NAA B737 Notice to Pilots

NAA B737 NTP 2019 - 012

From: Jorge Luis Gariazzo

Valid From: 06 06 2019
Valid Until: 06 06 2029 Code:

Cold Soaked Fuel Frost

We are seeing an increase in the number of events associated with Cold Soaked Fuel Frost and would
like to take this opportunity to provide crews with guidance on how best to manage this when deciding
to tanker Econ Fuel.
Please see attached Guidance document and Econ Fuel versus CSFF Flow chart.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Jorge Luis Gariazzo Martin Gabriel Bulla

Manager Flight Support Director Flight Operations
Econ Tankering and Cold Soaked Fuel Frost (CSFF)
Note: These guidelines only relates to the economic aspects of CSFF. For CSFF
operational considerations and limitations, refer to the Operations Manual.

1. Commander’s Authority on ramp fuel

The Commander is vested with the final authority to decide upon the required ramp
fuel and must evaluate if the suggested econ tankering is appropriate. Safety
concerns related to adverse weather and performance are paramount and must be
considered as part of exercising this authority.

The OFP suggests econ tankering based solely on fuel price and transport cost
irrespective of weather or any performance concerns. Flight crew must be aware of
this limitation especially when there could be a slippery runway affecting their flight
or the next flight. In many cases the OFP suggested Econ Fuel is not appropriate.

Fuel and Cost Saving Newsletter 2010-01 provides Econ Tankering Guidelines
where point 2 states:

2. Never add econ fuel if this can result in performance/safety issues for
you or the next crew

The possible consequences related to CSFF should also be considered by the

Commander against the benefit of econ fuel and will be addressed on the following
pages.

&6)))RUPDWLRQ

)URVWIRUPVZKHQHYHUWKHH[SRVHGVXUIDFHWHPSHUDWXUHFRROVEHORZWKHIURVWSRLQW7KH
IURVWSRLQWLVVOLJKWO\ZDUPHUWKDQWKHGHZSRLQW7KH0(7$5GRHVQRWUHSRUWIURVWSRLQW
KRZHYHULWGRHVUHSRUWGHZSRLQW

7KHGHZSRLQWLVWKHWHPSHUDWXUHDWDJLYHQDWPRVSKHULFSUHVVXUHWRZKLFKDLUPXVWEH
FRROHGWRFDXVHVDWXUDWLRQZLWKUHVSHFWWRZDWHU7KHIURVWSRLQWLVWKHWHPSHUDWXUHWR
ZKLFKPRLVWXUHLQWKHDLUZLOOXQGHUJRGHSRVLWLRQDVDOD\HURIIURVWRQDQH[SRVHGVXUIDFH

)XHODPRXQWV

L /DQGLQJZLWKOHVVWKDQNJVRIIXHO&6))LVOHVVOLNHO\WRIRUP1HYHUWKHOHVVDQ
LQVSHFWLRQLVUHTXLUHG

LL/DQGLQJZLWKPRUHWKDQNJVRIIXHO&6))IURVWLVPRUHOLNHO\WRIRUPRXWVLGHWKH
SHUPLWWHG&6))DUHD
2. The “gain and pain” of Cold Soaked Fuel Frost (CSFF)

While econ tankering PD\UHVXOWLQDfuel cost saving, these savings could be

RYHUVKDGRZHG by the pain of deicing and delay costs due to CSFF. There are
numerous variables that may impact the PRVWFRVWHIIHFWLYH decision.

In the following WH[Wwe aim to provide guidDQFH for the Commander to DVVLVW with
thH decisionWRWDQNHUHFRQIXHO. If unsure, it is recommended to be FRQVHUYDWLYH
with econ fuel.

The benefit of econ tankering should be measured against the most likely cost
considering the probability that an extra deicing PD\ occur.

The objective is to take ECON FUEL only if WKHVDYLQJVRXWZHLJKWKHFRVW

UHVXOWLQJIURP SRVVLEOHdeicing and DFFRFLDWHGdelayV

If you believe it is PRUH likely that the ECON FUEL would result in an extra
deicing it is generally not recommended to bring (all) the fuel

6RPHWLPHVD guestimate is needed by considering the “most likely” scenario rather

than a worst case scenario assessing both the possible savings and the likelihood
for CSFF:

CSFF Risk:
If CSFF is likely to form and it is unlikely that it can be mitigated by the CSFF
SupSOHPHQWDU\ ProcHGXUH, it is generally recommended QRWto bring econ fuel
unless the weather conditions at the destinationZRXOG UHTXLUH deicingUHJDUGOHVV

GAIN value:
When the “GAIN” value of economy tankering is low, it is generally not worth the
risk of CSFF unless it is absolutely ascertained that CSFF would not form or that
the 6XSSOHPHQWDU\3URFHGXUH can be used.

