What do you think about this inflight fuel saving technique
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think about this inflight fuel saving technique
Flying along in the -400 at 330 on an oceanic track and the flight plan calls for a climb to 350, but we are a bit too heavy, so the FMC is changed from Econ to LRC in order to burn off fuel more quickly so we can get higher sooner.
Seems odd to me but I am kind of new to this glass cockpit stuff.
Didn't work anyways as we closed in on someone 1 FL above us and ahead of us so we stayed where we were.
Seems odd to me but I am kind of new to this glass cockpit stuff.
Didn't work anyways as we closed in on someone 1 FL above us and ahead of us so we stayed where we were.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an oceanic track - aren't you supposed (read: required) to maintain assigned Mach, rather than fool around with speeds as pleases you?
Otherwise - if you are heavier than planned, then OFP climbs are not exactly valid anymore. Crazy to try to burn fuel faster so you can then make the climb as close to OFP point as possible.
Otherwise - if you are heavier than planned, then OFP climbs are not exactly valid anymore. Crazy to try to burn fuel faster so you can then make the climb as close to OFP point as possible.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an oceanic track - aren't you supposed (read: required) to maintain assigned Mach, rather than fool around with speeds as pleases you?
Jesus, people love to jump down others throats on here.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all oceanic tracks require specific Mach this is only normally important in busier traffic or if you are in trail to another aircraft or another aircraft is in trail to you on that track at that level. The tracks above and below with slightly different wind and temperature will result in different ground speeds in any case.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Some hotel
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flights should not be planned nor flown with speeds such as ECON or LRC in MNPS airspace at least.. below a copy/paste from MNPS Manual:
Pilots must recognise that adherence to the assigned Mach Number is essential. No tolerance is provided for. Pilots must not utilise Long Range Cruise or ECON FMC modes when transiting NAT MNPS airspace
Pilots must recognise that adherence to the assigned Mach Number is essential. No tolerance is provided for. Pilots must not utilise Long Range Cruise or ECON FMC modes when transiting NAT MNPS airspace
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know which airspace you were in so can't comment of mach technique. However, unless your econ speed was MRC then "changing" (accel or deccel?) to LRC would not burn more fuel but less!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You burn more fuel so you can climb higher to save fuel. No disrespect to the Irish, but you know what I mean. Is this a 1 step back to take 2 steps forward scenario? I suppose it would depend on how long you would cruise at the higher level.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUDOC, not jumping any throat here, but the OP wrote about flying on an OCEANIC TRACK and he supposedly flew it in FMC ECON, then perhaps, FMC LRC.
OCEANIC TRACKS are flown with ATC assigned fixed Mach numbers, period (maybe the OP is a Flight Simmer, that I don't know).
Yes, you can request another Mach number, but ATC never assigns "ECON" or "LRC".
The FL the OP mentions, F330 and F350, is in the band where MNPS rules apply.
Yes, if you are an operational maritime patrol aircraft, you will fly far below RVSM and MNPS, and then you can do as you please for operational reasons. However, the designation -400 as mentioned, and the OFP and economic considerations make it clear it must be a commercial aircraft operation the OP is writing about.
Ian W - geographically speaking, flying from Portugal to the Canary Islands is a stretch over Atlantic Ocean water, but is not an Oceanic track in the meaning of ATC, that stretch is just another airway. On an oceanic track, you are not free speed, unless it is busy - as every operational long hauler will know, your oceanic clearance will contain route, flight level and assigned Mach, often also an assigned time for crossing the oceanic entry point.
OCEANIC TRACKS are flown with ATC assigned fixed Mach numbers, period (maybe the OP is a Flight Simmer, that I don't know).
Yes, you can request another Mach number, but ATC never assigns "ECON" or "LRC".
The FL the OP mentions, F330 and F350, is in the band where MNPS rules apply.
Yes, if you are an operational maritime patrol aircraft, you will fly far below RVSM and MNPS, and then you can do as you please for operational reasons. However, the designation -400 as mentioned, and the OFP and economic considerations make it clear it must be a commercial aircraft operation the OP is writing about.
Ian W - geographically speaking, flying from Portugal to the Canary Islands is a stretch over Atlantic Ocean water, but is not an Oceanic track in the meaning of ATC, that stretch is just another airway. On an oceanic track, you are not free speed, unless it is busy - as every operational long hauler will know, your oceanic clearance will contain route, flight level and assigned Mach, often also an assigned time for crossing the oceanic entry point.
