Descent speed

[Mr.Buzzy]

Hi all,
sitting out by the fence with my scanner last week, I have noticed that QF seem to be flying slower descents above 10,000ft than they used to. Does anybody know why?

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Wizofoz]

FMC equipped aircraft have a function known as "cost index". It is a function of fuel costs vs other hour variable costs and allows the FMC to calculate the most economical speeds for climb, cruise and descent. As fuel cost's rise, so the economy of operation is biased more towards fuel conservation (and thus slower speeds).

I dare say Qantas has re-calculated its' cost indicies and this has resulted in slower speeds.

I know in my operation we are operating with a signifigantly lower cost index (i.e. higher fuel costs) than a year ago, and this has resulted in climb and descent speeds around 10-15kts slower, and operating Mach numbers .01-.03 less.

Gotta love those A-Rabs!!

[SM4 Pirate]

But Wiz, does it pay off? Now you are number two even when you are in front; which may mean more time in the air; thus more fuel burnt.

[The Riddler]

Spot on Wizofoz.

New QF Descent procedure have just come into effect.

[Eimar Moron]

Yawn, freeking yawn. Another new broom trying to re-invent the wheel. :rolleyes:
Where have these geniuses been hiding until now? :rolleyes:

[Kornholeo]

Bye!

:ok:

Woomera

[swh]

Kornholeo,

An observation one may make with such well versed and articulated prose.

One may draw a conclusion as to how one could manage to be in a position of being banned on a regular basis with ones "Beavis and Butt-head" reincarnations and impolite mantra.

As I said, just an observation, not a personal attack.

:rolleyes:

[king oath]

When you consider the small amount of fuel used on a descent to try to save an egg cupfull by reducing speed is futile. You'll save 3/5ths of 5/8ths of f*ck all.

The real savings are in the cruise and climb. But some aces try to reinvent the laws of physics every day. Yawn.

[DJ747]

What happened to standard descent profiles to appease ATC ?

Thought this was standard to assist ATC with planning and sequencing ?

Standard descent profiles in the red jets.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Just found it fascinating a few days back to see QF speed along all the way from Perth, pass us, only to slow to "276 econ. profile sir" on the way down. I doubt whether fuel saving is the reason.
Im not having a dig, just feel as though Im missing a little more than usual.

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz

[Level Change 340kt]

The QF FOQA (flight operations quality assurance) program on the 737 fleet identified a huge amount of unstable approaches and have introduced 210kts @ 5000'!! There Cost Index has nothing to do with it. If it did, then they would be cruising around at 41000' with us. On the descent page in the FMC, we modify the descent speed from eg M078/300kt then 250kt/10000'. Typically, if we get max cruise cancel STAR speed restrictions we modify the above speed to M080/320kts and delete the ATC 250kt restriction below 10000'. QF just use there econ descent which is a right royal pain in the arse to everyone in the airspace. :( What a bunch of w@nkers!!!

[blueloo]

iTS ACTUALLY 250KTS by 5000, and 210kts by 3000.


The descent speeds now based on Cost index and econ are a management implementation, not the pilots. Dont blame them.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Level change, it is a bit harsh calling them wankers!

The QF pilots, in exactly the same way we are, are governed by those that makes the rules in their organisation.

They, unless they wish to be non standard, are forced to operate in accordance with their SOP's, like 'em or not.

I reckon if you ask them as individuals they would have an opinion about the speed control issue - and it wouldn't be favourable!

The management of each company has to react to the situations that they find themselves in - if an aeroplane crashed and people were killed because of an unstable approach, the lawyers would crucify the pilot management for NOT imposing restrictions such as they have done.

[Kaptin M]

iTS ACTUALLY 250KTS by 5000, and 210kts by 3000. The 210 kts is fine, if you hit 3,000' around 10 - 15 track miles to run. Is there any freedom given to pilots to adjust the 210 if you are forced or need to get down to 3,000', earlier than usual?

As for 250 by 5, that's almost laughable - but highly fuel and aircraft INefficient.
The "norm" used to be 5,000' - 300kts - 20 miles to run.

