United 724 "Overburn"

[Cptnchia]

Ease up there partner. It's simply a discussion. No one is slamming the capt, nor is anyone saying anything wasn't legal. My only question is why airlines in general seem to want to not hedge with some extra fuel beyond what's just needed + reserves, all due to it costing a bit of money? Seems like it would be a small price to pay as an insurance policy against something like this occurring, and all the costs + negative PR that go with an occurrence like this. I would think any pilot...and even the airline itself....would like some extra fuel if it can be carried.

You would think that, but no. Just like why airlines are self insuring for hulls. The cost of carrying "just a bit more" gas for every flight, every day is astronomically high compared to the cost of one flight diverting or flag stopping for gas every once in a while. They've figured out the cost over the past 80 years and it's acceptable to them.

Rest assured, there is no negative PR. Sure, airplane nerds will debate this ad nauseum, but the GP will move on by tomorrow and not even care.

 

[Nark]

Ease up there partner. It's simply a discussion. No one is slamming the capt, nor is anyone saying anything wasn't legal. My only question is why airlines in general seem to want to not hedge with some extra fuel beyond what's just needed + reserves, all due to it costing a bit of money? Seems like it would be a small price to pay as an insurance policy against something like this occurring, and all the costs + negative PR that go with an occurrence like this. I would think any pilot...and even the airline itself....would like some extra fuel if it can be carried.

That's just it Mike, the airlines do gamble on not hedging fuel. Over a period of X months/years the fuel savings more than pay for this turn back.

 

[Baronman]

The negative PR means next to nothing. Aside from the 7-8 fare paying bizclass customers ( the rest are probably upgrades/nonrevs) the rest in the airline's eyes are cattle. They'll have more heads to fill the seats....really doesn't matter how bad the back is.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Never on a fuel critical flight.

Overburn isn't a common term used for inadequate fuel on board.

A Google search results in United 724, then a bunch of NERO cd burning support forums. Followed eventually by avionica

A fuel critical flight? Is there any other kind??

 

[CFI A&P]

They turned around because it could've resulted in a wet footprint, or did I miss something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 27505]

They turned around because it could've resulted in a wet footprint, or did I miss something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep this pic on the office wall to avoid the possible chagrin...

 

[Tommay85]

You would think that, but no. Just like why airlines are self insuring for hulls. The cost of carrying "just a bit more" gas for every flight, every day is astronomically high compared to the cost of one flight diverting or flag stopping for gas every once in a while. They've figured out the cost over the past 80 years and it's acceptable to them.

Rest assured, there is no negative PR. Sure, airplane nerds will debate this ad nauseum, but the GP will move on by tomorrow and not even care.

At least 2 121 carriers are shady with fuel. Got it

 

[Nick]

At least 2 121 carriers are shady with fuel. Got it

I think you're confusing 'shady' with something else.

Shady operations . . . what does that mean? I'd think it means unsafe.

If United has one oceanic flight that has to do a 180 and go back to it's origin because of gas, once per year, or once every few years, is that really shady?

Shady would be, they realize approaching their equal time point that if they were to lose cabin pressure in the second half and have to drop down to 10,000, that they wouldn't make it to the west coast and have to ditch, and they still decide to press on and hope nothing happens. That's shady. And that's not what they did.

I think anyone in the world would agree, if that dispatcher could go back in time to the moment they send the fuel numbers and finished up that flight's paperwork, they'd most definitely add the gas they needed to make the flight work with the unforecast winds.

All the fuel savings they made in the past year or two on that route by taking only the fuel they needed was probably blown by this one diversion, maybe much more. That's just the way it goes.

But that doesn't fit the description of "shady."

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

The next and interesting question will be - how well does UAL's SMS system work? Obviously this event will be entered into SMS, I wish I had an ear to the ground to see what, if any changes came about.

Might be something as simple as. : If flights are dispatched with required fuel only, flight plan must be recompiled 90minutes prior to departure. Etc. m

Obviously, and ideally the UAL and the rest of us would rather catch this error prior to departure. Adding a bit more go juice is a whole lot easier than pulling a mulligan card and doing the whole thing over again.

 

[Tommay85]

So which is it, Fedex or Ameriflight that pays for it?

Also, the Brasillia is ETOPS capable?

FedEx

We're not ETOPS, but we still have a point of no return crossing the Carribean Sea

 

[Tommay85]

I think you're confusing 'shady' with something else.

Shady operations . . . what does that mean? I'd think it means unsafe.

If United has one oceanic flight that has to do a 180 and go back to it's origin because of gas, once per year, or once every few years, is that really shady?

Shady would be, they realize approaching their equal time point that if they were to lose cabin pressure in the second half and have to drop down to 10,000, that they wouldn't make it to the west coast and have to ditch, and they still decide to press on and hope nothing happens. That's shady. And that's not what they did.

