Off-station refueling, including in-flight

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Don't take this the wrong way but, how did you as a "cyber operator" get tagged to write an AFI regarding the billing for any type of aircraft refueling?

I have asked myself the same question more than once...that's what happens when you're the new guy. I have learned more about aviation fuel than I EVER wanted to know, and the more I learn, the more I realize just how jacked up the entire process is.

For those who have asked how the fuel funding works, I will try to make this a short & sweet as possible:

The only AD wings who still pay their own fuel bill are wings who fly TWCF missions (e.g. C-5s, C-17s). Both fuel and ground servicing gets paid by the wing's TWCF budget. Fuel bills for other airframes are paid from a centralized office at Wright-Pat with O&M $$, unless its an ANG or AFR jet. ANG and AFR units manage their own O&M $$ and pay for their own fuel - and those tanker units really feel the pinch when they can't get reimbursed for the fuel they dispense. If a tanker refueling a TWCF mission doesn't get reimbursed, at that point it becomes misappropriation of funds - O&M $$ (the tanker's fuel) being used to pay for a TWCF mission.

Every unit uses its own O&M $$ to pay any ground servicing charges from a mission - except for TWCF missions, which use TWCF funding.

The Air Force buys all of its fuel - every last drop - from DLA. Even when you land at a commerical airport and hand over the AIR Card on your jet, DLA pays the fuel portion of the bill, then charges the Air Force for the fuel. DLA uses tail numbers to track fuel purchases and bill the appropriate party.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

I cannot speak to mission planning and cargo routing - from what I read on this forum, improving those two things would help us save fuel. However, I can say that we as a service do a very poor job accounting for the fuel that we buy and burn - and we have to change that. Part of that change will be all pilots recording and accounting for the fuel that they take during in-flights. That's why I'm asking how fighters record the fuel that they get during ARs.

Why do tankers need tail numbers? Because the DLA-owned system into which they enter their off-loads requires tail numbers.

EDIT = fixed typos

That is a brilliant pic - and an excellent commentary on life here in the five-sided fun house.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Daddy Mac

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Sweet, non pilot writing a flying regulation. No offense man, I know you are doing what you are told, but you could screw all of us. Use the words "if able" and "suggested" as much as you can.

How about "recommended?" Seriously - the focus of the AFI is getting wing kings to start paying attention to where the money goes, and to make units start validating transactions for fuel and ground services. The AF loses money every year because we don't pay close enough attention to our fuel bills.

Anything that touches how fliers actually operate, I push to the MAJCOMs since they control your operational procedures. However, the requirements for documenting ARs differs among the MAJCOMs. That is something that I want to standardize.

[Guest]

Part of that change will be all pilots recording and accounting for the fuel that they take during in-flights. That's why I'm asking how fighters record the fuel that they get during ARs.

Why does it matter?

FYI, the method of measurement for a fighter guy could hardly be less precise. You will never get an accurate number from a fighter guy. Do not focus on how the fighter guys record their fuel if you are looking to improve the way we track fuel.

Why do tankers need tail numbers? Because the DLA-owned system into which they enter their off-loads requires tail numbers.

noted. Wrong answer. The DLA system should not be the driver or the LIMFAC in the process.

The AF loses money every year because we don't pay close enough attention to our fuel bills.

Again, wrt fighter AR why? How does the USAF lose money on a fighter AR?

However, the requirements for documenting ARs differs among the MAJCOMs. That is something that I want to standardize.

Try to give it to the Refueling units and take it off the receivers.

Think of it this way...you don't separately measure, track or record the fuel when you are at a gas station, do you? No, the gas pump records it and gives you an amount to pay. Best case scenario, you use a credit card, don't talk to anyone, fill up your truck and drive away.

Worst case scenario you go to full serve and have to talk to someone in order to get the gas...that same person who measures and records the fuel and ultimately collects the money from you.

Either way, you, the receiver, are not doing anything except showing up for gas when you need it and paying the bill when it comes.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Do not focus on how the fighter guys record their fuel if you are looking to improve the way we track fuel.

They are not the focus, but they are a piece in the puzzle. A piece which, until now, has been ignored.

The DLA system should not be the driver or the LIMFAC in the process.