Another "dumbing down" and cost INCREASING initiative.
They're bl@@dy jets you're flying - not Cessna 150's!

[Uncommon Sense]

So remember, if you get your STAR cancelled, or slowed, or vectored all over the sky when you are only 40 MTR, you already know the answer why - so don't bother asking the question!

BTW, that highly refined piece of engineering called MAESTRO which the airlines got told will solve their woes, will NOT take in to account aircraft flying different profiles - see previous answer above.

As usual the golden rule applies:" ATC don't delay aircraft - other aircraft delay aircraft".

Solution? Build some more runways - good luck getting it past the NIMBY's. (I hear even Tyabb is getting noise comlaints now!)

[Mud Skipper]

Level Change 340kt,

What a bunch of w@nkers!!!

Would you mind pulling your head in, line pilots don't set policy just follow it unless it's dangerous.

I don't agree with how we are being instructed to fly and do not feel we have any voice but rather are being dictated to by office pilots who are luck to fly once a month. It's embarrassing enough having to fly like a lemon without your insults.
With luck this 'trial' will not last long, in reality though I fear it may be here to stay.

And the CP wonders why we are not engaged......:ugh: :\ :yuk:

[Spodman]

Don't be too concerned about the sky falling coz Qantas goes a bit slow, just makes them look more like the internationals. Now VOZ closes on QFA on descent & QFA closes on VOZ on climb. Easy-peasy!

Maestro copes, just change all QFA estimates minus one minute, and what they lose on the swings they will pick up on the roundabouts.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

US... :" ATC don't delay aircraft - other aircraft delay aircraft".

I beg to differ.

I was coming back from Perth to SYD not too long ago and we over-ran the VB 737 out of ADL prior to Wagga. Didn't make any difference to ATC. They gave VB direct to Rivet even though he was 10 miles behind at this point, and us a 90 degree right turn for "speed management". Then we we got closer we were told to speed up and cut inside the star.

Still makes me shake my head.

[Waste Gate]

PS Screwing around with speed below 10 grand is particularly stupid since everyone is supposed to be doing the same speed generally, anyway - 250kt.

We're still doing 250 below 10 Kornholeo. Just like everyone else. The slower descent speeds apply above 10 000ft.

Is there any freedom given to pilots to adjust the 210 if you are forced or need to get down to 3,000', earlier than usual?

Yes there is. It's 210 kts below 3000ft. So you can fly 250 kts at 3000ft if you wish. Handy when PRM approaches are being conducted.

Standard descent profiles are agreed to between Airservices and the "customer" - in this case Qantas. The speeds aren't necessarily ECON, but 275 kts +/- 10 kts. Qantas tells Airservices the speeds which will be flown, and the data is incorporated into Maestro. So it has little effect on other operators.

And Level Change 340kt you're my hero. Until a few days I used to descend at M0.80/300 kts too. Really difficult isn't it:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ?? The decision had no input from line drivers. We just follow company instructions. Get over yourself . . :mad:

[Uncommon Sense]

Cutest of Borg,

Don't know the answer because I don't know SY. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where this would happen however - e.g. is the reason you flew past VB because it had already been slowed en-route to cross the feeder fix in to SY?

Honestly, if you call up (soon after landing so someone might remember - we work in data-dump mode continuously) just ask how you came to be after - I am not saying complain, but there may well be a reason you are not aware of that may well put your mind at rest.

There are no favourites played.

[The Messiah]

If an on-time arrival is already assured then cost index 0 (ie. cost of maint./cost of fuel) and an econ descent make financial sense.

These days fuel is making up about 25% of total operating costs. Passengers won't pay the airlines extra money when they arrive early. Over a full year this is a lot of money.

[Longhauler]

Contrary to an earlier post the QF descent speed restrictions are 250KIAS BELOW 5000' HAA and 210KIAS BELOW 3000' HAA. There is no latitude given. These are SOP's and must be adhered to.

[En-Rooter]

Borgy (or is it Cutey),

There is no way you would have been slowed to follow the virgin in that situation.

Had a qf on climb out of CB for ML pass a virg the other day, had to slow the qf down, very indignantly asked if he was to follow the virg that he'd just overtaken. Yes he did, the virg was out of SY and had been on frequency for a while and was at min speed.

