BM FUEL PROBLEMS??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great thread, interesting to see how the views are polarising into those that usually take the nav log fuel and those that usually take at least 15mins extra, regardless of airline.
To put the record straight on BM’s fuel policy, we are full JAROPS and our Nav Logs compare very favourably with the article in this months Focus magazine about how various UK airlines calculate their fuel requirements. Management have kept plots of extra fuel carried, but I am 99% sure they have never lent on anybody as a result of these. No manager/trainer will ever begrudge you taking extra fuel – if you can justify it. They/we are just trying to make the crews aware that it need not be an automatic “500Kg extra” simply because it is LHR. A Cat III aircraft operating into SE England in CAVOK has enough flex in the fuel policy as outlined elsewhere in the thread.
So much for company policy. On the line, a quick look through any tech log will show arrival fuels averaging 3000Kg on the 737, occasionally down to 2500Kg and rarely as low as 2000Kg (myself about once every few years approaching 2000Kg). For those not on the type, we burn about 2000Kg/hr in the hold and our final reserve fuel is 1250Kg. I very rarely hear of anybody having diverted, calling Mayday or even hinting of a low fuel state (sorry HD), which surely means we have got it about right.
BTW, bmi issue telexes to crews downroute with information about significant holding delays with the clear intention being to increase fuel. They also append their nav logs on certain flight numbers, typically into GLA, AMS & LHR with warnings to carry extra fuel. These are not the actions of an airline with a tyrannical attitude to fuel.
S & L
To put the record straight on BM’s fuel policy, we are full JAROPS and our Nav Logs compare very favourably with the article in this months Focus magazine about how various UK airlines calculate their fuel requirements. Management have kept plots of extra fuel carried, but I am 99% sure they have never lent on anybody as a result of these. No manager/trainer will ever begrudge you taking extra fuel – if you can justify it. They/we are just trying to make the crews aware that it need not be an automatic “500Kg extra” simply because it is LHR. A Cat III aircraft operating into SE England in CAVOK has enough flex in the fuel policy as outlined elsewhere in the thread.
So much for company policy. On the line, a quick look through any tech log will show arrival fuels averaging 3000Kg on the 737, occasionally down to 2500Kg and rarely as low as 2000Kg (myself about once every few years approaching 2000Kg). For those not on the type, we burn about 2000Kg/hr in the hold and our final reserve fuel is 1250Kg. I very rarely hear of anybody having diverted, calling Mayday or even hinting of a low fuel state (sorry HD), which surely means we have got it about right.
BTW, bmi issue telexes to crews downroute with information about significant holding delays with the clear intention being to increase fuel. They also append their nav logs on certain flight numbers, typically into GLA, AMS & LHR with warnings to carry extra fuel. These are not the actions of an airline with a tyrannical attitude to fuel.
S & L
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dayoff
Nice try, lets stay on the ground. If they could improve the view and get us up to decent speeds SAFELY I'm all for it.
Also Capt's are paid more money and rightly so, partly the benefit of wisdom with experience and predominantly to stand for the liquid refreshments for the poorly paid life savers in the cabin! I'm sure the urge to sit on the left and take responsibility would be a lot less keen if it were not so.
I'd also like to think that whilst in the eyes at least of the lawyers the captain carry's the can it may be with respect to any and all assistance that teamwork affords.
FFB good points, well made, it was told to me only recently that co. policy is to derate engines whenever safely possible to prolong their lives and TBO. So when do we derate crews?
Snooky, no criticisim intended just a very dull wit! I do not operate into LHR so I do not encounter this particular problem but from what I understand of the standard of controlling you have a much better chance of the commitment being met, I wish I could say the same from my neck of the woods!
[This message has been edited by doggonetired (edited 03 May 2001).]
Nice try, lets stay on the ground. If they could improve the view and get us up to decent speeds SAFELY I'm all for it.
Also Capt's are paid more money and rightly so, partly the benefit of wisdom with experience and predominantly to stand for the liquid refreshments for the poorly paid life savers in the cabin! I'm sure the urge to sit on the left and take responsibility would be a lot less keen if it were not so.
I'd also like to think that whilst in the eyes at least of the lawyers the captain carry's the can it may be with respect to any and all assistance that teamwork affords.
FFB good points, well made, it was told to me only recently that co. policy is to derate engines whenever safely possible to prolong their lives and TBO. So when do we derate crews?
Snooky, no criticisim intended just a very dull wit! I do not operate into LHR so I do not encounter this particular problem but from what I understand of the standard of controlling you have a much better chance of the commitment being met, I wish I could say the same from my neck of the woods!
