Guest Boom Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Anyone else getting constantly bitched at about it? Saw some slides today from AMC and it looked like the C-17 bubbas were landing with 20K+ regularly
C17Driver Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Anyone else getting constantly bitched at about it? Saw some slides today from AMC and it looked like the C-17 bubbas were landing with 20K+ regularly Yes, we do. Our minimum fuel to plan to land with is 16K. But that 16K normally isn't enough to cover other fuel reserve requirements so most of the time we land with between 20 and 30k.
sputnik Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Anyone else getting constantly bitched at about it? Saw some slides today from AMC and it looked like the C-17 bubbas were landing with 20K+ regularly You mean 20 more than we're supposed to or 20 period? Hell I'm excited when I can get guys to land that low.
HerkDerka Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Anyone else getting constantly bitched at about it? Did you miss the repetitive FCIFs and "AMC Fuel Conservation" pamphlets? HD
BFM this Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 I've tried to exercise my right to STFU lately, but... Ok, anyone on the board had experience outside the military with operating (read: maintaining, care, feeding, piloting) airplanes? Anyone with mx background know what it costs to run these airframes? I ask because if you do, you know right out that this fuel conservation BS is someone's (very high up) OPR bullet, and that's it. Pulling the power back to and from the area saves gas, but spends 3 for every one fuel dollar on mx. Your most efficient profile is to set max continuous from gear up to FAF and get the DLOs met. What I do like about the current trend is that if there is no training to be had (PIREP 300 to the moon), we take the early land dev's or bag the whole go. A big improvement over "all Cat B's to the desk". The next step is to s#!+can the whole flying hour program (good luck, been in play since I started mil av 13yr ago-->just a rewrite of the VN tonnage doctrine).
Hacker Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Isn't keeping the C model fleet grounded also doing wonders for fuel conservation? <snicker>
DeHavilland Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Except for a short hop it will usually always be cheaper to burn fuel going faster than to pay for the higher hours on the airframe that add up by going slower with the power pulled back. Of course there are different colors of money paying for fuel vs. mx. However, no matter what color the money is, it makes little sense to spend more while thinking you are saving.
C17Driver Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 On the AMC side, it's not so much about whether or not we fly faster or slower (the speed isn't really that much different); it's about carrying extra fuel = weight. Landing with 50 or 60K of fuel (unless you need to for some other reason) because TACC screwed up the fuel input during the IFM process and then not defueling prior to launch costs a lot of money no matter how fast you fly. Example; on a recent mission, the IFM packet said I was supposed to carry 135K of fuel. After getting to the jet and running the numbers, we only needed 95K. We ran the numbers both ways and it was going to burn an extra 7K to carry the extra 40K...that's waste.
Guest Boom Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Did you miss the repetitive FCIFs and "AMC Fuel Conservation" pamphlets? HD No I read them, then we had an ASEV here and every EP asked questions about it, then we had a presentation yesterday from AMC about it since the AF just hired United Airlines Fuel Conservation team to help the AF out. And more simulators for -135 folks.
Guest Boom Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Ahem... Whats the fuel burn in pounds per hour for a 135? 10K an hour (2.5K per engine) Again I have no problem with common-sense fuel conservation, but anything more and you need to get the hell outta my cockpit. If I was at Travis right now Id kill myself. Whats your beef again Boom? Chuck Wasn't my beef. Was AMC's beef, since they're the biggest spenders on fuel in the AF.
C17Driver Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Again I have no problem with common-sense fuel conservation, but anything more and you need to get the hell outta my cockpit. If I was at Travis right now Id kill myself. Whats your beef again Boom? Chuck It's not that bad Chuck!
Guest C-21 Pilot Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 I'm suprised that TACC gave you grief - they're always so accomidating! Likewise, on a recent stage input, icing focast from 020-100 from EGUN to LIPA, they complained for a simple 10K increase from us - then complained again when I told them to plan a fuel stop at Keflavik or Prestwick. Velocity is a key initiative and I agree that we can all do better to plan - fully agree w/ you that cubicle living souls shouldn't be making mission impacting decisions. Landing w/ 20K is the standard practice nowadays in the C-17....mainly because of fuel probe disconnect and the ability of each to be off by as much as 1K each. Min fuel, as stated earlier is 16K....but when wx is CAVOK, my goal is 20K. Allows me to land w/ as little as 16 (AFI compliant) and as much as 24...which by my math is +/- probe sensitivity error. Chuck, I missed the news report - what's up at KSUU?
C17Driver Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Chuck, I missed the news report - what's up at KSUU? This is how rumors get started! You know in 1 week there are going to be 6 - 9 threads from UPT studs about how KSUU is messed up. I'd bet Chuck was referring to KSUU because we belong to AMC (and TACC) where PAED is a PACAF asset that provides some jets and crews to TACC.