The only way around DLA is to not buy fuel. Their system is therefore both a driver and a LIMFAC.

Again, wrt fighter AR why? How does the USAF lose money on a fighter AR?

I was using a generality, but since you asked: someone might fat-finger the off-load when entering the transaction into DLA's system, and we get charged for more fuel than we should; somebody at DFAS might screw up and bill the AF two or three times for the same fuel; if the tail number is wrong, an ANG or AFR unit might get charged, and they would have to pay the bill out of their O&M budget. Before you ask, DLA bills the AF for its fuel through DFAS. DFAS is also a LIMFAC - and a painful one at that.

Try to give it to the Refueling units and take it off the receivers.

The receivers are the ones "buying" the fuel. Their "purchases" need to be validated, just like those of the "seller." Sometimes BOs try to convince WRDCOs that they ARd jets that really were parked on the ramp that day. Mistakes happen on both sides; that's why the transactions need to be validated on both sides.

Think of it this way...you don't separately measure, track or record the fuel when you are at a gas station, do you? No, the gas pump records it and gives you an amount to pay. Best case scenario, you use a credit card, don't talk to anyone, fill up your truck and drive away.

Worst case scenario you go to full serve and have to talk to someone in order to get the gas...that same person who measures and records the fuel and ultimately collects the money from you.

Either way, you, the receiver, are not doing anything except showing up for gas when you need it and paying the bill when it comes.

In both cases, you can get a receipt that documents how much gas you bought, how much you paid for it, and when & where you bought it. If you're driving a company car and using a company credit card, your company is going to want that receipt so they can track your expenses and verify the credit card bill when they have to pay it. The systemic problem the Air Force has is that we don't get those receipts, we don't track the expenses, and we don't verify the bills. Some units do, but as a whole - no. We just assume the system works and is correct - or worse, we don't care because "it's not my budget."

[Danny Noonin]

I understand what you're trying to do, but if you are really looking for ACCURATE fuel numbers, those are not going to come from the fighters. There is no guage to tell you exactly how much you took. There is just a gas guage. So you're asking for mental arithmetic mid-flight (maybe at night, maybe in the weather) that may or may not end up being very accurate. You are also relying upon them to write it down right away (maybe at night, maybe in the weather) or remember that random number many hours later (lets see, how much did I take on that 3rd AR again?). What I'm saying here is that the best you are going to get is an approximation from the fighter guys. Very approximate in many cases (i.e. total guess and/or made up BS), therefore I'm not sure it really helps you at all.

So if you're looking for any level of accurate accounting, you need to look elsewhere. It's just not going to happen if you rely on the fighter pilots to do math in public and remember it all later on.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

An approximation would be good enough (e.g. 1/4 tank, 1/2 tank), because it would give your unit enough info to verify the transaction when it processes through the fuel & financial systems. Is it feasible to ask a pilot to capture that much info and turn it in during his debriefs? At the very least, is there any documentation about how many ARs happen during a mission? Do bombers have the same limitations as fighters with capturing data?

On the ground, what problems exist for fighters & bombers to record the fuel they receive away from their home station? (being a PITA does not qualify as a problem)

[Guest]

The only way around DLA is to not buy fuel. Their system is therefore both a driver and a LIMFAC.

Hyperbole.

I'm saying their system and the process we use today is the LIMFAC. Improve it.

The receivers are the ones "buying" the fuel. Their "purchases" need to be validated, just like those of the "seller." Sometimes BOs try to convince WRDCOs that they ARd jets that really were parked on the ramp that day. Mistakes happen on both sides; that's why the transactions need to be validated on both sides.

You are stating problems that exist with the current process. Remove the failure points, like dependence upon tail numbers.

In both cases, you can get a receipt that documents how much gas you bought, how much you paid for it, and when & where you bought it. If you're driving a company car and using a company credit card, your company is going to want that receipt so they can track your expenses and verify the credit card bill when they have to pay it. The systemic problem the Air Force has is that we don't get those receipts, we don't track the expenses, and we don't verify the bills. Some units do, but as a whole - no. We just assume the system works and is correct - or worse, we don't care because "it's not my budget."

Listen carefully to what you are hearing from the fighter guys or drop the idea that you are really asking for input.

