Contingency Fuel Reduction

Contingency Fuel
Reduction
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Aviation Management Program – Class of 2019
1
CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION
by
Diogo Youssef
Fabiano Gomes de Oliveira
João Centeno
Luciano Figueiredo Vale de Oliveira
A Capstone Project Submitted to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Aviation Management Certificate Program
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
São Paulo, Brazil
November, 2019
2
CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION
by
Diogo Youssef
Fabiano Gomes de Oliveira
João Centeno
Luciano Figueiredo Vale de Oliveira
This Capstone Project was prepared and approved under the direction of the
Group’s Capstone Project Chair, Dr. Leila Halawi
It was submitted to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Aviation Management
Certificate Program
Capstone Project Committee:
___________________________________________
Dr. Leila Halawi
Capstone Project Chair
November, 2019
3
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our deep gratitude to Professor Dr. Leila Halawi, our
research supervisor, for the patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful
critiques of this research work. We would also like to thank Professor Gwen Schallow
and Professor Jesse Slater for the advices, provocative insights and constructive
recommendations on this project. To our Professors, who taught us how to be rational
with science and that when put into practice brings us enormous community gains.
Our thanks are also extended to our companies for their support in this wonderful
challenging to improve our knowledge.
We would also like specially thanks Mr. Fabio, Ms. Maria and Mr. Israel for their
help in offering us all the resources in this course, and extend his to the Embry-Riddle's
staff for enabling us to achieve this goal with funny and smart activities.
To our colleagues who served as an example in this incessant pursuit of knowledge,
technique, but first and foremost of bringing people together constructively and
humorously, to contruct togheter a better aviation industry to our country.
Finally, and most specially, we thank our families and close friends for their
support and encouragement throughout our study.

4
Abstract
Group: Centeno, J.;
Oliveira, F.;
Oliveira L.;
Youssef, D.
Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Title: Contingency Fuel Reduction
This project reviews the minimum fuel regulations for commercial passenger flights in
different countries and intends to scientifically support a change in the existing
contingency fuel requirement regulation in Brazil. This change represents fuel savings for
Brazilian air operations, and it deploys into competitive advantage for Brazilian airlines
compared to foreign air operators. The objective of this project is to provide the Brazilian
civil aviation regulators with the necessary data to justify the reduction of the
contingency fuel values from the current 10% to 5%. This project bases the analysis on
the historical data of fuel planning and fuel consumption from two major Brazilian
airlines, operating under the Civil Aviation Regulation RBAC 121. The historical data is
analyzed by establishing relationships between flight planning and execution, indicating
the fuel that was planned and consumed at each stage of the flight. The analysis of the
impact in the contingency fuel change from 10% to 5% was made by simulating multiple
scenarios capable of creating different fuel quantities for flight planning and random
consumption values. The mathematical model is simulated using the Monte Carlo
methodology, which calculates the amount of remaining fuel from each simulated flight
5
to analyze the operational risk, then support decision making. Therefore, this project
presents a theoretical and practical proposal to reduce the minimum contingency fuel
values required by Brazilian regulation, with a focus on safe and efficient flight
operations.
6
Resumo
Grupo: Centeno, J.;
Oliveira, F.;
Oliveira L.;
Youssef, D.
Instituição: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Título: Contingency Fuel Reduction
Este projeto revisa os regulamentos mínimos de combustível para voos comerciais de
passageiros em diferentes países, e pretende apoiar cientificamente uma mudança na
regulamentação existente do requisito de combustível de contingência no Brasil. Essa
mudança representa uma economia de combustível nas operações aéreas brasileiras, e
desdobra-se em vantagem competitiva para as empresas aéreas brasileiras quando
comparadas com aos operadores aéreos estrangeiros. O objetivo deste projeto é fornecer
aos reguladores da aviação civil Brasileira dados necessários para justificar a redução dos
valores de combustível de contingência dos atuais 10% para 5%. Este projeto tem sua
análise baseada em dados históricos de planejamento e consumo de combustível de voos
de duas grandes companhias aéreas brasileiras, que operam de acordo com o
Regulamento de Aviação Civil RBAC 121. Estes dados históricos foram analisados,
estabelecendo-se as relações entre o planejamento e a execução do voo, indicando-se o
combustível que foi efetivamente planejado e consumido em cada etapa do voo. A análise
do impacto da alteração do combustível de contingência de 10% para 5%, foi feita pela
simulação de múltiplos cenários capazes de simular diferentes quantidade de combustível

7
planejado e consumido. O modelo matemático é simulado usando a metodologia de
Monte Carlo, que calcula a quantidade de combustível remanescente de cada voo
simulado para analisar o risco da operação e suportar a tomada de decisão. Diante disso,
este projeto apresenta uma proposta teórica e prática para reduzir os valores mínimos de
combustível de contingência exigidos pela legislação brasileira, garantindo segurança e
eficiência nas operações de voo.

7
Case Study: Contingency fuel reduction
Chapter I
Introduction
Airlines flying in Brazil have their regular operations ruled by RBAC,
Regulamentos Brasileiros de Aviação Civil, the Brazilian Aviation Civil Regulation, Part
121. The requirement states that any flight must have enough fuel to go from origin to
destination (point A to point B). Also, the flight must have fuel to the alternate airport
(point B to point C), plus a contingency fuel that equals the fuel quantity required to fly
10% of the flight time from A to B (ANAC, RBAC 121.645).
This 10% fuel for contingency is a number defined in the past by the local
authority to cover errors during performance calculations, errors in the aircraft
navigation, and also due to poor or non-existent meteorology forecasting. The sum of
these errors requires additional fuel to make in-flight corrections to unpredicted situations
(Hao et al., 2016).
However, the technical development in aviation brought more accuracy to the air
navigation, and more reliability to the computerized flight planning performance
calculations and meteorology forecasting. This evolution was possible because
nowadays, the systems are integrated with other tools in the airline, increasing the
database for calculations and analysis (Altus, 2009).
Today, the major commercial aircraft manufacturers equip their airplane models
with navigation systems that, in conjunction with the flight plan and existing meteorology
forecasting, are capable of precisely predict the atmosphere condition on every flight
level and every mile of the flight.

8
These technological enhancements of current aviation are reducing the differences
between the planned and actual fuel burn. Companies intend to keep investing in flight
planning systems and modern aircraft because, in this way, airlines can save fuel with
accurate and optimized flight plans applied to flight operations (Altus, 2009).
According to the ANAC, Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil, the Brazilian
Aviation Authority, fuel is one of the airlines' highest costs. In Brazil, fuel cost has
represented 24,8% to 29,5% of airline costs composition from 2015 to 2017, as shown in
Figure 1. This graphic displays the cost composition of Brazilian companies, including
fuel, rental, maintenance, depreciation, airport fees, amongst other costs (ANAC, 2019).
Composition of business costs - ANAC (2015 - 2017)

100%
Operational Costs
90%
Other Related Costs
80%
Air Navigation Fees
70% Airport Fees
60% Depreciation of Flight Equipment
50% Rental, Maintenance and Insurance of Aircraft
40% Handling and Catering
30% 29,5% 27,5% Judicial Conviction

