About Media Enquires Contact Social Links Search

PowerView® PV450 - Murphy by Enovation Controls OPEN

For a limited time, $50 off. Buy now! jardum.com

Home Flight Training Flight Safety Airlines Articles About Flight Contact

FOLLOW FLIGHT ON FACEBOOK

Flight
Like Page 90K likes

FOLLOW US ON GOOGLE+

Flight

Calculated and Totalizer Fuel, Pre-Fuelling

17 9 comments - Leave comment SPONSORED LINKS
Dec Posted in: Airline Flight Training boeing, boeing 777, flight training

Like Share Tweet Save

After an 8 month hiatus, I returned to flying in August to the Los Angele route. On my first trip, I
noticed that during the return sector from LA we had burnt more fuel than I could readily account
for, and the FMC Progress Page Calculated Fuel was somewhat lower than the Totalizer fuel (more
on this later).

Note : There are two means for determing fuel on board on the 777 – Totalizer
Fuel (fuel sensed in the fuel tanks); and Calculated Fuel (calculated as fuel on
board since start by the Flight Management Computer FMC)

Over subsequent flights, and based

additionally on feedback from other
Instructors – it appears we’re seeing some odd FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
behaviour in the Calculated/Totalizer split.
From my experience – and that of others – the
following is what I would expect to see from
Tweets by ​@flightorg
these two values. Note I’ve validated my
Flight
background data with other 777 operators @flightorg
who agree with my expectations.
That Always Flight TG679 (Boeing 747-400)
departed Guangzhou at 8.58pm local (Monday) and
Calculated equal to Totalizer in the very early stages of flight; typically within a couple
arrived at Suvarnabhumi at 10.48pm. On landing the
hundred kg’s at top of climb. aircraft vacated the runway. None of the 97
Slow variance between steady state Totalizer and Calculated values; trending generally in passengers or 18 crew were injured .. #flight
one direction or another (Calculated exceeding Totalizer or vice-versa). #aviation #boeing747 #boeing #thaiairways
Often a developing Calculated/Totalizer split will reverse it’s trend for a while.
Split values of 1000 kg or more are unusual but not unheard of; usually towards the middle or
last third of a long haul flight you would see this maximum value.
Such larger values have usually reduced to a few hundred kg’s approaching Top of Descent.
There has never been an absolute consistency of Calculated Higher or Lower than Totalizer
all the time across Aircraft/Sector/Season, etc.

What I’ve been seeing however is the following:

At Top of Climb, Calculated is up to 1000 kg below Totalizer.

This split tends to increase slowly over the rest of the flight, occasionally reversing back
towards but not coming under the original Top of Climb 1000 Kg split.
At Top of Descent (3x LAX-Australia sectors so far) – a split of about 1500 kg’s; Calculated
always belowTotalizer.

Implications Oct 10, 2018

It should be remembered that all FMC fuel predictions are based on the Calculated value. Based on
the expected behaviour of the aircraft systems we have always trained that for most of a long haul Embed View on Twitter
flight the FMC Calculated fuel on board (and hence the FMC fuel predictions) are the more Thomas Cook told Sun Online Travel: "It goes with
accurate figure. At the end of the flight, the Totalizer should be (more) accurate, but pilots are
reminded to review the Calculated/Totalizer split – particularly those cases where the Calculated is
higher than the Totalizer, since this can lead to false impression of fuel state on descent. TODAY IN AVIATION HISTORY

