and I have actually seen or heard nothing about such a diversion although it may be true. I will try and find out.

As a recently retired BA Airbus captain and an nascent lo-co captain I'll just chuck in my ha'p'orth:

I usually took SWORD/CIRRUS fuel but never felt pressure to do so, always larded the decision with dollops of airmanship, experience and common sense (don't we all?). I did glance at the league tables once or twice out of idle curiosity.

Having kept a personal record of fuel decisions and actual burn vs. planned burn during my early years on the Airbus, I observed the following: There were very few delays at out-stations so SWORD/CIRRUS outbound was sufficient for the overwhelming majority of sectors; for shorthaul sectors of up to 2.5 hours, the carriage of extra fuel cost nothing measurable when weighed against the other variables; unless it was very early in the morning or very late in the evening, a wise captain shouldn't return to LHR with anything less than 20 minutes holding capability over and above diversion and reserve fuel. Ergo, if statistical contingency gave me 20 minutes, fine; if it didn't, on it went. Strong winds or widespread fog and LVPs are a different game and usually required a tonne extra or more.

No-one ever invited me for coffee.

Three hour delay ex Gatwick due to flat batteries and fuel filter changes, and also a fuel discrepancy of 3500kgs. The reason? Prior to this sector the a/c had been allocated as the standby a/c following its last sector and not used. However the APU had been left running during this period and finally shut down after the 3500kgs in the left tank had been burnt. The batteries then obviously took the dc load and ended up flat.

A fuel filter change was required as the left engine also uses the APU fuel line. At least the hydraulics were not pressurised during towing as they use the left tank fuel to cool the fluid and operation for any period without fuel is a big no-no.

The powers that be tried to cover-up the episode, and it was only the honest refueller who suggested that from the fuel he put in the tank it must have been empty.

Many years earlier on an early morning Trident departure from C28 (those of you who remember the stands at LHR) we passed eight aircraft on the way to ours, all with the APU's running (throughout the night) and totally deserted, having not yet been allocated to a service.

Comments to our then fleet management that perhaps an engineering apprentice could be given the job of checking that all aircraft are fully shut down after their last flight of the day. As usual with most suggestions from the shop floor it was dismissed as too difficult.

Perhaps if there had been a management bonus associated with reducing overnight fuel burns something might just have been done.

Full Circle, or perhaps Fuel Circle???

Sorry haven't had time to read the whole thred,so I might be repeating whats already been said. They probably lost more money in the one diversion than they could ever hope to recoup by using min fuel everywhere. Thats the trouble with putting bean counters incharge of anything other than counting beans.

As far as publishing a league table, two things come to mind, have a competition to see who can come last, and, could this not be seen as harrasment and bullying. Its fine pointing out someones failings in the eyes of managment on a one to one basis but to publish it is a bit much. BA could probably save more money by not having to employ someone to monitor the fuel loads on the acft(that they don't actually fly on) than by having a draconian min fuel policy.

Whats next a league table for sick days, MORs, tech deffects, cups of coffee drunk on a flight.

Best foot forward

It might be best to take some time to read the whole thread before jumping in with insults. The league tables are available should anyone wish to see how they compare with the fleet average. There are no names on the list, only codes, and only each individual knows his own code.
I agree with many of my ex-colleague in that I have never heard of anyone being pressurised into taking minimum fuel. BA provides it's pilots with a vast amount of information with which to make their decisions, but the final decision is still theirs, and to the best of my knowledge, those decisions have always been supported by management. The only exception was a case where the decision was political (industrial grudge) rather than safety related.
I have been flying four engined longhaul aircarft for 37 years. In that time I have always carried whatever fuel is both safe and economic. I have never arrived short of fuel and have never been asked to explain my decisions to management.
If you get a spare moment, perhaps you should go back and read the entire thread.

Airclues

So because your time is too precious to bother reading the thread, you pontificate about a subject you obviously know little about and WE have to waste our time reading that?

I see.

