how pilots can save fuel........?
 

Hi guys

I need your suggestions and serious discussions on the topic "how pilots can help an airline by adapting steps in order to decrease fuel consumption...?"

Indigo pilots turns off one engines immediately after landing & uses only one engine to taxi the aircraft to the parking bay.... it saves the airline millions of dollars every year as fuel savings......

Appreciate ideas & suggestions

Regards
....................

Use Direct Routes and or modify routes as needed to take advantage of favorable wind.

Come on....get your airline to contact your aircraft manufacturer,,,theyll give you all the intel you need.

Here's Another method :)

Continuous Descent Approach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In India you have no hope with the current state of the ATC system and the lack of properly trained controllers.... flow control and India arent 2 words that can be used in the same sentence.

Good salary and conditions bring the most fuel savings, a happy pilot group equals an efficient operation.:ok:

Aircraft

Clean aircraft

Well maintained with regards to rigging, make sure doors are fitting correctly etc

Weight.. Reduce it! Ovens you don't need, magazines, publications, excess water (potable and lavatory)

Flight planning

Selecting an alternate closer to the destination when diversion is unlikely to reduce the amount of diversion fuel required.

Where allowed dispatch without an alternate

Reduced contingency fuel from 5% to 3% using an ERA

Statistical analysis of taxy times for network airports at different times of the day, so you carry the taxy fuel you need.. Not a random number.

Statistical analysis of the number of flights that did not require extra fuel (to help provide confidence to the crew that flight plan fuel is sufficient - example below)

ANALYSED EXTRA FUEL SUMMARY MEAN VALUE MS 1885 FLIGHTS W/O EXTRA 98.0 % CONSIDERED FLIGHTS 744

Aircraft perfomance monitoring, and tail specific flight planning.

Operations

Single engine taxy in and out

CDA approaches

Reduced flap landings

RNP approach paths where available (to reduce track miles)

Something along the lines of "alti tools" on the EFB to calculate optimum level and re-routes (EFB has way more processing power than the FMS)

Reduce APU use, make sure GPU and ground air are the norm not the exception


I could go on... But that will get you started

Dominican.. how true. If only management saw it that way hey.

good
 

I appreciate that............... good job:D

Blackbird,

If you tell me the fleet your operating I could be more specific.

But as another posted mentioned in India you have a huge battle because of the state of ATC.

However turnaround use of APU is something you can really work on in India and across a large fleet of aircraft would lead to a substantial reduction in fuel usage.

Mr De facto
 

Mr De facto,

Every Airline discuss things with the manufacturer on different issues.... Dont act oversmart..........
I put forward a thread to discuss the ideas/suggestions of pilots/future pilots on their responsibility to save money for their company... These type of attitudes makes more unemployed pilots................

Mr Dominican

I feel really pity on your answer that good salary can save the fuel of operations. As I said earlier these are the attitude why airlines in India prefer expats as pilots....

when I started this discussion on green Summit in Geneva 99% of Airline Pilots had their suggestions & Ideas............

My Dear Brothers, Always think that ATTITUDE is your most powerful weapon for an Interview. Few people frustrated, who doesn't have the passion and hardworking mentality are spoiling the mindset of other young aspirants....!!!

question
 

okay!!read the subject line "it's a question"

the required thrust to move the aircraft on taxi is gonna be same...so how would the real saving will happen? I mean one engine will be generating thrust to move the same mass as two engines....isn't one engine will have to generate double the power to push the aircraft as compare to two engine....so the burn would be double.....????

take it or leave it
 

@ speedbird... The way you tried to ridicule the comments of "De Facto & Dominican" this itself raises the question on your ATTITUDE, being a author of thread; PPRuNe expect a level of patience for the comments you'll get, they might be stupid to you, in fact some will be.. but since you have opened a discussion have a heart to accept the answers no matter how weird they might be...

@ Dominican... I agree with you though not completely, a paid and happy pilot will try his best to have a economical flight rather the one who's pissed, because his banker called him before the flight and have informed him about his defaulted EMI.

