737NG Low Fuel
The last time it actually happened, if I remember correctly, was the Avianca Boeing in New York that flamed out on its second attempted approach into JFK. Links nicely to another current topic of crew not being able to communicate properly in English.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the other thread you will realise that CMR can be less than 1800kg, and, indeed, FR can be less than 1200kg.
Most (UK) 737 commercial pilots, expecting to land close or below final reserve, work on an emergency call in your example 1) which should take away any aerodrome factors causing a g/a.
Most (UK) 737 commercial pilots, expecting to land close or below final reserve, work on an emergency call in your example 1) which should take away any aerodrome factors causing a g/a.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or is BOAC hard to follow? Perhaps he's just a hard act to follow 
The unfortunate reality is that my colleges in Gatwick are planned to arrive with 1800 kgs which is the alternate fuel for Heathrow. Personally I would not be happy starting a diversion to John L from MAN with 1800 never mind Heathrow!
Sorry if this has been done to death, but at the moment I am seeing some pretty low figure in the tech log.
Dogs
The unfortunate reality is that my colleges in Gatwick are planned to arrive with 1800 kgs which is the alternate fuel for Heathrow. Personally I would not be happy starting a diversion to John L from MAN with 1800 never mind Heathrow!
Sorry if this has been done to death, but at the moment I am seeing some pretty low figure in the tech log.
Dogs
I have to agree. The people contributing seemed to know what they were talking about, even if we hold differing views about the underlying issue. That is after all the purpose of good debate.
Yesterday dodging thunderstorms on four legs round Germany I was jolly glad to have taken a bit extra.
Yesterday dodging thunderstorms on four legs round Germany I was jolly glad to have taken a bit extra.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Scuse me for joining late here, but there is a lot of 'subjective' discussion here on fuel. Rainbow has told you all that the luxury of padding up the fuel 'just because' is no longer an option, and if you don't like it, well, you will need to think about changing careers as the way oil price is going, this is your future!
We need to know what "I am seeing some pretty low figure in the tech log." means - you need to state airfield, weather, runway availability and weight of your ?737? at landing plus taxy time to define "very low" - otherwise it is meaningless. Remember your company probably do not consider you to be 'very low' until you are at or below reserve if you are allowed to and are committed, and Boeing treat 906kg TOTAL as 'LOW' non-ETOPS.
Let's 'cut to the CHASE', Dogma, what is the lowest you have put in the log on shutdown, assuming, of course, you actually fly? As for 1800kg, that's enough for MAN-LGW, let alone a quick hop westerly MAN to westerly LPL!!! You could do a couple of circuits on arrival at LPL. Are you, perhaps, one of those F/Os who go all white and floppy when they see 2000kg on the gauges, or are you a hairy old Captain who NEVER shuts down "with less than 3000kg"? Have you ANY idea what other airlines like BA are 'putting in the Tech Log' on shutdown at LHR? How does that compare with your "very low". Shutting down with less than 1800kg in tanks is pretty common in my experience. If 1800kg MAN-LPL is bothering you, I think you need to talk to someone?
We need to know what "I am seeing some pretty low figure in the tech log." means - you need to state airfield, weather, runway availability and weight of your ?737? at landing plus taxy time to define "very low" - otherwise it is meaningless. Remember your company probably do not consider you to be 'very low' until you are at or below reserve if you are allowed to and are committed, and Boeing treat 906kg TOTAL as 'LOW' non-ETOPS.
Let's 'cut to the CHASE', Dogma, what is the lowest you have put in the log on shutdown, assuming, of course, you actually fly? As for 1800kg, that's enough for MAN-LGW, let alone a quick hop westerly MAN to westerly LPL!!! You could do a couple of circuits on arrival at LPL. Are you, perhaps, one of those F/Os who go all white and floppy when they see 2000kg on the gauges, or are you a hairy old Captain who NEVER shuts down "with less than 3000kg"? Have you ANY idea what other airlines like BA are 'putting in the Tech Log' on shutdown at LHR? How does that compare with your "very low". Shutting down with less than 1800kg in tanks is pretty common in my experience. If 1800kg MAN-LPL is bothering you, I think you need to talk to someone?
Flagon, why don't you post the average of the last ten fuel remaining entries on your 737 tech log. Obviously take out the tankering sectors, although that might provide interesting additional data for another survey. Then we can really start comparing across companies,anonymised of course. That is if you really fly the 737. Anyone else feel free to add their own experience. I have no problem with this becoming another thread by the way. Although given the average level of real experience behind the bluster I suspect no one will respond.
