Dangerously low fuel levels

[sonicboom]

I´ve been reading recently that a lot of airline pilots are complaining that the airlines are forcing them to fly on "uncomfortably low levels of fuel" to cut costs. I understand the cost of fuel is an enormous cost and there are always attempts to reduce consumption if possible. But the priorities of the military are different than those of a profit-motivated corporation.As a somewhat frecuent flier this troubles me, but my question is

What is the military´s (moreover the Navy´s) attitude with regard to fuel consumption? Do you feel you´ve ever been encouraged to minimize fuel consumption to a point where your safety and the survival of the aircraft/crew are compromised?

Here´s a link to a recent article on the matter.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1830845,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

 

[squeeze]

No. Never. The only time I've ever taken off with a light-loaded (ie. less than a full bag) airplane was during CQs when VL performance was a factor.

 

[gotta_fly]

I'm not very far into aviation training so my opinion on this matter probably shouldn't count for much; but, if a pilot in command is uncomfortable with the amount of fuel on his aircraft (particularly with pax aboard) wouldn't the legal/moral/responsible thing to do be to refuse to fly without more gas? Maybe the pilot takes some heat from a manager, but at the end of the day said pilot and many others get to go home safe. If they run out of gas, the guy at the airline who told them to take less than a comfortable margin still gets to live, and he wasn't the one who signed for the aircraft.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Yes airlines are carrying less extra fuel than they used to but they still carry adequate reserves. It costs fuel to carry fuel and we are getting very cost conscious.

And yes, a Captain (FO too) would/should refuse a flight if it has an amount of fuel they are not comfortable with. But all it takes is a call to Dispatch and the fuel is increased if there is a justifiable reason (not just an 10k for Mom & the kids).

 

[scoober78]

What is the military´s (moreover the Navy´s) attitude with regard to fuel consumption? Do you feel you´ve ever been encouraged to minimize fuel consumption to a point where your safety and the survival of the aircraft/crew are compromised?

The Navy's attitude?? We consume fuel...lots and lots of it.

Really though, If thoughts of fuel conservation are running around, they are running around at MUCH higher paygrades than mine, and not affecting how we fly the aircraft at all...At least in Maritime land.

 

[sonicboom]

yeah that´s what i figured. i was just wondering if for example you were only planning on going up for a short period time if you would go up with anything less than a full fuel tank to decrease fuel consumption due to carrying all the extra weight...as the airlines are doing.

 

[insanebikerboy]

...i was just wondering if for example you were only planning on going up for a short period time if you would go up with anything less than a full fuel tank...

Aircraft will go up with less than a full tank. Can't speak for other communities but in my experience in helo-land is if we don't need a full tank, we don't take it. We'll calculate a conservative fuel burn per hour and then calc how much we need for our mission/training, take that load plus a specific reserve.

Like scoober said, if there are decisions being made on fuel burn, it's way up the chain. Our fuel loadouts are determined by the hop to be flown, sometimes we may need a full bag of gas, sometimes not.

 

[A4sForever]

What is the military´s (moreover the Navy´s) attitude with regard to fuel consumption?

Apparently ... it's "let the good times roll" ....

Yesterday, witness a common occurrence overhead Smith Island:

 

[UMichfly]

Aww c'mon A4's, don't you know that that's not fuel. It's the gub'ment testing chemicals on the people. Don't believe what the man tells you :dunce_125. Has anyone seen my tinfoil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

 

[sonicboom]

We'll calculate a conservative fuel burn per hour and then calc how much we need for our mission/training, take that load plus a specific reserve.

thanks, that´s what i was getting at.

 

[Harrier Dude]

The only time you have "too much fuel" is when you're on fire.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

The AF is pretty serious about it. Specifically AMC (tanker and cargo command), which makes sense since we burn the most fuel in the DoD.

Everything from configuration to cutting the fat in the ARCTs is being scrutinized. Here's a quick blurb about the practice

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_2_36/ai_n27180561

I like how they mention landing at a gross weight is more preferable to having the aircraft orbit for a few hours to burn the fuel off; not a word about dumping the gas over the water. Asses

 

[ArkhamAsylum]

The only times I've ever seen a military helo take off with less than full bags were (a) when the net weight was over limits (2) when training requirements [such as autorotations] dictated a lighter aircraft, and (d) when it was a test aircraft, and the pilot didn't feel like waiting for the fuel truck for a 20-minute flight.
Like a wise man once told me, the only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

 

[Avalanche24]

Has nothing to do with military fuel consumption....BUT....I'd like to point out this very small, buried paragraph in that article:

FAA regulations require airliners to take off with enough fuel to reach their destination or an alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of flight. The regulations also say it's up to dispatchers and pilots to decide the size of fuel loads, with pilots making the final call.

I was checking for it, because I know that's a fact. I think they might be hyping up the story a little too much. It is Time magazine, after all.
On a side note, I like the fact that United has a channel where you can hear the pilots (on channel 9 I think?). Of course, if there were a true emergency, I highly doubt they'd allow passengers to listen in, but nevertheless it's always interesting if you know what they're talking about. I saw a Northwest guy get in the wrong (and shorter) line for the runway in Chicago (I want to say it was 22L), and a few minutes later ground politely called him out on it and made him standby in a pod until they figured out what to do with him.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Has nothing to do with military fuel consumption....BUT....I'd like to point out this very small, buried paragraph in that article:

The time requirements are different based upon VFR or IFR flying, but that reg you posted applies to practically every aircraft that flies (not sure about ultralights, etc).