Dear Barry,

Once again Cathay’s festering computers ate a diatribe that I had spent considerable time
composing in order to clarify matters of state for you. I uttered some very rude words
and caused violence to be carried out upon the offending computer. Alas it showed no
remorse and kept my words of wisdom anyway.

I will try again now, at home and with my own far less unsafe computer. If this epistle
gets eaten I will consider it an act of God, signaling to me that you need to be protected
from the information I was to pass on. We’ll see what he intends you to know!

Cost Index.
Cost index itself is a very simple animal, however, there are a lot of misconceptions ‘out there’
about it due mainly to the complete lack of information provided in the books. What I am about
to pass on is a mixture of information gleaned from Airbus, Honeywell, other people and trial and
error. It therefore is my best guess and without quotable sources. However, as you will see later,
I can basically prove what I state to be true by using the FMGC.

Although cost index is quoted in the FCOMs as Kg/Min figure, it IS NOT a fuel flow. As far as
the FM is concerned:

CI 100 means that the cost of 1 minute of flight time is equivalent in cost to 100 Kgs of
fuel.

CI 250 means that the cost of 1 minute of flight time is equivalent in cost to 250 Kgs of
fuel.

CI 500 means that the cost of 1 minute of flight time is equivalent in cost to 500 Kgs of
fuel.

Etc

Etc.

Therefore the box will start with an altitude and speed that gives minimum fuel burn. If we were
using CI 250 and we could get to destination 4 minutes faster at another altitude and speed it will
tell you to ‘go for it’ if the fuel burn is up to a ton extra and not to ‘go for it’ if it is more. I.e. 4
minutes flight time saving for 800 Kgs extra fuel is worth it as the cost of the extra fuel is less
than the cost saved in flight time. If on the other hand, the time saving was achieved by burning
1,200 Kgs of extra fuel it would say the cost of the extra fuel is more than that saved in flight
time and therefore not worth it. In other words, with CI 250, the box is allowed to spend up to
250 Kgs of fuel to save a minute’s flight time. With a cost index of 500 it is allowed to spend up
to 500 Kgs of fuel to save a minute’s flight time.

This is why CI 0 is minimum fuel – it is not allowed to waste any fuel to get there faster. It also
explains CI 999 as fastest as it is allowed to spend up to a ton of fuel to save each and every
minute. This it cannot do so by default it picks the speed/altitude combination that gives highest
speed. Obviously there are other constraints placed on these calculations in that it is not allowed
to cruise below green dot or faster than mach .8X (Usually the cruise Mach at even a very high
cost index is .84 but on occasions, usually with very strong headwinds I have seen it say .85. I
suspect this is really .84X rounded up to .85, but I do not know)

Optimum altitude is determined by achieving fastest flight time within the constraints of CI (i.e.
extra fuel used  minutes saved < CI)

To achieve sensible results, we should programme the box with as much information as possible.
This we do not do. Take for instance winds. We are only given limited info and even if we were
to fill all four levels as per the wind page in the CFP this is sometimes unsuitable information to
get correct results. As you know, the FM just interpolates winds between inserted levels and
extrapolates beyond them. Coming back from Japan in the jetstreams, the CFP winds basically
tell the box that there is a constant wind gradient – which we know from our L1011/Classic days
to be bullshit! Usually there is a reasonably constant wind gradient from F200 to around F260
then there is a marked increase in wind gradient up to about F310 with another lower but
reasonably constant wind gradient up to F390 and beyond. If we were to put those 4 points into
the wind page i.e. F200, F260, F310 and F390 Optimum altitude will often come down.

With the “beautiful wing” the penalty for being away from the aerodynamic optimum is far more
marked than in older generation wings. This means that the break-even wind difference is much
larger than in previous lives and will result in the box telling us to go high and accept stronger
headwinds than in previous A/C. CI also affect break even wind difference and with a CI 60, we
by default are doing the right thing as even if you programme a wind gradient as I described
above, it tells you to stay high. However, optimum rapidly drops for a cost index increase and a
CI 150 with the above profile tells you to go at F260!

When there is no significant wind gradient we are always going to be better off (fuel wise) at or
near cruise ceiling.

I made the claim that I could prove all this. You will need a little time but it can be done. A 2
1/2 hour turnaround at KIX maybe. It works better if you use a jetstream wind profile otherwise
the time savings aren’t enough to make you go low.

1. Programme KIX HKG with a CI 0 and a jetstream wind profile at F390.

2. Note time and arrival fuel (or use fuel planning function to arrive at fuel required.)
3. Modify flight plan to cruise at F260. Note new flight time and arrival fuel.
4. Divide the difference in fuel burn by the difference in flight time.
5. Insert the result of 4 above as a CI into the flight plan and it should tell you to go
approximately at the speed and altitude shown in 3 above.

This may not be exact as I do not know how many altitudes the box looks at (it probably looks at
each 100 ft from cruise ceiling down!) and similarly I do not know how many different cruise
speeds it calculates. Maybe you can now understand why it takes so long to do these
calculations!

You may have to use a CI slightly higher than result of the above calculation as well but usually it
is very close.

Let me know how you get on.

Peter Robinson.