Last edited by lederhosen; 23rd Jun 2008 at 09:44.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by leathertrousers
post the average of the last ten fuel remaining entries on your 737 tech log.
By the way if you believe your average is 1750 then you would be landing consistantly below our minimum diversion fuel (which is 1200 kg final reserve plus an OM stipulated minimum diversion of 600kg). I am sure others do it differently. If you really do that then there are indeed huge differences in the way companies operate.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, the point I am trying to make is that extra fuel is a 'comfort thing'. When that 'comfort thing' was bought at $15/barrel....fine. When that same 'comfort thing' comes in at $150/barrel, it becomes a luxury that is very expensive, and it behoves us to only make our employer pay that if it is absolutely necessary. What is happening is pilots are not reacting to the increase in cost of that 'comfort thing' by buying less- habits are not changing, and they have to. It does not mean planes are going to run out of fuel. We have had to go back over 30 years I believe to find an example in the western world, and that involved significant technical problems and a complete breakdown of CRM. Without the 'comfort thing', one must make the decision that will come later that little bit earlier. Because of the price of fuel, we must be a little bit sharper. To blindly say one is still going to carry around the same figures with the way costs have gone up is plain ignorant.
If you are flying around in Cbs, then who is going to complain if you have a good reason?
If you are flying around in Cbs, then who is going to complain if you have a good reason?
First of all I totally agree with Rainboe's point about taking too much fuel, in fact I think we should have been doing it much earlier than now.
I agree with Flagon's point that this is subjective which is why I suggested we compare some data. The average on shutdown for us seems to be around 2700. I am convinced we can reduce this, ideally to around 2200.
However I still find Flagon's figures improbable. Sure you use 14kg/min getting on stand. It makes 50 to 100 kg difference. Your flight plans are sampled by the boys from the Belgrano. If you are regularly arriving with 1750kg or less I suggest they are going to start asking questions about your flight planning software. Don't you ever get any shortcuts or save any fuel? That is after all the real target.
I agree with Flagon's point that this is subjective which is why I suggested we compare some data. The average on shutdown for us seems to be around 2700. I am convinced we can reduce this, ideally to around 2200.
However I still find Flagon's figures improbable. Sure you use 14kg/min getting on stand. It makes 50 to 100 kg difference. Your flight plans are sampled by the boys from the Belgrano. If you are regularly arriving with 1750kg or less I suggest they are going to start asking questions about your flight planning software. Don't you ever get any shortcuts or save any fuel? That is after all the real target.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The average on shutdown for us seems to be around 2700. I am convinced we can reduce this, ideally to around 2200.
Incidentally, I shut down a while back with 5250kg, non-tanking, single runway, CAVOK, no delay, 737NG, CMR 1750kg, and I needed all that fuel. What do you make of that? See what I mean?
I'm still waiting to hear what "very low" is for Dogma and why 'it' cannot get to LPL from MAN with 1800kg.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was on 747s, we used to usually end up with round about 11k which is just over an hour to dry tanks. This would equate to about 2.3 on an NG, which is usually about CMR + 500 Contingency. About right, just over an hour to dry tanks. Landing with CMR is fine, Contingency is available to be used. There seems to be great horror amongst younger pilots if you ever start dipping into it. Flying back from the Far East and unable to get above FL260 for many hours because of overflying traffic, you can see your Contingency disappearing. You then have to restructure your fuel reserves in whatever way you can, and even end up losing your alternate altogether. But the younger guys really don't understand how it all works- when you can disregard your alternate. When I took minimum fuel recently, one of them came up with this: 'but if we use more than taxi fuel to get airborne, we HAVE to divert, don't we?'. I have to confess I looked at him and wondered whether to put him right, but I thought 'I really can't be bothered!'
As for shutting down with average figures of 2.7, this would be too much in a European operation. One must think of carrying 500kgs too much every flight, and what this costs over a year, and compare it with the cost of the diversions over a year if it were not carried. I would suggest no contest as there would probably be none. That 500kg statistically mostly merely delays a diversion that would happen anyway, so the justification for carrying it is not there.