[This message has been edited by doggonetired (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fireflybob
'I accept that we cannot base everything that we do on the worst happening but, as a pilot, I do know (from hard experience) that when you are getting low on fuel one's ability to make rational reasoned decisions tends to decrease.'
'Finally, it concerns me as pilot (and a passenger) that many of us are constantly working in "overload" - we can do this "occasionally" when necessary but if it's every day, then eventually something will give and there will be a catastrophe.'
I am sorry I cannot agree with those two statements. I make fuel decisions based on company operating policy, common sense and experience. If we have unexpected holding independently with my co - pilot we work out and agree our minimum fuel before committing (if sensible) and our minimum fuel before we would have to declare a low fuel state (in my company that would mean likely to land with less than reserve fuel). If the weather is marginal then we would agree a figure at which we would divert. If getting near that point we would inform ATC in good time.
I am afraid that with a well thought out plan of action, and possibly loading the diversion route and approach into route 2 of the FMC I do not feel under unreasonable pressure or that I am working in 'overload'.
I have no doubt that if I loaded say an extra 15 minutes fuel every sector there would probably be no comeback from my management but I do not feel it necessary or sensible. Most of the scenarios people have mentioned in previous postings on this thread are highly unlikely and if they did occur an emergency would be declared and rather rapid diversion would occur.
'I accept that we cannot base everything that we do on the worst happening but, as a pilot, I do know (from hard experience) that when you are getting low on fuel one's ability to make rational reasoned decisions tends to decrease.'
'Finally, it concerns me as pilot (and a passenger) that many of us are constantly working in "overload" - we can do this "occasionally" when necessary but if it's every day, then eventually something will give and there will be a catastrophe.'
I am sorry I cannot agree with those two statements. I make fuel decisions based on company operating policy, common sense and experience. If we have unexpected holding independently with my co - pilot we work out and agree our minimum fuel before committing (if sensible) and our minimum fuel before we would have to declare a low fuel state (in my company that would mean likely to land with less than reserve fuel). If the weather is marginal then we would agree a figure at which we would divert. If getting near that point we would inform ATC in good time.
I am afraid that with a well thought out plan of action, and possibly loading the diversion route and approach into route 2 of the FMC I do not feel under unreasonable pressure or that I am working in 'overload'.
I have no doubt that if I loaded say an extra 15 minutes fuel every sector there would probably be no comeback from my management but I do not feel it necessary or sensible. Most of the scenarios people have mentioned in previous postings on this thread are highly unlikely and if they did occur an emergency would be declared and rather rapid diversion would occur.
Guest
Posts: n/a
M. Mouse,
As you say a well thought out plan of action is what is needed. For me, pre-flight, that plan DOES NOT include burning our alternate fuel to carry on holding. A 15-20 minute delay comes out of nowhere at LHR these days and despite Ops. doing their best one very rarely gets good info. about it on the ground. With delays so common it seems to me that if you set off with sector fuel you are PLANNING to use your alternate fuel to hold and that seems to me, to be not in the spirit of the JAA fuel policy. As it says in our OPS manual and I am sure the wording is fairly standard:
Extra fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for foreseeable contingencies, including:
Extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delays.
The key words here would seem to be "foreseeable" and "expected". A 15 minute hold at LHR anytime between say, 06:30 and 21:30 is both of these things and a bit of extra fuel would seem to be prudent. Could you really put your hand on your heart after diverting or landing with low fuel and say that the hold that caused it was unexpected.
[This message has been edited by Max Angle (edited 03 May 2001).]
As you say a well thought out plan of action is what is needed. For me, pre-flight, that plan DOES NOT include burning our alternate fuel to carry on holding. A 15-20 minute delay comes out of nowhere at LHR these days and despite Ops. doing their best one very rarely gets good info. about it on the ground. With delays so common it seems to me that if you set off with sector fuel you are PLANNING to use your alternate fuel to hold and that seems to me, to be not in the spirit of the JAA fuel policy. As it says in our OPS manual and I am sure the wording is fairly standard:
Extra fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for foreseeable contingencies, including:
Extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delays.
The key words here would seem to be "foreseeable" and "expected". A 15 minute hold at LHR anytime between say, 06:30 and 21:30 is both of these things and a bit of extra fuel would seem to be prudent. Could you really put your hand on your heart after diverting or landing with low fuel and say that the hold that caused it was unexpected.