Full climb thrust to altitude.

4 mile final, rain or shine... gear down flaps 15... works great every time.

idle thrust reverse after touchdown with autobrakes as appropriate. The three minute cool down time for engine shut down commences at touchdown. After three minutes shut an engine down.

Single engine taxi out burns no less fuel than two engine taxi at high gross weights.

Xjue,

Your assuming that you need more than idle thrust to taxy, depending on the aircraft type and weight.. Once the aircraft is moving it will happily go and even accelerate at idle thrust.

So you get a fuel saving by having less than all engines running and also a saving on brakes.

If it didnt work then the major airlines of the world would not be doing it!

Like everything else though, there is a time and place for everything and it should be trained and placed in the SOP's like when to start the second engine for example.

If your flying a bus then the manufacturer has already made these SOP's for your airline.

CaptJNS raises a good point, you will save fuel by using full climb thrust to cruise altitude - but depending on type you may be costing yourself more money on the engine costs.

To save money you need a top down approach in the airline across all departments, there are lots of factors that result in increased / decreased operating costs....

Not true. A jet engine is more efficient at a higher power setting than a lower one. One jet engine burning 800 lbs/hr produces more thrust than 2 engines burning 400 lbs/hr.

---------------------
Other ways to save:

Try to minimize brake use during taxi. Don't move up in line right away if at all possible. Wait until you can move 2+ airplane lengths.

Land with idle reverse and let the airplane roll to the end of the runway saving brakes and fuel.

Consider taxing with one engine and no APU. Crossbleed to start the 2nd engine instead of starting the APU (this may or may not be more efficient depending on the APU and if your company is charge by APU cycle or not)

Cost index if available.

Fly shallow power idle descents. A 3deg idle descent is more efficient than a 4 deg idle descent. Staying high then coming down at 6deg with the spoilers is NOT fuel efficient compared to a 3deg power idle descent.

When you know your going to hold slow down now.

Know your min clean speeds to avoid putting in flaps too early.

Use flex / reduced power takeoffs.

Fly with an aft CG (if you can control that).

Tanker when it is economical.

A weight watcher for the MD-11 (from Lufthansa Cargo)
 

A weight watcher for the MD-11

Intelligent fuel-saving flying at Lufthansa Cargo

Learning how to save fuel when flying is part of the training curriculum for fledgling pilots at Lufthansa Cargo. The airline additionally seeks other ways to scale back fuel consumption in order to offset persistently high fuel prices. Moreover, the cargo carrier has set itself the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 25 per cent by 2020.

Although he himself is still a slim and slender 46-year-old, Roland Grätsch is the Company’s “weight watcher”. He is less concerned with his own waistline, though, his interest lying more in controlling the ‘diet’ of the eighteen MD-11 freighters in the Lufthansa Cargo fleet. As Fleet Captain Operations, he oversees the fuel-saving programme of the cargo airline.

The spectrum of potential savings is wide and varied: fuel-efficient powerplants, aerodynamic wings, nanotechnology coating of aircraft to reduce drag, new composites or regular engine washing – and naturally ongoing monitoring of aircraft weight.

“Weight Watcher MD-11” is Number 20 on a list of 52 measures aimed at reducing the fuel burn of the Cargo fleet. It may at times be a matter of very few grams but those few add up cumulatively to a matter of tonnes at an airline that operates 15,000 to 16,000 flights yearly with an average flying time of six hours.

The four older MD-11 freighters in the fleet were once passenger aircraft in their earlier lifetime. But when passengers are no longer in the cabin after their conversion into cargo planes, there’s no need for a public address system. So the phones once used to welcome people on board have been dismantled. Alone the removal of the telephone receiver, weighing just 350 grams, has helped save three and a half tonnes of kerosene per year. Since even thirsty pilots on long-haul flights drink no more than two to three and a half litres of water on a flight, only five instead of ten bottles are now stocked in the galley.

And since only as much comes out as goes in, the water supplies in the in-flight toilet have been reduced by 80 per cent. That again has lowered fuel consumption of the Cargo fleet by about 1,300 tonnes annually.