With a 1500 kg lower Calculated value, and a slightly increased fuel burn – we are seeing the The crash of a Beechcraft T-34C Turbo-Mentor in
FMC/EICAS [] INSUFFICIENT FUEL message, which cautions the crew that based on current Baldwin County, Alabama, kills Navy Cmdr.
FMC predictions, they will not land at destination with enough fuel to conduct a missed approach Duane S. Cutter, 44, from Newfield, New York,
and proceed to their alternate with statutory reserves intact. This message is not a train smash, but and his student, Marine 2nd Lt. Thomas J.
it is an indication that fuel consumption has been in excess of what was planned, and combined Gaffney, 24, of West Chester, Pennsylvania, while
with poor weather could lead to a diversion. on a routine training mission out of NAS Whiting
Field, Florida, said Lt. Cmdr. Diane Hooker, a
However, if this message is coming up based on a falsely low Calculated value – in comparison to
Navy spokeswoman at Whiting Field. Hooker
the higher Totalizer value – then this is a concern. I should mention that like all airlines there’s an
couldn't immediately say what techniques the
active fuel monitoring program in place which utilizes extensive onboard recorded data to ensure
two were practicing when the T-34 went down. -
that the aircraft is consuming fuel as it should, resulting in performance decrements that are
Fri 11th Oct, 1991
maintained in both the flight planning system and the aircraft to enable accurate fuel consumption
Kathryn D. Sullivan becomes the first American
prediction.
woman to perform spacewalk aboard the Space
Before I go much further, I’d better recap on the systems for those who are still catching up. Shuttle Challenger. - Thu 11th Oct, 1984
KC-135 refueling tanker crashes on landing at
Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan. Plane is destroyed
Boeing 777 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) Totalizer Fuel
and there are several fatalities. - Tue 11th Oct,
The FQIS system in the 777 works by bouncing sound waves around the fuel tank, 1988
using 28 sensors in each main tank (20 in the centre tank) to determine the
quantity of fuel on board. Based on the reception data returned by the probes Today | WP Plugin | Hiztory on Twitter
(VOS is Speed of Sound in the maintenance page shown right) – the FQIS
calculates the volume of fuel in the tank. Built in Densiometers (is that a real
word?) provide the fuel specific gravity (SG) to turn the volume into mass. METAR PLUGIN FOR WORDPRESS

SYD 16°C
TTF METAR YSSY 110430Z 15016KT 9999
VCSH SCT030 BKN070 16/08 Q1023 RMK
RF00.0/000.0 NOSIG

Read about Metar | Download

AVIATION QUOTES WP PLUGIN

Helicopters can't really fly - they're just so ugly

that the earth immediately repels them.

Read about "Aviation Quotes" | Download

I’m not kidding – this is how it works.

While the tanks are baffled (the other baffled, the FQIS is not confused; well
mostly not) and compartmentalised over and above basic the Left/Right/Center
nomenclature, the measurement can be subject to a number of errors including
dynamic movement in flight (pitch/roll/yaw changes). Certification accuracy is
based on ground readings or level flight and even then the potential error is
designed to be less than 1% – which could be +/- 1470 Kg with full tanks. That said,
in my experience, the system is far more accurate than this.

The system is pretty good, but it can be seen that with an error rate proportional
to the quantity being measured – it is likely to be far more accurate at the end of a
long flight than at the beginning. On top of this is the impact of flight dynamic
effects such as reading the Totalizer as the aircraft turns over waypoints. As
mentioned previously, the recommendation is to use the FMC Calculated over the
Totalizer value for most of a long haul flight – keeping in mind the
Calculated/Totalizer split – and evaluate both Calculated and Totalizer values
when preparing for the arrival.

Moving on the the FMC Calculated value …

Boeing 777 FMC Calculated Fuel On Board

The FMC calculated value is set

to match the FQIS Totalizer value
until engine start. At this point
the Totalizer value is taken as a
base reference, and from this
point on the FMC Calculated
value is equal to the original Totalizer value at engine start, minus the fuel
consumed by the engines. Fuel Flow transmitters in the engine are converted to
mass flow by the EEC’s and sent (per engine) through the Aircraft Information
Management System (AIMS) to the FMCs. The FMC displays the fuel consumed by
each (LEFT / RIGHT) engine, the addition of these two values (FUEL USED), and
the value Calculated to be left on board.

The accuracy of the fuel flow

figures range from 12% (at idle
thrust) to 0.5% at cruise thrust.
Since the cruise error rate is
based on Fuel Flow (0.5% of
~8000 Kg/Hour) which therefore produces a potential error of 400 Kg/hour, less
than the possible error of the Totalizer value. While nothing is certain, my
experience is that the accuracy of the calculated value is much better than this 400
kg/hour certification limit.

These values are shown on the

FMC Progress Page as Fuel Used
Left/Total/Right, and are used in
the subtraction to calculate FMC
Calculated Fuel. This value is
used throughout the FMC to
predict fuel ahead at waypoints
throughout the flight to
Destination, and by implication
the weight of the aircraft
throughout the flight. Predicted
weight impacts the forecast step
climb points, which therefore impacts fuel and time predictions at destination.

