Whiners - Part 2

[The_Russian]

So you think the fuel comfort levels (personal limitations) of pilots should determine the amount of fuel carried? Is that what you mean by this or am I misinterpreting your statement?

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

 

[dispatchguy]

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

True - but that is what reserve fuel is for - those unidentifiable contingencies.

If you were planned to land with ONLY reserve fuel on board (a condition I never plan), and you have to do a go around in VFR conditions, you get back in line and reshoot the approach. How much fuel defines your "comfort fuel"?

My personal minimum, is that in absolute perfect VFR conditions, I like to plan to land with about an hours FOB for the low-volume airports (PIT, SBN, etc); and it goes up from there. About 1+15 for an ORD in perfect with 3 landing runways. That still gives you 30 minutes to screw around with before you even start touching reserve.

My issue is NOT management pressure - I dont mind my ass being chewed; my issue is that adding fuel willy-nilly for no undefinable reason is a waste of fuel. If you can define a specific reason for the fuel that is realistic, and definable, you get the gas - but to add fuel for no specific definable reason is wasteful; the warm and fuzzy fuel levels that crews were used to with $20 barrels need to change. If it doesnt need to be there - it shouldnt be.

UAL used to have a standard 60 mins HOLD fuel for Chicago - doesnt need it.

I dont like to plan to land with reserve only any more than a pilot; and I plan my flights to not do so. If there are some nasty headwinds enroute, I'll pad the extra in case of a winds aloft forecast bust - if I cant just cap him and keep him low (I've had more than my share of those); if the rides are crap enroute I'll plan a lower altitude for buffet margin and add some additional extra in case the crew has to climb/descend a bunch to find a decent altitude if the rides are all over the block; If there is some enrte WX I'll pad the extra so the crew can do the dodge and weave. However, those reasons are all forecastable.

 

[WarnerNo13]

You do not have a right to assume that pilots are adding fuel "just cuz". Nor do you have the right to use that as a basis for denying that fuel.

Again, both ways. You will find that 121 dispatchers are more than happy to approve fuel beyond the minimum safe fuel, with a good solid explanation. The problem isn't the fuel, it's the pilots who feel less of a captain or threatened because somebody else actually has a say in it as a check and balance. At my job, 99.9% of the pilots are good guys who have the best interest of safety first, then guest comfort and economics second. A couple of fellas at my place will call and ask for 1000 lbs more fuel regardless of the conditions. Short haul, vfr, high pressure, no holding or volume issues? 1000 lbs more "cause I said so". Umm no. This one guy his plane could be spilling out fuel from the luggage bins and he'll call for 1000 lbs more, so he can enter his "comfort zone". Unnecessary and I won't approve it. Our guys can add 500 lbs on their own for conditions they deem worthy. Beyond that, they are required to call me and explain why they'd like more. If we concur, off the fuel truck goes. If I give them a full view of what is happening, often times they will say "oh ok I can buy that." It's how it's supposed to work. If I've worked 5 flights into JFK with a nice clear day, no chokepoint routes, no volume issues, no delays I can see the trend and plan the next flight accordingly. The guy flying the leg most likely will be his first of the day and I'll inform him of the situation. If I've given him 60 mins of hold fuel, 30 minutes of contingency fuel for deviations or restrictions, plus the standard 45 mins reserve for unseens, unknowns, there is no reason to add anymore fuel. It's a safe release, all factors have been considered and the fuel is there to cover any adverse situations. It's really pretty simple. Again, egos are the problem here, not fuel.

 

[WarnerNo13]

Sure. Investigated isn't dead, mangled, or living with "pilot error" on your head.

Anytime there is an accident, the dispatchers are scrutinized to see if the chain started with them. That includes answering to the FAA and NTSB. One thing you could never understand if you have never been a dispatcher, is the responsibility we feel not only to the pax on the plane but YOU the crew. If you think that if something goes wrong, we don't carry that for the rest our lives, I recommend you talk to the dispatchers that were responsible for the lives that were lost on 9/11. Look at them in the eye and ask them if they've brushed it off because only the pilots care. Seriously.

 

[RJAA]

This is super boring stuff! Just take the fuel the dispatcher gives you and go fly. If you think you can't get to the destination, just stop short or just divert and call the dispatcher on the ground! What's so unsafe about that? As a PIC you are being trained and paid to make decisions like that. The regulations give the PIC, the ultimate authority of the flight, he is the final onsite evaluator. The dispatcher isn't. The dispatcher is to provide all the information that maybe pertinent the safety to his flight and make it available to him and discuss options if necessary.

Granted, min fuel may not be great planning with little continengecy based on the conditions whatever it may be, but how does minimum fuel directly hinders the safety of flight? Does the comfort fuel directly improve the safety of flight? I think not. It just increases the probability of completing a flight. A legal release would have an alternate, a way out, another option. I cannot think of an accident which another 2000lbs would have prevented it from occuring.

It's the "bad" decisions being made directly hinders safety. My huge concern of all of this is the whole "planes are landing with unsafe level of fuel remaining." Who is allowing that situation to unfold? The PIC is largely responsible for that, and the dispatcher is also to partly to blame, allowing the flight to continue to where they are running out of options. Why weren't they stopping short if they are low on gas? Quit pointing fingers like the dispatcher are fuel Nazis, you signed the release too.

 

[ss9e]

To whom do you answer to? I cannot recall an event where the dispatcher had to answer to the FAA or NTSB in the event of an incident in which the PIC was still alive.

FLG2823 in MKE.

 

[ss9e]

Your only job is to plan the flight because we don't have time to.

I guarantee that you wouldn't know where to begin when it comes to some of the international flights or military charters that we prepare for you. You should sit with a dispatcher for a few shifts in order to get a little better understanding of what exactly it is that we do. After doing this, you might appreciate us a little more.

 

[dispatchguy]

I get it now - warm and fuzzy fuel is so that they can fly at firewall power so as to be able to make their commute home. Screw that most flight ops manuals state that the crews are responsible for managing their fuel.

I get it now, were dealing with pilots - and their mantra "It's all about me!"

 

[XPOO]

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

So, Russian, can you please give me one RECENT example of a US Domestic 121 flight that resulted in death due to inadequate fuel onboard?

Just from my own terrible memory, nothing in the past 10 years comes to my mind. However, maybe Captains should be more worried about taking off on the correct runway and not having an extra 1,000 pounds of fuel, "just cuz".

 

[ShutupandFly]

You do not have a right to assume that pilots are adding fuel "just cuz". Nor do you have the right to use that as a basis for denying that fuel.

My mind wanders to the captian that requested enough fuel to land at an altn for MEM with all his reserve fuel and contigency fuel. This was on one of those wonderful nights when the MEM TAF was one line and read something like 26003kt 10SM CLR for the next 16 hrs. Now even though these conditions only give you 8 (eight) ILS approches into MEM he still was not compfortable with the fuel load and wanted me to add another 1100 LBs of fuel to a CRJ-200 "Just in case". I guess just in case a meteorite takes out the entire airport.

Yes I admit this is an extreme example, but it actualy did happen.