HEllo,


i've noticed that i always landed below the planned Simbrief flight plan EFOB even with fuel offset of +10%

I dont know if the Ini 380 consume for fuel than irl or if the simbref profile is not accurate

seems that i need to add an offset of +20%

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback! The team is currently adjusting the values of our simbrief profile, based on user feedback!

I should have more news about that, hopefully soon.

Thanks again!

My example. I prepared route OMDB SBGR, flt time 14.30, but after import OFP to 380, I recieved msg "DES FOB" and there was a fuel deficit 33,4 t. During flight the deficite reduced to 27,8 t and finally fuel run out about 2h30mins before landing

https://dispatch.simbrief.com/briefing/186778927

Edited Sunday at 12:58 AM3 days by Sarmat2306

Second this, had to reimport my fuel in cruise just to stay above this des EFOB message

I've observed that the consumption seems a lot lower than planned at CI200:

Estimate at T/C:/D:

Close to T/D:

Yes, same here.

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

I have noticed that a higher cost index results in a higher EFOB, even though the opposite should be the case.

I reported this some time ago for the A340, it's highly disappointing to see that it has not been addressed.

6 hours ago, sdlc said:

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

Can’t reproduce this. Inserting the step climbs does change the EFOB.

Same here, Standard A330-300 RR, always to less fuel. Even adjusted consumptions in SimBrief won´t get me there legally

13 hours ago, sdlc said:

hello,

Efob seems to be calculated without stepclimb profile inserted.

From my personnal experience the good offset is +5%

Stephane

me its +15%

I'll add to this, running CI60 I normally end up with over +15 tonnes more than what was planned..

There looks like there is very limited collation between the CI in Simbrief's profile and what the aircraft is actually burning.

There 100% is something up with either the planes fuel burn or the numbers simbrief has for it. So far on 5 flights I have tracked with different CI's I have come up with M06 M08 M11 M02 and M09. So it varies quite a lot from leg to leg. So there is an inconsistent disconnect between Ini's numbers and Simbriefs. But I do not know which set is correct.

On 9/18/2026 at 6:14 AM, iniKyle said:

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback! The team is currently adjusting the values of our simbrief profile, based on user feedback!

I should have more news about that, hopefully soon.

Thanks again!

Any news on this? As discussed here, simply adjusting the profile might not be sufficient, in fact even counterintuitive.

7 hours ago, spottersim said:

Any news on this? As discussed here, simply adjusting the profile might not be sufficient, in fact even counterintuitive.

No news to report yet. I will update this thread when I have more info.

Thanks for your patience!

16 hours ago, iniKyle said:

No news to report yet. I will update this thread when I have more info.

Thanks for your patience!

I did some further testing and noticed that the specific range increases with cost index, basically buying time for free.

Segment	Mach	TAS	Actual burn	Specific range (nm/t, normalised to 392 t)
CI15	0.831	484	11.06 t/h	44.1
CI150	0.851	496	11.24 t/h	44.3
CI500	0.862	503	11.28 t/h	44.7
CI15 (return)	0.831	485	10.99 t/h	44.2