United 724 "Overburn"

Oh, this must be a 121 thing!

So the Mooney that crash on a golf course in Kansas really suffered from fuel "overburn". I thought it was caused by fuel starvation.......:confused:
 
I'll have to remember this one on our next road trip. "No, honey, I didn't run out of fuel. The car had a 'fuel overburn' incident."
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I just thought it was funny they decided to coin a new term... "Overburn" is that the demilitarized version of afterburner?
Click to expand...
You've never burned more than anticipated/planned?

From the other site
Forecasted winds A LOT different than forecasted on that day and the day before. We had just the required fuel to continue from the C.P. from KOA. (we were around 1500# over burn when all was said and done
eek.gif
).
They unfortunately did not. Heard them on 123.45, they tried working it out with dispatch, but if anything went wrong where they had to descend, they were going to end up about 150 miles short off the SFO coast...
 
Doug Parker wants to make LAX to Honolulu an A321 thing on a regular basis. The new 321's are in proving runs now. The has nowhere near the legs of a triple 7. It has a tough time getting a lot of weight off the runway.
 
Wait, so they didn't put enough gas on to fly a leg that was less than half of the airplanes advertised range (assuming its a base model 772)??
 
tiredcfi said:
Wait, so they didn't put enough gas on to fly a leg that was less than half of the airplanes advertised range (assuming its a base model 772)??
Click to expand...
It costs an unneccesary amount of money to carry that much more gas than you actually need... In this case the weather changed. Why is everyone making a big deal about this? There's a reason you check fuel at waypoints. When have you flown an airplane fully loaded with gas for a leg that doesn't require it? I guess I am not sure what you fly either.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
It costs money to carry that much more gas than you need... In this case the weather changed. Why is everyone making a big deal about this? There's a reason you check fuel at waypoints.
Click to expand...

The big deal is the way local media is throwing around the term "Overburn"

:)

Honestly though- guess different shops, never called it over burn.

For us, burn was always just that- what you burned. Over/under was always over under planned. (As in - 1500 over planned). Our paperwork only gives us segment fuel and fuel remaining, we also get ff/Hr/E but not burned
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
The big deal is the way local media is throwing around the term "Overburn"

:)

Honestly though- guess different shops, never called it over burn.

For us, burn was always just that- what you burned. Over/under was always over under planned. (As in - 1500 over planned). Our paperwork only gives us segment fuel and fuel remaining, we also get ff/Hr/E but not burned
Click to expand...
Ok
 
ClarkGriswold said:
It costs an unneccesary amount of money to carry that much more gas than you actually need... In this case the weather changed. Why is everyone making a big deal about this? There's a reason you check fuel at waypoints. When have you flown an airplane fully loaded with gas for a leg that doesn't require it? I guess I am not sure what you fly either.
Click to expand...

I get than tankering fuel costs money. But running on the thin side to where "carry what you need" is about all you have, with reserves of course, would seem to cost far more in having to turn around.....fuel-wise in returning and launching again, maintenance-wise, passengers-wise.....than tankering a bit more of a hedge would ultimately cost. Little bit of an insurance policy with an extra amount of fuel, not necessarily saying to top the tanks.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
[/B]It costs an unneccesary amount of money to carry that much more gas than you actually need... In this case the weather changed. Why is everyone making a big deal about this? There's a reason you check fuel at waypoints. When have you flown an airplane fully loaded with gas for a leg that doesn't require it? I guess I am not sure what you fly either.
Click to expand...
Well , in this case, the key word seems to be "need". Because, apparently, the "actually need" was more fuel!

Wonder what the cost comparison is between "tankering" enough fuel to get to your destination and returning to the departure airport, paying for transportation for all to and from the hotel(s), hotels fees, food, etc.?
Seems to me that the actuarial analysis of this flight was a bit off.....
 
MikeD said:
I get than tankering fuel costs money. But running on the thin side to where "carry what you need" is about all you have, with reserves of course, would seem to cost far more in having to turn around.....fuel-wise in returning and launching again, maintenance-wise, passengers-wise.....than tankering a bit more of a hedge would ultimately cost. Little bit of an insurance policy with an extra amount of fuel, not necessarily saying to top the tanks.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how United runs the plans, but, when most plans are run they are pretty dependent on profile. If a crew is planned at 250/280/.73 in the climb, they can burn a good bit of fuel if the ad hoc it and go 250/330/.2AOA etc. in Non AT airplanes, a lot of crews burn extra gas bracketing the profile speeds while climbing in VS or something like that (737-9 has AT, I am aware)

I've known a bunch of pilots that don't pay as much attention to east bound fuel. Not sure if they just expect the winds or rotation of the earth to help them but w/e.

I also know a lot of dispatchers run all of their flight plans as soon as they get to their desk, which means an end of shift flight can be a long ways off forecast. Unfortunately when the WX packet gets sent to the pilots, it usually has winds from when the dispatcher pulled it.

Most pilots also don't realize that pirep winds actually get imputed into some variations of weather models, and can update the aloft winds... ( helping out other crews). Full access mode S would give real time info to ATC and NOAA - which would really help get fuel planning cut down based off real world data... But who wants to save gas right?

Turning around blows a whole lot of fuel savings right out of the water. Especially given the flight time here 2 out 2 back? (If the news is correct) is not an insignificant amount of fuel wasted. (Plus all the people expenses after)

Good on the crew for making the hard call to turn back. The forward temptation is hard to fight.

I've had a few winter flights where the FMS "check destination fuel" message has been up for the first 3+ hours. Next to the unable cruise alt. Message, it's annoying as hell. FMS predicted numbers can be pretty crappy sometimes. We only get to put 1 wind value in, so, it's not accurate. Not sure what the 737 gets.
 
MikeD said:
I get than tankering fuel costs money. But running on the thin side to where "carry what you need" is about all you have, with reserves of course, would seem to cost far more in having to turn around.....fuel-wise in returning and launching again, maintenance-wise, passengers-wise.....than tankering a bit more of a hedge would ultimately cost. Little bit of an insurance policy with an extra amount of fuel, not necessarily saying to top the tanks.
Click to expand...
Did you read what I posted above from the other website? This sounds like a one off thing. They could have continued as is but the unforecast wind made it so IF they had to descend they wouldn't have had enough. We're talking a few hours at 10,000 ft....that was the issue. If the weather was accurate in the flight plan then if wouldn't have been an issue but like @TUCKnTRUCK said they run the flight plans hours in advance.
 
dustoff17 said:
Well , in this case, the key word seems to be "need". Because, apparently, the "actually need" was more fuel!

Wonder what the cost comparison is between "tankering" enough fuel to get to your destination and returning to the departure airport, paying for transportation for all to and from the hotel(s), hotels fees, food, etc.?
Seems to me that the actuarial analysis of this flight was a bit off.....
Click to expand...
1.) Based off their flight plan they had enough.
2.) They run that risk for every single flight almost, it can happen anywhere for mutiple reasons. This is aviation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsBot
  • Locked
Operations Agent ( Part Time Anchorage Airport Location) Signing Bonus Offered DOE
Replies
0
Views
350
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Operations Agent (Full Time Anchorage Airport) with Signing Bonus up to 500 DOE
Replies
0
Views
324
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Air Traffic Controller Specialist Station
Replies
0
Views
397
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Operations Agent (Full Time Anchorage Airport) with Signing Bonus up to 500 DOE
Replies
0
Views
366
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Operations Agent ( Part Time Anchorage Airport Location) Signing Bonus Offered DOE
Replies
0
Views
370
NewsBot
NewsBot
Back
Top