Pilots say they feel pressure to cut back on fuel

[Johnny767]

Avcanada is not exclusive for jet gods with infated egos.

Interpret as you like, bmc. It has nothing to do with "jets" or "ego," it has everything to defending the profession. Whether you are flying a C-185 in the bush or an Airliner for US Airways.

There is only one person that makes the decision on fuel, the Captain!

If...and that is a big if...Small Penguin is even a Pilot he had better figure that out.

Of interest, one of the posters with some strong opinions on this forum. Is a Pilot hating Flight Attendant.

When sh@t hits the fan, everyone RUNS for cover and all fingers point at the "Pilot in Command." The Dispatcher, Airline Management are all cowering under the sheets and hanging the Captain out to dry.

Pilots are continually being stripped of Authority, while continuing to have all the Responsibility.

[hawker driver]

Avcanada is not exclusive for jet gods with infated egos.


There is only one person that makes the decision on fuel, the Captain!

When sh@t hits the fan, everyone RUNS for cover and all fingers point at the "Pilot in Command." The Dispatcher, Airline Management are all cowering under the sheets and hanging the Captain out to dry.

Pilots are continually being stripped of Authority, while continuing to have all the Responsibility.

I couldn't agree more, well said !!!!

My employer just recently started a fuel uplift program as well. We are allowed to uplift more fuel if we send in an e-mail to the flight planning department explaining why.

If I don't feel comfortable with their fuel numbers I add fuel.

For example on a recent flight fuel was calculated for a ground taxi of 8 minutes for a recent trip out of PHL. I ended up waiting 32 minutes on a clear VFR day. If the weather was bad I would have been looking at 45-50 minutes.
Then throw in the other delays in the NYC area as well as being assigned FL230 rather then FL350 and you will see that the numbers the computer throw out don't take all of the possible factors into effect. The experience and knowledge of the flight crew are an asset that should not be wasted or disregarded.

[200hr Wonder]

And Hawker Driver do you feel that having to tell someone what and why you are doing it is a bad thing? They are giving you the decision and are just asking who what why and where? If they have half a brain maybe they can use this data to improve what the computer spits out.

[C23flyer]

Less excess fuel on board means less weight means less fuel consumed...is that correct for jets also?

[small penguin]

Its true of anything. The question is, is the difference A) noticeable, and B) worth it.

[florch]

The cost of one diversion per year or even a turn back to the gate vs. carrying 10 min extra fuel all year long can be debated. Once you add in the added safety, then skippers should retain the spine required to look at available information then err on the side of caution. I don't tell accountants how to do their job, but if there is a measurable increase in diversions, they can look here first.

Think of what a short diversion costs: fuel, landing fees, a cycle, possible crew replacement, hotels, passenger good will, loss of utility as the plane is now out of position.

[old metal]

A Cathay employee once told me that for them to land with an 'extra' ton of fuel, on a long trans oceanic flight, they would have to depart with 3 'extra' tons of fuel. Not sure how accurate that is (we were in a bar during the discussion...).

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

For the DC10 @.82 carrying an extra 2000lbs looks to cost an extra 1000 lbs/hour at higher altitudes but only a few hundred extra down lower.

http://clem.mscd.edu/~christib/wprof/sh ... rts/C6.jpg

Are airliners starting to slow back to longer range cruise?

[complexintentions]

At the upper weight ranges near our MTOW it starts to cost us an extra 4-500kg of burn for each extra ton of fuel uplift. (B773) But for a lot of destinations at certain times you can COUNT on holding delays for traffic volume. The reserve isn't meant for pissing around with holds and known eventualities. So we load 3 tones to have 2 tons extra - that's only 15 minutes holding time!

My problem isn't with trying to be as efficient as possible, just don't try and diminish the captain's authority in the matter. Period. Expect the trend to continue though as the beancounters lose their minds with $150 oil.

[bmc]

There are more effective ways to reduce fuel such as continuous descent approaches.