OCEANIC TRACKS are flown with ATC assigned fixed Mach numbers, period
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzbox - Indian Ocean, same as Atlantic stretch between Portugal and Canaries.
Yes, it over oceanic water, but it is just an "ordinary airway" , not what is commonly referred to as AN OCEANIC TRACK by the professionals that fly in oceanic tracks for a daily living.
Yes, it over oceanic water, but it is just an "ordinary airway" , not what is commonly referred to as AN OCEANIC TRACK by the professionals that fly in oceanic tracks for a daily living.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@FE i would think that depends. For example we fly CI 10 on our 737NGs (and 7 on the airbus) which is usually slower than LRC. LRC indeed uses a bit more fuel, however not all that much. Over a 5 hour flight it is about 50 to 100kgs more and 15 minutes saved depending on wind of course.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Buzz Box and others but in this case I think EMIT is right on the money, to most professionals 'Oceanic Track' refers to the Atlantic tracks. Pacific uses airways, not tracks, as does the Indian Ocean. There are specific rules for flying the Oceanic tracks. ATC assigned Mach no. is but one.
At the beginning of a thirteen to fifteen hour leg, for example, if you think you are going to get trapped in the lower levels, I can see that working.
You burn more fuel so you can climb higher to save fuel.
to most professionals 'Oceanic Track' refers to the Atlantic tracks.
I guess we'll never know which 'oceanic track' the OP was flying unless he or she pipes up and tells us!
Getting back to the original question, selecting LRC in the 744 results in a faster cruise speed (M0.85-0.86 from memory) than ECON and will burn off the fuel more quickly. That MIGHT allow you to climb a bit earlier and save fuel overall on a long sector, but only if you would otherwise end up being stuck at the lower level, as parabellum said.
That said, with the use of CPDLC on a lot of oceanic routes, it can be difficult (impossible?) to keep a picture of the other traffic. You could end up being stuck at the lower level anyway and screw yourself out of fuel, as you found out.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 13th Aug 2013 at 06:18.
WRT to actual OP question- No, that isn't going to save you any fuel, unless, as has been mentioned, it stops you being stuck at a lower level by ATC.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 13th Aug 2013 at 05:32.
However, unless your econ speed was MRC then "changing" (accel or deccel?) to LRC would not burn more fuel but less!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer,
LRC on the B744 corresponds to CI 250. I expect the OP would have been using a cost index somewhat less than that, as most operators are pretty fuel conscious these days. So, yes it would be an acceleration from ECON to LRC.
OP,
When you said you were too heavy for F350, I assume that your FMC max altitude was less than that and your flight plan was based on the correct weight. You may be able to make a cruise CG correction to increase your max altitude because it usually defaults to a conservative value. When pushing close to max altitude, be aware of the buffet boundary/expected turbulence, and OAT trend.
Other than that, you are best off to just wait until you burn down to an appropriate weight. In fact, unless there is a strongly increasing tailwind you should be close to optimum altitude anyway.
Basically the idea proposed is just fiddling with cost index, which doesn't make any sense because the fuel/time costs remain the same for the entire flight.
LRC on the B744 corresponds to CI 250. I expect the OP would have been using a cost index somewhat less than that, as most operators are pretty fuel conscious these days. So, yes it would be an acceleration from ECON to LRC.
OP,
When you said you were too heavy for F350, I assume that your FMC max altitude was less than that and your flight plan was based on the correct weight. You may be able to make a cruise CG correction to increase your max altitude because it usually defaults to a conservative value. When pushing close to max altitude, be aware of the buffet boundary/expected turbulence, and OAT trend.
Other than that, you are best off to just wait until you burn down to an appropriate weight. In fact, unless there is a strongly increasing tailwind you should be close to optimum altitude anyway.
Basically the idea proposed is just fiddling with cost index, which doesn't make any sense because the fuel/time costs remain the same for the entire flight.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, a B744
I just happen to have an example before my eyes on my PC.
Case 1 is M0.825; case 2 M0.845 and poses a fictitious instantaneous step climb FL330-350 at 341560kg. The “econ” specific air range computes as 43nm/tonne; "LRC" choice reduces to 42nm/tonne.
Case 1 is M0.825; case 2 M0.845 and poses a fictitious instantaneous step climb FL330-350 at 341560kg. The “econ” specific air range computes as 43nm/tonne; "LRC" choice reduces to 42nm/tonne.