Search

Notices

AUS high winds

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-13-2025 | 04:56 PM
  #121  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 18
Default

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
No, they don't actually far from it.

I reread your original fuel post and I still maintain that it's not a good position to take and further not one I would want out there on an easily searchable pilot forum. To be clear we're discussing VFR no ALT required number here.

You do you. I hope your luck doesn't run out.

I've come close a few times in my career and I won't put myself, my crew or my pax in that situation again. I've got my min target number and no it pretty much does not change. Fortunately for me and int'l flying I rarely am faced with it.
Had a CA point out a fuel situation to me I’d never thought of, but now I do the math every time…

the company is only required to protect something like 10% for the c fuel (bad memory and no book in front of me so I’m open to the flogging)… well we were leaving a busy socal airport once and had to sit in the conga line to depart like 45 min… turns out if you just look at the landing fuel… you can be f’d… so my new FO technique is to take the min fuel for takeoff and subtract the trip fuel… this usually leads to a much smaller number than the flight plan landing fuel… so with that in mind, if that number is uncomfortably lower than 6.0 (weather/notams factored in) ask for more fuel or more protected C fuel.

I’m probably wrong. Never upgraded anywhere so never had to make the tough calls…
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 05:04 PM
  #122  
2StgTurbine's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
Default

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
To be clear we're discussing VFR no ALT required number here.

No we weren't. The question was, "What is the minimum fuel you would feel comfortable landing with." A VFR with no alternate needs to be planned with 6.2 on the 737 (45min reserve+25 min of contingency). The instructor was trying to say you should never land below 6.0. There are plenty of scenarios where landing with less than 70 minutes of fuel is fine.

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
No, they don't actually far from it.

And all the quotes you listed are in agreement with what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by CBreezy
How it's always been explained to me is that 6.0 is purely for planning purposes at the gate.
Planning is fine. The instructor was trying to use the planning number as the actual minimum number.

Originally Posted by Cruz5350
Thats exactly how it was explained, from an at the gate planning perspective I have my number whatever it may be. Once were airborne we evaluate and adjust.
Exactly. The instructor was focused on the "planning" number and I am talking about the part in the air where you would re-evaluate.

Originally Posted by Verdell
My comfort level, or what the book says. The book is usually higher, so that tends to make things real easy. Why make it harder?
This is a strange one because the person is saying the book value (4.0) is higher than their comfort level.

Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad
Exactly. According to a flight plan once I had 45 minutes of holding fuel (was expected). But then ATC dropped me from mid-30s to low 20s for holding. That 45 became 25 in a hurry. Always evaluating.
This person is incorrect since your reserve fuel is based on 1,500 feet AGL. So the scenario they are describing would only happen if you are already below the minimum value of 4.0.

Originally Posted by Cruz5350
This is exactly what I explain when asked or converse with the person next to me when the topic comes up.
And this is the conversation I am having. Why wait until you are holding? Why not discuss what you would do if you are holding at the FAF with 6.5? Will you really divert since the instructor said not to land with less than 6.0?

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
I reread your original fuel post and I still maintain that it's not a good position to take and further not one I would want out there on an easily searchable pilot forum.
My position is each flight and situation needs to be evaluated. 6.0 does not work for every situation. And rather than think about a specific number, think about time. How much time do I want for a backup plan, and where do I need that time? That will affect how much extra fuel I need.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 05:27 PM
  #123  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,484
Likes: 1,060
Default

Originally Posted by cencal83406
Had a CA point out a fuel situation to me I’d never thought of, but now I do the math every time…

the company is only required to protect something like 10% for the c fuel (bad memory and no book in front of me so I’m open to the flogging)… well we were leaving a busy socal airport once and had to sit in the conga line to depart like 45 min… turns out if you just look at the landing fuel… you can be f’d… so my new FO technique is to take the min fuel for takeoff and subtract the trip fuel… this usually leads to a much smaller number than the flight plan landing fuel… so with that in mind, if that number is uncomfortably lower than 6.0 (weather/notams factored in) ask for more fuel or more protected C fuel.