24,8%
Passenger Assistance
20%
Fuel
10%
Crew and Staff
0%
2015 2016 2017
Figure 1 - Composition of business costs - ANAC (2015 - 2017)
Due to the high impact of fuel to airlines costs composition, the continuous
intention to reduce costs and also CO2 emission, almost all airlines around the world are
9
attempting to find ways to increase fuel efficiency actions and reduce the unnecessary, or
unwanted, fuel burn following ICAO recommendations (Johnson & Gonzalez,2013).
It is important to highlight that the fuel burning is part of the aircraft operation.
Thus, it is part of the business, and the total fuel burnt is directly related to the aircraft's
weight when flying. In general terms, airlines aim to fly with the highest number of
passengers and/or cargo. Airlines must avoid all unnecessary non-paying loads, such as
any unneeded fuel quantity, which would only increase weight but provides no revenue.
This dilemma brings us to the core of this project. The fuel burned has a direct
correlation with the actual aircraft weight. Therefore, the more fuel carried represents
more fuel burnt, and any unwanted or unnecessary weight should be avoided from the
total aircraft weight. In other words, the goal is to reduce the Marginal Fuel Burn (MFB),
a concept that states that the incremental fuel burnt to transport a certain load by a certain
leg length. MFB is historically between 2.5 % and 5% of each kilogram of fuel per flight
hour (Denuwelaere, 2012).
Civil Aviation Authorities around the world, such as Australian, Chilean,
European, Mexican, etc., already identified that the contingency fuel required by their
aviation regulation was beyond the real contingency fuel for safe operations. After
comparing predicted versus actual fuel burnt, and the evaluation of the number of flights
diverted due to fuel emergencies, those authorities have reduced the mandatory
contingency from 10% to lower values as 5%. In some cases, those authorities permit the
use of 3% (EASA 2019).
The FAA, in the United States, keeps 10% as a general requirement to all regular
operators. However, the FAA allows airlines to define their contingency fuel
10
requirements for domestic flights. Also, the FAA grants a deviation for international
flights to keep a 10% value in the segment of the flight where the aircraft’s position
cannot be determined at least one time per hour. This is a special surveillance
requirement.
In other words, the FAA gives the airline the responsibility to manage its policies
for the application of the contingency fuel percentages (FAA, 2015).
The Brazilian aviation have similarities with the cited countries, when looking to
the aircraft models operated, operational rules, software used on dispatches, crew
training, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Brazilian fuel requirements can
be reviewed to also be in line with the most updated rules.
This study proposes to scientifically support a change in the Brazilian aviation
regulation, RBAC 121, to reduce the percentage of the current contingency fuel from
10% to 5% for all airlines, and to evaluate lower contingency fuel values based on
specific authorization requirements. ABEAR proposed this change, and it is currently
under the ANAC evaluation process.
Project Definition
This project aims to: (a) Collect data of fuel burnt in the Brazilian airlines'
operations in 12 months, covering a statistically significant share of all national air
traffic. (b) Study lower levels of other possible contingency fuel percentages. (c) Validate
the value of 5% of contingency fuel, keeping the same existing safety levels.
11
Project Goals and Scope
Our project aims to demonstrate that a lower percentage of contingency fuel could
be safely used in Brazilian airline operations. A rule with a lower percentage will align
existing national regulations with the most modern in the world and will offer more
competitiveness to Brazilian operations due to cost reductions, and supporting CO2
emissions reductions.
Our project intends to scientifically support a change in the existing regulation of
contingency fuel requirement to 5%. This change may deploy savings approximately 2,4
Million of kilograms of fuel in a year of a large Brazilian airline operation. This reduction
represents around 0.25% of the annual fuel budget. The regulation change could also
permit percentages lower than 5% contingency in fuel requirement, depending on special
request processes individually demanded by the Airline to the Brazilian Civil Aviation
Authority, ANAC.
These proposed changes will affect and bring benefits to all Brazilian airlines
flying under RBAC 121 rules and will improve the aviation industry through the
reduction of operational costs and would ultimately result in increasing the
competitiveness with foreign carriers.

12
Definition of Terms
Contingency fuel The fuel quantity required to compensate for the unforeseen
factors during the flight phase. (ICAO, 2018, para 4.3.6.3)
Emergency Fuel When the fuel available on at the last landing option is
lower than the planned final reserve fuel. (ICAO, 2018, para
4.3.7.2.3)
MFB Marginal Fuel Burn. The fuel required to transport each kg
of weight over 1000 km. (Fachhochschule, 2017)
List of Acronyms
ABEAR Associação Brasileira das Empresas Aéreas
ACARS Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System
ANAC Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CCAR China Civil Aviation Regulations
DAN Documento Aeronáutico de Normas
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FOB Fuel on Board
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ISA International Standard Atmosphere

13
MFB Marginal Fuel Burn
RAC Reglamentos Aeronáuticos de Colombia
RACP Reglamento de Aviación Civil de Panamá
RAP Regulaciones Aeronáuticas del Perú
RBAC Regulamentos Brasileiros de Aviação Civil
RBHA Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologação Aeronáutica
SARP Standard and recommended Practices

14
Summary
Fuel is one of the highest airline costs, on average, about ¼ of its total costs,
according to ANAC.
The Brazilian aviation legislation keeps the same fuel requirement rules today
when compared to the time when Brazilian airlines did not have state of the art systems
for planning and controlling their flights.
After analyzing other countries' legislations with previous positive experiences,
ABEAR proposed a change in the Brazilian RBAC 121 to reduce the required
contingency fuel percentage from 10 to 5%.
This study aims to scientifically support this change to demonstrate that the
savings for the Brazilian Airlines will not jeopardize the quality and safety levels of flight
fuel planning.
15
Chapter II
Review of the Relevant Literature
Fuel Planning
In the airline environment, every flight planning has the participation of the flight
dispatch department. This department has, among others, the responsibility to calculate
the total fuel required to complete the planned flight. This calculation takes into account
the aircraft model performance, flight route, operational limitations, loads, weather
conditions, and the minimum fuel required as defined by local regulation (Dispatcher,
2019).
The minimum fuel required is composed of different parts and have a unique
calculation for each specific flight every day. As differences in wind, meteorology,
aircraft degradation, total weight, may require more or less fuel.
The existing Brazilian regulation for airlines, RBAC 121, has in its requirements
the minimum fuel planning. Paragraph 121.645 mandates that each operator must take
into consideration wind and known meteorology conditions to calculate fuel for every
flight of jet plane. The computation should consider having enough fuel to:
• Fly to and land in the destination airport;
• Fly a period equals to ten percent of the total time required from the origin
to the destination airport (Contingency Fuel);
• Fly to and land in an alternative airport;
• Fly thirty minutes, on holding speed as applicable to the aircraft model, on
a height of one thousand and five hundred feet from an alternative airport.
16
The requirements of the RBAC 121.645, as written above, are graphically
demonstrated in Figure 2, which also gives an overview of the composition of the
minimum fuel onboard the aircraft. Any other extra fuel defined by company policies can
be added to the available volume of the tank. However, this extra fuel cannot substitute
the minimum required fuel.
Fuel Tank
(B)
Destination
Emergency Fuel (30 min on hold)
Holding
Alternate Fuel (B to C)
Contingency Fuel (10% of A to B)

(A) (C)
Origin Alternative Trip Fuel (A to B)
Taxi Fuel
Figure 2 - Composition of minimum required fuel in Brazil
In this section, we present additional critical definitions related to the fuel
planning process. Some terms may differ between countries, but usually different
regulatory authorities use the same concept. (Flight Safety Foundation, 2018)
• Block Fuel / Total Fuel On Board - The total fuel needed to accomplish the
flight, taking into consideration the Taxi fuel, the Trip fuel, the Contingency fuel,
the Alternate fuel, the Final Reserve fuel, and any Extra fuel carried.
• Taxi Fuel - The fuel required for taxing purposes before takeoff, which usually
includes APU use, engine start, and taxi time. Airlines usually have fixed values
for taxi fuel depending on location and taxi duration.