As mentioned before – over the course of a long flight my experience is the

relationship between the two values can be characterized as:

Calculated equal to Totalizer in the very early stages of flight; typically

within a couple hundred Kg’s at top of climb.
Slow variance between steady state Totalizer and Calculated values;
trending generally in one direction or another (Calculated exceeding
Totalizer or vice-versa).
Often a developing split will reverse itself for a while.
Split values of 1000 kg or more are unusual but not unheard of; usually
towards the middle or last third of a long haul flight you would see this
maximum value.
Such larger values have usually reduced to a few hundred Kg’s approach Top
of Descent.
In my experience it is unusual for one value to always be below/above the
other across different aircraft (or routes, seasons, etc).

So why are we seeing what we are seeing?

Investigations
While I chased down opinions and information from other 777 operators, we also asked for data
from our instructors. My three flights notwithstanding it became clear that while the
Calculated/Totalizer anomaly was quite apparent (LAX – Australia). On many flight fuel
consumption seemed higher as well. A fuel consumption anomaly is an old story and there are a
number of avenues to explore; including excess cabin baggage, standard weights, aircraft weight,
Jet A fuel calorific value, and others. However the Calculated/Totalizer was a pearler.

Then I sat down this week with Captain Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777, from Boeing. With
some input from a Virgin Technical Pilot, we hit on a scenario which just might address most of both
issues.

Pre-Fuelling, Fuel Stratification, FQIS Accuracy

All our flights to LA arrive in the morning; all leave in the evening. All are pre-fuelled for the evening
departure up to about 90 tons of fuel (against an eventual departure fuel of 110-120 tons). The
aircraft are then towed away from the stand, parked in the sun and left there, the fuel heating up,
before being towed back onto stand just before refuelling for departure late in the evening. It’s a
known phenomenon that such a process, particularly with large diurnal variations in temperature,
can result in “fuel stratification” in the Centre Tank. Now don’t bother Googling this, because I can’t
find a reference to it – but we’re theorizing that a centre tank with 40 tons of warm fuel, and 20
tons of colder fuel on top could result in an FQIS error. Imagine the following scenario:

The aircraft arrives in from Australia. Passengers and crew disembark and the aircraft is pre-
fuelled with 90 tons. Since the mains hold about 60 tons, the mains are full and the centre
tank takes the remaining 30.
The aircraft is now towed away to stand for the day. It’s now 9am. Any APU fuel consumption
comes from the Left Main Tank. On a warm day you could expect the fuel in the tanks to warm
appropriately.
At 9pm (or later) the aircraft is towed back to a stand. At about an hour before departure the
last 10 to 20 tons of fuel is finalised and fuelled. This additional fuel comes from ground tanks
which could be expected to be at a lower temperature than the fuel on the aircraft.
Now let’s suggest (and I have no evidence for suggesting this – it’s a hypothesis only) that the
FQIS at this point is under-reading the fuel in tanks by about 1000 kg. As such the aircraft
has 1000 kg (in the center tank) more than the pilots believe there is.
With the first engine start, the Calculated Fuel is set to the low-reading FQIS Totalizer value,
and the FMC starts to subtract the fuel flow value.
During taxi, unless Nigel Mansel is at the tiller, there’s unlikely to be much mixing to restore
accuracy to the FQIS reading. Hence the Totalizer at takeoff (and FMC Calculated) will be
similar – and still reading Low.
Takeoff is a different story and in combination with the pitch attitudes of climb on a centre
tank with at least 20 tons of empty space, you would expect mixing to take place. This would
likely reduce the FQIS error, if not eliminate it all together.
Would the pilots notice? Probably not given they tend to be busy at this stage. Fuel is
something of a low priority after takeoff – and the engines consume fuel at about 26 tons an
hour during takeoff anyway. You wouldn’t see an increase, just a slightly lower decrease in
fuel with the normal consumption associated with Takeoff.
The aircraft reaches Top of Climb. At this point the Center Tank fuel is mixed, the FQIS
reading accurately. However the FMC Calculated value – divorced as it was from the
Totalizer since Engine Start – is now committed to the higher value. The most obvious
evidence of this “Fuel Stratification – FQIS over-read phenomenon” (if it exists) – would be a
split at Top of Climb, with Calculated below Totalizer by at least the parked on stand under-
read.
Another impact of this would be the aircraft is at least 1000 kg heavier than planned. As such
you would expect the aircraft to burn 300-500 kg more over the course of the flight leg.
At the Destination, this scenario manifests as the FMC showing the aircraft short 1500 kg of
fuel at Destination – 1000 kg due the under-read; 500 for the increased weight of the
aircraft.
Any additional (Calculated less than Totalizer) worsens the perception of the situation as the
FMC shows you arriving without Alternate Diversion fuel – even as the FQIS shows 1500 kg
in the tanks the Calculated can’t see.

