Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don't be Fuelish

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Don't be Fuelish

    Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel

    While this seems like a good way to save on fuel usage, and therefore costs, it sounds like there may be some who push the limit too close.

    The pilot is in charge of fuel load, but it seems that some dispatchers are questioning their judgement.

    Is this right?
    Is this safe?
    Does this worry anyone?
    Maybe it's all good?

    As cash-strapped airlines pack more passengers on flights into ever-busier airports, pilots are filing internal complaints warning that airline cost-cutting on fuel supplies could be creating a major safety risk.

    The complaints, compiled by msnbc.com and NBC News from a database of safety incident reports maintained on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, reveal wide-ranging concern among pilots that airlines are compelling them to fly with too little fuel.

    With the cost of jet fuel having doubled in the past year, according to Energy Department figures released last month, airlines are eager to save fuel costs.

    Continental Airlines, for example, issued two bulletins last year expressing concern over the number of refueling stops that some flights were making en route to Newark, N.J., one of which observed that “adding fuel indiscriminately without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding.”

    FAA regulations are precise: A plane must take off with enough primary fuel to reach its destination and then its most distant alternate airport based on conditions. It must carry a reserve of 45 minutes’ worth of fuel on top of that.

    But Karl Schricker, a spokesman for the 12,000-member Allied Pilots Association, the largest independent pilots union, said some pilots believed the FAA guidelines were not enough in an era when airlines are seeking to save costs by having aircraft carry the minimum fuel required. If a pilot has to stay in a long holding pattern before landing, the extra fuel can dwindle quickly.

    “You don’t want to be at absolute minimum fuel and go to put the gear down and have the gear not come down,” he said. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/
    And then the airline representatives claim is that it isn't an issue.

    David A. Castelveter, vice president of the Air Transport Association, which represents the major airlines, vigorously disputed the idea that airlines would cut corners on safety to save money.

    “That’s an absurd allegation,” he said. “There are no shortcuts in the operation of the aircraft, and no carrier is going to compromise the safe operation of a flight.”
    However, as an issue, it isn't one which is known to have caused a problem in the United States for almost two decades either.

    It has been nearly 20 years since a commercial passenger airliner crashed in the United States because it ran out of fuel, according to the aviation safety site AirSafe.com. An Avianca Airlines 707 flying from Bogota, Colombia, fell 16 miles short of John F. Kennedy International Airport on Jan. 20, 1990, killing 73 passengers.

    Numerous regulations, guidelines and fail-safes are built in to the U.S. aviation system to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But the incident reports reflect pilots’ concerns that the margin of error could be narrowing.

    Some pilots accuse dispatchers of underestimating or overlooking flight conditions so they could say the fuel allocations they recommended met the FAA’s requirements.
    Wouldn't it be possible to develop a computer program that calculates a consistent amount of fuel based on factors such as aircraft type, passenger and baggage load, weather, alternate runways, etc? Maybe there is a program like this already. Does this program exist?

    “Upon arrival, I called dispatch to see what the fuel load that was planned for [the] flight to [O’Hare International Airport in Chicago]. I was told it was 75,000 lbs and I asked for it to be upped to 90,000 lbs,” one pilot wrote. “I was challenged by the dispatcher as to why and said I will not fly with less. ...
    Not hard to see the incentive to cut weight. The following article suggests that each pound of weight costs about $5.00/lb/flight hour at current rates. ($16,000/1,079 lbs/3 hr flight.)

    PHOENIX - Your ginger-ale doesn’t come in a glass anymore on most US Airways flights. On Delta you’ll find yourself in a thinner, lighter seat. If you fly JetBlue cross-country, you’ll get a dainty bag of 100-calorie crisps in place of the original snack box of cookies, crackers and spreadable cheese.

    With jet fuel prices so high, airlines have no choice but to scour their planes for ways to lighten the load. There’s no room for even the smallest bits of dead weight, from redundant wing lights to extra wires in the walls. Manufacturers also are using lighter materials in plane construction.