17
• Trip Fuel - The required to accomplish the flight phase of the flight, comprising
from the beginning of takeoff to the landing at the destination airport. The trip
fuel is calculated to have fuel enough to:
o Takeoff
o Climb to cruise level
o Flight in cruise level, including any planned level change
o Cruise to descent
o Approach
o Landing
Trip fuel is also calculated based on any known air traffic restrictions that would
result in delayed climb or early descent.
• Contingency Fuel / Route Reserve - The fuel needed to compensate for
additional enroute fuel consumption caused by severe weather, routing changes,
or air traffic management.
• Alternate Fuel - The total fuel required from a missed approach on the original
destination airport to the landing at an airport defined to be used as an alternative.
It is calculated to have fuel enough to accomplish:
o From the missed approach point to the cruise level
o From cruise to the descent at the alternative airport
o Accomplish the approach procedure at the alternative airport
o Landing at the alternative airport
• Final Reserve Fuel / Holding Fuel - The minimum fuel needed to fly 30 minutes
at 1,500 feet above the alternative airport at holding speed using International
18
Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions, and taking into consideration the aircraft
model performance specifications.
• Extra Fuel - Additional fuel defined by discretion of the Captain and/or the
dispatcher following the airline policies to support strategic decisions.
Airlines are constantly looking for fuel savings by the reduction of fuel burning.
One of the most used strategies is to reduce the on-board fuel to have lower final aircraft
weight, thus reducing fuel consumption (Airbus,2004).
On each of the above segments of the required fuel, airlines have the means to
manage and work in the reduction of fuel needed. Although they have different ways of
contributing to fuel-saving, their mutual effort can bring significant fuel saving results for
the Airline (Airbus,2004).
According to Boeing, companies spent 10% more fuel than required in 2011. To
increase fuel efficiency, pilots can manage some phases of flight. Examples include taxi,
optimizing routes, optimum flight levels, and different regimes in flights. Also, the
airlines must apply procedures as fuel conservation strategies in the takeoff, climb,
cruise, descent, approach, and taxi phases (Boeing, 2011).
According to AIRBUS, Taxi fuel can be reduced by applying a technique as the
use of one engine for taxi and management of optimum moment to start engines
(Airbus,2004).
The Trip fuel can be managed by the airlines, mainly for pilots, by the application
of several actions from the takeoff to the landing. The most used techniques pass through
the application of proper takeoff flaps policies. These policies can influence the fuel
consumption directly, the definition and the use of shortest routes, and the use of
19
optimum flight levels that can contribute to reducing the in-flight fuel burnt. As an
example of the impact of an optimum flight level policy application, flying at 2.000
below the optimum altitude can increase 2% of fuel burn (Boeing, 2011).
Alternate fuel can be managed by airlines by the strategic choice of the alternative
airports to be used for each route. Usually, airlines also take into account other costs
arising from a diverted flight but still take into account the fuel required by regulation for
this phase.
Extra fuel is part of the company’s policies and is covered by the strategic
decisions to manage any amount of additional fuel or the need to cut it.
Finally, the Final Reserve Fuel of 30 minutes cannot be reduced as it is the only
supply in cases of final emergency and is mandated by ICAO Annex 6. (ANAC, 2018)
The above paragraphs reveal that airlines have a means to work and manage the
fuel burnt by applying internal procedures, fuel savings techniques, and operational
policies. However, airlines cannot manage the 10% contingency fuel, as it is mandatory.
Even when having the accurate dispatch process and modern aircraft that could justify the
reduction of this percentage, the airline is being obligated to transport extra-weight in
unnecessary contingency fuel, which increases costs.
Regulatory Contingency Fuel
The existing requirement for contingency fuel in the current RBAC 121 is based
on the older versions of Brazilian aviation regulation, RBHA 121, and has inherited its
rules from the beginning of the Brazilian airlines’ operations. The first versions, based on
the FAA regulation, defined the required contingency fuel as a number enough to
20
compensate unforeseen factors, navigation error, or even calculations error in the
dispatch process. However, aviation in the world experienced the lead technological
development along the last decades, changing the precision of the calculations, bringing
precise navigation to the airlines, and promoting accurate meteorology forecasts
(Schneider,2009).
Other regulatory agencies around the world, such as American, Australian,
Chilean, European, Mexican, etc., that also use standardized rules for determining the
requirements for fuel planning, have stepped forward. They evolved to a more modern
approach of their legislations., based their minimum requirements on the existing rules
from the International Civil Organization Association (ICAO).
According to Standard and Recommended Practices (SARP) 4.3.6.1 (ICAO,
2013), a flight shall not be initiated unless it takes into consideration the meteorological
conditions and delays expected in the flight. The aircraft has enough fuel to accomplish
the flight safely. Additionally, a 5% reserve fuel shall be considered for contingencies
and unforeseen situations that shall not be lower than the amount required to fly for five
minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard
conditions (ICAO Annex 6, chapter 4.3.6).
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Regulation, in its Commission
regulation 965, dictates technical requirements related to air operations that contain fuel
regulations.
This particular part of the European regulation states that a fuel policy shall be
defined by the operator to the flight planning. This ensures that every flight has enough
21
fuel for the planned operation and enough reserve fuel to cover deviations and
contingencies (EASA, 2012).
Table 1 summarizes the contingency fuel requirement adopted by the authorities
from relevant aviation markets.

AUSTRALIA
(CASA 29/18)
COLOMBIA
(RACP 58C)
(RBAC 121)
(CCAR 121)
(ANEXX 6)
(RAP 121)
(FAR 121)
(DAN 121)
(RAC 121)
PANAMA
CANADA
(TP14371)
EUROPE
BRASIL
CHINA
CHILE
U.S.A.
PERU
5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 10% 10%*
Table 1 - Percentage of contingency fuel per country/region
* Under special deviations, FAA permits the dispatch of domestic flights without
contingency fuel, and international flights with 10% only in segments without
determined surveillance level.
Risk Management and Assessment
A reduction in the contingency fuel results directly in less fuel onboard and may
sound as a reduction on the safety level, and consequently, higher risks to the flight
operations. However, airlines have a means to manage the risk by assessing, evaluating,
and controlling all phases of flight, from planning and dispatch, until monitoring on real-
time all flights from take-off to landing. The airline operations, including flight
operations, have inherent risks, and risk management is the ability to achieve the business
goals by integrating economic, environmental, and social opportunities with the business
strategy keeping the operationally acceptable safety level (Wirtenberg, 2006).
Like other activities of high risk, aviation needs to have thorough and
comprehensive studies for implementing new processes and procedures to evaluate