We’ve started looking at this in conjunction with Boeing technical. I can see a couple of in flight
short term solutions such as resetting calculated to totalizer at top of climb (having verified the
split is due to an on-stand FQIS under-read)… but the first priority is to confirm the diagnosis – or
develop another one.

In Australia, our aircraft do relatively short turns between sectors. In Abu Dhabi (where the
temperatures soars) – we don’t pre-fuel. This goes part way to explaining why we might see this on
LAX – Australia (if this is actually what we’re seeing) and not anywhere else. It would also make this
a seasonal phenomenon, with the anomaly reducing or disappearing during the Northern
Hemisphere Winter. My contacts with other airlines has failed to identify any airlines that pre-fuel
and sit the aircraft on the ground all day like we do in LA, which means I haven’t been able to
compare. Most agree the theory sound plausible.

We’re going to tactically eliminate the pre-fills on warmer days to see if the effect reduces, and
gather more comprehensive data on fuel consumption from crew over the coming weeks. Boeing
will no doubt be involved, and we all look forward to learning something new about the aircraft.

Like Share

Shortt URL for this post: http://shor.tt/lx

LOT Polish Airlines celebrate their 500,000th B787 passenger with a flash mob
Qantas and Samsung Introduce Virtual Reality Headsets as IFE

About Ken

Ken has flown a number of Boeing and Airbus types with a number of
international airlines. He's currently the Boeing 777 Fleet Training Manager
for an Australian airline.
View all posts by Ken →

Facebook Twitter Google+ Linkedin Pinterest Delicious

Related Posts

Cold Temperature Altimetry The Boeing 777 Rejected

Corrections Landing
November 5, 2016 August 10, 2016

Low Missed Approach Deciding to Stop

Altitude Restrictions January 19, 2016
April 12, 2016

9 comments Leave Comment

CK777
December 27, 2014 at 11:51 pm - Reply
Hi Ken,

I really enjoyed the article and look forward to hearing more about your research. I came to your
website from avsim and your postings on the PMDG 777. Please continue to contribute, it’s very
valuable.

Cheers

Glenn
December 29, 2014 at 11:22 am - Reply
Some interesting discussion here (from 2009) in case it is helpful:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/372917-boeing-777-300er-fuel-indication.html

I believe the 777 fuel temperature probe is located in the left main tank. Outside of possible fuel
stratification, perhaps a temperature delta between left main and center tank is a trigger. (Not a
pilot, speculation only).

Regards
Glenn

Antoni Maimone
January 1, 2015 at 1:52 pm - Reply
Really interesting post! Please keep us updated on the outcome of eliminating the
pre-fills.

Kind Regards,
Antoni Maimone

Ken
February 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm - Reply
Thanks Antoni

Flight Ops conducted a trial comparing pre-fuelled with non pre-fuelled departures. I believe
the result was not conclusive, but my feeling is that since the trial took place in January
(Winter) – the temperatures aren’t enough to provoke the effect. We might need to try again
in August

Marty
March 23, 2015 at 5:04 am - Reply
Why is my image showing with your name?

Karan
January 7, 2015 at 8:04 pm - Reply
Good to read such a descriptive explanation of these situations, on the b777 flying in
command we do come across the same problems as mentioned above, we fly non stop BOM EWR /
DEL JFK
I have seen a totalizer and calculated difference of 1.9 T

Regarding other articles , you have mentioned very amazing to read.

The performance restricted takeoff is also a very usual problem we face for these ULR flights.

