Interesting tidbit

A friend of mine traveled down to Port Aransas from Houston area with us in their boat. On board were his in laws just to take a ride down the ditch. He burned around 450 gallons to get down here(I burn about half that) in a Sea Ray 47 Sedan. Said friend has a friend that owns/operates an air charter service. He offered to fly said in laws back to Houston in one of his jets. The round trip from Corpus to Houston burned LESS fuel...ROUND TRIP...in a jet...than the boat did one way!!!! I guess this is a good example of the differences in density of air and water.

Baker said:

A friend of mine traveled down to Port Aransas from Houston area with us in their boat. On board were his in laws just to take a ride down the ditch. He burned around 450 gallons to get down here(I burn about half that) in a Sea Ray 47 Sedan. Said friend has a friend that owns/operates an air charter service. He offered to fly said in laws back to Houston in one of his jets. The round trip from Corpus to Houston burned LESS fuel...ROUND TRIP...in a jet...than the boat did one way!!!! I guess this is a good example of the differences in density of air and water.

Click to expand...

And the weight of the vehicle.


David

Yeah, but compare:the fuel costs to a helicopter....you know, something fun like a boat....

Like the old cereal commercial used to say.... Jets are for kids....

The absolute cheapest thing in aviation is fuel. I bet the TBO cost on the jet engine was more than the cost of all the fuel spent that weekend.

tiltrider1 said:

The absolute cheapest thing in aviation is fuel. I bet the TBO cost on the jet engine was more than the cost of all the fuel spent that weekend.

Click to expand...

The TBO cost of a single turbine engine is several times the value of my entire boat!

tiltrider1 said:

The absolute cheapest thing in aviation is fuel. I bet the TBO cost on the jet engine was more than the cost of all the fuel spent that weekend.

Click to expand...

I've heard that many times over and it ain't even close to being correct. Fuel cost is HUGE.

Even in the most efficient jet, with a super fuel card contract you see north of $2 million in fuel between engine overhauls which could be $300 to $500 K each. Even in the turboprop world fuel is still the biggest cost.

In the piston world (where I hang around) fuel is even more expensive, to the tune of double or triple engine costs. I've had many years where the fuel costs are more that all the other costs combined.

However, the above assume that the plane will fly a reasonable amount and not sit.

And boats, too. Fuel is a big cost if the boat is used much. If it's a marina queen, the marina costs are the most.

what is "TBO" ?

Benthic2 said:

what is "TBO" ?

Click to expand...

I think they are talking about Time between overhaul.

I am no longer in aviation, but when I was, labor was 25% of my costs, followed by parts, followed by fuel, followed by insurance. Every thing else was insignificant.

While Seevee is probably correct in his statement. If you have to worry about fuel costs you probably shouldn’t be in aviation.

TBO is time between overhaul. Many parts on an aircraft have a fixed number of hours before a mandatory overhaul. If you know the overhaul cost then you know how much money each flight hour costs. Some parts are on condition of meeting a specification, surprisingly these parts are pretty predictable as to when they won’t meet condition, operating environment can have a huge affect on how long they last.

Helicopters are extra special with all the gearboxes, servos and even rotor blades having life limits between 1500 hrs and 2500 hrs for most components. Back in the 90’s it would cost us $250,000 to overhaul a turbomecca engine that would have a TBO of 2500 hours, then you still had the transmission, drive shafts, gearboxes, rotor blades and so on. I believe our TBO cost was close to $500 an hour for a 7pax+pilot Astar.

Thanks

Last year after everything added in, $5000 per hour to fly a Citation 2, the more you use it the cheaper it is.

I was asked about fuel efficiency by a fellow pilot just before I retired 6 years ago so I did a calculation using the Learjet 60 and my 34 Californian LRC numbers. Both came out to about 2.2 NM/USG...but the boat is a whole lot more fun when the engines are shut down.

FlyWright said:

I was asked about fuel efficiency by a fellow pilot just before I retired 6 years ago so I did a calculation using the Learjet 60 and my 34 Californian LRC numbers. Both came out to about 2.2 NM/USG...but the boat is a whole lot more fun when the engines are shut down.

Click to expand...

I bet. I don't remember the glide ratio on the LJ60 but it can't be as good as the Californy.

ben2go said:

I bet. I don't remember the glide ratio on the LJ60 but it can't be as good as the Californy.

Click to expand...

Speed and altitude at engine failure means a lot...

Remember the time a U2 had a flameout near Cuba and dead sticked it back to Panama City, FL in a nice, calm manner....

psneeld said:

Speed and altitude at engine failure means a lot...

Remember the time a U2 had a flameout near Cuba and dead sticked it back to Panama City, FL in a nice, calm manner....

Click to expand...

I remember reading about it. Something like 65,000 feet or higher.

Friends of mine were on duty at USCG AIRSTA Miami listening to the radio traffic between the U2 and air traffic control...they related the story to me the next day...pretty impressive.

psneeld said:

Friends of mine were on duty at USCG AIRSTA Miami listening to the radio traffic between the U2 and air traffic control...they related the story to me the next day...pretty impressive.

Click to expand...

Without the internet or the gossip girls, that was pretty impressive.

Off topic but as the flying guys are here. This morning United flight from LA into Sydney, low on fuel, called Mayday. Airport went into emergency, the roads outside the airport were closed, etc. But it landed ok.