You analogy is flawed. What is really happening in the USAF is we are bringing the company car to the company gas pump that is part of a semi truck. There should be a way for the person running the pump to provide the receipts. There is no value added if both parties are trying to do it, especially if one party doesn't have an accurate way to determine what happened.

Danny Noonin tried to explain it but let me see if I can explain it in a way it might make sense.

Think about trying to determine how many gallons of gas you bought simply by using the gas gauge in your car. You are asking the fighter guys to do that very thing. It is a guess.

Now think about trying to figure out exactly how many gallons of gas you took on while driving at night while talking on one cell phone and texting on another on a narrow road covered with black ice with no headlights in close proximity to several other cars, one of which is a giant 18 wheeler with the gas hose coming out of it and that truck has several cop car type spotlights shining directly in your eyes and it is foggy as hell. Now imagine some guy laying down on a massage table in the sleeper cab has the gas hose and he wants you to call him on a third cell phone and give him your VIN for that company car.

I'll tell you this, all you will want is to get the fucking gas, get away from the semi and get back onto a road that is easier to drive and is actually going in the direction you need to go to get to work. You can try to figure out how many gallons, exactly, of gas you took on by looking at your gas gauge but you know damn well you're simply going to WAG it or take whatever number the guy laying in the comfy massage table in the semi sleeper cab told you on the phone. Now think about doing that several times in a night. After driving for 6-9 hours you are going to try to find where you wrote all that shit down somewhere in your notes and remember someone told you how important it is that you get the gallons EXACTLY right. And you are going to scoff at them and make up a number that's closer than a nuke but further than a hand grenade close.

All that and the guy who gave you the gas knows EXACTLY how much he gave you. And he wants to take a piss on you for not having your VIN memorized. All you will do is hope he gets bed sores from laying on that massage table.

[Flare]

That might be one of Rainman's best posts of all time.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Rainman,

I'm fairly certain that I have a good grasp of your opinion on the matter, and I don't want to argue with you. Consider, though, that I cannot change the following things, and these all play a part in this production:

1) Funding sources & methods for the DOD

2) DLA and how it operates

3) DFAS and how it operates

I cannot improve anything - no matter how much I may dislike it - that is entirely beyond my sphere of influence; I have to craft a solution that fits within the constraints forced upon me by those LIMFACs.

The Air Force needs a way to validate fuel (and ground services) puchases that is consistent, regardless of how or where that fuel was purchased, regardless of who was flying the jet, and regardless of where the mission started or ended. We have to be able to tie that fuel to every MDS in our inventory to calculate burn rates and derive $$ per flying hour. This isn't just about ARs, but about how we validate ALL of the aviation fuel that we buy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I am not asking IF fighter and bomber units should validate their fuel purchases - to include ARs; that requirement is coming. I am asking what's the best way to do it?

edit = typo correction

Edited December 20, 2011 by Daddy Mac

[Homestar]

Maybe you could make getting your gas like filing a voucher on DTS. You front the money on your CSA and hope for the best when you file your voucher with finance?

[brickhistory]

You go, Mr. Pentagon Air Staff AO.

You change the stranglehold that DLA has over the purse strings. And the one of DFAS.

Because we know how powerful you are. Never mind about giving you a little bit of credit for trying to change the situation that is within your control/influence or even that of your boss or his. You, personally, should be able to remake the system with that powerful staff package.

This almost sounds like one of the old Budweiser commercials

[Guest Daddy Mac]

brickhistory, LOL. I needed that.

For the rest of you who are raging against the machine...

The "powerful staff package," as it stands, will require you to record on an AF Form 664 the fuel you get during an AR, just like the AMC guys do. The package has already been coorded through ACC/A3, and it will go out for final coord before the EOM. Based upon Rainman's contributions, I don't think many of you will find this an agreeable solution. However, the only thing preventing this from becoming the law of the land is you - so give me something to work with...

Maybe you could make getting your gas like filing a voucher on DTS. You front the money on your CSA and hope for the best when you file your voucher with finance?

That's close to the way that it really works. However, when you turn in your travel voucher, you ususally have to turn in some eceipts as well; that's the piece that most of the Air Force lacks, and that's the piece that I'm trying to fix. In most cases, we don't have those receipts.