Water supplies in themselves are a good example of ingrained habits that for years are never questioned: But do we really need that amount? “We pilots have but little influence to optimise aircraft performance”, observes the Fleet Captain Operations. “Better engines, improved aerodynamics or utilising nanotechnology to paint an aircraft – that’s mostly left to the manufacturer or supplier.” But in the cockpit, it’s the pilot who has the decisive say on the best flap setting for take-off, or how fast the aircraft should fly at which altitude, or when to begin the descent optimally before landing, and whether or not to switch off the air conditioning after landing. Keeping the airconditioning system on after landing – whether necessary or not – consumes 60 to 100 kilos of fuel per flight. Above all, the pilots decide how much extra fuel should be taken on for eventual holding patterns or the need to detour to alternative airports.

Over the past two years, Cargo specialists have analysed how much extra fuel was tanked and how much was actually utilised on each of around 16,000 flights. Their findings in 2009 and 2010 verified the
trend from previous years: 97.2 per cent of the flights eached their
destination withou burning a single drop of extra fuel. The facts could scarcely be more eloquent: Whereas 2.7 tonnes of extra fuel per flight were taken on board in 2005, the figure was down to 1.85 tonnes in 2007 and it’s now just 1.4 tonnes.

Even that amount is an expensive extra. With an additional 1.4 tonnes of kerosene in its tanks, an aircraft on a ten-hour flight burns between 600 and 700 kilos more fuel. At the present price of kerosene, that costs a good 500 euros more - per flight.

Of course, Roland Grätsch knows “that the personal experience of each pilot plays an important role”. Each pilot is “is absolutely free to decide of his own accord how much extra fuel he takes on board”, Grätsch emphasises. Safety here is the topmost priority.

“We do not aim to just fly from A to B”, he says. “Besides optimising fuel efficiency, we also want flights to be environment-friendly.” Whenever he talks about saving fuel, he automatically converts the kerosene savings into the carbon emissions, which are not then additionally released into the atmosphere.

“The newcomers”, explains the experienced captain, meaning the younger pilots, “are trained ab initio to be economical with fuel when flying for Lufthansa Cargo.” Even now he tends to smile at hearing a young first officer confidently contradicting the captain: “So much extra fuel? I really don’t think we need that much.”

For those who dont know the B777 at less weights could move/taxi at idle power.

Sounds like what these lousy low cost outfits do.

Here's some more -

Take min FP fuel everywhere you go - irrespective of notams
and weather. Divert enroute/after GA as necessary. A year's
statistics show the cost of diversions much less than carrying
extra fuel to minimise disruption to service and passengers.

Have an impractical alternate not more than 5 miles away
where possible.

Have all FP levels at optimum. If you don't get it land enroute
early and pick up the extra gas.

Have engineering remove all APUs from the fleet.

Remove all potable water (pax/crew can buy their own before
dep). Toilet flushes limited to 5 dumps.

Inflight - reduce contingency to 1% and FR to 20 mins.

Drop the gear at 500ft AGL. Ignore gear horn when full flap
selected at 700ft (Boeing). Flap 3 at 700ft all ldgs (Airboos).

Ban all fat slobs booking flights. Insist on unhealthily low BMI
limit for all pilots. Fire all crew who exceed it.

CI 0 all flights irrespective of practicality.

Have aircraft towed to the holding point. Connect all ground
carts (remember all APUs were removed as suggested above)
Start engines. Rush checklists quickly as possible. Take off.

After landing - shut down engines and have aircraft towed to
gate. Battery should last for 30 mins or more.

Get someone from Ryanair or Tiger (but definitely not a pilot)
to oversee zealous implementation of above.

My comment was not meant as a joke, there have been several studies by airlines in the US and the EU, AIATA, NASA, that have reached the conclusion that operators of the same type of A/C but different overall levels of satisfaction with their conditions of employment, showed a significant difference on the efficiency of the operation and that translated into different overall fuel consumption per seat/mile, sorry of their conclusions ruffled your feathers.