The ATSB has received multiple reports in relation to [Operator 1] management discouraging company Captains from uplifting excessive discretionary fuel based on operational and environmental costs.
The reporters collectively state, [Operator 1] has become increasingly aggressive in recent times regarding the minimisation of discretionary fuel under the guise of 'emissions reduction'. Recently, [Operator 1] has commenced sending each company Captain a graph showing their discretionary fuel uplift relative to all other Captains in the fleet. This is done to deliberately influence the amount of discretionary fuel carried by creating an implied pressure on the individual Captain. 'Fuel decisions should be made based on all factors available to the Captain at the time, and not on where their relative position is on a graph. A possible ramification is that as a result of this pressure, a Captain takes less fuel than they would otherwise have judged necessary in order to improve their position on the graph and end up in an undesired aircraft state'.
A reporter further states, 'this of course does not absolve their responsibility under CASR 91.215 which stipulates the pilot in command (PIC) must ensure the safety of persons and cargo, and the safe operation of the aircraft during a flight. The PIC has the final authority over the operation of the aircraft and the maintenance of discipline by all persons onboard. The regulation provides the PIC the authority to uplift an amount of fuel they consider necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft during all phases of flight'.
One reporter states, 'this emissions reduction policy has resulted in [Operator 1] identifying the top 2 per cent of Captains in terms of discretionary fuel carried and sending them personalised emails requiring justification for the carriage of discretionary fuel of over 1,000 kg (less than 30 mins) on each sector it occurs'. The reporter acknowledges that this requirement does not directly challenge their authority under CASR 91.215 however it implies that disciplinary action may be forthcoming if their discretionary fuel uplift is not reduced.
Another reporter states, 'discretionary fuel uplifts always consider aspects such as the potential for adverse weather, ATC restrictions including, but not limited to, short notice Traffic Information Broadcast by Aircraft (TIBA) activation, short notice holding well in excess of that promulgated by NOTAM, and diversion planning'.
Another reporter provided the following example. 'A pilot in [Location] that routinely completes late/afternoon shifts would be more likely to take a higher amount of discretionary fuel on flights that are scheduled to arrive close to the [Location] curfew for alternate purposes than a pilot that routinely completes early/morning duties given they wouldn’t have an issue with the evening curfew'.
The reporters are collectively concerned that challenging the company Captains' final authority over all aspects of the flight and applying unnecessary pressure to the pilot cohort, could result in Captains carrying less discretionary fuel than they judge necessary in order to avoid any implied punitive action. This action therefore undermines the principle of a SMS.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the REPCON. [Operator 1] would like to provide background regarding policy related to discretionary fuel, detail regarding communications which have been distributed to pilots, and provide clarity regarding why a small number of pilots have been contacted to support education and learning.
The REPCON reporters state that discretionary fuel uplift minimisation has been under the "guise" of emissions reduction. [Operator 1], alongside the [Operator 2] group, is committed to striving towards a sustainable aviation future. Fuel use represents one of an airline’s most significant contributors towards sustainable aviation practices.
Discretionary Fuel Reports
Since September 2023, [Operator 1] has been providing flight crew with information related to their discretionary fuel uplift. [Operator 1] would like to note that although this is a new report to [Operator 1], this concept and reporting type is not new in the industry.
Discretionary fuel refers to fuel added by a pilot in command over and above that figure produced by a flight plan in accordance with the company fuel policy.
All [Operator 1] company flight plans take into account factors specific to each flight including but not limited to contingency/variable fuel, routing around known airspace closures, weather and traffic related holding fuel or fuel to proceed to an alternate (as outlined by CASA requirements).
The [Operator 1] fuel policy allows for discretionary fuel to be uplifted ‘where operationally required’, meaning where it is reasonably foreseeable that additional fuel not already accounted for may be required for the flight's execution.
Communications
Alongside the discretionary fuel reports [Operator 1] has been sending a monthly newsletter with information regarding fuel and sustainability initiatives with an aim to provide awareness, opportunity for learning and professional development in all aspects of operation.