[Johnny767]

Explain that to the ATC Centers around the globe. They are a huge part of the fuel saving equation. Unfortunately, some of the large centers are operating beyond capacity.

[Flying Nutcracker]

should've read the entire thread before posting... deleted

[Rockie]

My problem isn't with trying to be as efficient as possible, just don't try and diminish the captain's authority in the matter. Period. Expect the trend to continue though as the beancounters lose their minds with $150 oil.

Although pressure can be brought to bear from all kinds of people who aren't responsible, the ultimate responsibility and therefore authority rests with the Captain. That cannot be taken away or diminished because it is the law.

But like every decision the Captain makes, he or she must be prepared to justify it to the people paying his meagre wage.

[Valhalla]

Small Penguin,

You'll fingure out one day that you can't apply a general rule of thumb like 45min reserve to every flight. On nice days with no anticipated delays, it works great with minimum reserve fuel. But on some days, you want more because by the time you become an airline captain, you've developed a 6th sense for anticipating delays or problems that others don't see.

I'm sure all the airline captains on this board can recall at least a few times when that extra bit of fuel you insisted on turned a shitty day into a safe arrival at destination versus the alternate or worse. And at the end of that shitty day, there is no thanks or hero pats-on-the-back because that's your job and sometimes you have to think outside the box a little bit to get it done.

[b1ngnx33]

Just my $0.02.

I'm not a pilot. NOT an expert on fuel amount per a/c per flight.

Saving money by cutting back on "extra" fuel that could "save" your ass.

Lets see. Save a couple dollars here and there. SO far so good.

Apathy starts becoming a normal part of the company CULTURE.

Then the obvious happens. ONE person makes a calculation error. NOT ENOUGH FUEL.

People die. Your reputation is shit.

Did you really SAVE anything?

I hope you saved a LOT. That lawsuit is going to be big.

Companies all over the world cut corners to save money. Quality also dies during this process.

When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

There was an accident a while ago. I think it happened in the states.

During the imperial-metric conversion, a fuel tanker put a very small amount of fuel into the jet liner.

It took off. It ran out during the flight. By some damn miracle, it landed. It was running on fumes.

No one died. It is now part of a/c training. I don't know how many "safe" landings there are in this

simulation. But I think most of the training pilots crash the liner in the simulator.

Faster, Better, Safer. Pick 2 out of 3.

There was one for NASA. I'm not sure how it goes.

Quicker, Cheaper, Faster. Pick 2 out 3.

I personally know from experience those fuel guages really suck. Some are good. Most are terrible.

The capacitor fuel guages are decent. The "lever" ones suck. Empty, some fuel in it, and FULL.

Yeah, great information. Might as well use a dipstick.

[Four1oh]

how about 'reducing waste'? I'm not talking about cutting corners, but don't be taking fuel you don't need. By need, I mean need after fufilling the legal and operational requirements.

[Four1oh]

There are more effective ways to reduce fuel such as continuous descent approaches.

how about calling visual and cut a couple miles off your published final?

[small penguin]

There was an accident a while ago. I think it happened in the states.

During the imperial-metric conversion, a fuel tanker put a very small amount of fuel into the jet liner.

It took off. It ran out during the flight. By some damn miracle, it landed. It was running on fumes.

That incident happened in Canada. Google 'Gimli Glider'. The ground crew put in the right number of fuel. He just put in pounds instead of kilos.

The United States never had an 'imperial->metric' phase

[hawker driver]

And Hawker Driver do you feel that having to tell someone what and why you are doing it is a bad thing? They are giving you the decision and are just asking who what why and where? If they have half a brain maybe they can use this data to improve what the computer spits out.

To answer your question.

I am trusted to fly a multi million dollar aircraft across the country in all sort or weather with the lives of people in my hands including my own life, but I am second guessed if I feel that 10 more minutes of fuel would add to the safety of the flight.