I think anyone in the world would agree, if that dispatcher could go back in time to the moment they send the fuel numbers and finished up that flight's paperwork, they'd most definitely add the gas they needed to make the flight work with the unforecast winds.

All the fuel savings they made in the past year or two on that route by taking only the fuel they needed was probably blown by this one diversion, maybe much more. That's just the way it goes.

But that doesn't fit the description of "shady."

Perhaps, it just sounds like someone wasn't diligent.

I'm just jabbing at *just take legal fuel* and *the information is old, screw it*. I don't think I've ever taken just legal fuel. In a training scenario in recurrent, yes, but not in the real world.

If this was a part 91 operated Gulfstream, this discussion would be a lot different I bet.

I'm seeing a lot of complacency in this thread...

 

[Nick]

Perhaps, it just sounds like someone wasn't diligent.

I'm just jabbing at *just take legal fuel* and *the information is old, screw it*. I don't think I've ever taken just legal fuel. In a training scenario in recurrent, yes, but not in the real world.

If this was a part 91 operated Gulfstream, this discussion would be a lot different I bet.

I'm seeing a lot of complacency in this thread...

I'd expect the discussion to be different if it were a part 91 Gulfstream.

The Gulfstream isn't really subject to operating under a system where profit margin matters. Not saying they'd throw away money, but if you've got one jet that flies probably a lot less per year than a 777 does, then it doesn't matter so much if you take a bunch of extra gas each time you go up.

If United takes several tons of unnecessary fuel on top of the reserve/alternate/etc. fuel for it's entire fleet of 777s all year long, it's going to add up and will result in a lot of wasted money.

The two scenarios are not similar.

 

[Roger Roger]

I don't see why this is a big deal. It sounds like the system worked.

 

[MikeD]

I don't see why this is a big deal. It sounds like the system worked.

No big deal. Just brings up an interesting academic side discussion.

If United takes several tons of unnecessary fuel on top of the reserve/alternate/etc. fuel for it's entire fleet of 777s all year long, it's going to add up and will result in a lot of wasted money.
.

Curiously, how is the money wasted? The fuel remaining onboard is going to be figured into the next leg fuel requirement; so it's going to be used....ie- less fuel onload for the next leg. Whether utilized now or utilized later, It's not like it's going to be downloaded and thrown away or dumped inflight, where it would then indeed be money wasted..

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

They are, and it's not really a fair scenario. When we plan a flight with ARinc, we have a custom safety/sms form that pulls data (weather, regs, fuel, pilot prof, notams, air mets/sigmets) from many sources and prints it with the flight plan. We also bias our climb/descent fuel by close to 20%, add a flat 5 minutes for RNAV arrivals, and 10 for non RNAV. We also target 45min + 500lbs in our planning, so it's very rare for us to land with less than 1:30 on board.

We did push a flight at 7:20 hours flying time and landed right at 45 min fuel, but, we had plans for several flag stops if we didn't have the winds we were looking for- and the owner knew that stopping was a possibility.

Mjt-Iah in the q400 almost always had a contingency stop planned.

I have the luxury of recompiling my flight plan in about 20 seconds from my iPad, I don't have to call dispatch etc - so we do it every flight just prior to pax show. It works out well, but can you imagine UAL recomputing a flight plan for every flight every day? Yikes.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

No big deal. Just brings up an interesting academic side discussion.



Curiously, how is the money wasted? The fuel remaining onboard is going to be figured into the next leg fuel requirement; so it's going to be used....ie- less fuel onload for the next leg. Whether utilized now or utilized later, It's not like it's going to be downloaded and thrown away or dumped inflight, where it would then indeed be money wasted..

Fuel burns at weight in the big airplanes are significantly higher. A 2000lb difference for us in the hawker costs nearly $1-300 in extra burn at fl 410 (1000 mile segment)

 

[MikeD]

Fuel burns at weight in the big airplanes are significantly higher. A 2000lb difference for us in the hawker costs nearly $1-300 in extra burn at fl 410 (1000 mile segment)

I figured carrying the extra weight would invoke some sort of burn penalty; interesting seeing the numbers attached to that..

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I figured carrying the extra weight would invoke some sort of burn penalty; interesting seeing the numbers attached to that..

Here's TEB-MIA min fuel vs full ( 4500lb difference)

Take a look at the cost break at (3.30/gallon). Go to KOA, and the split gets much bigger)

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Rather than tag it to the above post, fuel is part of the extra cost, the flight plan also expects an additional 6 minutes of cruise time, plus climb penalty. This is a pretty small plane, the larger planes further amplify expenses... But it's worth saying, an extra $400 spent on a 737 flight may eat most of the profits. $400 tagged on to every Island flight could just about kill the route profitability.

 

[BobDDuck]

I figured carrying the extra weight would invoke some sort of burn penalty; interesting seeing the numbers attached to that..

The number i have seen is 2 pounds per 100 pounds per hour. That adds up pretty quickly.