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 September 20Sep 20 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

really hope this issue can be addressed soon! the plane is excellent but this is really an immersion breaker for me and kinda stopping me from flying

Hi everyone,

To complete my report, can you all verify which engine variant you are using (RR or EA or BOTH).

Can you also confirm you are using the official inibuilds simbrief profile.

Thanks!

I have only used the RR and yes am using the official profile

I’ve tested both RR and EA variants, using the official iniBuilds SimBrief profiles (RR at P01, EA at P02). The RR has shown the biggest discrepancy for me: EGLL–KDFW finished ~14t above planned arrival fuel, and BOS–MUC was trending ~3.8t above OFP by final approach (~5% lower trip burn); the EA also progressively gained fuel against the OFP during cruise on BKK–DOH, although a go-around made the final figure less useful. In all cases the loading/TOW matched the OFP closely, and I’ve also noticed the FMS destination EFOB gradually increasing during cruise.