Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Airbus QRH Fuel penalty

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airbus QRH Fuel penalty

Old 23rd Jun 2017, 04:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ncise
Posts: 34
Airbus QRH Fuel penalty

Greetings all,

The A320 QRH Fuel penalty tables refer.....

If I'm diverting to a takeoff alternate with the gear fully extended because of an unlock fault after takeoff, the table in the QRH lists a penalty factor of 180%.

What figure is this factor applied to?

Thanks in anticipation!
olirindis is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 05:03
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,586
Your normal fuel burn for the flight to the alternate. If it was 1500kg, your new burn would be 1500kg +fuel penalty factor (180% of 1500kg) which is 3700kg
EGPFlyer is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 05:10
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,594
1500 x 180% = 2700 + 1500 = 4200
ESQU is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 05:22
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,586
Cheers, thats what happens when I try to do maths at 6am without coffee
EGPFlyer is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 05:39
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,586
Yeah, you are calculating the fuel penalty factor which has to be added to your normal burn. They used to just say multiply normal burn by 2.8 (for gear down) but it changed a few years ago... no idea why.
EGPFlyer is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 18:47
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: OS
Age: 61
Posts: 190
Fuel Factor Penalty

I believe that the FPF needs to be applied to Remaing Trip (at current alt and GS) + Contingency + Final Reserve Fuel.
For example if landing gear locked down (FPF 2.0) and FMS says at Fl 200 and GS of 240kt with FL200 winds inserted in FMS the trip is 15T Contingency 2T and FR 3.0T
Then 15+2+3=20t x 2 = 40T if you have 40T then you could continue. If not then return or divert to a much closed airport.
Capt Groper is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 22:29
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 82
You shouldn't really land at a closed airport.
Peter G-W is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 06:04
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,679
With landing gear down you wouldn't go far. Contingency is for despatch for unforeseen winds, level etc. Once airborne it is not increased with failures.
vilas is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 06:49
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: London
Posts: 148
What about alternate fuel?
If you have just departed and then run the calculation I would still apply the factor to my required alternate fuel.
I know you can obviously commit to your destination but I wouldn't do that at the start of a flight.
applecrumble is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2017, 08:15
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,679
Best thing to do in midflight is go to DATA----CLST APT---EFOB/WIND and you get four closest airports(fifth can be added) with EFOB without failure, minus that from FOB, you get burn off to the desired alternate without failure. Apply the FPF and you get burn off with the failure. Minus it from GW to get Landing WT at alternate.
vilas is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 04:18
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 39
You lost me when you verbed minus.
CallmeJB is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 07:55
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,679
DATA---CLOSEST APT---EFOB/WIND.Take EFOB for chosen APT. Now present FOB-EFOB= Burn off (normal) This BO+ FP = BO with failure(penalty). Now Present GW - (corrected)BO= LW at alternate.Calculate LD for this LW.
vilas is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 03:27
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 236
Slippery critters, they are

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad View Post
Yeah the 2.8 factor is much clearer. It appears then that the extra burn gear down is far more significant than in our old dirty turbo prop
A modern jet transport in clean configuration is slippery indeed. When I take a step back, stop taking modern tech for granted for a second, and look at the sheer mass being pushed through the air and consider the (relatively tiny by historical standards) fuel burn, I find the numbers nothing short of incredible. I imagine even sticking a pencil out the window would make a measurable difference ;-)
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2017, 05:31
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ncise
Posts: 34
If only one Fuel Penalty Factor (FPF) is applicable:
The FMS fuel predictions must be recomputed to take into account this trip fuel penalty.

This last sentence is a trifle confusing/misleading, the paragraph is an extract from an A320 QRH. Does it mean that the FMS must be reprogrammed to reflect both the chosen diversion airfield as well as the greatly reduced CLB/CRZ/DES speeds and possibly lower CRZ FL? And once done, the revised EFOB is applied to the formula? Or is it the original "clean aircraft" trip fuel profile that is used?
olirindis is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.