As for shutting down with average figures of 2.7, this would be too much in a European operation. One must think of carrying 500kgs too much every flight, and what this costs over a year, and compare it with the cost of the diversions over a year if it were not carried. I would suggest no contest as there would probably be none. That 500kg statistically mostly merely delays a diversion that would happen anyway, so the justification for carrying it is not there.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe - for one so wise you have fallen into the same trap. How do you KNOW 2700kg is "too much"? As I have said before, without details of CMR/company policy/runway availabilty/weather factor etc we can not be sure - as in my 5250kg example. Was that "too much"? I'm sure you are right, however, but we must avoid this nebulous subjectivism on fuel carriage. It is essential we are OBJECTIVE on it, and statements like "Personally I would not be happy starting a diversion to John L from MAN with 1800 never mind Heathrow!" merely reinforce your observations on F/Os .. while it is always good to have a sensible input/query from a knowledgeable F/O, those sort of questions leave me gasping too.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou, but I am not wise! Aviation management is controlling your stupidity so nobody susses you out effectively! I can achieve that 90% of the time- as long as I get the impression most people are below that score, then I'm not too unhappy!
I think in a summer European or US high density airport environment, average arrival figures of 2.7, especially in summer, need urgent looking at. But there may be a good reason. The graph of arrival fuel amounts versus numbers of aircraft should be starting from zero and going up to a peak and down to zero again in a nice pretty sine-type wave. the idea is to keep the beginning of the wave to the right of the zero point (origin)-ie EVERY single arrival with some fuel! The question is how far to the right to have that curve start, and where the peak should be. If part of the reason for the high average arrival figure is because of tankering for economy reasons, that may explain why it is so high.
I think in a summer European or US high density airport environment, average arrival figures of 2.7, especially in summer, need urgent looking at. But there may be a good reason. The graph of arrival fuel amounts versus numbers of aircraft should be starting from zero and going up to a peak and down to zero again in a nice pretty sine-type wave. the idea is to keep the beginning of the wave to the right of the zero point (origin)-ie EVERY single arrival with some fuel! The question is how far to the right to have that curve start, and where the peak should be. If part of the reason for the high average arrival figure is because of tankering for economy reasons, that may explain why it is so high.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a number of PM's about the issue of arrival fuel into the UK particularly into London airports. Clearly the use of the Low Fuel checklist and committing with the very real potential of burning Final Reserve is not acceptable.
With a CMR of 1800, planning to arrive with 2400 is excellent airmanship and contributes directly to flight safety.
With a CMR of 1800, planning to arrive with 2400 is excellent airmanship and contributes directly to flight safety.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll have no argument from me, Dogma, on carrying extra into London airports and that is, as I'm sure you know, just what we are all supposed to do. Of course it is illegal to PLAN to commit and I trust there is no airline doing that?
Well I think we are in what I would call violent agreement, Took minimum fuel yesterday arrived with 2400. On the way back my FO suggested we take a bit more than I had originally planned. I was happy to do so. Given reports on the radio this morning of snow plows clearing the aftermath from the storm overnight as it moved on, I think the extra 40kg or so we burnt doing this was good insurance.
Having run a few successful improvement projects in the past I am pretty familiar with people's initial reaction of trying to trash any data/methodology .. eventually common sense prevails.
Having run a few successful improvement projects in the past I am pretty familiar with people's initial reaction of trying to trash any data/methodology .. eventually common sense prevails.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dogma - You never told us why you could not make LPL with 1800kg or in which company you were seeing these VERY LOW figures or even what they were.
Do you have ANY idea what sometimes goes in the Tech Log in a medium twin at a 2-runway airfield. Often pilots do a fair bit of 'committing' which will put them fairly well below 2400kg.
Now, back to topic please. Anyone got any useful input on g/a's with low fuel? Never had to do one myself, so any experience welcome. Did you get a pump light or 2 on or did you manage to avoid that? Has anyone been down to 'LOW' fuel (NG non-ETOPS) - ie 906kg total - and still been flying?
Do you have ANY idea what sometimes goes in the Tech Log in a medium twin at a 2-runway airfield. Often pilots do a fair bit of 'committing' which will put them fairly well below 2400kg.
Now, back to topic please. Anyone got any useful input on g/a's with low fuel? Never had to do one myself, so any experience welcome. Did you get a pump light or 2 on or did you manage to avoid that? Has anyone been down to 'LOW' fuel (NG non-ETOPS) - ie 906kg total - and still been flying?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before Rainboe grabs you, never begin a sentance with 'But'.