I’m probably wrong. Never upgraded anywhere so never had to make the tough calls…
I look at the required and discretionary contingency fuel. Sometimes, even when it says "closest alternate is x, min cont fuel is 45 minutes" they only give you 25 minutes of required and 20 minutes of discretionary. I just add the discretionary into my min fuel. But I shouldn't have to do that.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 05:57 PM
  #124  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 485
Default

Originally Posted by cencal83406
Had a CA point out a fuel situation to me I’d never thought of, but now I do the math every time…

the company is only required to protect something like 10% for the c fuel (bad memory and no book in front of me so I’m open to the flogging)… well we were leaving a busy socal airport once and had to sit in the conga line to depart like 45 min… turns out if you just look at the landing fuel… you can be f’d… so my new FO technique is to take the min fuel for takeoff and subtract the trip fuel… this usually leads to a much smaller number than the flight plan landing fuel… so with that in mind, if that number is uncomfortably lower than 6.0 (weather/notams factored in) ask for more fuel or more protected C fuel.

I’m probably wrong. Never upgraded anywhere so never had to make the tough calls…
Well yeah, because planned landing fuel on the release is block fuel minus expected taxi fuel minus burn. So of course it's gonna go down if your taxi burns more than the flight plan says.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 06:13 PM
  #125  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 18
Default

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
Well yeah, because planned landing fuel on the release is block fuel minus expected taxi fuel minus burn. So of course it's gonna go down if your taxi burns more than the flight plan says.
Dunno man- planned landing is ideal… but it includes non-protected C fuel. So…
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 07:06 PM
  #126  
notEnuf's Avatar
Racketeer
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,248
Likes: 707
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Default

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
They are "new pilots". We've got captains in our jets < 4 years of flying high performance jet aircraft. It's a reality.
Not sure this is a great eval. I flew PIC for Delta passengers with 3 years in a jet. You may have deadheaded on my first flight off OE, some poor Delta crew did from IIU to CVG. It was in a 50 seat jet so I'm sure that doesn't count. Meanwhile, a friend's kid 22 is flying a Phenom with the business owner worth $100M plus. It's about the training and preparation. We all did it for the first time once.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 07:14 PM
  #127  
notEnuf's Avatar
Racketeer
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,248
Likes: 707
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Well seeing how the SPOT scenario was a low fuel situation, I think the instructor missed the point of the lesson and was doing a bit of a disservice to his students.
PDX to SEA LOE the dispatchers are A$$#0!3$. No, you can't have any extra gas. Payload optimized or some other BS.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 07:54 PM
  #128  
Line Holder
10M Airline Miles
5 Years
100 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 57
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf
PDX to SEA LOE the dispatchers are A$$#0!3$. No, you can't have any extra gas. Payload optimized or some other BS.
That’s a problematic statement. The dispatcher isn’t the final authority, you are. If they continue to push back, get their supervisor on the line, and file an ASAP/FSAP. If you want the gas, get the gas. Period. If it means losing a little revenue, so be it.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 07:56 PM
  #129  
Line Holder
25M+ Airline Miles
20 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 903
Likes: 262
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf
PDX to SEA LOE the dispatchers are A$$#0!3$. No, you can't have any extra gas. Payload optimized or some other BS.
They also file you via NYC.
Reply
Old 03-13-2025 | 08:42 PM
  #130  
2StgTurbine's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
Default

Originally Posted by Guppydriver95
That’s a problematic statement. The dispatcher isn’t the final authority, you are. If they continue to push back, get their supervisor on the line, and file an ASAP/FSAP. If you want the gas, get the gas. Period. If it means losing a little revenue, so be it.
He was talking about the LOE scenario
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
FedEx
5
06-23-2018 07:54 PM
dashtrash300
Aviation Law
8
08-31-2009 06:53 AM
Sir James
Major
0
04-13-2005 10:13 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices