There is the possibility of a difference in fuel readings from the fuel quantity indicator and the FMC calculated totals due to sensor inaccuracies and fuel density changes due to cold soaking of the fuel... So unless there is evidence to indicate a gross error in the FMC's calculated totals the fuel quantity indicators should be the backup... Not the primary when comparing to Howgozit and/or Master Flight Plans on Class 2 flights when looking for trend data on how the fuel burn is impacting the planned flight.

Noticed this on the Guppy. The A320 was DEAD ON, but the 737 wanders all over the place and settles down to the Howgozit on arrival. Strange indeed

ER,

Sadly I don't have a lot of time to pull up all the references, but you are exactly the type of guy I'd like to convince that using a HGT is easy and helpful.

1) You are required by the FOM to keep tabs on the fuel trend.

I don't have the page but the company offers 3 choices a) watch the fuel at destination for changes b) use a HGT or C) use a FPF. The FMC fuel at destination uses CALC fuel and that's what got the crew in trouble in my opening story. In the event that you have a true fuel leak calculated fuel won't show it. The FPF is fine as long as you are tracking fuel over waypoints, but how many of us will have one in front of us now in the age of iPads?

2) The HGT is only accurate if you fly the plan and the company is asking you to fly the plan.

I totally agree that the 764 should not fly less than .80. The savings just aren't there in my mind, but like Bumped suggested the best answer is to tell dispatch to give you an .80 plan. Then the HGT will be accurate.

3) In ACARs 2.0 you can update arrival time.

The whole point is that the HGT represents the expectations of dispatch and the company and if you pull it up you can compare your actual progress to the expected progress and make the necessary calls or changes as needed. Yes the FPF has this information, but the HGT is simpler in format.

4) The SABRE FPF has designed with 3 time columns intended for pilot input.

They are (going from memory) ET, ETA, ATA. Technique on the 76T fleet has always been to write the HGT times in the middle column, the time from the position report estimate for the next waypoint in the left hand column, and the actual crossing time in the right hand column. This technique is still allowed, but alternatively one can use the green dot from the fix page.




But,

The most important point here circles back to my 2 storys. Both crew let there planes get low on gas. One crew had a leak and the other had a self-induced wind bust. The question is: What technique are you using to prevent that from happening to you? Do you cross check the fuel on you FPF? Do you monitor fuel at destination on the FMC? Do you pull up a HGT and keep a fuel score?

To me the best and simplest answer is using an HOWGOZIT.

Just like I looked at the headset issue and figured out the best answer was to have my own, I genuinely want to convince you that pulling up a HOWGOZIT and keeping a fuel score is the simplest answer to prevent missing a fuel leak or a gross wind bust.

EDIT: Aww shucks. I'm reading my post and it just doesn't have the strength I think it could have . . . anyways . . . it's not "Rocket Science". It's just that the HOWGOZIT seems to me to be a simple, easy to use tool and it frustrates me that guys are so quick to dismiss it and not even consider that it might be useful.

I would like to do what the dispatchers plan, but for the first time in my 20 year airline career, at 4 airlines, I can't trust the dispatchers to plan a flight correctly.

The other day we had a lot of tailwind and were showing 25 minutes early on the flight plan. We took off early as well. They had us planned at CI 145, which was .807/335 in a friggin uberguppy. The company really wants me to spit gas out the back end to show up even earlier?

I have seen lots of weird things lately on flight plans. Not good.

And yep, I told the dispatcher airborne and he sent me a new howgozit.

I think this is why we now have tactical CI numbers.

Technique only, but when given a direct the first thing I do is pull up the progress page on one side and put the direct in the legs page on the other side, before accepting and executing I see what the new computed ETA and Fuel remaining numbers are. Not 100% accurate but it's close. Then using the HZ I compare the fuel remaining numbers at each waypoint to the fuel remaining at the abeam for that waypoint (from the original HZ). If the direct was advantageous you should see the fuel remaining trending an increase. Like wise if it wasn't, you'll see the trending decrease and plan accordingly.

The problem with this technique in my view is that the FMC has absolutely no idea what the winds will be with a direct, so the numbers it gives you are going to be completely worthless. That's how the famous transcon direct crew got in trouble. It may or may not be close depending on what the jet stream is doing and how much different the winds are over the direct routing.

The one technique I DO use when considering direct is to make sure that when I pull the FP onto my iPad, I pull the wind map as well (not in the briefing packet as that has a rendering issue, but by itself). Then I'll look along the route and see if the Sabre plan makes sense based on what the wind speed is. Caught one the other night where we had a huge northerly arc on an all-nighter which then went sharply south before heading east again. Looking at the wind chart the south turn looked couter-productive, so I queried dispatch. He told me it was some flow routing for EWR, so I asked to and received a clearance to stay north and cut off the south turn since it was 4am. Just have to be careful when you do that that Sabre isn't planning the route south of Canadian airspace for cost reasons so best to have dispatch re-run the plan from the closet fix you want to go Direct from and see what it does. Just food for thought. Something to pass the time in the middle of the night anyway

on my airplane I always print the how howz it on transcons, etops, and s. America flights.

However, It doesn't control me. It's a guide.

Our ETOPS procedures dictate that the master flight plan should still be utilized. I see allot of pilots using the how goz it and ignoring the MFP.

Crossing a fix on ETOPS, I check the progress page, position report page, I reference the MFP and if I check the how goz it to check to see how close my times and fuel are.

My main concern is fuel over destination on the longer flights, and I may adjust flight levels, or mach number to insure I have the gas I need.

The how goz it is only a tool, and for me it is more of a trend analysis tool.

I think we put too much emphasis on sabre and the how goz it.

The actual flying environment is too dynamic for a plan to be flown "as planned." ATC, weather, turbulence, unforecasted winds, unavailable flight levels, re-routes, alternate tracks, other traffic, temperatures not right on, etc, etc. all indicate to me that our efforts of trying to be SPOT ON on this flight planning game are just wasted efforts. We are about as close as we can be on the planning side. Flexibility and the ability to think on our feet and talk out the variances in flight planning and flight execution are the things we should be worrying about.

I think the real point is that no matter how many documents you print on the flightdeck for reference, if you are too lazy to be involved and engaged in your flight then a how goz it won't help you. Airmanship is more than stick and rudder. If everyone tried the technique of putting down the newspaper when crossing a noteworthy fix and just following basic common sense principles of paying attention we'd be in good shape on this.

My technique is this: crossing a fix, reference MFP, how goz it, position report page, progress page, Do required ETOPS work, and announce to MP how we are doing. He/she may be multi tasking while listening to Motley Crue doing a soduku and flossing their teeth, but I said it, and I wrote it down, It's on the tapes that at least I was engaged.

Also, the more disengaged I see someone in the other seat, the more engaged I become. I guess this is just something I have always done, but we can't afford to have someone totally out of the loop, and I try and find ways to politely get their head in the game. I usually hand them the flight plan and ask for their opinion if we can be "doing any better." and ask for suggestions.

One day the disengaged fella in the right seat is going to be a Captain, so it's time to make sure we build good habits now.

Perhaps not. There are plenty of excellent right seat jobs at this airline. Many of them are occupied by older dudes who commute. When one considers just how crummy reserve is at this company, why would one of them upgrade to the Guppy? There are plenty of guys with 767 Captain seniority (and higher) in the right seat of the 777 and whale.

Some of them do a pretty good job of faking disengagement too. :D

Fully agree 100%