22
implementation feasibility. One of the best ways to analyze the risks involved is through
risk assessments (ICAO, 2013).
Risk assessment consists of maintaining risks at some acceptable level before the
implementation. The process starts with a crucial phase of hazard identification, and after
analyses, risks are set in a matrix of severity, and probability of harm or damage occur. It
is noticeable that risk assessment is vital to the risk management process and is essential
in the core competency of the safety professionals (ICAO, 2013).
Applying the risk assessment to the reduction of contingency fuel percentage
would result in evident hazards of lack of fuel to the planned trip and the need to use the
Final Reserve Fuel, entering in the emergency condition. Therefore, the risk assessment
intends to raise this evident and severe hazard, while the risk management intends to find
means to control and keep acceptable safety levels in the flight operations.
Simulation and Modeling
Simulation is an important tool to support risk management since the aviation
industry has a high level of complexity. Several situations may affect the flight time, the
flight path, the airport to be used, or even the operational procedures to be adopted to any
specific situation. Through simulation, the airline can replicate the unforeseen and
random reality.
Therefore, the change of the regulatory percentage of contingency fuel would
require a preventive test before defining it as the new rule of the whole country
operations. To add, the best way to test it is by simulating typical aviation operations in
different scenarios to identify the positive and negative impacts of the modification.
23
Simulation is a technique widely used in operations research due to its power of
taking into account the random factor in the model, approaching mathematic models to
real scenarios (Ryan & Heavey, 2006).
Simulation is specially adopted in cases that no failure event is accepted after the
modification of a parameter of the system, as in aviation. So any emergency caused by a
change can be primarily seen in the simulation environment.
Modeling a typical daily operation in the Brazilian aviation starts by collecting
operational data of real flights of Brazilian Airlines, then observing the typical fuel
quantity used on dispatch, and real fuel usage of each flight. In this project, the model is
simulated using the Monte Carlo methodology. This powerful tool simulates the random
events that can occur in a flight, which can cause differences in fuel burning, and
resulting in the use of the contingency fuel (Shreĭder, 1966).
The Monte Carlo simulation can be applied in a high number of situations, where
have a historical database and need to have an aleatory condition using known variables.
In another study, Andreeva-Mori and Uemura (2018) used this tool to account for various
wind conditions in the descent procedure. In their research, they were looking for the
influence of wind in the descent procedure, creating two strategy scenarios.
In the first scenario, the pilot does not add any thrust regardless of the path
deviation. Whereas, in scenario 2, the pilot adds some to eliminate the potential steady
flight level segment at 10,000 ft (Andreeva-Mori, 2018).
The result of Monte Carlo simulation presented three sample wind prediction
error, with 10,000 runs, and show the difference between strategies comparing some key
24
descent profile characteristics, as fuel burn, the flight time from the top of descent to
metering fix and level segment flight time (Andreeva-Mori, 2018).
Due to the powerful computational capability of the Monte Carlo simulation, we
were able to simulate real flight conditions using the airline historical database to
calculate initial fuel onboard, fuel used on each different flight, and the remaining fuel on
landing.
The observations of the flights' database, provided by two Brazilian Airlines, are
used to determine the behavior of the random processes of the model and serve as inputs
to the Monte Carlo methodology. The simulation can randomize the fuel on dispatches
and fuel burnt on different flights.
The results of the simulation intend to create statistical trials and return the
percentage of flight that will land with fuel onboard below the minimum level. In other
words, the Monte Carlo methodology intends to simulate random scenarios to find if any
percentage of flights that consumed all its fuel after reducing the contingency
requirement to 5% (Shreĭder, 1966).
Summary
The legal requirement for fuel planning is separated into several distinct parts.
The main ones are: Trip fuel (fuel planned to be burned from origin to destination),
alternate fuel (fuel to fly from the missed approach point at the destination to an alternate
airport) and the contingency fuel, which is a pre-determined percentage of the trip fuel
that has to be added to the total fuel onboard. In the Brazilian legislation, it is 10%.
25
Airlines apply several procedures during the planning and flying phases according
to techniques prescribed by airplane manufacturers. However, the only part of the fuel
requirements that cannot be properly managed with a focus in savings is the contingency
fuel since it is pre-determined by a legal requirement.
Some major Worldwide aviation authorities have reduced the contingency fuel
requirement percentages, including EASA, FAA, and ICAO.
This study used simulation and modeling based on real flights from major
Brazilian airlines to scientifically support that Airlines need less than the 10%
contingency fuel in order to fly safely. The airlines will have a significant saving in their
fuel costs.
26
Chapter III
Methodology
This project uses two parallel methodologies to evaluate the impacts of the
reduction of the regulatory contingency fuel from 10% to 5%.
The starting point is an analysis of the flight's historical database, provided by two
of the three major Brazilian airlines. The actual contingency fuel on departure is
mathematically replaced by 5% to check the remaining fuel on landing and the general
impacts of this change as a qualitative analysis.
The second part simulates multiple flights with different inputs of fuel planning
(taxi fuel, trip fuel, additional fuel, etc.) and the 5% proposed rule, and use randomization
to calculate the remaining fuel on landing for different conditions created by the model.
Sampling design
The analysis of flight history is based on databases provided by two of the three
largest airlines in Brazil and contains operational information of six to twelve months of
flights, with the total fuel planned and realized to each flight leg.
The data of fuel planned for each phase were extracted from the airlines' dispatch
software, which also contains information about the route, flight time, aircraft model, and
details of fuel planned to taxi, cruise, reserves, contingencies, etc.
The data of realized flights were extracted from airline communication
management systems that provide logs of data generated by the aircraft ACARS, Aircraft
Communication Addressing, and Reporting System.

27
This system sends messages via radio communication to the airline ground base,
containing among others, the time information on specific phases and the total fuel on
each of these phases.
The information on the databases is a stratified sampling of the totality of the
Brazilian aviation operation. The information is considered a representation of the
Brazilian aviation service. Both airlines represent 60% of the total flights in the country.
As calculated based on the ANAC information given by Table 2 (ANAC, 2019), the
airlines have similar operational characteristics (destinations, aircraft models, routes, etc.)
when compared with the other airlines, and fly under the same regulations.
AIRLINE Flights (JUN/19) %

AZUL 23351 36.1%
GOL 20073 31.0%
LATAM 18744 29.0%
PASSAREDO 928 1.4%
MAP 434 0.7%
TWO FLEX 416 0.6%
LATAM CARGO 317 0.5%
TOTAL CARGO 238 0.4%
MODERN LOGISTICS 166 0.3%
TOTAL 64667 100.0 %
Table 2 - Number of flights in June/2019 - ANAC
Apparatus and Procedures
Flight database - The flights' database was provided by two airlines to this
project, covers six to twelve months of operations, and contains the relevant operational
information to this project. Different aircraft models, operating different routes, generated
the database, representing the reality of actual flight operations in the country. The
28
models used in the database are Boeing 737, Airbus A319, Airbus A320, Airbus A321,
Boeing 767, Airbus A350 and Boeing 777.
The database of actual fuel is constructed based on the information of Fuel on
Board - FOB in the standard flight phases OUT, OFF, ON, and IN.
• OUT is the time that the aircraft is out of the gate on origin
• OFF is the exact time the aircraft takes off from origin
• ON is the exact time the aircraft touches the ground on landing
• IN is the time that the aircraft enters the gate on destination
The FOB on each phase comes from the aircraft systems that transmit the
information via ACARS to the airline, which maintains the historical database of its
operations.
However, ACARS use radio or satellite communication to send the FOB
information, which are susceptible to area coverage. And there is a lack of information
causing loss of fuel quantity information in the OUT, OFF, ON, and IN phases.
Therefore, the complete database was cleaned by the researcher’s team to exclude
non-revenue flights and flights not operated by an aircraft registered in Brazil, entries
with missing or invalid data of Aircraft Model, FOB in the phases of OUT, OFF and ON,
and missing or invalid data of planned trip fuel. The final database is a spreadsheet with
the following information (columns):
• ID - To identify different entries
• MODEL - Aircraft model used in the flight
• MFB MODEL - Marginal Fuel Burn value for the model
• FLIGHT TIME - Duration of the flight in hours