He really shouldn't be making those comments unless he knew the full picture. (I doubt he was monitoring the high sector frequency when he was on climb through the low sector frequencies airspace).

As Un-Common says, make a call and find out, the days of an ATC showing any favour were over years ago. Everything is recorded including the ATC's 'manipulation' of maestro.

From what I've seen so far the 76s are losing an extra 2 mins on descent doing 258kts econ speed. Depending on the number of aircraft in the sequence, being at a feeder point 2 minutes later can push you back by 5 or 6 aircraft, delaying you by a further 10 minutes.

Cut and paste Kornoleo's 'non-pilot puke' description here.

You've got to wonder when in an effort to save gas and money these measures end up costing you twice or three times as much. To be making those sorts of speed decisions you need a radar and maestro feed in front of you. I shakes me head as well mate.

Possible solution:

'Centre, qf453, speed on descent 258kts unless it changes our spot in the sequence'

ATC can then squizz maestro and let you know.

Cheers,
:ok:

[Level Change 340kt]

Hey waste gate, your descent speeds were introduced because of too many unstable approaches!! as identified by your FOQA program. It's not about efficiency, its about accommodating for the lowest common denominator - the QANTAS PILOT!! Qantas couldn't give a stuff about fuel. Like I said, if you wanted a more efficient operation you would be cruising at 41000'. Don't blame management on this one - this is QF crap at its best!!! Speed up or piss off!!!:D

[Captain Can't]

well, i'm sure most guys would be up there if there is no wgt probs or adverse headwinds, in the -800 I frequently find myself at 400, not so often at 410... and kornholio,
Anyone who doesn't bump the descent speed up to M.76/320 in the maggot is a faggot.
hmmm if you are tryin to 'talk tough' cmon, at least push it to .78/320 (classic) :rolleyes: pussy.

lvl chg, you are right - in a sense... it's come around from some 'fellas (and gals to i'm sure ;) i'm all for equality) pushing it in a little further than they should've... which resulted in our 'blanket' limits, and the pushing of 500' stable stuff... but it does seem strange to me that we now have these 3 gates, one would be enough I reckon, 500 stable. However, management being management and voila, 250 blw 5 and 210 blw 3. You can be 250 at 3,(my understanding) however the chances of the QAR recording a hard alert and high as it would take only a slight bump to get it ticking away, so most guys wouldn't be too keen... Like it or not, it's here to stay. :{
out.

[Wizofoz]

As for 250 by 5, that's almost laughable - but highly fuel and aircraft INefficient.

Kap,

Yes the days of 300 at 20 to run (Or, if ATC wanted you there fast, 320 in the 737 or 340 in the 767) were great fun, men were men, sheep were nervous etc. etc.

HOWEVER the advent of QARs has re-focussed flight saftey on the critical phases of flight. One thing that was found (and has been mentioned earlier) is that early analysis of this data found a totally unacceptable number of high energy approaches nearer to the runway. Without getting into a slanging match I'd even admit that I've been in the flight deck, in one seat or another during approaches that these days would have had the LBB (Little Black Box) producing red text when downloaded.

Faced with the idea that if they are unstable at the companys minimun height it WILL be detected, pilots are under much more onus to go-around. YES they always should have, but faced with a long runway and experience telling them it will be OK, no doubt a lot of approaches used to be salvaged that these days would be thrown away.

Therefore, apart from the obvious primary objective of minimising unstable approaches and improving flight saftey, slowing down a bit also reduces go-arounds. One go-around would, I dare say, use all the fuel/money/inconvienience saved by several hundred higher speed approaches.

You might be interested that easyJet, my current outfit, has a very conservative approach and is highly regarded for its' flight ops. We have a cast iron rule that it's 250 below 10 000' EVEN IF we get a "No Speed restriction" from ATC. Clean speed by 5000' and flaps five by 3000'. If not stable by 500', GO AROUND or get a pleasant phone call from a nice chap in our flight ops!!!

Honestly, it just sounds like OZ has caught up with the rest of the world WRT approach speeds, and the days of "Drilling it in" have gone the way of the flight engineer.

