Extra fuel
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD
I fly Airbus A319/320/321 for a 'large' LHR operator, so we fly similar aircraft when it comes to fuel requirements!
I take your point re independent runways vs intersecting runways, but honestly if you operate ex PRG, they barely intersect in that it virtually impossible to think of an incident that would take out sufficient of both runways to preclude landing on 31 or 24.
You say you use LHR with MAN diversion into the UK. Why? You have Cat3 capable Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham much closer, plus many others. And you take 30 minutes holding fuel?
OK, I know that LHR can be difficult - I have operated in and out as my job for over 15 years and still can't guess what the delays will be - if any, but am (generally) happy with my company policy of 99% statistical contingency fuel, which can give just 10 minutes contingency plus (unrealistic) div fuel, leaving me trip + reserve + about 25 minutes fuel total.
When I joined, then skippers targetted landing a 737-200 with 4 tonnes into LHR as a comfort margin - about where your company is now. Today (a nice day) we were planned into LHR with 2.1 tonnes remaining at midday - I was happy. Why? Well it was certainly a better than 99% day with CAVOK conditions, light 5000 ft winds (which affect the arrival rate), a weekend non peak time arrival.
Re FRA, PRG:
I have never held into PRG, so I would be happy to depart with Reserve + Cont + Div, so on a nice day minimum fuel 100% of the time. Add to that an extra approach + wx factor if TS
around.
FRA: different to PRG - a busy airport which can result in up to 30 miinutes holding (max) on occasional days (high winds when 18 can't be used for departure, for example) at peak times. Have diverted from FRA more than once! Can be long RNAV approaches not always properly factored in to the plog. Generally happy with plog fuel + 15 minutes.
Beware also ZRH and NCE, the only other places in Europe where holding is likely. In ZRH the evenings can cause 30 minute delaysdue runway configuration issues [grrrr] and at NCE protracted low level vectoring on the Saleya approach burns fuel very quickly [90 nm to go when at 3000ft!].
I fly Airbus A319/320/321 for a 'large' LHR operator, so we fly similar aircraft when it comes to fuel requirements!
I take your point re independent runways vs intersecting runways, but honestly if you operate ex PRG, they barely intersect in that it virtually impossible to think of an incident that would take out sufficient of both runways to preclude landing on 31 or 24.
You say you use LHR with MAN diversion into the UK. Why? You have Cat3 capable Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham much closer, plus many others. And you take 30 minutes holding fuel?
OK, I know that LHR can be difficult - I have operated in and out as my job for over 15 years and still can't guess what the delays will be - if any, but am (generally) happy with my company policy of 99% statistical contingency fuel, which can give just 10 minutes contingency plus (unrealistic) div fuel, leaving me trip + reserve + about 25 minutes fuel total.
When I joined, then skippers targetted landing a 737-200 with 4 tonnes into LHR as a comfort margin - about where your company is now. Today (a nice day) we were planned into LHR with 2.1 tonnes remaining at midday - I was happy. Why? Well it was certainly a better than 99% day with CAVOK conditions, light 5000 ft winds (which affect the arrival rate), a weekend non peak time arrival.
Re FRA, PRG:
I have never held into PRG, so I would be happy to depart with Reserve + Cont + Div, so on a nice day minimum fuel 100% of the time. Add to that an extra approach + wx factor if TS
around.
FRA: different to PRG - a busy airport which can result in up to 30 miinutes holding (max) on occasional days (high winds when 18 can't be used for departure, for example) at peak times. Have diverted from FRA more than once! Can be long RNAV approaches not always properly factored in to the plog. Generally happy with plog fuel + 15 minutes.
Beware also ZRH and NCE, the only other places in Europe where holding is likely. In ZRH the evenings can cause 30 minute delaysdue runway configuration issues [grrrr] and at NCE protracted low level vectoring on the Saleya approach burns fuel very quickly [90 nm to go when at 3000ft!].