I trust the managers and accountants to develop a business plan that will bring the company a profit and keep my job safe. I trust them to find quality maintenance personal and spare parts for the aircraft rather then the cheapest to keep the aircraft safe. I have never questioned them in why the decided to go with one maintenance company rather then another. I trusted them to make a safe decision on which parts supplier they use and that the parts are certified. I put a lot of trust in them doing their job correctly and would appreciate the same trust in me doing my job safely.

[small penguin]

What you say about trust may be true, but never forget the most important detail... you are still an employee.

Everytime I do something that doesnt follow the rulebook, my boss wants to know why. There is a trust, else I wouldnt be allowed to bend the book, but knowledge is power.

Knowledge is power. We often say that in reference to learning from other peoples' accidents so that we can avoid their mistakes. Why should you take offense when your employer wants to know why you take the "extra 10 minutes" After all, it could keep the airline in a better health, business wise, and thus could prevent you from getting laid off (as seems to be the current airline trend)

Yes you are trusted to fly a multi million dollar aircraft... But above that you are their employee.

[hawker driver]

Yes you are trusted to fly a multi million dollar aircraft... But above that you are their employee.

My life is worth more then my job.

Is yours?

[small penguin]

Of course! I'd hope no one would say otherwise. Then again though, my job is not flying heavy metal (nor any kind of flying), I work in IT.

[hawker driver]

Of course! I'd hope no one would say otherwise. Then again though, my job is not flying heavy metal (nor any kind of flying), I work in IT.

Then you wouldn't understand the term "Pilot Pushing" until you have experienced it first hand.

[small penguin]

I've tried to explain this before, but kinda got shot down...

Unless you've signed your life away, or something else, nothing is stopping you from giving two weeks and going elsewhere?

I've been in a position where I didnt like my job. I told my boss bye. A month later, I was working someplace else.

Maybe its different in the airline industry. *shrugs* Just another reason I dont want to go that road.

[C23flyer]

There are more effective ways to reduce fuel such as continuous descent approaches.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... -fuel.html

New Landings Save Airplane Fuel
Airlines try "continuous descent" to save on fuel costs
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted July 2, 2008

Once or twice a week, airplanes landing at the UPS transport hub in Louisville, Ky., chart a new course to the runway. Using the latest in GPS tracking technology, the planes glide toward their destination in a maneuver called a "continuous descent," which brings planes to the ground on a direct line, rather than through a gradual approach.
gines to level off at each of the elevation intervals. Think: moving down a series of steps.

With continuous descent, the airplane relies on GPS guidance to essentially coast on idle in a direct line from its cruising elevation to the tarmac. Think: sliding down a ski slope.

The GPS system that makes continuous descent possible is part of the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, nicknamed NextGen, which also enables planes to fly in straight lines rather than following the twisting paths of the current radar-based system—another fuel saver. In addition, NextGen allows planes to fly closer together, land more planes in quicker succession, and be rerouted more quickly. With some 7,000 planes aloft over the country at any one moment, the new system should also ease congestion and flight delays. The FAA has approved allowing continuous descent tests in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City.

But the GPS systems aren't cheap. Every plane needs reprogramming of its onboard computers and other systems, putting the cost to refit some older planes at $300,000. There are ground GPS units too, though at $200,000 per unit (several are needed for each airport) they are still a bargain compared with million-dollar radar units.

While the FAA and trade groups estimate that NextGen could reduce fuel consumption by more than 10 percent, it is unlikely to be in place until 2025 because of cost and technology issues. Meanwhile, Congress and the airlines are still bickering about who will foot the bill for the new system, expected to cost perhaps as much as $20 billion to implement. The airlines are clamoring for tax credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Legislation to address the problem has stalled in Congress and probably won't be addressed for months.

Yet while fuel savings and the decline in carbon dioxide output are important to the shipping company, the residents of Louisville are most likely to notice something else: a reduction in noise. Because airplanes using continuous descent need not rev their engines, the noise output is 30 percent lower than that of a traditional landing.