Fuel economy and pilots reward.
 

Gentlemen,

One of the airlines in this country decided to initiate a "fuel economy program" based on pilot participation in which the target level of economy will be evaluated on a monthly basis and pilots will (or not) be rewarded on a six month basis. Of course this subject is being criticized by many and supported by others. Main concern is a break on the safety commitment as many pilots could be more driven to save costs. There is also a serious concern regarding ranking the pilots by their personal "performance". I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this matter as I am not aware about similar programs being implemented in other airlines.

this reeks of one engine out finals, avoiding go-arounds at all costs, etc:=:=:=:=

Its a blunt instrument that has be tried before and will end in tears.

There are lots of things companies can do to reduce fuel comsumption other than just asking pilots to take less. Controlling the weight of items on the aircraft (rubbish, catering loads etc), regular engine washes, aircraft husbandry to reduce drag. All of them cost money and effort but they do work.

Ranking pilots on their fuel loads does not take into account the risk management on the day. It is quite possible for pilots to take high risk fuel loads and be lucky and under this type of system they will be rewarded for what are in fact really bad choices. Probability being what it is though when you cut corners on a large number of flights the company will inevitably have incidents and if this results in an accident the company may not survive. Penny wise, pound foolish.

We had a pilot that did everything to save fuel. The company asked him to show how he did it and he refused because he was afraid of being fired for what he did. His FO's didn't like his techniques either.

I'm an unabashed fuel maximist, to the extend that even in Australia where an alternate is not mandated, if I'm operating to a single runway airport, and I can carry alternate fuel, I will do so.

I've been told it's not necessary, just use fixed and variable reserve to get to another field, and if I land with less than required reserves, it doesn't matter as I had the legal required amount on departure.

I've been told if some one does a wheels up, land over the top, or before the wreck, and stop. Or land on a taxiway.

I reject these options believing I could never explain such a decision/s to a board of enquiry, when it all goes wrong. I subscribe to the belief that the tanks, usually in the wings are called fuel tanks for a good reason.

A wise colleague put it best, when he once said that if one always travels with minimum fuel, one is statistically much more likely to come to some sort of grief. Whereas if one has "plan-b" fuel whenever possible, the statistical chance of things going pear-shaped the same day as one cannot carry said "plan-b" fuel is significantly reduced.

At the end of the day, the pax don't want to end up at some diversion port because the PIC was aiming for a fuel saving bonus, and didn't cary any plan-b. :8

I have never landed an airliner with less than 45 minutes fuel because I didn't let dispatch do it to me. They tried several times but did my own calculations and ignored their plan. I have posted a couple of examples so won't bore you again. They are sitting in a dispatch office and you are in an aircraft with limited fuel so do what you have to do and screw them in their comfy chair. Also, if you are the FO, don't let the captain be stupid because he believes them. Had to deal with that once too going into SJC with all airports below minimums and he wanted to shoot a minimums approach with everybody diverting to SMF. I talked him into diverting and we got there first with a gate and SJC went below minimums so we would have been in serious trouble.

I get paid well for fuel saving and still alive:E

I believe there is an argument for a professional, understanding and sensible airline management (OK, I know.....) to look at overall excess fuel on arrival for Captains, but not the way this is mooted. Any such 'analysis' would need to be factored by airport 'busyness', weather, actual/planned loads and many other factors, and should be run in consultation with the pilots' representatives.

I'll stop dreaming now........................

...I eliminated fuel as a stressor yonks ago. I take what I need
for any sector on any given day - and to buggery with what the
bloody armchair experts at ops think or the silly "save fuel and
get rewarded" idiot games the flight dept pulls now and then.

I save fuel in other ways - usually enroute and keep an eye on
favorable winds other than optimum, and delaying engine start
on the roll with 2 guys pushing back ahead of me is another. Of
course there are other methods much safer than scoring browny
points for keeping fuel in the fuelling truck instead of the plane
where it belongs.

- When they're called air tanks iso fuel tanks I'll stuff 'em with
lousy Scotch and oily rags. Till then I'll take whatever go-juice
is needed to keep my arse safe and cope with the unexpected.