Would love to share more info on email

Regards
Karan

Karl Montens
June 17, 2015 at 11:35 am - Reply
Good article on a subject that can be approached from several angles.

i) Why rely on calculated fuel?

Since a couple of decades various “tools” have come on the flight deck to make our job easier.
Calculated fuel is one of them. It is a tool like any other and has its restrictions. You do not have to
use it. One important issue with CAL FUEL is that the DRAG/FF correction for the particular
airframe needs to be correct. Same reasoning for the DRAG/FF correction the FPL (OFP) is using.

ii) When the FQIS is installed or gets some attention from maintenance (calibration) there are
tolerances that are present/accepted. If you take 100000 kg of fuel you actually take 100000 +/- a
certain value. Suppose the centre tank is overreading (calibration error) by 300 kg then that error
will disappear when the tank is empty. An empty tank cannot show any error since there is no fuel
in it.

iii) Even if pre-fueled one has the means to make sure the correct fuel (within the tolerances) is
uplifted. Liters from the bowser * bowser-density (whatever it may be compared to the density in
FQIS) added to the fuel that was already there. You will have to accept that the reading before
topping up was correct. And the difference between what you have calculated and what has been
indicated will give you an idea of the diff you will see between CALC and IND fuel.

vi) Then there is the issue of the legal aspect. Indicated fuel and available fuel are two different
issues. This is where contingency fuel comes into the picture. It is used to cover anything you do not
know beforehand. Simply because if you know it you have to take fuel for it. In fact, the minimum
landing fuel of 30 min should be increased with the known tolerance of the FQIS. On the B747-400
this is up to 1100 kg. It is ver very big bucket and at the end of a flight only the bottom of it contains
some fuel. This is the moment the indicated and usable should be as close together as possible.

vii) On the B747-400 we accepted a tolerance of 3% during fuelling. That could be up to +/- 4000
kg so a read of 8000 kg depending on the fact if your indicators were under or overreading.

viii) If you work for an airline that likes to go minimum fuel with a reduced contingency i.e. a
contingency only from the decision point till destination then a good operating practice (GOP)
would be to do a drip stick after every arrival.

ix) Rule of thumb. 0,8 for ISA (15 C) and for ever 15 C on top 0,01 less.

Joe Lim
November 13, 2015 at 1:34 pm - Reply
Very valuable information! Cheers!!!

Sigvard Wahlin
April 28, 2017 at 12:33 am - Reply
Hello,

I enjoyed reading your write-up on 777 FQIS. You mentioned that you worked with Boeing
Technical… Have we met? I am the Boeing Design Engineer and Equipment Manager for the 777
FQIS system and I work in Propulsion Engineering.

I have taken an interest in this phenomenon myself over the last decade across the Fleet. I really
appreciate your experiences with this TOT/CALC issue… thanks for sharing! I have also seen some
interesting data from multiple operators and would genuinely like to share information with you to
help try and understand this phenomenon if you are interested. You can contact me at Boeing.

Kind Regards

Kind Regards,

Sigvard Wahlin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name * Email *

Website

Post Comment

Search RECENT COMMENTS SPONSORED LINKS FLIGHT ON YOUTUBE

Ken Pascoe on Checking Crew in Join 25,510 YT subscribers that

FIND US ON FACEBOOK the Aircraft have watched our 111 videos over
10,864,045 times
Ken Pascoe on Checking Crew in
the Aircraft
Flight
Like Page Brad on Piper Tomahawk versus
Cessna 152

keith a fellers on Piper

RECENT POSTS Tomahawk versus Cessna 152
Bride Killed in Helicopter Crash

Gysbreght van Aemstel on The (Warning: Distressing Footage)

Cold Temperature Altimetry Boeing 777 Thrust Asymmetry
Corrections November 5, Compensation (TAC)
2016

The Boeing 777 Rejected

Landing August 10, 2016
New Asiana 214 Video (SFO) - Airport
Low Missed Approach Altitude
Camera Video C225
Restrictions April 12, 2016

The Story of Gene

Roddenberry February 26,
2016

The Day the Music Died

February 3, 2016 China Eastern Flight MU736 Engine
Failure (SYD) - "Engine Fooked"
Deciding to Stop January 19,
2016

BeliefMedia Pty Limited