29
• PLANNED TRIP FUEL - The planned trip fuel
• CONTINGENCY FUEL - The existing 10% contingency fuel
• ALTERNATE FUEL - The fuel planned to fly to the alternative airport
• RESERVE FUEL - Fuel to fly for 30 minutes over the alternate airport
• TAXI FUEL - Fuel planned for the taxi procedure on departure
• EXTRA FUEL - All additional fuel planned by discretion of the company
• ON FOB - Fuel on board at landing
• OUT FOB - Fuel on board at the gate on departure
After the data cleaning, the list remained with a total of 293,488 flights with valid
data on each of the above information (columns). Following the ANAC records, in the
same period, both airlines together made 371,339 flights. The confidence interval of this
sample can be calculated by Yamane’s sample size formula (YAMANE, 1967), and the
results are presented in Table 3 of Chapter IV.
𝑁
𝑛 =
1 + 𝑁 ∗ (𝑒)!
n = Sample size
N = Population
e = confidence interval
30
In addition to the above information (columns), and after the data cleaning, the
final spreadsheet receives the below columns with the following calculated variables to
support the analysis:
• TOTAL FUEL 10 - Total fuel on board with 10% contingency fuel
TOTAL FUEL 10 = PLANNED TRIP FUEL + CONTINGENCY FUEL +
ALTERNATE FUEL + RESERVE FUEL + TAXI FUEL + EXTRA FUEL
• TOTAL FUEL 5 - Total fuel on board with 5% contingency fuel
TOTAL FUEL 5 = (1,05 * PLANNED TRIP FUEL) + ALTERNATE FUEL +
RESERVE FUEL + TAXI FUEL + EXTRA FUEL
• USED TRIP FUEL - Total fuel used in the flight:
USED TRIP FUEL = OFF FOB - ON FOB
• LAND 5% - Total fuel on landing if the contingency fuel was 5%:
LAND 5% = TOTAL FUEL 5 - USED TRIP FUEL
• DIFF FOB - Difference on Fuel On Board when comparing rules of 10%
and 5% for contingency fuel:
DIFF FOB = TOTAL FUEL 5 - TOTAL FUEL 10
• DIFF F.BURN - Difference on fuel burn due to the DIFF FOB:
DIFF F.BURN = DIFF FOB * MFB MODEL
The target of the above calculations is to identify flights that would have fuel
onboard under the minimum limits when being dispatched using five percent of
contingency fuel in the planning phase. In other words, to evaluate when LAND 5% is
smaller than RESERVE FUEL.

31
Simulation database - The simulation table uses the same original database used
to create the previous spreadsheet, grouping the relevant information to the simulation
model, making it useful to collect the statistical observations from historical data.
The database for simulations is a separated spreadsheet, with the following
information extracted from Flight Database, and separated in different columns:
• ID - To identify different entries
• FLIGHT TIME - Duration of the flight in hours
• PLANNED TRIP FUEL - The planned trip fuel
• CONTINGENCY FUEL - The existing 10% contingency fuel
• ALTERNATE FUEL - The fuel planned to fly to the alternative airport
• RESERVE FUEL - Fuel to fly for 30 minutes over the alternate airport
• TAXI FUEL - Fuel planned for the taxi procedure on departure
• EXTRA FUEL - All additional fuel planned by discretion of the company
• USED TRIP FUEL - Total fuel used in the flight
Then, these two additional columns are created in the spreadsheet:
• GROUP - Classification of the flight per its duration:
A - FLIGHT TIME until 1,0 hour
B - FLIGHT TIME from 1,0 to 2,0 hours
C - FLIGHT TIME from 2,0 to 3,0 hours
D - FLIGHT TIME from 3,0 to 4,0 hours
E - FLIGHT TIME from 4,0 to 6,0 hours
F - FLIGHT TIME from 6,0 to 10,0 hours
G - FLIGHT TIME higher than 10,0 hours

32
• CONSUMPTION FACTOR - Relation of actual and planned trip fuel:
CONS. FACTOR = USED TRIP FUEL / PLANNED TRIP FUEL
Model spreadsheet - The model for simulation is written in a separated
spreadsheet were the Excel application, Oracle Crystal Ball, can run separately for each
group of flights.
The modeling is calculation of the random fuel quantities of each variable of the
model (PLANNED TRIP FUEL, CONTINGENCY FUEL, ALTERNATE FUEL,
RESERVE FUEL, TAXI FUEL, EXTRA FUEL, and CONSUMPTION FACTOR),
respecting the historical behavior of each of data separately, to find the remaining fuel of
each simulation.
Figure 3 - Simulation model for remaining fuel with 5% of contingency fuel
The figure above illustrates the relationship between variables in the model, the
calculation to find the remaining fuel of each flight, and the variables that receive the
values randomized by the Monte Carlo methodology using historical data from the
Simulation Spreadsheet described in the item before.

33
Summary
To achieve the best results to analyze the contingency fuel, two different
methodologies were applied. The first was a review in historical data that was provided
for two of the main companies in Brazil, and the second was a simulation of a typical
flight schedule in the Brazilian industry.
The historical data can introduce and analyses the subject to motivate the reason
for the study to be conducted. It was an opportunity to see if the solution proposed could
be achieved and if this could generate some safety impact. During this phase, the
environment was standardized in terms of premises that would be used in the next phase.
The second part of the study is the simulation, where we use historical data of
different variables that can affect fuel consumption, collect data to understand the
statistical behavior of them.
A mathematical model used this statistical information to simulate the remaining
fuel on board of simulated flights, and compare with the minimum reserve fuel (holding
fuel), to conclude if any flight could be severely affected by the change on the
contingency fuel from 10% to 5%.

34
Chapter IV
Project Outcomes
Based on the scope of this project, the outcomes are presented in two different
parts. The first one is dedicated to analyze the historical data of flights from two of the
three major airlines in Brazil, and make a new assumption on the contingency fuel
quantity to understand the impact of the proposed regulation change in the Brazilian
aviation industry.
The second part is dedicated to the analysis of the simulation results. Multiple
random scenarios were generated, with the Monte Carlo simulation methodology, to find
remaining fuel quantity on the flights' destinations, and the comparison with the
minimum fuel quantity required for safe operations on this phase.
Data collection analysis
Both Airline A and Airline B provided flight planning historical data and also
actual flight data received automatically via ACARS from flights in the same period. This
study compared both information to find pairs of “actual vs. planned” and cleaned the
data using the process mentioned in the previous chapter.
These actions resulted in several flights enough to run analysis and predict results
using actual data, with representativeness of 99,92% of the sample, as per Yamane’s
sample size formula calculation.
Table 3 provides details about sampling sizing and confidence interval
calculation.
35
AIRLINE Airline A Airline B Total

Number of flights
211,839 81,649 293,488
(Sample Size)
Period in the sampling 12 Months 7 Months -
Total flights in the period
249,663 121,736 371,339
(Population)
Sample Size % 84.85% 67.07% 79.02%
Representativeness
- - 99,92%
(Confidence Interval)
Table 3 - Analysis of flights data sampling
However, there are several different types of flights contained in the dataset,
which do not allow us to compare them directly. These flights are operated by different
aircraft models, flying different distances, carrying different weights, in multiple
combinations of these factors. Therefore, to better explore the data, the outcomes are
presented categorized by the flight duration, which is the factor that most directly affects
the amount of fuel burnt by the aircraft.
For this project, the flight durations were categorized in five different blocks,
separated by one hour difference, as follows:
• Group A – Flights with a duration of 1 hour or less
• Group B – Flights with duration between 1 and 2 hours
• Group C – Flights with a duration between 2 and 3 hours
• Group D – Flights with duration between 3 and 4 hours
• Group E – Flights with a duration of between 4 and 6 hours
• Group F – Flights with a duration of between 6 and 10 hours
• Group G – Flights with a duration of 10 hours or more

36
This categorization reveals that the Brazilian operations have almost 70% of its
operations concentrated in flights with duration up to 2 hours. If analyzing flights until 3
hours of duration, it returns a coverage of more than 90% of Brazilian flights, as shown in
Figure 4.
Distribution of flights per duration

37,7%
(111629)
31,5%
(93250)
21,9%
(64864)
7,2%
(21417)
1,0% 0,6% 0,1%
(2971) (1714) (391)
(A) 1 hour or (B) 1 to 2 (C) 2 to 3 (D) 3 to 4 (E) 4 to 6 (F) 6 to 10 (G) 10 hours
less hours hours hours hours hours or more
Figure 4 - Distribution of flights per duration
Flight analysis outcome
The historical data of flights provided by the airlines were used to an initial
estimation of the “new” Fuel On Board (FOB) using the new proposed rule of 5% of
contingency fuel instead of existing contingency fuel.
For each entry, the actual value of fuel used in the flight is deducted from the new
FOB to calculate how much fuel each flight would land if it were dispatched with the
modified contingency fuel of 5%.

37
The intuitive conclusion for reducing the contingency fuel from 10% to 5%, is
that all flights should have a reduction in the fuel quantity on landing. Since the less fuel
the aircraft, have in the departure, the less fuel would have in the arrival.
However, the current regulation requires 10% over the flight time, while the new
proposal is 5% over the trip fuel quantity. While this last one is a direct and linear
relation, the calculation over the trip fuel is not a linear relation. And for long flights, the
total contingency may result in lower values when compared with the linear 5%
calculation.
In general, 71% of flights had the fuel on landing reduced when compared with
the current regulation. The most affected in this condition are in Categories B and C. On
the other hand, approximately 29% of flights had an increase in their fuel quantity on
landing. The highest concentration is in the flights in Category A. Figure 5 gives details
on this analysis.
Remaning fuel change

27,9%
Reduced fuel
Increased fuel
Percentage
19,8%
15,6% 15,8%
9,8%
6,4%
2,1% 1,3%
0,8% 0,4%
A B C D E, F, G
Flight Duration Category
Figure 5 – How remaining fuel is affected by the change on the contingency fuel
38
However, even if the change of the current regulation to 5% is capable of
increasing the remaining fuel quantity on the landing of almost 30% of flights, we still
needed to investigate further how the other flights were impacted.
The next step was to analyze the flights that had their fuel quantity at landing
decreased, and how much remained on board, to find out if any flight might be safely
affected by this change.
Therefore, the researchers compared the new fuel onboard on landing, applying
the 5% rule, with the final reserve fuel (holding fuel), and observed the difference
between them. The objective was to check if there would be any flight with a fuel
onboard on landing lower than the minimum fuel required by regulation, which could
result in an emergency condition.
Figure 6 gives the number of observations of flights, grouped by the difference of
remaining fuel on landing and final reserve fuel. Negative values identified situations
when the flight landed below the minimum fuel required by regulation, while positive
values indicate more fuel than the final reserve fuel quantity.
39
Difference of new fuel on landing to the required for

holding on the alternative airport
112493
104728
Number of observations
42770
21902
8161
1 115 3217 2849
Figure 6 – Difference of fuel on landing to the required for holding on the alternative airport
It is possible to observe that after changing the contingency fuel rule, the majority
of flights would land with 2000kg up to 4000kg more fuel than the minimum reserve.
The Figure reveals one isolated case in which the aircraft would land with less
fuel than the minimum reserve, or in other words, in a fuel emergency condition.
Regarding this specific flight, the historical data revealed that even with the current 10%
rule, this flight was in a fuel emergency condition, and for that will be not considered to
the purpose of this study.
Monte Carlo simulation outcomes
The Monte Carlo simulation was also divided into separated simulations for each
flight category. So the effect of flight consumption differences of short and long flights
will not affect the historical data collection.

40
The model created to this simulation requires statistical information, to run
random scenarios, from the historical data of the following variables:
• Taxi Fuel
• Planned Trip Fuel
• Alternate Fuel
• Extra Fuel
• Holding Fuel
• Relation between Actual and Planned Trip Fuel, also named in this study
as Consumption Factor
The observation of the above variables data determines the type of statistic
distribution of the historical observation. This determination is required to define the
inputs needed from each variable (mean, mode, standard deviation, etc.) to be inputted in
the simulation tool.
With the support of the Excel application Oracle Crystal Ball, and using the bulti-
in tool based on Anderson-Darling methodology, it was possible to determine the
distribution that better adjusted for each dataset.
Table 4 presents the results of this analysis.

41
Taxi Planned Alternate Extra Holding Consumption

Fuel Trip Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Factor
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal Normal Logistic
Group A Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal T Student Logistic
Group B Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal Logistic Logistic
Group C Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal Log-Normal Logistic
Group D Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal Log-Normal Logistic
Group E Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal Logistic T Student
Group F Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution Ditribution
Normal Normal Normal Log-Normal T Student T Student
Group G Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Ditribution Ditribution
Table 4 – Type of distributions for each historical observation dataset
Then, the researchers calculated the below values to each historical data, based on
the required inputs to the simulation model:
Taxi Fuel Mean = 168.78 S.Dev = 78.05 -

Planned Trip Fuel Mean = 2116.86 S.Dev. = 341.04 -
GROUP A
Alternate Fuel Mean = 1776.39 S.Dev. = 415.72 -

Extra Fuel Mean = 732.03 S.Dev. = 577.08 Local = 0.00
Holding Fuel Mean = 1000.14 S. Dev = 65.96 -
Cons. Factor Mean = 0.97 Scale = 0.05 -
GROUP B

Holding Fuel Midpoint = 1024.80 Scale = 73.59 Deg.Freed. = 10.38
GROUP C

Holding Fuel Mean = 1136.14 Scale = 64.47 -
GROUP D

Holding Fuel Mean = 1231.79 S.Dev. = 171.95 Local = 804.39
42

GROUP E Planned Trip Fuel Mean = 13319.29 S.Dev. = 4771.42 -
Holding Fuel Mean = 1463.58 S.Dev. = 381.58 Local = 828.73
GROUP F

Holding Fuel Mean = 5170.53 Scale = 700.00 -
Cons. Factor Midpoint = 0.93 Scale = 0.02 Deg.Freed. = 9
Taxi Fuel Mean = 845.42 S.Dev. = 273.26 -
GROUP G

Holding Fuel Midpoint = 7694.41 Scale = 850.00 Deg.Freed. = 1
Cons. Factor Midpoint = 0.98 Scale = 0.02 Deg.Freed. = 11
Table 5 – Inputs for simulation model calculated from historical observations
With the above values inputted into the mathematic model, the researchers
simulated 200,000 flights for each of groups A, B, and C, and 50,000 flights for groups
D, E, F, and G, totalizing 800,000 flights simulated to find the remaining fuel.
The results are shown in Figures 7 to 13, which provides the frequency of
remaining fuel values, and reveal the pattern of a Normal distribution for all simulations
groups.
From each graph, we observe the average value and standard deviation.
Following the Empirical Rule, the parameters of mean and standard deviation can be used
to define the population covered by the results of a Normal Distribution, where two
values of standard deviations result in coverage of 95,4% of the results (edX,2019).

43
Average = 3851.79 kg
Std. Dev. = 740.17 kg
Figure 7 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group A simulation
Std. Dev. = 778.95 kg
Figure 8 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group B simulation
Std. Dev. = 782.66 kg
Figure 9 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group C simulation

44
Std. Dev. = 768.73 kg
Figure 10 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group D simulation
Std. Dev. = 1006.40 kg
Figure 11 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group E simulation
Std. Dev. = 5548.34 kg
Figure 12 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group F simulation

45
Std. Dev. = 2403.13 kg
Figure 13 – Probability distribution of remaining fuel on Group G simulation
Then, applying (adding and subtracting) two values of standard deviations over
the average value of the remaining fuel of each simulation, the researchers built the
below table that confirms that any flight would have the following maximum and
minimum remaining fuel, with 95,4% of probability.
Average Minimum Maximum

Remaining Fuel Remaining Fuel Remaining Fuel
Group A 3851 kg 2371 kg 5331 kg
Group B 2855 kg 1297 kg 4413 kg
Group C 2242 kg 677 kg 3807 kg
Group D 4582 kg 3045 kg 6119 kg
Group E 5874 kg 3861 kg 7887 kg
Group F 17659 kg 6762 kg 28556 kg
Group G 16180 kg 11364 kg 20996 kg
Table 6 – Range of remaining fuel value with 95,4% of probability
Data coming from each simulated flight were also assessed and analyzed
separately to compare the remaining fuel and the minimum reserve fuel (holding fuel).
The researchers also evaluated if any flight “landed” with less remaining fuel than the
46
minimum required, or in other words, in an emergency condition. Table 7 presents the
resume of simulation results and the comparison between remaining fuel and minimum
reserve fuel.
Smallest Remaining Smallest difference

Flights simulated
Fuel to the reserve fuel
Group A 200,000 1543 kg + 559.90 kg
Group B 200,000 1699 kg + 676.52 kg
Group C 200,000 1895 kg + 847.64 kg
Group D 50,000 2138 kg + 996.39 kg
Group E 50,000 2323 kg + 731.63 kg
Group F 50,000 3335 kg + 280.16 kg
Group G 50,000 4581 kg + 47.18 kg
Table 7 – Results of simulations for remaining fuel and difference to reserve fuel
Our study shows in the last column of Table 7 that, after 800.000 simulations
using historical data. No flight would land below minimum reserve fuel (holding fuel)
after contingency fuel was changed to 5% of the Trip Fuel.
Summary
As a result of the change in the contingency fuel regulation, from the existing
10% of the trip time to the new 5% of trip fuel, it is possible to observe a potential saving
of approximately 0,2% on airlines annual fuel budget, due to the lower quantity of fuel
burn to carry unnecessary fuel.
Table 8 resumes the potential savings of this change:

47
AIRLINE A AIRLINE B
TOTAL DIF (kg) -2,368,347 -3,106,603
TOTAL DIF (L) -2,960,433 -3,883,254
FUEL COST (R$/L) 2.91 2.91
DESNTIY (kg/L) 0.8 0.8
SAVING (R$) -8,614,860.70 -11,300,268.66
DOLLAR CONVERSION 4.15 4.15
SAVING (US$) -2,075,870.05 -2,722,956.30
FUEL BUDGET US$ 998,317,000 1,298,536,960
% SAVINGS -0.21% -0.21%
Table 8 – Potential savings after contingency fuel reductions
The outcomes from both statistical and simulated studies confirm that the
proposed contingency fuel percentage reduction would not affect the safety level of
operations. By analyzing the results, there is enough evidence to support that no flight
would land with a fuel quantity lower than the minimum reserve due to the legislation
change.
The statistical study also shows that when changing the contingency fuel from
10% to 5%, 29% of flights would experience an increase of fuel after landing. This
observation disproves the general thinking that by reducing the contingency fuel, we
would see a simple linear reduction of the amount of fuel available to the pilot in the
most critical moment for their decision-making process, approach, and landing.
The simulation ran in this project, using random entries within 800,000 fuel
consumption calculations in different flight categories. The results demonstrate that the
remaining fuel in the aircraft flying in the new rules has its minimum value above the
minimum required reserve fuel. In other words, the results demonstrate that no flight
would enter the fuel emergency condition.

48
Chapter V
Overview of the research
The purpose of the study was to scientifically support a change in the Brazilian
aviation rules regarding the reduction of the required contingency fuel from 10% to 5%.
ABEAR requested this change to ANAC to increase Brazilian airline
competitiveness in the global aviation market since other International authorities have
already changed their rules in this direction.
Our study aimed to analyze real flight data and also simulate thousands of random
flights using the new contingency fuel percentage to assure that the change could be
made without jeopardizing flight safety.
Summary of results
The researchers divided this study into two separates analysis. The first one
looked at a group of over two hundred and ninety thousand flights from two of the largest
Brazilian Airlines. The researchers used planning data and also real flight data to be able
to further understand if the proposed change in the fuel calculation method, would impact
the remaining fuel amount after landing. By doing that, we were able to evaluate if there
will be a decrease in Flight Safety if the regulation change is approved.
The result showed, with a confidence interval of 99,92%, that 71% of flights had
the fuel on landing reduced when compared with the current regulation. And surprisingly,
the remaining 29% of flights had an increase in their fuel quantity on landing.
49
However, the information we were looking for is to find out if any flight has
arrived on the ground after landing with a fuel amount less them the regulatory minimum,
which would put it into a fuel emergency condition.
The final result was that only one flight amongst over almost three hundred
thousand has landed in a fuel emergency condition. However, the researchers decided not
to consider this information to be valid since it has arrived in an emergency fuel
condition even under the actual fuel regulatory rules, meaning even having the 10% fuel
contingency fuel available.
The second part of the study was to randomly simulate thousands of flights, using
the Monte Carlo simulation, to see if it would point to similar results of the first study.
After using random entries within 800,000 fuel consumption values, the
simulation statistically demonstrated that no flight entered the fuel emergency condition,
reinforcing the same conclusion achieved in the first study.
By having both studies getting the same conclusion, we are now able to
scientifically support that the change in the Brazilian fuel regulation can be made without
decreasing our Flight Safety.
All results were sent to ABEAR to be presented to ANAC together with the fuel
data from all major Brazilian airlines.
All these documents were presented to ANAC to technically support the
regulatory change that could lead to a US$ 6.5M per year in fuel savings for Brazilian
Aviation, considering 0,21% of the current fuel budget of the three biggest airlines flying
in Brazil.
50
Limitations of the study
The first limitation was the availability of flight data fuel records. The researchers
were only able to get data from two of the three major Brazilian Airlines. Although it was
sufficiently representative and it would be better if this project had been supplied with the
material from the third airline.
Another important limitation was the availability of free software to develop the
simulations. Although the researchers have positive and reliable results using the Monte
Carlo simulation application and believe that would enrichen the study to have used
aviation-related software such as AMADEUS, SABRE, or JEPPESEN.
Other studies related to impacts in-flight operations use to also analyze data by
applying seasonality effects. This project did not have additional data (more than one
year) to evaluate the effects of the seasonality on fuel planning and consumption.
However, the researchers understand that the evaluation of each single flight separately
was sufficient to achieve the project objective.
Information gained from the study
The researchers believe our study is the only one available on this matter that have
used simulation and also that took into account the statistical value of the data studied.
The Airlines only gave ABEAR a mathematical study, not guaranteeing a specific
significance interval. The quality and significance of our data should help convince those
who have doubts about the maintenance of the Flight Safety values.
51
Conceptual Implications
This study supports that all countries that have already made this change in fuel
calculation policies were right when they took this decision and that Brazilian Authorities
should head in the same way.
This study also can solve any doubts the reader should have of the feasibility of
this change regarding fuel management safety.
Future implications
This study took into consideration a mathematical and statistical view of the
proposed regulatory change. The researchers believe that this is only one part of the
impact it will have on Brazilian Aviation.
The researchers think that further studies should cover how flight dispatchers and
pilots will react to the reduction of the contingency fuel percentage.
One possible outcome is that pilots and flight dispatchers would increase the
amount of extra fuel personally added to the flight plan since they are not used to the new
regulation.
This could lead to a decrease in the fuel cost reduction, and depending on how
strongly they react, it could also lead to an increase in fuel costs in comparison with the
actual fuel figures.
The researchers believe that Airlines should take care of the implementation
process, making it clear to all stakeholders that the Safety levels will be maintained and
that there is no new reason that should lead to an increase in extra fuel requests.
52
References
AAC (2019) – Autoridade de la Aviacion Civil Colombia. RAC 121 – Requisitos de
Operación Operaciones Domésticas e Internacionales Regulares y no Regulares
– Retrieved From:
http://www.aerocivil.gov.co/normatividad/RAC/RAC%20%20121%20-
%20Requisitos%20%20de%20Operaci%C3%B3n%20-
%20Operaciones%20Dom%C3%A9sticas%20e%20Internales-
Regulares%20y%20no%20Regulares.pdf
AACP (2019) - Autoridad Aeronáutica Civil Panamá - Libro X – Parte II – Reglas De
Vuelo Y Operación General - Aviones Grandes Y Turborreactores - Retrieved
from: http://sigob.aeronautica.gob.pa/snra/subtipo/2/ficha/663/archivo/2520/pdf
AIRBUS (2004). Getting to grips with fuel economy. Issue 4 - October 2004
Altus, S. (2009). Effective Flight Plans Can Help Airlines Economize. Aero Quarterly -
Boeing Company. Retrieved from: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/
aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_08_1.html
ABEAR (2018) - Associação Brasileira das Empresas Aéreas - Panorama Abear dados e
estatísticas. Retrieved from: http://panorama.abear.com.br/dados-e-
estatisticas/custos-das-empresas/
ANAC (2018) - Agencia Nacional de Aviação Civil - Regulamento Brasileiro da
Aviação Civil 121, Emenda 05. Retrieved from https://www.anac.gov.br/assuntos/
legislacao/legislacao-1/rbha-e-rbac/rbac/rbac-121
53
Andreeva-Mori, Adriana, & Uemura, Tsuneharu. (2018). Efficiency Analysis of Speed
Managed Descent in the Presence of Wind Prediction Error. Retrieved from
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjsass/61/1/61_T-16-48/_pdf
CASA (2018) - Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australian Government. CASA 29/18 -
Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2018 -Retrieved from:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00644/Html/Text#_Toc514142495
CCAR (2005) – China Civil Aviation Regulations. CCAR 121.661 Operation
Certification Rules for Civil Aviation Transportation Carriers with Large
Airplanes– Retrieved From:
http://conmachine.com/pluginfile.php/1901/mod_resource/content/1/CCAR-
121.pdf
DGAC Chile (2017) – Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil Chile. DAN121 Edición 2
– Requisitos de Operación: Operciones Nacionales, Internacionales, Regulares y
No Regulares – Retrieved from:
https://www.dgac.gob.cl/transparencia/pdf2017/DAN_121_Ed.2_Enm.8.pdf
DGAC Peru (2018) - Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil Peru. RAP 121 –
Requisitos de Operación – Capítulo P – Retrieved From:
http://portal.mtc.gob.pe/transportes/aeronautica_civil/normas/documentos/rap/201
8/RAP_121/17%20RAP%20121_Capitulo_P_enm_1.pdf
Denuwelaere, S. (2012). A new approach to cost of weight. eJournal Aircraft It.
Retrieved from: https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/a-new-approach-to-cost-of-
weight-cow/?area=ops
54
Dispatcher.org (2019). Library - Dispatch Profession - Job Description. Retrieved from:
https://www.dispatcher.org/dispatcher/job-description
Edx.org (2019). Chapter 4. Normal Distributions. Retrieved from: https://prod-
edxapp.edx-cdn.org
FAA (2015) - Federal Aviation Administration - FSIMS - Flight Standards Information
Management System - Volume 3, Chapter 25 - Retrieved From:
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=a
ll~menu
FAA (2019) - Federal Aviation Administration - PART 121 - Operating Requirements:
Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations - Retrieved From:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title14/14tab_02.tpl
Fachhochschule, Z. (2017). Fuel Economy as Function of Weight and Distance.
Retrieved from: https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/1896/2/
Steinegger_Fuel_Economy_for_Aircraft_Operation_as_a_Function_of_Weight_a
nd_Distance_v1-0.pdf
Flouris, T. G., & Yilmaz, A. K. (2011). Risk management and corporate sustainability in
aviation. Retrieved from: https:// ebookcentral.proquest.com
Hao, L., Hansen, M., & Ryerson, M. S. (2016). Fueling for contingencies: The hidden
cost of unpredictability in the air transportation system. Transportation Research
Part D, 44, 199-210. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.016
ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization (2013). Safety Management Manual
(SMM) – Third Edition. Retrieved from:

55
https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edit
ion.alltext.en.pdf
ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization (2018). Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft
Part I - International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes Eleventh Edition
Johnson, M. E., & Gonzalez, A. (2013). Estimating cost savings for aviation fuel and
CO2 emission reductions strategies. Collegiate Aviation Review International,
32(1), 79-102. doi:10.22488/okstate.18.100513
Popov, G., Lyon, B. K., & Hollcroft, B. (2016). Risk assessment: A practical guide to
assessing operational risks. Retrieved from https:// ebookcentral.proquest.com
Ryan, J., & Heavey, C. (2006). Process modeling for simulation. Computers in Industry,
57(5)
Schneider, D. C., Jr. (2009). An exploratory analysis of commercial airline contingency
fuel calculations: With forecasting and optimization
Shreĭder, I. A., & Buslenko, N. P. (1966). The monte carlo method: The method of
statistical trials. New York; Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Transport Canada (2019). TP14371E - AIM - Aeronautical Information Manual -
Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/documents/AIM_2019-1_E_ACCESS.pdf

2
Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 4300

Torre FL Office – CJ 616
São Paulo, SP 04552-040
+55 (11) 4410-ERAU

wweraucsa@erau.edu

Contingency Fuel Reduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contingency Fuel Reduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contingency Fuel Reduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the objective of this project?

What is the objective of this project?

What countries' fuel regulations are reviewed?

What countries' fuel regulations are reviewed?

Contingency Fuel

CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION

Fabiano Gomes de Oliveira

Luciano Figueiredo Vale de Oliveira

A Capstone Project Submitted to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Aviation Management Certificate Program

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

São Paulo, Brazil

CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION

Fabiano Gomes de Oliveira

Luciano Figueiredo Vale de Oliveira

Capstone Project Committee:

recommendations on this project. To our Professors, who taught us how to be rational

challenging to improve our knowledge.

To our colleagues who served as an example in this incessant pursuit of knowledge,

humorously, to contruct togheter a better aviation industry to our country.

support and encouragement throughout our study.

Group: Centeno, J.;

Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Title: Contingency Fuel Reduction

different countries and intends to scientifically support a change in the existing

analyzed by establishing relationships between flight planning and execution, indicating

Grupo: Centeno, J.;

Instituição: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Título: Contingency Fuel Reduction

Este projeto revisa os regulamentos mínimos de combustível para voos comerciais de

passageiros em diferentes países, e pretende apoiar cientificamente uma mudança na

regulamentação existente do requisito de combustível de contingência no Brasil. Essa

mudança representa uma economia de combustível nas operações aéreas brasileiras, e

desdobra-se em vantagem competitiva para as empresas aéreas brasileiras quando

análise baseada em dados históricos de planejamento e consumo de combustível de voos

de duas grandes companhias aéreas brasileiras, que operam de acordo com o

estabelecendo-se as relações entre o planejamento e a execução do voo, indicando-se o

simulação de múltiplos cenários capazes de simular diferentes quantidade de combustível

planejado e consumido. O modelo matemático é simulado usando a metodologia de

Monte Carlo, que calcula a quantidade de combustível remanescente de cada voo

combustível de contingência exigidos pela legislação brasileira, garantindo segurança e

eficiência nas operações de voo.

Airlines flying in Brazil have their regular operations ruled by RBAC,

10% of the flight time from A to B (ANAC, RBAC 121.645).

authority to cover errors during performance calculations, errors in the aircraft

(Hao et al., 2016).

navigation, and more reliability to the computerized flight planning performance

calculations and meteorology forecasting. This evolution was possible because

database for calculations and analysis (Altus, 2009).

level and every mile of the flight.

These technological enhancements of current aviation are reducing the differences

According to the ANAC, Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil, the Brazilian

Composition of business costs - ANAC (2015 - 2017)

70% Airport Fees

60% Depreciation of Flight Equipment

50% Rental, Maintenance and Insurance of Aircraft

40% Handling and Catering

30% 29,5% 27,5% Judicial Conviction

Figure 1 - Composition of business costs - ANAC (2015 - 2017)