[Prozac]

DM, sounds like accountability is being emphasized which could be a good thing given the fiscal environment we'll all be operating in soon. However, if you aren't aware already, consider that offloads calculated by tanker crews (real tankers at least) are inexact and very much more art than science. Our fuel totalizers are sketchy at best, and a few degrees of bank could mean a difference of several thousand pounds of fuel reading in the tanks from when we are straight and level. We do our best, but trying to gnats-ass a typical fighter offload will be an exercise in futility.

[Learjetter]

Don't gnat's-ass it...just stick to the frag, give 'em the frag, and report the frag...anything "missing" at the end of the sortie musta been burned in flight--surely the engine coupon showed one motor burning a little more than the rest...

[Homestar]

The KC-135 totalizer is completely useless. Non functional essentially. For small offloads the pilot just uses a start and stop fuel in the tank the offload is coming from. For larger offloads the math can get pretty stupid, and rounding error could be anywhere from 500 to 1,000 lbs. What's the going rate of JP-8 these days?

[HU&W]

The KC-135 totalizer is completely useless. Non functional essentially. For small offloads the pilot just uses a start and stop fuel in the tank the offload is coming from. For larger offloads the math can get pretty stupid, and rounding error could be anywhere from 500 to 1,000 lbs. What's the going rate of JP-8 these days?

Little less than a buck a pound.

Edited December 20, 2011 by HU&W

[BQZip01]

Don't take this the wrong way but, how did you as a "cyber operator" get tagged to write an AFI regarding the billing for any type of aircraft refueling?

Information Operations is (at least historically) part of the Comm AFSC. This includes both information within the AF and information to our allies/enemies. For this same reason, this is why every Exec billet at the Wg level and below is fragged for a 33S/17X specialty: the comm dudes actually have training in it. Yes, the training is largely bullshit, but it keeps those comm nazis "in the game" and overjustifies their manning levels. In any case, document management is also part of the career field, so I'm guessing that's where our friend is coming from (sts).

That said, if you have the option of making this painless, or at least with less pain, please do so. Passing tail numbers that don't mean squat is ridiculous. If it has to do with what unit we're with or where our operations are out of, a 2-3 letter code would be sufficient and would make some things a HELL of a lot easier...better yet, let them know the code before we take off so we can actually preserve some sort of EMCON

[BQZip01]

Rainman,

I'm fairly certain that I have a good grasp of your opinion on the matter, and I don't want to argue with you. Consider, though, that I cannot change the following things, and these all play a part in this production:

1) Funding sources & methods for the DOD

2) DLA and how it operates

3) DFAS and how it operates

I cannot improve anything - no matter how much I may dislike it - that is entirely beyond my sphere of influence; I have to craft a solution that fits within the constraints forced upon me by those LIMFACs.

Bullshit. Don't pigeonhole yourself (sts?). You CAN do things to help. No, you can't make the specifics of the system go away, but you CAN improve the interaction. What if you simply gave a tail number from each location. That way the math turns out correct and the right people get billed. It already happens, just make it an option (that we already use) and the booms can spend more time hacking the mish and giving the LGPOS pilots their precious gas to burn holes in the sky for another 50 minutes [/dig at rainman].

I also wouldn't have a problem mandating tail numbers painted on the receptacles. In the case of the B-2, just bill Whiteman AFB since they ALL originate there...

[StoleIt]

The KC-135 totalizer is completely useless. Non functional essentially. For small offloads the pilot just uses a start and stop fuel in the tank the offload is coming from. For larger offloads the math can get pretty stupid, and rounding error could be anywhere from 500 to 1,000 lbs. What's the going rate of JP-8 these days?

Quoted for truth.

My personal favorite is burning from the mains while draining aft while pumping from that tank. If that AR isn't a top off then it's going to be off by a couple hundred pounds at least.

Let's see I'm burning roughly 2.5k an hour per engine...but the AR only took 7 minutes...minus that difference from the amount that was in the tank that now isn't from the offload...WTF!

If you want any precision then pray the new KC-46 has a totalizer that works.

Otherwise the game of AR is generally going to be a guestimate. The -135 tanks will move +/- 500lbs in a turn. So I thought I gave you 8.0 until we started the turn and then suddenly it is 7.5 or 8.5.