C17Driver Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Not exactly. Rumor mill says they are tracking landing fuel by Aircraft commander at KSUU. Thats bullshit if its the case. Someone is going to make a poor fuel decision to save face and end up landing with 4K like 'he whose name we shall not speak' did at McChord a couple of years ago. If it is justified, then so be it. If you gather that type of data to see who is a better fuel planner and can land with exactly 16K at home, then its retarded. Chuck, This is NOT KSUU specific! AMC is doing this command wide. Via a .mil computer go to: https://tacc.scott.af.mil/?action=FUEL_EFF As far as the other stuff you mentioned, I have some stories for you! But they'll have to wait for a more private medium.
ClearedHot Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 One of these days the weather is going to go to shit and someone who is trying to follow the policy is going to crash. At least there won't be much of a fire...
FourFans Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 You guys are really making me appreciate my 5-6K per hour fuel burn.
ACCBoomer Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 10K an hour (2.5K per engine) Wasn't my beef. Was AMC's beef, since they're the biggest spenders on fuel in the AF. I do mean to call ya out but do you have to get on this board and bitch everytime we have a meeting at the base? AMC has a reason and a method for their madness.
scawtiedog Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I have also been DENIED additional gas at Ramstein due to their conservation efforts... I had to get permission from god to get the extra 10K and had to threaten TACC with not taking the mission if I didnt get the gas. The MC is the final say, no matter what the computer in the cubicle at Scott AFB says I should be flying with. In that instance, I got my gas and LOW AND BEHOLD I land at McGuire with 14K. So if I hadnt got the gas, Id be landing w/4K... so you tell me where asking for the extra gas is wrong. Had a similar experience coming back from the desert. Leg from Mildenhall - home, CFP supposedly "winded". Of course we end up with an extra 100 kts on the nose and burned all the extra gas we took. Which is why I'll never let some guy sitting in his cubicle tell me how much gas I need. I don't mind the estimate, but don't get on me (sts) when I add an extra 10k because I know your winding sucks. One of these days the weather is going to go to shit and someone who is trying to follow the policy is going to crash. I agree, it's only a matter of time as they get more restrictive.
Techsan Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I see why the AF is trying to save a few pennies with fuel conservation, but I think a lot have gone overboard with it. I don't have a problem taking a little extra gas for mom & the kids, but I always make sure to have a reason why. We're in our ASEV checkride window now, and during all of the jumped locals the AMC folks seem to be keying in on fuel conservation. Whats funny is that CENTAF/CAOC does not give a F$&@ about conservation...or so it seems.
Guest TheBurt Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Another USAF penny wise pound foolish initiative, and another attempt to erode Aircraft Commander authority, don't let them do it. Put on all the gas you need or think you'll need, based on the numbers, your experience, and gut feeling. The GS-9 knucklehead cubicle commander hasn't a clue, though some of them will say, "well I flew 130's out of Pope back in the 80's blah, blah blahhhhh, and I know blah blah blah.
sputnik Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Chuck, This is NOT KSUU specific! AMC is doing this command wide. Via a .mil computer go to: https://tacc.scott.af.mil/?action=FUEL_EFF As far as the other stuff you mentioned, I have some stories for you! But they'll have to wait for a more private medium. Is this actually for real? The last time this rumor kicked up I checked the then posted scott website and it just showed fuel by MDS, saw no listing of AC names (I'm not quite curious enough to drive in to work to check it). Has someone seen with their own eyes this sort of list?
C17Driver Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Is this actually for real? The last time this rumor kicked up I checked the then posted scott website and it just showed fuel by MDS, saw no listing of AC names (I'm not quite curious enough to drive in to work to check it). Has someone seen with their own eyes this sort of list? This is for real. When you go to the site, you'll see MDS listed. Click on your airframe of choice, it'll break it down to the different Wings. Click on your Wing of choice, it'll break it down to Squadron. Click on our your Squadron of choice and it'll show it broken down by AC name. Click on the AC name and it will break it down to each mission. The system is kind of slow in updating however. My name still shows up with my old squadron before I PCS'd (even for missions that I have flown with the new squadron).
Guest Boom Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I do mean to call ya out but do you have to get on this board and bitch everytime we have a meeting at the base? AMC has a reason and a method for their madness. Thought it was an interesting discussion?
scawtiedog Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Is this actually for real? The last time this rumor kicked up I checked the then posted scott website and it just showed fuel by MDS, saw no listing of AC names (I'm not quite curious enough to drive in to work to check it). Has someone seen with their own eyes this sort of list? I was at Scott last month for GRACC and A3V was showing the system off. You could see exactly how much extra gas each AC was landing with. I think they said the goal was within 5% of the CFP fuel load. Granted, it doesn't factor anything (canx receiver, winds, etc.), it's just raw data so you could be completely justified in your landing fuel and still have your name highlighted.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now