That's good to hear. Glad to hear the airport was on alert and took safety into account.

ben2go said:

That's good to hear. Glad to hear the airport was on alert and took safety into account.

Click to expand...

Sydney Airport, in a densely populated area, closes from 11pm to 6am. Calling a fuel shortage to request early landing is not uncommon, but a Mayday is something else. Air Traffic are less accommodating for landings after 11pm. Many overnight flights arrive asap after 6am.

The UA flight landed with 1hr + 35 mins of fuel. A communication snafu caused the emergency.

Surprising to hear a Mayday call from an aircraft was a "communication snafu".
Especially when the aircraft persisted with it in communication with Traffic Control. Surely it wasn`t being used as a way to open a closed airport for early arrival?
Here`s one report,including the communications between pilot and ground. There was no lack of opportunity to withdraw the Mayday call.
Sydney Airport triggers 'full emergency response' after United Airlines mayday call - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

There appears to be a difference between Australian and US and possibly ICAO procedures which triggered this event.

Without getting too technical, there are different levels of fuel urgency. In the US and most other parts of the Northern hemisphere there is a level of urgency best described as "If you screw us around a lot more you WILL have a fuel emergency on your hands" This is NOT an emergency, nor does it REQUIRE any expedited handling. It's a courtesy call that the controllers can try and smooth you in, or there's paperwork for them. Apparently the Aussies don't see it that way. Stand in line and wait your turn or you ARE an emergency. The UAL flight never declared an emergency, they demanded a certain runway instead of the inevitable delay to go to the one the Aussies wanted them on. It appears the Aussies forced the mayday on them.

Mind you, most international flights arriving Sydney have been airborne a LONG time, there's a LOT of them and fuel plans are, well, fuel plans. Winds are winds and don't always obey the forecasts. As mariners you can appreciate that. Fuel getting close and terminal delays requiring diverts to alternates is not an unusual occurrence and I suspect they get "requests" a lot, some carriers being more nervous than others. But it's a VERY busy airport so they don't need this disruption all the time.

I suspect this is a hard ball game.

(Disclaimer, although I am in the business, this part of the world is not my turf).

True, Sydney is at the end of some very long flights.I`ve heard of incoming flights declaring a fuel shortage,and believe they are well accommodated. But a Mayday is different,with major ramifications.

BruceK said:

True, Sydney is at the end of some very long flights.I`ve heard of incoming flights declaring a fuel shortage,and believe they are well accommodated. But a Mayday is different,with major ramifications.

Click to expand...

How does declaring an emergency or Mayday create major ramifications?

First there is no official “fuel shortage” term, you may be referring to “minimum fuel”, which implies that the aircraft has sufficient fuel to land with required reserves but any change or extend vectors would cause them to declare an emergency, Mayday Fuel Emergency.

Though I’m retired, I have declared an emergency on two different occasions with the only ramifications I had to deal with was confirming verbally I was ok to the airport fire chief or police. Neither were fuel related. The FAA never needed paper work, just a quick phone call from them to confirm what happened. If there would have been an accident then that would have ramifications requiring paperwork, but only if you survived.

ATC or USCG services never get upset when they are alerted to a situation. As a captain it’s your responsibility to utilize all resources availability, not declaring an emergency until your engine fails is to late. Same applies if your boat rudder shaft hits something and for awhile your bilge pumps can handle the water intrusion but after two hours stops working. Now your boat is sinking. You may only have a few minutes but hopefully you notified the USCG back when things weren’t an sinking ship emergency, but to notify them of a potential problem or to request a auxiliary pump, either way they would be in a better position to assist if things go bad. They would have requested regular updates as to your situation and would be in position to activate a search and rescue.

So, what would be the ramifications of running out of fuel and crashing offshore or off airport with 194 bodies onboard without declaring an emergency? Should they have waited until both engines flamed out first? What would be the point then?

So to tie in to that, it appears "Min fuel" does not impress down under. So they got it their way. And you're right, no skin off my back. There is some company paperwork but it's on line and when you put your number in 3/4 of the form, all but the narrative, populates. 10 minutes tops.

Nightflyer, I don't know who you flew for and not sure you were so insulated by the "airline". I am an airline captain now. If I declared an emergencey, there is paperwork. I would end up filing two different reports(FSAP/ASAP would be one of them). Now the company would file reports on my behalf with the FAA and NTSB based on my report. So there may have been more paperwork filed on your behalf than you realize if you worked for a large carrier. And based on your name, likely Fedex or UPS. I would also get a call from the chief pilot's office. But you are mostly correct...in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal.

Baker said:

. But you are mostly correct...in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal.

Click to expand...

As a layman, I1d have thought that calling Mayday, as I understand it the ultimate distress call, would be "a big deal". Perhaps I should read it another way, and it`s just the aftermath,that is not "a big deal".
Contrast a current inquiry into a Saab340 passenger plane which had a propeller detach mid flight from one of its 2 engines as the crew were in the process of closing the engine down due to severe vibration caused by the prop coming loose. The crew called a PAN PAN and continued on route 100km to Sydney,landing successfully. On landing it was found the departing propeller had not caused any aircraft damage in the process.
The crew have been greatly praised,and as far as I`m aware,not criticized for their choice of distress call.
I hope not, but one day I might have to consider an emergency call from my boat. The discussion is interesting as to what call, if I decided to make one, would be made.