Fuel - Pre ight Planning

Description
Pre ight fuel planning is the process of determining the appropriate amount
of fuel to be loaded for a speci c ight. Fuel planning can be accomplished
manually by referring to the appropriate charts and graphs or electronically
utilizing a fuel planning programme or service. In either case, pre ight fuel
p l a n n i n g s h o u l d e n s u r e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h  R e g u l a t o r y
requirements,  Company policy  where applicable and with the day of ight
speci c criteria of aircraft, crew, payload, fuel tankering,  de-icing
requirements, origin, route, noti ed airspace, destination, alternates, Notice
To Airmen and weather.
Threats
• Insuf cient Fuel - Inadequate or incomplete pre ight fuel planning can
result in the calculation of a total fuel requirement which is not actually
suf cient for the planned ight.
• Excessive Fuel - Inadequate or incomplete pre ight fuel planning or
non-compliance with Company policy or manufacturer limitations can
result in the calculation of a total fuel gure well in excess of that
actually required for the intended ight.
Effects
The potential effects of insuf cient fuel are numerous. They include:
• The requirement to return to the gate at origin due to fuel falling
below minimum brake release fuel prior to departure.
• Aircraft turnback due to insuf cient fuel to reach destination.
• Enroute diversion due to insuf cient fuel for continuation of the ight.
• "Pushing" the weather under VFR rules due to insuf cient fuel to meet
IFR requirements.
• Breaking IFR limits on approach due to insuf cient fuel to reach an
alternate aerodrome.
• The requirement to declare an emergency situation (PAN or MAYDAY
as appropriate) due to fuel depletion.
• Regulatory enforcement action against the Company and/or crew for
non-compliance with fuel requirement regulations.
• Engine failure due to fuel starvation.
The potential effects of excessive fuel include:
• Exceedence of an aircraft limitation - maximum takeoff weight or
maximum landing weight.
fi
fl
fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
fl
fl
fl
 • Increased operating cost due to the increased fuel burn resulting from
the carriage of the additional weight in fuel.
Defences
The principal defence against both of the aforementioned threats and
virtually all of the listed effects is a comprehensive pre ight fuel planning
process. The process must ensure compliance with Regulatory fuel
requirements for the type of ight and the area of operations. To do this, it
should incorporate any Company mandated policies or requirements and
consider each of the following factors to determine a legally appropriate
and operationally prudent fuel gure.
• Aircraft limitations
◦ Maximum takeoff weight (both structural and performance
limited) must be considered.
◦ Maximum landing weight (based on calculated fuel burn) must
be respected.
• Aircraft status
◦ Fuel consumption penalties speci c to the aircraft scheduled for
the ight must be taken into consideration.
◦ Any Minimum Equipment List (MEL) or Con guration Deviation
List fuel penalties must be applied to the fuel calculations.
◦ Do any MEL items limit aircraft altitude, impose restrictions on
maximum weights or affect All Weather capability?
• Payload
◦ What is the best available estimate for the aircraft zero fuel
weight (ZFW)?
◦ Is fuel tankering required for operational reasons (ballast/fuel
unavailable at destination) or prudent for nancial reasons (cost
differential)?
◦ Has additional fuel for ETOPS or remote destination operations
been taken into consideration?
• Crew
◦ What is the crew con guration? Is it the standard for the aircraft
type or are there supernumary crew members on the ight deck
or in the cabin?
◦ Are both ight deck crew members quali ed to conduct  Low
Visibility Procedures (LVP)?
fl
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
 ◦ Can the crew y to published departure/approach limits or, as
might be in the case of a newly promoted Captain, do they have
higher limits imposed?
• Departure Aerodrome
◦ What is the average taxi time/fuel burn appropriate to the
departure aerodrome?
◦ Are additional delays likely due to factors such as weather, time
of day, anticipated departure runway or de-icing requirements?
▪ Are de-icing procedures accomplished at the gate or at a
remote location?
▪ Is de-icing accomplished with engines running or engines
shut down?
• Route
◦ What is the expected SID?
◦ What is the anticipated route?
◦ Are enroute delays expected?
◦ Have any required enroute or ETOPS alternates been
identi ed?
◦ What is the anticipated STAR?
◦ If the SID/STAR information is uncertain, does the plan allow for
the worst case scenario?
• Destination Aerodrome
◦ Are arrival delays anticipated? If so, how long?
◦ What is the anticipated runway in use?
◦ Is the lenght of the landing surface adequate for the expected
landing weight under the anticipated runway surface conditions
at the estimated time of arrival?
• Alternate Aerodrome
◦ How many alternates are required?
◦ Is No Alternate IFR ight an option?
◦ What are the opening/closing times?
◦ Is aerodrome capacity likely to be exceeded in the event of
multiple diverting aircraft?
• NOTAMS
◦ Are any of the planned use aerodromes affected by any limiting
NOTAMS?
▪ Air eld closures or changes to hours of operation
fi
fi
fl
fl
 ▪ Construction which limits runway length or runway
closures
▪ Changes to published approach, arrival or departure
procedures
▪ Navigation aids out of service
▪ Altitude reservations or temporary airspace restrictions or
closures
▪ Changes in fuel availability
• Weather
◦ Do the forecast and actual wind and weather at the planned use
aerodromes meet legal requirements?
◦ If destination wind or weather are marginal, has additional
holding fuel been considered?
◦ Is the forecast weather for the planned use aerodromes likely to
result in delays?
◦ What are the enroute winds and temperatures?
◦ Is there enroute weather or conditions that are likely to result in
additional fuel burn (track deviation for CBs, in- ight icing etc)?
Typical Scenarios
• The owner of a light general aviation aircraft loads a speci c amount
of fuel for a route that he has own numerous times previously and
departs without making a comprehensive review of the weather
conditions. The winds are signi cantly stronger than usual extending
the time enroute beyond the endurance provided by the fuel available.
• Flight planning for an international scheduled ight is conducted
without rst determining the maintenance status of the assigned
aircraft. Fuel is ordered as per the ight plan and loaded onto the
aircraft. On arrival at the gate, the pilots determine that there is an
MEL deferal against the aircraft for an unserviceable airconditioning
pack which limits the cruise altitude to a maximum of FL310. There is
insuf cient fuel on board to conduct the ight at the restricted altitude
and the planned zero fuel weight for the aircraft does not permit
uplifting the additional required fuel without exceeding takeoff
performance limitations. As a result, the payload has to be reduced.
the ight replanned/re led at the restricted altitude and additional fuel
uplifted. A departure delay is incurred.
Contributory Factors
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
Effective pre ight fuel planning can be hindered by time constraints,
changing weather, poor communications, missing or inaccurate load or
maintenance information as well as complacency on the part of the
dispatchers or pilots.
Solutions
Effective pre ight fuel planning is only possible when a properly trained and
motivated staff have a comprehensive understanding of regulations,
Company policy and aircraft limitations and have timely access to all
required information inclusive of (but not limited to) weather, payload,
maintenance status, crew limitations and departure, route and arrival
delays and restrictions.
fl
fl