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1000kgs, sounds a lot to some people, when in fact for a mid size jet (757) it is about 4 times round a holding pattern. That is not an unusual practice at some high traffic density airports. Carrying a tonne of fuel extra costs approximetaly 4% of its own weight per hour (40kg or 50 litres per hour) that would mean a rough cost figure of about £18 (US$33) for a 1 hour cruise flight, £ 54 (US$99) for a 3 hour flight. Compare that to the cost of a diversion.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
What you have to consider also is that the comfort factor of a tonne of fuel regardless multiplied by the number of flights per year x £18 per flight is a considerable amount.
Let's say that you work for BA at LHR with 41% of the slots.
£18 per flight x 41% total movements of 44/hour x 18 hours operation per day x 365 days = several million pounds per annum - and that is using 737/320 fuel amounts, let alone 747 at 13 hours x 4% = 42 % extra fuel burnt.
I am not management - far from it, believe me - but what my company want is for the flight crew (both guys, not just one) to make sensible decisions on the day - the cost savings still outweigh 2 or 3 diversion costs. So, I ask myself, is there anything to suggest that this falls outside of the 99% statistical contingency that I am offered. If there is something then I load extra fuel (about 50% of the time
)
What you have to consider also is that the comfort factor of a tonne of fuel regardless multiplied by the number of flights per year x £18 per flight is a considerable amount.
Let's say that you work for BA at LHR with 41% of the slots.
£18 per flight x 41% total movements of 44/hour x 18 hours operation per day x 365 days = several million pounds per annum - and that is using 737/320 fuel amounts, let alone 747 at 13 hours x 4% = 42 % extra fuel burnt.
I am not management - far from it, believe me - but what my company want is for the flight crew (both guys, not just one) to make sensible decisions on the day - the cost savings still outweigh 2 or 3 diversion costs. So, I ask myself, is there anything to suggest that this falls outside of the 99% statistical contingency that I am offered. If there is something then I load extra fuel (about 50% of the time
)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes topbunk I agree.
All companies want their pilots to make sensible decisions. The point I was making is that a tonne of fuel is not an awful lot although it may sound it. As we both know many aircraft carry this weight in all sorts of nonsensical ways, such as excess bar/catering, rubbish and even condensation ( although there may be little you can do about the latter). The chances of a diversion become statistically greater the less contingency fuel you carry. The cost of a diversion is rather like "how long is a piece of string", but I would suggest that £3000 - £4000 ($5500 - $7500) would be a reasonably conservative minimum estimate by the time passenger coaching, aircraft delay costs and all the other factors are priced in. Of course it is a theoretical exercise ( since most of us don't put it to the test !) However that would suggest that for an average 2 hour cruise flight sector carrying a tonne of extra fuel ( which I accept may be too much or too little in specific circumstances), the diversion rate would have to be less than 1 in 100 flights (1%) for the mathematics to be in favour of minimum plog fuel.
I know it is difficult to argue any specific cost since we can only apply a broad brush to the whole matter, but I would maintain that is food for though and I believe the figures I have used are probably erring on the lower side as regards the diversion costs.
All companies want their pilots to make sensible decisions. The point I was making is that a tonne of fuel is not an awful lot although it may sound it. As we both know many aircraft carry this weight in all sorts of nonsensical ways, such as excess bar/catering, rubbish and even condensation ( although there may be little you can do about the latter). The chances of a diversion become statistically greater the less contingency fuel you carry. The cost of a diversion is rather like "how long is a piece of string", but I would suggest that £3000 - £4000 ($5500 - $7500) would be a reasonably conservative minimum estimate by the time passenger coaching, aircraft delay costs and all the other factors are priced in. Of course it is a theoretical exercise ( since most of us don't put it to the test !) However that would suggest that for an average 2 hour cruise flight sector carrying a tonne of extra fuel ( which I accept may be too much or too little in specific circumstances), the diversion rate would have to be less than 1 in 100 flights (1%) for the mathematics to be in favour of minimum plog fuel.
I know it is difficult to argue any specific cost since we can only apply a broad brush to the whole matter, but I would maintain that is food for though and I believe the figures I have used are probably erring on the lower side as regards the diversion costs.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm out of the game now, but I will throw in a few comments from the past.
