BravoBackup

Ever since the release of the AMC fuel savings notice I have noticed that I carry more fuel now than I ever have in the past. Instead of landing with 20-25 k on an over seas mission I land with over 30K. Just today we returned on a 2 stop mission which required us to tanker fuel through a stateside location since they didn't offer fuel on the weekends and we arrived home with 31k. Based on simple math we should have taken off with far less gas but multiple leg flights seem to be using far too much gas. In fact, since they do not take into account current TOLD conditions I've had to defuel the jet to make climb gradients due to wet rwy and high temps. I understand that gas and options are good to have but the current "fuel savings" initiative gives me more gas rather than less. Of course we all have to validate our "local mission fuel load" to the gnats ass on training missions. It seems whoever came up with this new initiative was a genius saleman who will get promoted for selling statistics to the AMC/CC predicated on fuel savings yet giving us more gas on every mission. Why do I need CAT 1 fuel and contingency fuel on the same leg. Isn't that the definition of CAT 1 fuel? Looking for constructive comments not a rant or rave about safety.

MoosePileit

About the same time they started actually aiming at cutting back on fuel some pointed out that AMC has not done fuel in the same way a dispatched part 121 operation would. There were equal distance point techniques in some airframes and equal time point techniques in others and they should really do it right if they are going to reduce the A code's impact on the timely call, if not the final logged, documented and time wasted one...

An actual IMT/dispatcher at TACC/AMC should have more of the big picture answer.

I've seen the same as your comments since this all started, again... This time around...

JDriver

The Chair Force will never save gas as long as it continues to operate flying hour programs. As long as our operating budget is directly attached to the flying hours, we will never save gas. I wonder how many hours of JP8 were wasted in the past few months just to ensure that the flying hours were flown out.

Use 'em or lose 'em. What a way to motivate people to save money!!!

The important thing is that those of us who are not wasting gas on mondays will look sharp in their blues.

wingnutC-17

It's not the "bottom line" that counts, it's the TOP line that counts...of the OPR that is!

Sputnik

I completely agree with you that I know land with more gas than before.

However, I have to credit you if a typical landing fuel was 20K prior to this. All too often most guys answered the how much gas they want question with: "all of it."

I'd say across the board it probably does save AMC money, I suspect majority of pilots now land with less fuel than they did before. I still think it's kind of dumb, numbers are still too high, but....

BravoBackup

My rule of thumb was 20k/hr to account for alternate, holding, descent/app/lnd and enroute/reserve. Now I use 20k/hr + 10 (contingency fuel). The next time you have a multiple leg msn where you tanker fuel, look at the stored fuel for leg 1. It will include subsequent leg holding and alternate fuels. This isn't required since that's already taken into account in the leg 1 fuel. The only fuel needed in stored fuel of a multiple stop msn is block 1, 2, 3, and 6 from subsequent legs. If I divert on the first leg I need to get more fuel anyway to account for recovering to my original destination. No to mention my CDD is not shot anyway.

Marvin

Hmmm ... interesting topic.

Want to save gas? Abolish the Transportation Capital Working Fund and simply fund AMC for it's flying via O&M.

DoD agencies that use airlift (and sealift and surface transportation) are appropriated money to pay for transportation. AMC is NOT funded to do many of the things it needs to do -- instead, AMC "earns" its money by airlifting people and stuff around the world and then being "paid" by those supported agencies. Want to build a new gym at an AMC base? That's TWCF money.

So, in order to fully fund TWCF, AMC must fly all of its TWCF hours. I have seen many, many instances when users (primarily Army, but others as well) have requested sealift support via TRANSCOM. AMC sees that it is behind the "TWCF line" and "suggests" to TRANSCOM that the requested stuff could be shipped via air.

The Army unit says, "Cool. It'll get there faster by air."

Well, maybe. AMC actually schedules more airlift than it can handle. That way, it won't get behind the TWCF line. So, that Army battalion that could have been in theater in 3 weeks via sealift may be even more delayed while it waits for airlift.

If airlift were funded via O&M, then you would simply fly the stuff you can fly, based upon priorities, and everything else moves by sealift. You would also fund AMC via O&M, as most other AF agencies are funded.

BTW, when an organization pays for airlift via TWCF, they pay for the lift only. They do not pay for the O&M tanker support when needed.

I am not saying, "Look at those idiot AF leaders. They are spending too much by flying TWCF missions that could have been moved by sea." AMC leadership is playing the hand they are dealt by Congress. AMC would be punished financially if they did NOT fly the entire TWCF line.

This post fits into this thread, in case you haven't already figured it out, because AMC could fly many fewer hours total if more stuff moved via sealift -- but the legislative constraints make this more common sense approach untenable. Want it changed? Write to your Congressman ...

Sputnik

I don't know that I agree with you. There are many who say that airlift would be more efficient if only it were run like an airline, not a govt entity. Granted, I hear less of these now that the airlines are imploding (again) but still.

Here's why I naively think TWCF is at least partially a good thing--it forces AMC to go fly missions. You have a clear, cold, driving reason to go move the mission. We literally have to earn our budget, it's given to everyone else. I personnally think if the AF (well DoD) got rid of TWCF, we'd actually carry far less stuff than we do now.

I think I know what you meant about your movement example, but for the sake of clarity fairly certain the last time we really sent troops to war via surface ship was WWII, maybe Korea (not counting Haiti, that was about being weird, not efficient, and they were supposed to air assault in anyway). On the best day airlift moves about one zillionth of what goes via sea. I can't think of any kind of battalion that could actually complete a move via air. Even the smallest lightest unit sends an f' load of shipping containers--which move, go figure--by ship. Virtually every unit deployment is a mix of air and sea. Personnel and a very small amount cargo by air, rest by sea. All of us have stories about flying a helo to Iraq, to pick up an identical helo to take back where we started. But see one ship full of rotatars unload and you get the big picture.

I'm quibbling I know. I agree with you there are many problems with airlift, I just don't happen to agree that killing TWCF would be an improvement.

Marvin

Who's suggesting that we send troops via sealift?

I'm talking about non-perishable stuff that combatant commanders could live without for a couple weeks. I'm talking about redeployment of unit cargo that could easily travel via sealift since the unit involved is going to be standing down when it gets home anyway. I'm talking about those things that don't absolutely, positively have to travel by air.

Having spent quite a bit of time at TRANSCOM and TACC, I am well aware of how much cargo travels via sealift. My point is, more could go by sealift, but we are moving it by air not because it needs to go by air, but because the system requires the aircraft to fly TWCF missions in order to transfer the money from one pocket to the other.

Businesses don't send stuff via airlift unless it makes sense to do so ... DoD shouldn't either.

I certainly respect your opinion, though, and I think you for your service.

Sputnik

I thought you did, that's why I wrote that. I was pretty sure what you meant, but you did say move an Army battalion.

I've moved a Division plus. I get it.