[This message has been edited by Max Angle (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
>>I am sorry I cannot agree with those two statements. I make fuel decisions based on company operating policy, common sense and experience. If we have unexpected holding independently with my co - pilot we work out and agree our minimum fuel before committing (if sensible) and our minimum fuel before we would have to declare a low fuel state (in my company that would mean likely to land with less than reserve fuel). If the weather is marginal then we would agree a figure at which we would divert. If getting near that point we would inform ATC in good time.<<
M. Mouse - I am not sorry that you disagree because that way we learn something new!
Everything you say above is how professional pilots should operate. What I was trying to say is that when you are getting relatively low on fuel, then even with the best professionals in the world when something else crops up you are then working under a lot more pressure. I agree that all this may well agree "technically" with the company fuel policy etc. and may well be "legal" but is it good airmanship? (By this comment, I am not accusing you or anyone else of bad airmanship, by the way!)
It is part of a professional pilots remit to operate economically but has the pendulum swung a bit too far aware from the flight safety direction? I guess every pilot would have a different answer to this question and things on a particular day are not always as black and white as we would like them to be!
------------------
M. Mouse - I am not sorry that you disagree because that way we learn something new!
Everything you say above is how professional pilots should operate. What I was trying to say is that when you are getting relatively low on fuel, then even with the best professionals in the world when something else crops up you are then working under a lot more pressure. I agree that all this may well agree "technically" with the company fuel policy etc. and may well be "legal" but is it good airmanship? (By this comment, I am not accusing you or anyone else of bad airmanship, by the way!)
It is part of a professional pilots remit to operate economically but has the pendulum swung a bit too far aware from the flight safety direction? I guess every pilot would have a different answer to this question and things on a particular day are not always as black and white as we would like them to be!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry it doesn't.
Have you ever considerd why VIP flights fill the tank's up? It's because cost is not the object, safety is. I don't have that luxery, but beleive that we should err on the side of safety and not worry too much about the small cost of carrying a bit extra if conditions allow, and an extra few minutes is only a small cost, but as stated previously, could be priceless if the **** hits the fan.Common sense and experience should make this obvious, company sop's probably don't.
Have you ever considerd why VIP flights fill the tank's up? It's because cost is not the object, safety is. I don't have that luxery, but beleive that we should err on the side of safety and not worry too much about the small cost of carrying a bit extra if conditions allow, and an extra few minutes is only a small cost, but as stated previously, could be priceless if the **** hits the fan.Common sense and experience should make this obvious, company sop's probably don't.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fluckbynight
I do not think VIP flights are relevant. I presume you mean dedicated flights anyway? I have flown members of the Royal Family and more than one cabinet minister and not taken extra because I didn't need it (in my judgement.
You say we should err on the side of safety. I agree I always do. Where do you believe my company's fuel policy is unsafe?
So with approaching 300 aeroplanes in the fleet in the air for say 15hours a day each taking an extra few minutes 'is only a small cost'. Can't say I agree with that.
I do apply common sense and experience. It is what I am paid for.
I do not think VIP flights are relevant. I presume you mean dedicated flights anyway? I have flown members of the Royal Family and more than one cabinet minister and not taken extra because I didn't need it (in my judgement.
You say we should err on the side of safety. I agree I always do. Where do you believe my company's fuel policy is unsafe?
So with approaching 300 aeroplanes in the fleet in the air for say 15hours a day each taking an extra few minutes 'is only a small cost'. Can't say I agree with that.
I do apply common sense and experience. It is what I am paid for.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point re. the vip flights,yes dedicated, is that the only reason for not carrying extra feul is cost, not safety, so it is totally relevant to this discusion, as you state yourself you don't carry the extre feul because of cost, even though the extra cost compared to diversions or an accident is small, even with 300 a/c flying.The point is that the extra feul increases thinking time and the options open to you and it seems foolish to willingly reduce your options without necessity.
You stated previosly that most of the scenarios mentioned are highly unlikely, and thats the point, it is the unlikely that will catch you out, and that is why one should carry the extra fuel to cover the unlikely. In the sim we cover time and time again unlkely scenarios, to follow your argument we should stop this as they are unlikely, and think of the huge cost savings, which would be negated if the unlikely happened and we are not prepared, trained, to deal with it.Sadly the unlikely does happen.
You stated previosly that most of the scenarios mentioned are highly unlikely, and thats the point, it is the unlikely that will catch you out, and that is why one should carry the extra fuel to cover the unlikely. In the sim we cover time and time again unlkely scenarios, to follow your argument we should stop this as they are unlikely, and think of the huge cost savings, which would be negated if the unlikely happened and we are not prepared, trained, to deal with it.Sadly the unlikely does happen.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you, HEATHROW DIRECTOR, for starting this thread.