The BA pilot holding somewhere who said that he "couldn't hold for long as he was only carrying "Sword" fuel" (Sword of course referring to the computer flight plan).
Another aircraft chipped in with the words:
"He who lives by the sword...."
A BA Flight Manager who wrote to one of the captains asking why he had failed to carry minimum fuel on a recent sector. The reply simply said:
"What I carry...IS minimum fuel!"
For myself, I was always aware of the redundancy capability of the aircraft. We had more than one, indeed we had several, hydraulic, electric, air conditioning etc systems. Non of the beancounters ever suggested that we could remove some of them and save a fortune with the weight reduction. No one came out with figures suggesting that if we ran on just two hydraulic systems and operated x number of aircraft we would then save some y numbers of pounds every year.
And yet, bothers and sisters we have but one fuel system and that seems to be constantly under economic review. The concentration is always on landing fuel and never on the more important sector burn.
When that fuel system "fails", and it has "failed" on many occasions in the past, there is no backup. Not only will a lot of the lights go out but we will lose all the big dials and most of the comms.
Still makes me shiver to think about it!
The BA pilot holding somewhere who said that he "couldn't hold for long as he was only carrying "Sword" fuel" (Sword of course referring to the computer flight plan).
Another aircraft chipped in with the words:
"He who lives by the sword...."
A BA Flight Manager who wrote to one of the captains asking why he had failed to carry minimum fuel on a recent sector. The reply simply said:
"What I carry...IS minimum fuel!"
For myself, I was always aware of the redundancy capability of the aircraft. We had more than one, indeed we had several, hydraulic, electric, air conditioning etc systems. Non of the beancounters ever suggested that we could remove some of them and save a fortune with the weight reduction. No one came out with figures suggesting that if we ran on just two hydraulic systems and operated x number of aircraft we would then save some y numbers of pounds every year.
And yet, bothers and sisters we have but one fuel system and that seems to be constantly under economic review. The concentration is always on landing fuel and never on the more important sector burn.
When that fuel system "fails", and it has "failed" on many occasions in the past, there is no backup. Not only will a lot of the lights go out but we will lose all the big dials and most of the comms.
Still makes me shiver to think about it!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>Is ist true, especially at carriers in the US, the commander has to specify/report why he/she ordered fuel above MINTOF?
Speaking as a dispatcher operating under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules (NOT what a dispatcher is on that side of the pond), the above is usally a company requirement.
I endeavor to consider the likely possibilities when I plan fuel loads, and personally, I have zero problem should a PIC want to discuss adding more. Using 737 values, if s/he wants another 1,000-2,000 lbs, I usually don't have a problem with that, but will ask why they feel they need it. Not to second guess their rationale, but to crosscheck myself, i.e. have they considered something that I missed in my assessment/planning, and more importantly, is it something that I need to apply to -other- flights.
On rare occasion, I'll get a PIC who wants to add 4,000+ lbs. and most of these requests seem to be rooted in the "I flew this leg last week and....." when the weather today is completely the opposite of the way it had been the week before. After discussing -today's- weather, we usually agree to something less of an increase. On the even rarer instances where the PIC insists of 4,000+ more and there is no weather/operational need for it, I'll usually conference in a chief pilot on the phone. He'll get his fuel for the immediate flight at hand, but his CP will discuss it with him later. Like I said, that's a rare instance. Most crews and dispatchers here converse and coordinate fuel loads without too much of a problem.
Speaking as a dispatcher operating under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules (NOT what a dispatcher is on that side of the pond), the above is usally a company requirement.
I endeavor to consider the likely possibilities when I plan fuel loads, and personally, I have zero problem should a PIC want to discuss adding more. Using 737 values, if s/he wants another 1,000-2,000 lbs, I usually don't have a problem with that, but will ask why they feel they need it. Not to second guess their rationale, but to crosscheck myself, i.e. have they considered something that I missed in my assessment/planning, and more importantly, is it something that I need to apply to -other- flights.
On rare occasion, I'll get a PIC who wants to add 4,000+ lbs. and most of these requests seem to be rooted in the "I flew this leg last week and....." when the weather today is completely the opposite of the way it had been the week before. After discussing -today's- weather, we usually agree to something less of an increase. On the even rarer instances where the PIC insists of 4,000+ more and there is no weather/operational need for it, I'll usually conference in a chief pilot on the phone. He'll get his fuel for the immediate flight at hand, but his CP will discuss it with him later. Like I said, that's a rare instance. Most crews and dispatchers here converse and coordinate fuel loads without too much of a problem.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub - my fault! I should have specified that the '1000kg' was for a 737 - roughly 6 times around!
I suspect the 747 fleets have their 'it is nice to have 5,000kg extra' people too
The problem is, Lou, where does one stop? Is '1000kg extra' (since it is a figure which in the example I quoted was plucked from thin air with no logic) - ENOUGH for a 737 or should he perhaps have taken 3000kg............. Not long before we have return fuel, perf permitting
I suspect the 747 fleets have their 'it is nice to have 5,000kg extra' people too
The problem is, Lou, where does one stop? Is '1000kg extra' (since it is a figure which in the example I quoted was plucked from thin air with no logic) - ENOUGH for a 737 or should he perhaps have taken 3000kg............. Not long before we have return fuel, perf permitting
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Behind the mirror
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time I take more than min fuel, I write a little note on the plog, not because it’s required by the management but but to help me remember why, if ever being asked at a later time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is ist true, especially at carriers in the US, the commander has to specify/report why he/she ordered fuel above MINTOF?
regards
Cause I can always seems a good answer to me.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: south east
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe fuel is in the region of $500 a tonne now. I always try to justify carrying a little bit extra in my conscience by pushing for directs with ATCs to negate the effects of carrying it. Many blindly follow their airways it seems and are too polite to ask.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-- We could ask how many Captains in our own airline carry minimum fuel, even when destination weather is poor.
Lots. It's seen as a badge of supreme ability by some of them.
-- We could ask how many First Officers would remain silent in such situations. Silent at the flight planning stage. Silent in flight at the point where diversion was demanded.
Lots. They've expressed with me their reluctance to speak up with many Capts.
-- We could ask how many First Officers receive adequate CRM, aircraft performance, fuel planning and job description training.
Very poor training and low enthusiasm to learn from self study.
-- Ditto the last for Captains !
Ditto the reply.
-- We could ask how many Captains regard First Officers as mere bums on seats, making up the numbers, whose opinions are worthless.
Lots.
-- We could ask how many Captains are perfectly capable of abusive language directed at other staff.
All.
-- We could ask how many Captains would be reluctant to declare a Mayday, in view of possible disciplinary repercussions.
A few. Even the conceited ones are'nt that dumb.
-- We could ask if a combination of the above factors could lead to a safety threatening in-flight shortage of fuel.
It could, but I'm amazed it does'nt except rarely. Maybe it's like buses....none for ages then loads all at once.
Lots. It's seen as a badge of supreme ability by some of them.
-- We could ask how many First Officers would remain silent in such situations. Silent at the flight planning stage. Silent in flight at the point where diversion was demanded.
Lots. They've expressed with me their reluctance to speak up with many Capts.
-- We could ask how many First Officers receive adequate CRM, aircraft performance, fuel planning and job description training.
Very poor training and low enthusiasm to learn from self study.
-- Ditto the last for Captains !
Ditto the reply.
-- We could ask how many Captains regard First Officers as mere bums on seats, making up the numbers, whose opinions are worthless.
Lots.
-- We could ask how many Captains are perfectly capable of abusive language directed at other staff.
All.
-- We could ask how many Captains would be reluctant to declare a Mayday, in view of possible disciplinary repercussions.
A few. Even the conceited ones are'nt that dumb.
-- We could ask if a combination of the above factors could lead to a safety threatening in-flight shortage of fuel.
It could, but I'm amazed it does'nt except rarely. Maybe it's like buses....none for ages then loads all at once.