Best foot forward: it appears that your other foot is stuck in your mouth...:)

BTW we do have a league table for sick days, it's called EG300 :ugh:

I agree completely with the "no pressure" posts above. I have never flown with a Captain who has been called into the office, or telephoned about fuel.

Even at Training Standards Captain I flew with had no hesitation whatsoever in taking extra when it was required. Indeed throughout my training, league tables were never mentiond and I only discovered them through the "grapevine". They are in a tatty folder in the corner and I have never seen anyone look at them.

As far as I know, they are Captains tables anyway, so "my" figures will not even exist. Most Captains I fly with let me take as much as I like on "my" sector and will give me guidance if appropriate - its all about being sensible. Took loads extra the other day on a longhaul trip, as the airport was due to shut for a short period and fog was forecast. In the end we got in burning LESS than planned fuel, so arrived with the extra intact - not a tinkle on the phone!

A member of the board I have spoken to did say that we should never feel pressure to take less fuel than we are happy with. We are paid to make those descisions, they are not. If it comes from the board, I doubt any of us have to worry.

False Capture:

"The place to be in a fuel league is in the middle, unless you think you're better than the rest".

The middle is the average. In order to establish an average everyone above it has to be above average and everyone below it has to be below average. To be exactly average is not a good place to be for one day you could be above average and the next day below average. This could be quite disturbing as any good psychologist will tell you!

I have always tried to be as professional as I can be and therefore have always tried (although not very hard) to be above the average. Since 1968 I have been assessed (in writing) as above the average. I am pleased to have retired at the age of 65 still in the top part of the spectrum.

If you are happy to spend the rest of your flying career just being average then good luck to you. Personally, I was still learning new tricks right up to the last time I put the park brake on at the end of my long and very successful career.

JW411,

What a difference between your post and that of Captain Airclues who very sensibly said that "league tables are available should anyone wish to see how they compare with the fleet average".

Not only is Captain Airclues a really nice guy but he's probably more successful than you ever were.

Fuel leagues are all about being in the middle (or average as you put it). Most pilots use them as helpful indicators as to how much fuel they carry in relation to their colleagues. Unfortunately, you get some idiots who think it's a competition to see if they can make it to the top of the league.

If you're competitive and you fancy yourself as some sort of ace then take up competition aerobatics.

By the way, if you reitired in "the top part of the spectrum" does that mean you're a former Test Pilot or even a Space Shuttle pilot?

I thought we were all above average
 

Well done JW411 on such a successful career. As a fellow survivor, I must say that I thought that we were all assessed as "above average". After all can you imagine what would happen to an airline management at a subsequent court of inquiry if they were found to have employed a "below average" pilot?

To return to the thread. Some years ago my company had in its employment a lovely man, Captain Y, based at Heathrow, who invariably carried excess fuel - he was a lifelong longhaul pilot. He was nagged about his habit on a regular basis by the flight manager.

One morning Y rang Captain X, the flight manager. "Hello X", he said. "I am just ringing to tell you that last night I took flight plan fuel." "That's wonderful news", said X. "Yes", said Y, "I'm ringing you from Manchester!"

Happy flying.

Stoic

Onan!
 

I have to agree with the thought that onan is a gutter journo looking for scraps. In 30 years of flying I have never heard of anyone being unduly pressurised to take the absolute minimum fuel on each and every occasion. We, in our moderately large airline here in UK, do have a carefully researched and well written fuel policy booklet but nowhere does it 'tell' us to stick to the PLOG fuel, regardless. It does point out, as you might expect, the costs of carrying extra fuel (moderately expensive) against the costs of the annual diversion rate (quite small)
Having said all that, I find on our European routes, using the longest SID and Star we almost always have a buffer of a few hundred kilos which gives one a warm feeling of confidence!

Speaking as a mere engineer who has dispatched BA Shorthaul aircraft for many years I must say that going back 10 years it was normal to add a tonne to the Sword figure. I reckon it happened on 90% of departures. Nowadays it is normal to take Cirrus fuel. With no bad weather around I reckon it happens on more than 90% of departures. So whether you agree with the table or not it has brought down the amount of fuel carried around Europe.