Example: GAIN of 40 USD/ton –-> Not worth the CSFF risk.

When the “GAIN” value is high, the risk of CSFF costs should be evaluated further
before ECON Fuel is accepted.

Example: GAIN of 100 USD/ton –-> Evaluate pros and cons using this document if

the GAIN x tons exceeds 300

USD.
3. Detailed CSFF considerations and Decision Flowchart

For his decision making SURFHVVthe Commander may find the following CSFF
Decision Flowchart useful:

 Is CSFF likely?

D CSFF is dependent on fuel amount and the fuel temperature cooling to

(subzero) below dew point at arrival airport. Consider the initial fuel
temp at refueling airport, flight time to destination and METAR dewpoint
at destination. Make an estimate.
E Fuel cooling rate is about 3deg/hr. The maximum is 12deg/hr in extreme
cold weather conditions at cruise.
F Example: CPH-OSL Initial fuel temp: 14 degrees. Flight time 45 min.
OSL Metar OSL: CAVOK 02/M08. CSFF is not very likely to form.

 Any significant savings in USD created by the Econ Fuel (above 300 USD)?

G GAIN in USD/ton x tons of fuel

H Example: GAIN 80 USD per ton: Added ECON FUEL: 7 tons = 560USD.

 If CSFF is likely, can it be mitigated with the Supplementary Procedure?

I Evaluate if the weather meets the criteria.

J ,VWKHFROGVRDNHGIXHOIURVWZLWKLQWKHPDUNHGDUHD?
K If not, is deicing already needed due to adverse weather?
EKZĐŽŶ&ƵĞůǀĞƌƐƵƐ^&&
ͲĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶĨůŽǁĐŚĂƌƚ KE&h>ǁŝƚŚ^&&
ƌŝƐŬ
EŽƌŵĂůůLJĐŽŶ&ƵĞůƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĐĂƌƌŝĞĚŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐ
ĂƌŝƐŬĨŽƌĂŚŝŐŚĐŽƐƚĚƵĞƚŽŽůĚ^ŽĂŬĞĚ&ƵĞů&ƌŽƐƚ
;^&&Ϳ͘dŚŝƐĨůŽǁĐŚĂƌƚŵĂLJĂƐƐŝƐƚƚŚĞDZŝŶƚŚĞ
ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŵĂŬŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘

ŽŶŽƚĐĂƌƌLJKE&h>ŝĨŝƚĐĂŶĐĂƵƐĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ /Ɛ^&&ůŝŬĞůLJ͍
ŝƐƐƵĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƐĞĐƚŽƌ;ƐͿ͘
EK͗
ĂƐĞĚŽŶĨƵĞůĂŵŽƵŶƚ͕ĨƵĞůƚĞŵƉ͕
ĨůŝŐŚƚƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĚĞǁƉŽŝŶƚĂƚĚĞƐƚ͘ KE&ƵĞůƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ

^&&ŝƐůŝŬĞůLJŽŶĂƌƌŝǀĂůǁŚĞŶ͗
ͲZD&h>ŝƐĂďŽǀĞϯ͘ϬƚŽŶƐĂŶĚ͗
Ͳ&ƵĞůdĞŵƉŝƐƐƵďnjĞƌŽ;ĐŽŽůƌĂƚĞϯĚĞŐͬŚƌͿĂŶĚ
ͲͲŶĞĂƌĚĞǁƉŽŝŶƚŽƌ
ͲͲŝŶǀŝƐŝďůĞŵŽŝƐƚƵƌĞ

EŽƚĞ͗^&&ĐĂŶĨŽƌŵŝŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂŶĂďŽǀĞ͘/Ŷ z^
ĂŶLJĐĂƐĞĂƉƌŽƉĞƌdžƚĞƌŝŽƌ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘

zĞƐ͗ ^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ
 KƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJ͍
zĞƐ͗ ĂŶ^hWWZKďĞƵƐĞĚ͕ EK͗
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐ
KE&ƵĞůŵĂLJďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ĨƵĞů;ďĞůŽǁϲdͿ͕tyĂŶĚ '/EͬƚdžƚŽŶƐс KE&ƵĞůŶŽƚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ
ƚĞŵƉ͍ ĂďŽǀĞϯϬϬh^

EK͗
/ƐĚĞŝĐŝŶŐŽŶŶĞdžƚƐĞĐƚŽƌ
ŶĞĞĚĞĚŝŶĂŶLJĐĂƐĞĚƵĞƚŽ
ĂĚǀĞƌƐĞǁĞĂƚŚĞƌ͍

ZĞǀϬϯϮϬϭϴϭϮϬϰ͘ŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚďLJ͗WĐĐĞƉƚĞĚďLJ͗&K