    “The pressure is immense” to cut weight, said John Heimlich, chief economist for the Air Transport Association of America, an industry trade group. “Every penny more per gallon adds $195 million to the industry’s expenses per year. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847100/
    Terry
    Lurking at JP since the BA 777 at Heathrow and AD lost responsiveness to the throttles.
    How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Sherlock Holmes

  • #2
    Originally posted by FireLight
    Wouldn't it be possible to develop a computer program that calculates a consistent amount of fuel based on factors such as aircraft type, passenger and baggage load, weather, alternate runways, etc? Maybe there is a program like this already. Does this program exist?
    On modern aircrafts, that's what the FMC do
    Last edited by supersomondoco; 2008-07-11, 17:24. Reason: spell

    Comment


    • #3
      All airline dispatch centers use a program that calculates flight plans using specific data for each aircraft type. The program can calculate fuel burn based on historic fuel burn by tail number.

      The quantity of fuel required to safely make the flight is not at issue. As long as there are no deviations from flight plan, the aircraft will arrive with the minimum fuel required.

      The issue is making the destination with the minimum required fuel still in the tanks after making a few diversions around weather and or ATC directions. If you are already scheduled to arrive with minimum fuel, at what point do you divert when you know you will be into your bingo fuel after ATC causes a flight plan deviation?

      Most pilots carry a little "EXTRA" fuel to cover these unplanned events. Now they have to request and explain the reason for the extra. One of our pilots had a simple way of handling the problem during fuel crunches in the past. He filled out the form, "Date - XX/XX/XX, Station - XXX, Flight Number - FTXXX-XX, Reason for Extra Fuel - "BECAUSE I WANTED IT!"
      Don
      Standard practice for managers around the world:
      Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

      Comment


      • #4
        How does carrying less fuel reduce fuel costs? Its not like they drain excess onto the ramp at the end of the flight...lol

        Comment


        • #5
          Less weight to be flown around.

          If the pilot opts to not have half an hours fuel extra fuel to be flown for 7 hours, he burns less fuel cause the plane is lighter for those 7 hours.
          Sam Rudge
          A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

          Comment


          • #6
            Unfortuntaly this kind of attitude among management could lead to accidents, although I'm sure any competent pilot would divert someplace if there was any doubt as to having enough to make it to the destination and tell dispatch where to go. I think a lot of these kinds of things come up because the management never flew an airplane and just doesn't understand flying, all they care about is the bottom line and don't realize that doing stupid stuff that's unsafe could one day come to bite you in the ass and cost more than the little bit of savings that you get from having 99.9% flights arrive safetly with with skimped fuel. It's easy to sit there in a chair and tell pilots to fly on fumes, when it's not their ass on the line, especially when they can cover their asses by saying "well the ultimate decision was up to the pilot" and since he's dead he wouldn't be able to say "but you bullied me into it".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Simpleboy
              Less weight to be flown around.

              If the pilot opts to not have half an hours fuel extra fuel to be flown for 7 hours, he burns less fuel cause the plane is lighter for those 7 hours.

              Makes sense I suppose...

              Comment


              • #8
                To give you an approximate figure....

                On our long haul flights to carry an additional 1,000kg costs us around 300kg of fuel...ie leave with 1,000kg arrive with 700kg. If we just 'load a ton for Mum' it costs the airline 300kg!

                Obviously we are always aware of this when flight planning (Australian dispatchers are different to US dispatchers, they don't hold any form of licence) however if we need the fuel then we load it! Enroute weather diversion and altitude blockages can generally be catered for in the variable reserves.

                Cheers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I heard this week that one of the Western airlines (I think it was AC) is getting rid of the inflight music and video machine and ripping out as much wiring as possible..... does seem to be taking things to the extreme....just to save fuel or should that be costs!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cargo Runner
                    I heard this week that one of the Western airlines (I think it was AC) is getting rid of the inflight music and video machine and ripping out as much wiring as possible..... does seem to be taking things to the extreme....just to save fuel or should that be costs!!!
                    "US Airways will remove IFE from domestic flights this fall in order to save
                    approximately $10 million per year, VP-Sales and Marketing Travis Christ told Bloomberg News. "We simply can't afford to do it anymore," he said. Bloomberg reported that video systems aboard US's A320s will be shut down Nov. 1 and removed from aircraft during maintenance. It said passenger demand has dropped (US charges $5 for headsets) and the IFE systems can add some 500 lb. to each aircraft. (Source: Air Transport World)
                    U.S.Air I beleive."

                    In Canada Flight Dispatchers are licenced by Transport Canada under the Canadian Air regulations. Our (Air Canada) Flt Dxrs determine the fuel load required and then send the figures off to Weight and Balance. Air Canada has a fuel saving policy endorsed by flight ops and in most cases the pilots and the dxers agree on the fuel required, however certain pilots always want the extra fuel regardless of the situation.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X