Below is one example of commentary regarding discretionary fuel:
'Carrying fuel to allow for a diversion on a day when the weather is very close to minimum requirements is a different scenario to carrying a diversion airport on a CAVOK day. It would in fact be quite reasonable to expect that a pilot operating on the east coast during the months of December and January, subject to significant operational implications, may see their discretionary fuel load increase. This does not equate to bad fuel management, and this is not the point of these communications.'
[Operator 1] does not agree that communications have been aggressive and instead are looking to establish a learning and improvement culture related to fuel and sustainability initiatives.
Emails sent to small cohort of pilots – excessive discretionary uplift
To provide additional context to the ATSB regarding the emails raised via the REPCON reporters, this email request was sent to [1%] of Captains. It should be noted that there is a consistent discretionary fuel uplift per sector of between 180% and 260% more than their peers.
It was requested that where these pilots uplift more than (essentially the) average figure on either fleet, that the pilot provides some context as to the factors considered in their decision-making model. It was clearly outlined that this was for learning opportunity. Below are some excerpts from the email sent:
‘The intent of these reports is to provide awareness and education opportunities in relation to discretionary fuel uplift'.
'This is not to say that there are no instances in which discretionary fuel is appropriate'.
'Your submissions will be considered with an aim to understand if there are any opportunities, for both [Operator 1] and you, to improve fuel efficiency and ultimately reduce unnecessary carbon emissions'.
At no point has [Operator 1] suggested that punitive action is forthcoming for pilots in relation to the uplift of discretionary fuel which is uplifted in accordance with operational requirements.
Summary
Through our fuel program [Operator 1] is aiming to work with pilots to ensure that fuel uplift is practical, reasonable and not excessive through education and learning. [Operator 1] is committed to working towards sustainable work practices and has a responsibility to its pilots, employees, shareholders and the community to endeavour throughout all areas of the business, to efficient, sustainable and ultimately, safe travel.
CASA response to REPCON No: RA2024-00146
The REPCON raises several concerns relating to communications between [Operator 1] management and their flight crew. The general concern is that the provision of 'discretionary fuel' uplift information to flight crews could influence their fuel load decisions. The report relies on the application of regulation 91.215 of CASR which places a general obligation on the pilot in command (PIC) for the safety of persons, cargo, and safe operation of the aircraft. CASA does not agree that the provision of information to flight crew would reasonably lead to a breach of regulation 91.215 of CASR.
Note: The term 'discretionary fuel' is not a term used under the regulations, but rather is a colloquial term used by operators and flight crew to allow for flexibility in the final fuel load.
An operator under Part 121 must comply with the fuel requirements prescribed by regulation 121.235 of CASR. Specifically, sub regulation 121.235(1) places an obligation on the operator in relation to:
- matters that must be considered when determining whether an aeroplane has sufficient fuel to complete a flight safely
- the amounts of fuel that must be carried on board an aeroplane for a flight
- procedures for monitoring amounts of fuel during a flight
- procedures to be followed if fuel reaches specified amounts during a flight.
Chapter 7 of the Part 121 MOS prescribes the matters that must be considered by the operator and PIC for 'the amount of fuel that must be carried for the flight'. This is a joint obligation, and therefore if the PIC believes the operator's planned fuel uplift is insufficient, they are obliged to ensure that the final fuel uplift is sufficient to meet the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Part 121 MOS. In this case, it would be reasonable for the operator to request information from the PIC to understand why its fuel policy does not satisfy the requirement.
The REPCON does not suggest [Operator 1] is not meeting its obligations for 'the amount of fuel that must be carried', and CASA is satisfied that [Operator 1]’s fuel policy is compliant with regulation 121.235 of CASR.
The REPCON states that the provision of feedback to the PIC on their fuel decisions amounts to an attempt to 'deliberately influence the amount of discretionary fuel carried by creating an implied pressure on the individual Captain'. CASA does not agree that providing feedback, and in some cases requesting further information on the uplift of fuel above that required by the regulations, is an attempt by the operator to cause the PIC to breach their obligations under regulation 121.235 of CASR.
CASA is satisfied that the operator’s fuel policy complies with the regulations and no further action is required.