FAA fuel waivers

I would think that with the high price of fuel, if an airline services
an airport where fuel prices are very high, they may take on full fuel
at an airport where the fuel prices are low. I'm betting the
dispatcher does a careful calculation of the cost of hauling extra fuel
over the price of fuel at every location.

This is another FAA controller that is worried about his job. I hope he
can separate planes on his screen better then he can spell "waver". I
am sure he has no problem cashing his government checks that we all pay
for.


wrote:
Can anyone back up this claim? It sounds convincing, but I want to
have a second opinion:


----Start quote-----
Apparently, the FAA (the same FAA who was going against our contract
and has cut out budget, cut trainees to replace all the people
retiring, and is attempting to speed up training by rushing through
important steps) is giving airlines a waver on gas. This waver states
that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
on fuel costs. This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
controller, and the passengers espicially.
-----End quote-----

I would appreciate any information anyone has about this. At least if
it's true or not.

Thanks!

I know Southwest has a look up table they use to determine the price of
hauling around fuel vs. the price difference at different destinations.
Everyone always avoids buying fuel at Sacramento International because
it's one of the most expensive in the nation. The airport requires all
fuel guys to be active and certified fire fighters.

-Robert


150flivver wrote:
I would think that with the high price of fuel, if an airline services
an airport where fuel prices are very high, they may take on full fuel
at an airport where the fuel prices are low. I'm betting the
dispatcher does a careful calculation of the cost of hauling extra fuel
over the price of fuel at every location.

This means, they have exactly the amount of fuel they
need to get to their destination +45 minutes. Anything under that +45
minutes means an emergency. So that means these aircraft were getting
close to that emergency point. It's dangerous for the pilot, the
controller, and the passengers espicially.


One item that is missing is alternate fuel. Aircraft always take into
consideration fuel needed to get to an alternate airport in case of
warranting conditions. The 45-minutes reserve is contingency fuel to
account for unexpected holding, weather, and other delays at the
destination. It's not necessarily an emergency.


--
Mike

Jose

I'll use your posting to add my 2 cents worth to thread.

My Mark 20C Mooney had a built in fuselage tank (bird had about 7
hours with all tanks full).

If I needed the range and loaded the fuselage tank, it made the bird
into a two seater due to max weight limits. Normal flights only
carried slosh fuel in tank and could use all four seats. This is not
to say we didn't push the max gross on occasions.

I never loaded fuselage tank for a leg, unless needed for range and
any expected holding.

Configuration gave lots of options of range vs cabin loading.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````


On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:45:00 GMT, Jose
wrote:

This waver states
that they don't have to fill up the plane all the way so they can save
on fuel costs.

"Filling up" the plane is not a requirment. "Having enough gas" is
(where "enough" is defined in the regs and includes reserves). You
don't have to have "more than enough", otherwise that amount would be
what "enough" would be, and we're back where we started.

Now, "enough" means "enough to get to your destination, fly the
approach, go to the alternate, fly the approach, and fly 45 minutes at
full cruise". Depending on what you pick for an alternate, you may need
more or less gas. Depending on what you pick for a destination, the
same is true.

The "destination" doesn't have to be "where you want to go". What I
have heard some pilots do is to make the place they want to go the
alternate, and pick a "destination" that is short of that. This
requires less gas. If they manage to get a better tailwind, then by the
time they get to their destination (not where they wanted to go), they
may still have enough gas to get to the alternate (which is where they
wanted to go), AND fly to another legal alternate, AND still fly for 45
minutes. IF this happens, they re-file with the new plan and keep
flying. The risk is that if this does NOT happen, they will need to
land short of where they wanted to go.

It sounds like cheating, but safety is NOT compromised, because they
always have a place to land in the plan, and sufficient reserves.

Jose