KC10 FATboy

New fuel savings concept evaluated at JB McGuire

I can't believe it has taken AMC this long to realize there's a cheaper way to fly from point A to point B. Why aren't the flight dispatchers doing this with their flight plans?

It's nice to know that AMC is finally getting serious in trying to reduce government waste. (sarcasm) They'll end up spending a million dollars to save a drop of fuel, but will burn millions of pounds all in the name of operational necessity when in fact it isn't necessary at all.

Gnaw

That program seems like a drop in the bucket for savings. The flying hour program is what really needs an overhaul.

Jesse

For 20 years I witnessed Wing CC's holding their Group CC's accountable, who held their Sqn CC's accountable for flying out the yearly flying hours. Even when the USAF A3 sent a message to all wings stating training/currency flight's should be concluded when training was complete (i.e. don't fly out the duration just because it was scheduled for X.X) they (leadership) did not comply. Their response? "You told us you needed XXXX hours to do your mission and get the needed training, so your training isn't complete until you've flown out the hours." It'll take greater leadership to change this paradigm.

KC10 FATboy

The flying hour program is a piece of crap. However, you can fly those hours as economical as possible. Unfortunately, they don't and they're never do it.

Take a KC-10 or KC-135 that needs to "operationally" dump fuel, and you suddenly loose any hopes of fuel savings for the year across the entire fleet. I've never had to dump operationally, for an emergency yes. But I've seen or directed *lots* of tankers to dump for operational reasons. The system simply isn't designed for fuel saving. It is designed to be effective, not efficient.

I applaud them trying to do something, but the entire culture of military flying will need to undergo a major paradigm shift. And that isn't going to happen.

Heck, as an examiner pilot, pilots and crew would look at me like I was nuts if I suggested they fly an endurance speed between air refuelings with a significant loiter time -- which was procedure. That never happens unless they're in a fuel starved situation or they have troops in contact. Either way, the process by which they calculate and record fuel burn is so antiquated, you would never know if the aircrew was following procedure or not.

And try telling a fighter bubba to fly endurance or at optimum, or perhaps, no afterburner takeoffs/touch-n-go closed patterns. Haha ... yeah right!

crewdawg

Haha, not to mention we're a drop in the bucket compared to you guys. We can only carry 12k of fuel. How long does it take you guys to burn that much?

In all seriousness, we fly at a slower, fuel saving speed to and from the area. Going to the area, it's more of a having more gas to use tactically mindset. Inside the area fuel saving is out the window. On the way home max range is usually necessary because, inevitably someone is close to min fuel. We only use burner on takeoff if told requires it, again we would rather have that gas for the area. The only way burner is used on a go-around it's because the dude scared the $hit out of himself and needed to get out of a bad situation...or they want to lower their landing weight for a short runway (should be done on the way home...gotta keep the noise complaints down).

iceman49

Hope its not the same software as FPS2.

1Seat 1Engine

I'll cop to some of that. I fly faster than I need to to and from the airspace, but it typically doesn't matter. Since your typical fighter mission doesn't just end at the destination, it really doesn't matter. Fighter training missions almost always fly until forced to RTB by bingo fuel, so why save fuel? Burn it like you would in combat, that's what I would do. Saving gas just makes the sortie longer and usually gives you worse training. Plus with my tiny little tires and brakes, you really don't want to land too heavy.

KC10Guy

Exactly. I can't count the number of times 135s have either requested or been told to "adjust gross weight" over the AOR, or request to "consol" into a KC10 (who ends up burning a lot of that gas on the drive home) so they can land back at Manas, or be able to refuel A10s.

It's always funny, ironic, and really drives home the point on how serious the Air Force must be about fuel savings [sarcasm] when you see all the workup about how we're going to save fuel in AMC, how we're going to save millions of dollars a year by taking toilet paper out of the jets and landing just above min fuel, but then you get to AFCENT, who apparently hasn't gotten this fuel savings "memo", and are flying Delta configs around Afghanistan for hours/days/weeks at a time. Or you see the mismanagement of tanker assets, and the amount of gas that is wasted every day because of this. Suddenly taking the survival kit off your jet, or making sure you land with less than 30K doesn't seem so important.

I understand that every penny counts, and a dollar saved here can be used elsewhere (at least in an ideal world), but if the Air Force is really serious about saving fuel, then they should apply the big fuel saving techniques everywhere, not just in one command. It's like the Air Force is saying "do as we say, not as we do", when they will delay a home station mission or local to change the configuration of an aircraft to remove 50+ seats (5000lbs) for a 6 hour flight, but then in the desert not even make an effort to change configurations, and leave Delta config aircraft on the line for weeks at a time flying 8-12 hour sorties every day, probably wasting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars a year.

Are you talking about the tanker aircraft or their receivers?
I would say that the majority of KC10 crews slow to endurance speed between ARs, especially so in the desert - it's pretty much the standard procedure I've been taught in the -10 world.

BDGERJMN

You mean USAF fighter guys right? USN/USMC Hornet crews are taught very early on to make gas...I've done my fair share of MIL powered takeoffs and have a few hours at Max E...just the way we operate around the boat. The Superhornet is better with gas than the Hornet but the practices of saving/making gas still apply. Your points are all well taken, however, Hornets sometimes have to dump during CQ or shorter cycles to make their MAX trap weights, something Superhornets really don't have to worry about unless bringing back alot of bombs.

KC10 FATboy

Exactly. When I worked in an AMC Command Post, it was frustrating seeing a heavy KC10 take off, and then moments later having their receivers call on the phone to say that they've canceled.

The crews I was talking about were KC10 crews. I've seen some bone headed stuff. I had one crew leave FL210 to go all the way up to the mid 30s over Afghanistan ... to save fuel! I'm sure I've done some stupid things. This is what happens when you gut experience to save costs.