Yes we are & go-arounds have a discretionary element. You don’t only go-around because of weather minimums

The discussion was about wether offering a financial incentive, would modify behaviour that could lead to a conflict of interests.

If you think that someone would refuse to go-around, because they would loose their bonus.

Then I really don’t understand how you can argue they wouldn’t upload extra fuel, because of the bonus

I am on the fence as to how I feel about part of the bonus being related to fuel carriage/burn. That notwithstanding, there are crew who absolutely could do more to fly more efficiently and either do not because a) they haven't the experience/confidence to do so, b) refuse to do so regardless.

Some examples:

• Flying faster than the CI because 'there is never any comeback' and we can get to the hotel bar 10 minutes earlier.
• Flying outbound 12 miles on a procedural ILS/RNP just to fly 12 miles back inbound on a gin clear day in a quiet destination rather than considering a visual app - (not just a BA problem)
• Incredibly conservative descent management where speedbrakes are used early on, only to then spend 20+ miles with thrust on to maintain a pseudo CDA (VS -300fpm anyone?)

The last two points are because we have become products of the system that trained us.

There are also issues with extra fuel carriage where it simply isn't necessary, to say there isn't would be completely disingenious. Now, whether it is worth attempting to redress these bad habits by incentivising with a bonus is a fair debate.

They do say that the Caribbean is a graveyard for airline pilots. Certainly within certain European countries , the biggest mistakes tend to be following the decision to do a visual approach, hence the reluctance. Most pilots’ recency is a visual circuit or two in the sim every 6 months if there is time left at the end. You aren’t given any credit by the company for trying to save them time and money should you screw up the approach and end up in hot water.

I agree with you on paper that its bad looking, but im not sure i get the issue at the end(might be on a big scale number when everyone does it? The size and ops of planes which at my level is not yet a thing to consider?) my issue is that the fuel doesnt magically disappears, next leg you still have it in and the top up is not as much for the fuel you will need.

E.G. One pilot needs 8 to do the flight, but brings 10, the next leg on the plane needs 7 so the next pilot only top up 5

Well, it doesn't magically disappear, but some of it does burn away.

Have a think about it for a bit longer...

I find it frankly insulting that you think professional airline pilots aren’t intelligent enough to see the nuances of this new policy, and how it’s intended. I still disagree with your comparison to giving a bonus for not going around which is frankly ludicrous and not comparable. Clearly you don’t have much experience of modern airline ops, or the culture in your airline is very strange. There really is nothing to see here, move on.

If you work on 3% per flight hour to carry extra fuel (an efficient airframe), on short sectors it doesn’t add up to much but on longer flights it can be significant. To arrive with an extra 1,000kg (~10mins fuel in a 777) on a 10hr leg you’d burn ~350kg more; 15hrs it’s going to be 550kg+, because fuel consumption for a trip is a non-linear function of air distance, increasing as you get closer to the limit. At the extreme range end with ULH, you are burning most of any extra fuel just to get what’s left to the other end.

An example of low hanging fruit in this instance is when you fly to a multiple runway destination with a decent alternate, e.g. LHR->LAX/ONT. The basic plan will get you there with RSV+ALT+CONT; even if you use all the contingency en-route you still can commit to destination with your alternate fuel becoming your holding capability. Excepting forecast poor weather or NOTAM’d issues, it is difficult to identify any reasons to take more but people sometimes do out of habit.

Speaking as someone who once landed with 90 seconds worth of fuel in the tanks (extenuating circumstances!), I regularly phoned home to check and discuss the weather before departure from foreign shores. If more fuel was indicated, I used to put in the “reason for extra fuel” field of the flight report, “Mrs Mogwi said so”.

No one ever queried it!

Mog.

Just as long as there was no water in it :)

I find it highly amusing you find it offensive that myself and others think that the policy has the potential to create a safety conflict.

Especially after you claimed the same pilots are so unprofessional, that they carry extra fuel purely to get back at the company….

I never stated that pilots wouldn’t be able to deal with the conflict.

Every airline has avoidable go-around’s, that could be avoided by refusing an ATC short cut/speed control, following recommended configurations on unusual approaches etc etc. Trying to minimise the unnecessary go-arounds, whilst not creating a safety hazard by discouraging necessary ones, sounds familiar….

I have enough experience of airline operations and training, that I wouldn’t try and dismiss someone’s concern by making an un-evidenced claim about their lack of experience. Rather than trying refute the central point of their concerns.

One thing I see on the line a lot and definitely needs educating is the propensity for people to apply their own corrections to the takeoff perf, neglecting the fact that these are done as part of the calculation from the software. Stuff like starting with a variable wind of 5 knots and sticking in 10 knots directly on the tail. Congrats, you’re now calculating your takeoff perf with a fifteen knot tailwind which bears absolutely no relation to what’s going on outside in the real world (especially when you’d have to be very unlucky to get all of that wind directly on the tail in the first place). It’s not just discretionary fuel, these are the very basics here that people are going “belts and braces” so far they’re almost sabotaging the operation from an efficiency standpoint.

Pragmatically an element of this comes from experience of both how the weather evolves at some airports with a less than refined forecast, and the embarrassment of getting to the departure point, having a look at the windsock, and realising that you need to block the taxiway (and all the departing traffic behind you) for ten minutes while you re-run the performance.

There isn't a fuel penalty from using a tailwind calculation, it actually saves fuel as you get to thrust reduction altitude faster. The cost is in the engine wear.

Or you could just ignore it and go as AirFrance did at gonesse

I didn’t say there was. The word I used was efficiency, which admittedly could have been more explicit that I was referring to costs related to engine wear but I thought that would have been inferred when I said it’s not just (discretionary) fuel. I’m talking about people being wasteful in other areas and yes there will be the odd occasion where it’s justified but believe me there’s a hell of a lot more when it’s not.

Anyone got a number for The Samaritans?

ok that makes sense then, as i stated, is a type of concern that in my ops level isn't really needed to consider much. for long distance(and heavy A/C) the more you bring=more you burn anyway.

cheers:ok:

Quite simple, all the fuel planning in the world goes out the window when the UK or large region goes to chaos and airports fill up. I've had more diversions where planned alternates have been denied, than accepted. Use common sense, and take what you need to be sure of the options needed in such situations. Perfect day, then fine, save the fuel, but your lovely little plan of filed alternate is useless when everyone else fills it up your list of alternates. Couldn't care less about pay when it comes to fuel.