Agreed.... my last airline had all 767s (-200/-300) planned to land with a minimum of 14,600 lbs (16,600 lbs at JFK) unless operationally necessary (e.g. a Re-Dispatch/B044 flight. etc).
What Are Your Peeves and Problems as a Dispatcher?
- Thread starter TomatoFlames
- Start date
TomatoFlames
Well-Known Member
Ok. I misunderstood the reference of "3,000 alternate fuel". I thought that meant just the burn to that alternate, which is reasonable. I, too, have experience with 763s.
The 767 operator I worked for hardly had much guidance on arrival fuel. there were arrival minimums of coruse, but they didn't care how much we fueled up at all. Just no guidance. We'd add 6,000 pounds of contingency fuel by default, just becasue, even if it was VFR to VFR 100 miles away.
The 767 operator I worked for hardly had much guidance on arrival fuel. there were arrival minimums of coruse, but they didn't care how much we fueled up at all. Just no guidance. We'd add 6,000 pounds of contingency fuel by default, just becasue, even if it was VFR to VFR 100 miles away.
Andy99
Sabre_Does_It_100%oftheX
It's all yours! haha...I have been reading those forums for months...I will be attending my dispatch class in a few days. I'm learning a lot from what to expect, and maybe, even what to eat once I get hired by one of those airliners lol
F9DXER
Well-Known Member
Donuts - Ummmm Donuts
McCrosky
Well-Known Member
Wow, 14.6 seems a bit high. In a previous life we planned landing DC-10's with 16.0 at destination, and always carried an alternate (supplemental). Current employer, we work in time.. plan for 75 minutes fuel at destination. the actual amount varies obviously on weight of the plane. Generally though, somewhere between 10.0-12.0 on most days with no altn and no problems.
Now, i'd say (conservatively) 50% of the crews don't care about time, they just look at the fuel at destination. Regardless if you're landing at max structural or empty they want X amount.
But, i do have to say, working somewhere with no policy or accountability for fuel planned by dispatchers or requested by crews is kind of nice. They say that's soon to change.... and have been for the better part of a decade.
Andy99
Sabre_Does_It_100%oftheX
Good way to spike up some energy...hyperactivity at work...
I agree.... I like figuring the minimum and then adding an extra 10/15 minutes. Those numbers in the GOM were only recommended. I always had a feeling it was just a "feel good" GOM entry since the company was still relatively new to the airplane and most of pilots were coming from DC8s.Wow, 14.6 seems a bit high. In a previous life we planned landing DC-10's with 16.0 at destination, and always carried an alternate (supplemental). Current employer, we work in time.. plan for 75 minutes fuel at destination. the actual amount varies obviously on weight of the plane. Generally though, somewhere between 10.0-12.0 on most days with no altn and no problems.
Now, i'd say (conservatively) 50% of the crews don't care about time, they just look at the fuel at destination. Regardless if you're landing at max structural or empty they want X amount.
But, i do have to say, working somewhere with no policy or accountability for fuel planned by dispatchers or requested by crews is kind of nice. They say that's soon to change.... and have been for the better part of a decade.
However when you think about it, the 10% reserves can get pretty high so its reasonable. Plus they were just getting back into B044 flights when I had to leave the company.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
From a pilot's perspective, 14.6 is a nice, comfortable destination landing number for the 763, assuming a 3000-4000 lb. burn to the alternate. Most guys try to plan to be at the alternate with no less than 9.0-10.0.
The 10% addition is generally more than enough to accomplish these numbers, but the B043 relief (allowing for a reduction to 10% of total time for Class II nav only) cuts into that significantly, particularly on long-haul flights with significant Class I nav. For example, a 9 hour flight from western Europe to the States may include 4 hours of Class II nav over the pond, which drops 30 minutes of fuel off the flightplan (300 minutes in Class I). This brings the normal 15.0 landing fuel down to about 9.0, not including alternate burn. It may sound okay on paper, but being held down at a lower altitude for a significant period on the crossing, stronger than planned headwinds, or any number of factors may eat into that significantly and cause an unplanned diversion.
