Cui Bono? A question to PIC (FO) of any airline..
 

From down under, the continued push for 'fuel reductions', driven by management continues. Management claim that the 'data' suggests less fuel can be ordered lessening FOD and therefore carriage...

The problem with data captured yesterday, assessed tomorrow and released next week, is that it tells you what already happened. Its ability to predict the unknown is of limited value. Sometimes experience tells a pilot he needs more fuel...Have certainly been there

Cui bono?

Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'

What about pilots at BA, CX, EK and anyone else wishing to comment!

Given that 'strict liability' for having sufficient fuel, including reserves always sits with the PIC and all state rules are derived from, as I recall ICAO Annex 6 (SARPS) do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?

Should ever the people charged with the safe operation of an airline's fleet make personal financial gain from reductions and actively push pilots, without declaring their financial conflict?

Who benefits? :confused:

We have what you describe in the form of a 2 or 3 page attachment at the end of each briefing pack and it's almost universally ignored because it's nothing short of ********.

I have flown to the same two destinations now for the last 15 flights. If we had loaded plog fuel on each occasion, we would be arriving in each case with 200-300Kg less than minimum diversion fuel. No holding on any occasion. Our real world burn is increasing more and more these days compared to the plog. Or to put it more accurately, the plog estimated burn is being fudge factored more and more each day. So what has happened here? What models/perf penalty factors are they using? Honestly, no one knows anymore. The level of mistrust over such fuel planning is so high now, nothing less than 700Kg extra is considered for a flight of up to 4 hours even on a good day.

I have flown for several operators and the OFP burn was always correct, or conservative. I only take extra fuel if I have reason to do so - which is quite seldom. Maybe on 10-20% of flights I fly.

If your company’s flight planning system is reliable and realistic, there should be no problem with flying min fuel. If it is not, perhaps a couple of ASRs can fix it.

Of course there are decent OFP calculations and my company has pretty decent ones as well. I still opt to usually take about 200-300kg extra in my regional jet for any unforeseen circumstances other than a full SID/STAR and the ~130kg contignency. I want to keep a few extra options open instead of immediately having to divert if you dont get the shortcuts you normally get, upper winds are not as predicted, destination airport puts a few planes in the hold etc.

It has helped to avoid diverts with the accompanying extra costs more than once, far outweighing the costs for the extra fuel.

If you are happy with min fuel and it works for you and your operation, no problem, no criticism. Just saying that the option for the PIC to choose should be there and not discouraged in any way possible as it sounds from the OP.

It is more a case of pressure being exerted on pilots through this sort of mechanism.

The 'app' on issue is the first step in Australia to a similar situation, where performance management invites pilots in to discuss their fuel use...

If the Chief Pilot makes a 'bonus' from pilot discretionary fuel orders reduction in projected fuel burn how is that not a conflict of interest?

Where are the regulators? Other than in the same pocket from which the DFO draws the bonus?

Seems to be a trend to have some intern tracking fuel and publishing results often stating that no extra fuel required......but first time a costly diversion or situation arises I never hear of them getting sacked because they were wrong. You never see any data, as it is quite difficult to assess, on the cost associated with diversions, cancellations due to running out of duty time, missed connections etc.....
My analogy is health insurance.....I could have saved money last year by not paying it as we had no major health issues.( I know that now), but God forbid something happens to your child and you will be glad you have it.
Every case I have ever heard of a pilot having to divert due to min fuel, always crucified because he/she should have known to take more.
Safety has a price, better training, maintenance, reasonable fuel contingency......all cost money, but there needs to be a happy medium

Operating in an environment where there are plenty of alternatives (Europe) and in good weather & traffic conditions, getting 'low on arrival fuel' - and being aware of it early and diverting - strikes me as a commercial thing rather than a safety thing. You still land with plenty of fuel, just not at your destination.

Of course I've wondered how many of these sort of diversions it would take for the advice to change. There has to be a break even point between constant fuel diversions and tankering everywhere.

As the above poster said, in European short haul we have lots of possible diversion airports with excellent facilities, so if the weather is nice we might take plog fuel. Some of the captains always take extra, some rarely. At the end of the day you're the one in the plane so take the extra if you feel like you will need it.

There is no reason to divert just because you will be below alternate fuel at your destination - it's comletely legal to continue and land at destination as long as you land above final reserve. Therefore, if the weather is good and there are no other reasons against it, taking exactly planned block fuel is fine imho. In case of delays burning more than contingency fuel you will just have to take a decision about which airport to commit to land a bit sooner.

And if there are no delays but you arrive at destination below diversion fuel - than the planning was wrong and that's a safety report. A few of those should change the beancounters' mind about proper fuel planning, right?

Of course I don't object to taking extra fuel when needed (weather, temporary situation), but if your experience tells you that you always need those 500kg extra, don't just take it automatically and don't say anything, because the next guy may not have your experience.

Engine failures are very rare, so no need to practice those anymore in the simulator as weel, I reckon?

Maan the managers and their bonuses must love you

Do you mean to say that whenever you notice you will be arriving at your destination with less than final reserve plus diversion fuel, you divert?

Just for clarification, since your reply does not seem to be very clear.

I would say that if you see that you will be below alternate+reserve fuel at destination, you have to start thinking about, and getting info to see what your options are, and one of them will be diverting. Depends on the airport (number of runways, weather etc) but I would prefer not having to commit until I'm at DA/DH on approach, and having options available at that point.

Go-around at TOGA thrust is actually more fuel-efficient than climb using CLB thrust...

Do TCX not use LIDO for flight planning Superpilot? LIDO definitely takes into account go around fuel. Having diverted on a couple of occasions, I'd say that the calculation is pretty accurate.

Thanks for the replies one and all...

Can you from your respective airlines indicate which companies that you know of load alternate fuel as a given?

In Australia a few years ago two 737 (one QF and one VAH) en route to Adelaide had to divert due fog. I have attached a precis from Ben Sandilands (God look after him) a respected journalist very able to cut through airline BS. The Virgin aircraft landed with 535kg in tanks.

One can amuse themselves in the bovine excrement of a report from the ATSB (safety overseer). Airlines in Australia are still not mandated to carry an alternate. Thinking out loud am wondering whether a new app helps lock in potential KPI for the management pilots, which progressively allows control over 'pilot performance', a long held goal of HR

Thanks all

Airlines in EASA are not mandated to carry an alternate. Different airlines have different criteria on airport facilities and weather if electing not to carry alternate fuel. Mine requires a 2000’ ceiling, 5000m visibility and two runways.

I’ve got plenty of time in Australia. Some airports are so far apart, that depending on your type’s landing performance the nearest alternate could be almost two hours away (how much fuel?) in the outback. Perth vs. Learmonth comes to mind. Let’s not jump on the bandwagon too quickly without taking info from Australian pilots who do this stuff everyday.

Question from an idiot:
If Captain A puts in a bit too much (surplus) fuel, would Captain B therefore not have to add as much for the next flight? Doesn't it all 'balance out' over a month?

Not quite. The reason behind carrying only the minimum required fuel is because any extra fuel itself has a weight which means the aircraft is heavier and is therefore consuming more fuel (heavier plane more fuel hungry than lighter plane). We are talking about a figure that's less than $100 for 1 tonne of extra fuel carried.

akindofmagic, yes we do. I've only ever diverted once from a go-around and it was a bad experience fuel wise. Other's speak of a similar experience. I agree, no excuse for not reporting it. I will look into it deeper.

As always, there's two sides to it. Flight planning has to consider a fixed route including arrival, actual routing may be shorter due to ATC shortcuts, not having to fly the whole arrival, aircraft consumption figures calculated conservatively, etc.

Fuel burn statistics are trying to give some extra information on actual fuel burned over the last year or so on the same route or even flight number to give some sense how actual burns compare to planned burn. While this doesn't cover extreme weather or incidents, it may help in deciding on how much extra to take for route-related contingencies.

The thinking seems to be that an occasional diversion is cheaper than lugging around plenty of extra fuel all the time. While this is probably true from a commercial point of view, the drawback to this is that someone has to fly the diversion or taxi back to the ramp to refuel when there is a minor problem to sort out during taxi-out. Most pilots imho prefer not to be that someone.

From first hand experience, I tend to think that little to no fuel reserves are not conductive to good decision making. E.g. unexpected fog on arrival is taken much lighter with a couple of holdings worth of fuel in the wings than with zero extra. It remains our judgement how much of that lightness is warranted keeping commercial realities in mind.