Only half a speed-brake
BOAC:
Now those number put things really in perspective. I mean probably not even TREs here could "do" LHR with those values.
I see your daily bread is well deserved as you can do magic. Until we are made to learn so, I guess I'll still aim somewhat closer to the unreal figures.
FD.
I see your daily bread is well deserved as you can do magic. Until we are made to learn so, I guess I'll still aim somewhat closer to the unreal figures. FD.
As for calling the dispatcher (in "Ice Station Zebra") to ask for another 1-2,000 lbs of extra contingency fuel, they seem to want to know the reason. This is at a US major airline (744-757...).
Simply by calling and mentioning some nearby weather which we might have just seen on the radar summary (if easily accessible-sometimes not), which is moving near or parallel to either the departue or destination airport, or the large area of forecast turbulence over the Great Lakes at FL220-350 (our max ceiling) near a jetstream wind, he/she can spot your concern and rarely mentions an excuse not to add a little fuel. Often, we have no fuel planned for an alternate airport, and just the normal 45 minutes Reserve and about 25-30 min Cont. fuel. This often is the case even for a two hour enroute block time, not including up to i.e. 20 minutes taxi fuel.
If we often call Dispatch to add such a modest amount of extra fuel, I don't know if a Chief Pilot is informed of this. But if we avoid a supposed serious delay right at departure to add fuel (but none added) and we tell Dispatch enroute that due to extra vectoring after climbing from Midway (Chicago) and almost half of cont. is already gone, we will need to state "Min Fuel" upon checking in with "Peoples' Republik" Approach Control, then a Chief (or Asst.) Chief Pilot is notified and just wants a quick chat. Now, whether this is required or because the Chief Dispatcher feels like his staff have been slighted by the unspoken implications regarding their fuel planning policies, I have no idea .
. Don't get me wrong. Our Dispatch Dept. is excellent and in my opinion, they are worth their weight in GOLD. Unless you want to do your own "raw data" flight planning like they did years ago on Connie Kalitta's cargo Learjets (many 16-28 hour duty days, thanks to Part 91 ferry flights on either end of planned duty period).
And this was before the recent fuel price manipulations (Ausbeutung von Arschloecher?), eh...I mean increases. Nice time to have owned fuel shares on Wall Street
, as during Desert Storm in '91?
Simply by calling and mentioning some nearby weather which we might have just seen on the radar summary (if easily accessible-sometimes not), which is moving near or parallel to either the departue or destination airport, or the large area of forecast turbulence over the Great Lakes at FL220-350 (our max ceiling) near a jetstream wind, he/she can spot your concern and rarely mentions an excuse not to add a little fuel. Often, we have no fuel planned for an alternate airport, and just the normal 45 minutes Reserve and about 25-30 min Cont. fuel. This often is the case even for a two hour enroute block time, not including up to i.e. 20 minutes taxi fuel.
If we often call Dispatch to add such a modest amount of extra fuel, I don't know if a Chief Pilot is informed of this. But if we avoid a supposed serious delay right at departure to add fuel (but none added) and we tell Dispatch enroute that due to extra vectoring after climbing from Midway (Chicago) and almost half of cont. is already gone, we will need to state "Min Fuel" upon checking in with "Peoples' Republik" Approach Control, then a Chief (or Asst.) Chief Pilot is notified and just wants a quick chat. Now, whether this is required or because the Chief Dispatcher feels like his staff have been slighted by the unspoken implications regarding their fuel planning policies, I have no idea .
. Don't get me wrong. Our Dispatch Dept. is excellent and in my opinion, they are worth their weight in GOLD. Unless you want to do your own "raw data" flight planning like they did years ago on Connie Kalitta's cargo Learjets (many 16-28 hour duty days, thanks to Part 91 ferry flights on either end of planned duty period).And this was before the recent fuel price manipulations (Ausbeutung von Arschloecher?), eh...I mean increases. Nice time to have owned fuel shares on Wall Street
, as during Desert Storm in '91?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 26th Nov 2004 at 05:29.