I don't have much real-world B044 experience, though we are authorized to do it.
The 10% addition is generally more than enough to accomplish these numbers, but the B043 relief (allowing for a reduction to 10% of total time for Class II nav only) cuts into that significantly, particularly on long-haul flights with significant Class I nav. For example, a 9 hour flight from western Europe to the States may include 4 hours of Class II nav over the pond, which drops 30 minutes of fuel off the flightplan (300 minutes in Class I). This brings the normal 15.0 landing fuel down to about 9.0, not including alternate burn. It may sound okay on paper, but being held down at a lower altitude for a significant period on the crossing, stronger than planned headwinds, or any number of factors may eat into that significantly and cause an unplanned diversion.
I don't have much real-world B044 experience, though we are authorized to do it.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
When I worked for Brand X, I rode up front on a -200 to JFK. Let's just say that place can have you fat at TOD, then scary thin on final. (6500 :O )
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Yeah, 6500 is definitely not an acceptable number for arrival at the destination, alternate required or not.
See the problem is only the DC8s had approval for B043, so it was 10% or B044 only. I did a few B044 flights with about 9.0 planned on landing and everyone was happy. Albeit it was MIA w/ FLL as the ALTN.
I don't have it in front of me nor is it a limitation I have memorized (since its on the QRH procedure anyway) but the LOW FUEL EICAS comes on at 2500 lbs a side (5000 total) in the -200/-300 IIRC so anything close to that is no good there, I'll buy that for sure. Double that (so 10.0) seems like the best balance IMO.
I don't have it in front of me nor is it a limitation I have memorized (since its on the QRH procedure anyway) but the LOW FUEL EICAS comes on at 2500 lbs a side (5000 total) in the -200/-300 IIRC so anything close to that is no good there, I'll buy that for sure. Double that (so 10.0) seems like the best balance IMO.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Well, like I said, 10.0 is fine if it's a shorter flight, with a VFR destination and alternate. There are simply too many variables in play beyond what's on the release or weather forecasts to cut it so close on a long-haul, though. A flightplan that has us landing with 10.0 after a 10 hour flight (potentially legal when dispatched under B043 and/or B044) naturally contains a number of step climbs to make that number work; if we can't do even one of those, that 10.0 won't hold up. That's not even considering the fact that the passenger weights are usually an estimation; overburning by a couple thousand pounds on a longer flight isn't uncommon if the estimation isn't accurate to real life.
JMHO as a guy in the pointy end staring up at the fuel readout.
TomatoFlames
Well-Known Member
You kids with your "pounds" are so adorable. Real men dispatch in kilos. haha
TomatoFlames
Well-Known Member
...and the ladies can dispatch in whatever they like.
#backtrack #recovery
#backtrack #recovery
Did it my entire time at my last airline in the 767-300s. FMC software update was always "in a few weeks"
I kid of course; my last carrier was still really cool and a neat place to work.
Also.... I looked it up. It is actually 2200 lbs (1000 kgs) usable in either wing tank causes the LOW FUEL EICAS message to appear; my apologies.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Oddly enough, that number is the same on the 757, even though the burn is quite a bit less.
TomatoFlames
Well-Known Member
To add to my first post, and to only criticize the minority of pilots that do this, but it is a big deal when the filed route is ignored and directs are accepted. Even for eastbound flights....when we file a route that offers a 160kt tailwind, accepting a direct that takes you to an area with a 40kt tailwind is a HUGH loss of push and over-burning will occur.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
That's a very good point.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm not sure what was more frightening: the arrival fuel or that neither the captain nor FO were as antsy as I was on the jump.
I have 0.0 767 time, but if the airplane burns n thousand lb/hour and you have less than n thousand lb on board...