Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Consumption/Flight Managment System  
User currently offlineLuftfahrer From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 1012 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

I just finished reading this article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679980,00.html

This quote made me curious:

Quote:
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can reach Paris with more than the legal minimum reserves of kerosene that must be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.

To be honest, I've never head of this practice. Is it a common one? Can anybode be more precise what is meant by 'loophole' here? Basically knowing how a FMGS works through flightsim, I wondered how the pilot would enter this into the MCDU. My assumption: Origin would be SBGL (GIG), destination LFBD (BOD), and alternate destination LFPG (CDG). I am almost certain the remaining fuel for both DEST and ALTN DEST is displayed on the Airbus -- so enroute, getting closer to the actual destination (Paris-CDG), the pilots will see if they have enough fuel to continue there or if they have to go for an unplanned stop at Bordeaux (or Lisbon). This is only my theory, I'd appreciate any insight how it works in reality. Thanks!

[Edited 2010-02-25 09:53:54]


Et là tu montes encore plus haut et ça persiste, alors on vole
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

The loophole is not within aircraft systems, but within rules. You need to have a specific amount of fuel left after you land. That means, you have to fill it on top of the fuel calculated for the trip. This would include alternate fuel, holding fuel, maybe taxi fuel etc. Thing is, calculations would not allow for sufficient amount of fuel upon arrival to Paris. Therefore the fuel would be calculated to Bordeaux, and sufficient extra fuel added (plus some more I guess, so better chances). If upon arrival to France, or other suitable place on your flightplan, you can declare suitable amount of fuel to get to Paris from your position, you can re-plan your flight direct to Paris. This can be achieved via better fuel flow, direct routings, more favourable winds, or other ways you can not officially count with when planning the fuel in your departure point.

(alhtough I have no idea how that would be relevant to AF447)

[Edited 2010-02-25 10:15:51]


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineLuftfahrer From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 1012 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 1):

Hi, thanks for the explanations. I've known about the regulations, though. Sorry if this wasn't clear in my initial post.
I'm more concerned with the technical aspects (i.e., how the MCDU would programmed), therefore I interpreted the loophole as something related to the aircraft's system.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 1):
(alhtough I have no idea how that would be relevant to AF447)

It isn't, just spotted it this very article and thought I'd bring it up...



Et là tu montes encore plus haut et ça persiste, alors on vole
User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

It happens more often than you might think.

If for some reason you cannot reach your destination with the legal requirement at the planning stage then it is acceptable to nominate a closer airport as your destination. If you burn less than anticipated enroute or if there will be more than minimum reserve AFTER you divert then you can 'divert' to the airport you originally wanted to fly to.

A more common practice than the one above is the en-route alternate.
Here you dispatch with 3% contingency fuel instead of 5% and nominte an alternate airfield en-route (before your destination)
Upon passing a specific waypoint nominated in the flight plan you check to see if you have enough fuel to continue to your destination (plus alternate and final reserve fuel).
If you don't you divert to your en-route alternate for a top up.
if you do then you carry on knowing you still have enough to divert from your original destination if you still have to.

The second method is preferred because you land at your original airport with ALT and FINAL RESERVE fuel.
The first method means you land at your original airport with only FINAL RESERVE

You can ask questions about the airmanship of such decisions but they do happen although not on a regular basis.

Don't forget that these things can be monitored by the authorities and they will not allow an operation that is consistantly marginal.


User currently offlineLuftfahrer From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 1012 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3796 times:

Thanks for the detailed depiction of this kind of operation. Very well understood now.

Quoting BALandorLivery (Reply 3):
nominate a closer airport as your destination
Quoting BALandorLivery (Reply 3):
you can 'divert' to the airport you originally wanted to fly to.

That's what I had originally suspected.



Et là tu montes encore plus haut et ça persiste, alors on vole
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9488 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

Is GIG-CDG pushing the A330 range? I thought that a route like that without strong winds should be manageable.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

In an A332....

NO


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

It's called a re-release flight plan if no one has yet posted it. Int'l you must have 10% of the flight plan time added in fuel. You can see that on a long flight that's a lot of gas. So if you have a closer destination you can have less fuel and when you reach a certain point the co. will re-release you to you real dest if you have a predetermined amt of fuel remaining using a "new" 10% of reserve that's from the re-release point to dest.You program your "real" destination in the FMS. It knows only that you're going to your dest. We will get re-released anytime within a 2 hr window prior to the re-release point. Of course weather would be a consideration in that using a close by alt can be an issue if your dest wx sucks. ATC does not know or care about your re-release point or airport. You are filed to your dest. It's usually not a matter of not being able to make your dest but more the ability to carry less fuel which means burn less fuel as well. I've never seen filing to an "alt" arpt then "diverting" to dest. Maybe some co. do but we don't.

User currently offlineflyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

I've learned that as a Reclearance Flightplan. Not only done for weightcritical flights, but sometimes also for fuel savings  

German Wikipedia about this:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclearance

Cheers



- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 7):
Int'l you must have 10%

FAA regulations only, others use 5% or other variable.
Re-clearance/re-release flight plans have been in use for over thirty years...nothing now.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Consumption/Flight Managment System
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Consumption Question... posted Tue Mar 3 2009 17:35:57 by Placekicker
Fuel Consumption During Take-off And Landing posted Fri Nov 21 2008 02:36:08 by Panais
Fuel Consumption On Altitude & Mach-Number posted Fri Sep 19 2008 17:46:12 by Blackbird
And Old 767 Vs A New 330 (fuel Consumption) posted Sun Aug 3 2008 15:54:00 by RICARIZA
A340 Cargo Weight And Fuel Consumption Question posted Thu Jul 31 2008 15:12:29 by TheMirror
Fuel Consumption Question posted Mon May 12 2008 20:34:42 by THEENGINEER
Fuel Consumption Based On Incremental Drag posted Tue Mar 4 2008 09:44:35 by Seyah
Redeye Flights And Fuel Consumption posted Sun Feb 24 2008 12:49:12 by GentFromAlaska
A380 And B748i Fuel Consumption posted Wed Aug 29 2007 16:05:25 by TKV
A319/320 Specific Fuel Consumption posted Wed Aug 29 2007 04:53:29 by 0NEWAIR0

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format