FOs like it because fuel is scrubbed off their cockpit stress list
when I'm around.

Oh the endless 'is there a chance direct to..', 'can you please coordinate with', 'we have a request..', 'would appreciate'..
There are no priorities for fuel-saving companies. Period. First in, first out.

In the early 1970s as the first fuel crisis started, one of our aircraft arrived at base from Central Africa with more than double the expected fuel remaining. Operated by a Training Captain, I was asked to find his technique, or his short cut, so that it could be applied by all crews. We had only one aircraft which was calibrated in lbs, the rest of the fleet were in kgs. ( Just guess... The best Training Captains really ARE human, too!)
Another fleet night-stopped in Africa, so Captains used the time to have the exterior of the aircraft cleaned and they paid for this out of the Captains' Flight Funds. On a range- critical sector, this reduced the number of Tech-stops. That is until there was an internal accountancy debate, "Should this be costed to Engineering or Flight Operations ? "

At the time we were not required to tell the Company why we had overshot or diverted... Just not to do either, too often. I would guess that these occurred on far less than 1% of flights, and probably for what seemed, at the time, to be good reasons. (Hindsight might have differed.)

I'm always curious about the desk jockeys that come up with this B.S. The same with fuel leagues. You launch off, engage VNAV and autopilot at 1000'; crz at optimum; descend in VNAV via a STAR or radar; complete a CDA in low drag and land; taxi-in on 1 engine and shutdown. What more can you do? Some companies don't like short visual approaches; some guys get lucky with short-cuts, some don't; some guys get straight in's due to wind, other have to go the long way round for the reciprocal; some guys get the full STAR due time of day, others at night get a direct as STD. It's all such a lottery that to attach some magical skill to fuel saving is not honest. It's easier to identify those who are consistently on the high side rather than give Oscars to those running on fumes.

It's fun trying to save fuel between Hong Kong and Beijing where you're given a cruise level 10,000ft below optimum and descent to FL187 300nm out..

i'd be interested in seeing something like a fuel bonus system where bonuses are paid for not exceeding CFP trip fuel burn up until the missed approach point with the caveat that you shall carry not less than CFP fuel (being int'l we have to have an alternate) and missed approach fuel burn is excluded. Results are then deidentified and averaged across all crews each month.

I'm sure TSIO would agree with my practice of "sticking
an extra tonne" on top of CFP to PEK and PVG before I
even start to examine the NOTAMs and wx. China is on
a completely different planet.

Agreed. On certain routes 1000kg of 'ATC' fuel is appropriate.

Seems so far that the most brownie points incorrectly go to those who stick to minimum flight plan fuel. It seems of little consequence that an unexpected diversion is required or a Mayday call to arrive with sufficient fuel. That is the world according to some.

The realistic world would would consider the complete forseeable circumstances of each flight. Before departure, if we are not going to project our thinking to the end of the flight, why are we pilots?

On an A320 I rarely added less than 500 Kgs, but every sector was carefully considered according to weather and other conditions, traffic and my experience on that route. Sometimes, slow speed, low level vectoring can easy eat up a ton or more. If you experienced that at your destination previously, better continue to consider it during peak traffic periods.

There are more ways to save costs than by using less fuel and sometimes these other savings are superior. Running close to your absolute limit on crew duty time? As an example, perhaps taking through fuel and saving refuelling time on one turnaround could enable same day mission completion.

Stress free arrivals send a clear message to ATC. This crew is professional. Next time there is a direct tracking request or less runway length can be accepted for expedited departure those professionals have improved opportunities. If your company is making fuel madays, equal consideration might be just a coincidence.

@john, even on short european sectors it depends. Would i go with plog fuel to frankfurt, london heathrow, paris, madrid or barcelona? Of course not. But it is of course fine to small backwater places with little traffic if the weather is ok.

- not even with multiple independent runways, good weather and in the 'quiet' period? You could always divert if you felt the need.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but how about recruiting experienced pilots who have the knowledge already to make efficient fuel decisions, rather than mindless sausages from the training schools? And let's say.. Paying them a decent wage to make such decisions?