Honestly though, this shouldn't be a battle between fighters and tankers. Yes, I find it annoying I have to juggle tails on the MISREP for some reason I don't really know. And then my Boom gets really pissed when that tail isn't in his little spread sheet when we get back to Ops. BUT, all I care about is giving the guy his gas so he can go help out the guy on the ground. Nothing is more rewarding than seeing a jet come back for gas with some empty pylons on it's wings. That's what our job is about.

Edited December 20, 2011 by StoleIt

[Big Bear]

I realize that the cost of implementing such a system would, at least up front, outweigh and probably restrict such system from being worth it, but what about actually measuring the amount of offload and/or onload that passes through the boom/refueling receptacle?

Couple that with a rfid sensor system, or even just paint the damned tail # above the receptacle and you have a system in place that CAN gnats-ass the transfer, and neither individual has to worry about guessing at any of the required accounting data.

[Ram]

Bullshit. Don't pigeonhole yourself (sts?). You CAN do things to help. No, you can't make the specifics of the system go away, but you CAN improve the interaction. What if you simply gave a tail number from each location. That way the math turns out correct and the right people get billed. It already happens, just make it an option (that we already use) and the booms can spend more time hacking the mish and giving the LGPOS pilots their precious gas to burn holes in the sky for another 50 minutes [/dig at rainman].

I also wouldn't have a problem mandating tail numbers painted on the receptacles. In the case of the B-2, just bill Whiteman AFB since they ALL originate there...

Sidebar, but BGPOS drivers using terms like LGPOS make me laugh.

BQ: You DO know that Rainman doesn't fly the "LGPOS," right? Also, only Double Ugly drivers are allowed to use the term. It's something we Viper guys begrudgingly allow because we feel sorry for them and their lack of a radar.

Also, Rainman won the thread on page 3 with his driving analogy. DaddyMac, copy/paste his post into a Word doc, format into something acceptable IAW the "Tongue and Quill," and drop it on the ACC/A3's desk.

If I have to start WAGing my gas and putting it on a form, you can bet yer ass that the ENTIRE CAF is going to be "buying" gas in multiples of 69 pounds.

[Danny Noonin]

If I have to start WAGing my gas and putting it on a form, you can bet yer ass that the ENTIRE CAF is going to be "buying" gas in multiples of 69 pounds.

Valid.

[Cap-10]

BQ: You DO know that Rainman doesn't fly the "LGPOS," right? Also, only Double Ugly drivers are allowed to use the term. It's something we Viper guys begrudgingly allow because we feel sorry for them and their lack of a radar.

I'm confused....I know what Rainman flies, but I also know the Double Ugly had a radar (that was the WSO's job).

Daddy Mac,

Rainman's car analogy on page 3 hit the nail on the cranium....(well done Sir!!!)

As for another data point wrt fighter guys and their fuel receipt, I normally just report whatever the fragged offload was supposed to be...3 AR's of 20K a-piece gets reported as 60K after I land.

If i'm not in the middle of listening to my 3 radio's while my idiot wingman is alone and un-afraid, about to emply weapons to support a TIC while I am yo-yo'ing to the tanker, I look at my fuel total (bouncing around +/- 1K with turns and throttle movements) and add what my frag off-load should be, and that's what I want my fuel guage to show when I am "offload complete"

In addition, when the F-15E is combat loaded and AAR'ing high altitude (i.e. every AAR in OEF), I normally end up with one engine in AB just to stay on the boom when we go into a turn... no way to me to account for what I've pissed out the back in AB during the last 6-9 minutes.

Cheers,

Cap-10

Edited December 20, 2011 by Cap-10

[StoleIt]

In addition, when the F-15E is combat loaded and AAR'ing high altitude (i.e. every AAR in OEF), I normally end up with one engine in AB just to stay on the boom when we go into a turn... no way to me to account for what I've pissed out the back in AB during the last 6-9 minutes.

That is definitely something I have noticed lately. More and more often on rendezvous we are asking the receivers if they want the normal speed or non-standard. So far we are generally flying 10-20 knots slower than the book says.

Don't hesitate to tell the tanker to slow down. Doesn't hurt us a bit and if it makes it easier on you, we will do it.

Edited December 20, 2011 by StoleIt