787 tankering question
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 2
From: Sutton
787 tankering question
Can't find any guidelines / links for 787 tankering.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 800
Likes: 279
From: East of Westralia
Can't find any guidelines / links for 787 tankering.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 2
From: Sutton
SB, It was on the 787, unfortunately the previous company didn’t give guidance on the landing fuel level required to avoid cold soak frost. Neither did they advise what destination temperature was likely to result in NEI.
Historically there are instances of NEI in temperatures up to 20 degrees with high humidity and very cold fuel. The 787 composite wing tends to keep fuel temperatures much higher than conventional metal wings (so I suspect the air trigger temperature would be much lower).
Historically there are instances of NEI in temperatures up to 20 degrees with high humidity and very cold fuel. The 787 composite wing tends to keep fuel temperatures much higher than conventional metal wings (so I suspect the air trigger temperature would be much lower).
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 2
From: Sutton
Looks like this is not worth doing on LHR to JFK
Price / metric ton $830.3 in New York In London it is $804.2
As it typically costs us 175 kg to carry one tonne across the pond this looks like a clear loss maker (unless the airport charge significantly more than shown here)
As it typically costs us 175 kg to carry one tonne across the pond this looks like a clear loss maker (unless the airport charge significantly more than shown here)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 194
Likes: 2
From: MAN
From our 787 OMB:
”Maximum arrival fuel 20,000Kgs (See note 2)
Note 2: When planning tankering, consideration should be given to the formation of upper wing surface frost/ice in the vicinity of the fuel tanks. It has been determined that “warm” fuel uplifted at destination will normally have the effect of agitating the fuel in the wing tanks. This should melt ice/frost and prevent the formation of further ice during the turn round provided the maximum arrival fuel load is restricted. This figure is for guidance only. Higher arrival fuel may be planned provided consideration is given to the weather conditions at the destination airport.”
”Maximum arrival fuel 20,000Kgs (See note 2)
Note 2: When planning tankering, consideration should be given to the formation of upper wing surface frost/ice in the vicinity of the fuel tanks. It has been determined that “warm” fuel uplifted at destination will normally have the effect of agitating the fuel in the wing tanks. This should melt ice/frost and prevent the formation of further ice during the turn round provided the maximum arrival fuel load is restricted. This figure is for guidance only. Higher arrival fuel may be planned provided consideration is given to the weather conditions at the destination airport.”
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 2
From: Sutton
Brilliant, used to fly with Virgin guys eight years ago. None of them tankered fuel from UK to the USA at that time. Does anyone flying from the the UK to US tanker with current fuel prices?
I want a Blue User Title
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 170
Likes: 1
From: Winterthur
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: Mordor
I don’t have any numbers, but have tankered between 20-30 Tonnes in the 787 several times and never had any issues with skin frost.
The A330 OTOH was very prone to NEI. I operated in and out of KEF and we had to transfer the outer tanks immediately after landing, otherwise the hoar frost would start forming within minutes, resulting in unnecessary de-icing.
The A330 OTOH was very prone to NEI. I operated in and out of KEF and we had to transfer the outer tanks immediately after landing, otherwise the hoar frost would start forming within minutes, resulting in unnecessary de-icing.
I want a Blue User Title
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 170
Likes: 1
From: Winterthur
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 800
Likes: 279
From: East of Westralia
When tankering our crews plan to land at exactly MLW. (You take as much fuel as possible so normally MTOW/MLW is the only restriction) In reality, due to shortcut, favorable wind and other factors you could end up saving more fuel and landing above MLW. (hopefully one would spot this and hold) Thus reducing MLW on tankering sectors by 200KG sometimes 500KG can be beneficial and give you some margin in the case of an unexpected shortcut.
Same logic may apply as a buffer, I haven’t asked the question of our tech team.