Just how much does it cost to carry extra fuel anyway?
This is basic guesswork but I'll kick the ball off:-
The cost of fuel per tonne is kept from us for reasons of commercial secrecy. I will guess at £250 a tonne as an average (don't take me to bits if this way off please). Assuming it costs (perhaps) 20kg to carry an extra tonne on a one hour sector then the cost of carrying that extra tonne might be £5.00 Now, if an airline has 300 flights a day and every aircraft carried an extra tonne into Heathrow the annual extra cost might be around £500000 per annum. Vary that figure either way either way due to changes in fuel policy and the cost differences are not huge when condsidering the total fuel budget.
So, why make a fuss about carrying extra fuel when it is safer?
If anyone has a better idea of fuel costs then lets refine the debate.
Whoops, awful Pun.
Just how much does it cost to carry extra fuel anyway?
This is basic guesswork but I'll kick the ball off:-
The cost of fuel per tonne is kept from us for reasons of commercial secrecy. I will guess at £250 a tonne as an average (don't take me to bits if this way off please). Assuming it costs (perhaps) 20kg to carry an extra tonne on a one hour sector then the cost of carrying that extra tonne might be £5.00 Now, if an airline has 300 flights a day and every aircraft carried an extra tonne into Heathrow the annual extra cost might be around £500000 per annum. Vary that figure either way either way due to changes in fuel policy and the cost differences are not huge when condsidering the total fuel budget.
So, why make a fuss about carrying extra fuel when it is safer?
If anyone has a better idea of fuel costs then lets refine the debate.
Whoops, awful Pun.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is web site for US fuel costs
http://www.instant-info.com/ff/cc-sec.htm
But the range of prices for Jet A seems very large - from $3.75/gallon to $1.48/gallon. No doubt the airlines get better discounts to those obtained by private flyers.
If UK internal flight safety is enhanced by, say, £5 extra fuel per trip or even £20, so that those inevitable extra circles in the sky before landing don't leave the tanks with nothing but rumours in them, the passengers would probably be happy to split the cost between them before the flight starts. It's probably too late to have a whip round over Windsor or St Thomas' Hospital.
http://www.instant-info.com/ff/cc-sec.htm
But the range of prices for Jet A seems very large - from $3.75/gallon to $1.48/gallon. No doubt the airlines get better discounts to those obtained by private flyers.
If UK internal flight safety is enhanced by, say, £5 extra fuel per trip or even £20, so that those inevitable extra circles in the sky before landing don't leave the tanks with nothing but rumours in them, the passengers would probably be happy to split the cost between them before the flight starts. It's probably too late to have a whip round over Windsor or St Thomas' Hospital.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was trying to resist entering this thread again but here we are!
Divide that figure of £500,000 by the total of all passengers flown - I imagine it's a few pence per pax. Would those people be happy to pay a little more for a greater margin of safety? I know I would!
------------------
Divide that figure of £500,000 by the total of all passengers flown - I imagine it's a few pence per pax. Would those people be happy to pay a little more for a greater margin of safety? I know I would!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can anyone put a figure on how much it costs to carry extra fuel (eg - £/litre or £/Kg).
Talking to an Aer Lingus crew the other day and apparantly they have something like that on their Nav Logs to help determine whether to tanker or not. We simply have a fuel price index (referenced to LHR = 100). The chart gives that and a YES/NO as to whether to tanker.
Talking to an Aer Lingus crew the other day and apparantly they have something like that on their Nav Logs to help determine whether to tanker or not. We simply have a fuel price index (referenced to LHR = 100). The chart gives that and a YES/NO as to whether to tanker.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had no idea that my simple message would start such a discussion and its all been very interesting and enlightening (I do fly occasionally). I would merely emphasise what has already been said - 20 min delays appear at LHR as if by magic nowadays and because of commercial pressures the time will come when we won't be able to "help" guys who are short of fuel and they'll have to divert. If I was a pax travelling from Manchester to Heathrow and was told that we were having to divert due to fuel shortage I'd probably question the ability of the bloke up front!!
My last comment is this - how many of you incredibly fuel-conscious chaps drive gas-guzzling cars??!! (NO, don't bother to answer!)
My last comment is this - how many of you incredibly fuel-conscious chaps drive gas-guzzling cars??!! (NO, don't bother to answer!)