As for Kornholios' little rant, I wonder if he'd fell the same way if HE was paying for the fuel!!!

[Delta Whiskey]

The other point about this that no one has touched on is that the procedure was introduced without any advice to ATC that the change was to be made. (At least on this side of the ditch)
A trifle arrogant perhaps??
We first heard about it from the kangaroos mouth one morning recently when the driver airframe of a flight that appeared to have stopped in relation to the others mentioned that QF had a new descent speed profile where they descended at cruise mach no till transition to IAS, and then 250 kts.
Not very friendly to following traffic that's able to fly anything from 280kts up to 350kts for a 74.
Oh well, I guess QF just has to expect to see the sun or moon going round the aeroplane occasionally if they aren't able to foot it with the rest, and how that saves fuel or costs beggars me.

[spleener]

May find that the situation is powered at least twofold from the ops guys:
1. ICAO led initiative to reduce accidents from "unstable" approaches.
2. Flight data from safety analysis [and the oversight enabled big bro'...] derived from approaches thus monitored.
This is understandable given the reduction in experience levels, longer haul/ duty time "requirements". The "rest of the world" has taken it on board, QF likewise, get used to it boys and girls. And yeah I like to go fast too!
The bean counters with cost index? - have to agree with the previous posts!!

[Kaptin M]

This is understandable given the reduction in experience levels, Aha, now we're close to identifying WHY there was an increasing number of unstable approaches, and the reason for the slower speeds.
For close to a decade now, we've watched airlines seeing "how low they can go" by putting very low time pilots into the rhs, and then how quickly they could promote them to the left.
Personally, I have been waiting for what I thought had to be an inevitable increase in accidents, because of the increasingly low experience levels on the flight decks. The ducks are still lining up, I believe.

And this reduction in experience was done at a time of a pilot surplus - simply as a cost-cutting measure.
(As an aside, I was told recently of a company that is "offering" a 737 rating, followed by 500 hours lhs time, with a Turkish company, for USD50K :mad: .......imagine the flight, "Hi, I'm Captain Shiney - this is my first flight as a Captain."
"Oh my name's Glossy - I paid 30 K for a 73 rating, and an F/O's job. First day out for me, too!"
"Hullo Captain. Hullo First Officer, my name's Betty Boobs. It's my first time as a Flight Attendant - I paid this company $10,000 for 6 months on the job experience, and so did the other girls. This is going to be an exciting flight for me!").

So the "low cost" pilots might have seemed a good idea at the time, but the LONG TERM INCREASED costs are now implemented as part and parcel of the system.

The system of employing nil/low experience level drivers, might work okay on busses and trains - although the train crash in Osaka last week, caused by an inexperienced driver being put under pressure to perform by the company, that cost around 170 lives (and the positions of several upper level managers' jobs), is causing a re-think - however aircraft pilots have several other factors to contend with, that NEVER figure on earthbound transport.

Unfortunately, there has been too much interference by people who have NO actual, practical aviation experience, and their interference is ADDING to the operational costs.

All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure Mark Twain

[woftam]

Hey Level Change,we'd love to fly at FL410 but we can't because we are full of passengers. :D

[Wizofoz]

Aha, now we're close to identifying WHY there was an increasing number of unstable approach ,

Kap,

Whilst the fact that there are many inexprienced pilots is a very good incentive for conservative SOPs, there is no suggestion that there are more unstable approaches than before, simply that these days they are more readily detected as QARs are now common.


As to low time F/Os and less experienced Captains, they have been a fact of life in much of the world for a long time.

Where you are in Japan, haven't airline pilots typically come through a College/Cadet type scheme and pitched up for their first day of line ops with a few hundred hours? That is cetainly the case in Europe and anywhere else that doesn't have a large GA sector.

I do, however, certainly agree with you re "Pay-to-fly" type schemes, the products of which then go onto "last resort" type airlines with high pressue ops and dodgey corporate cultures (I wouldn't want to HARP on about this, but an airline FRom Ireland springs to mind!!).

I am also resolved that it will take twisted metal and dead people to get this message across...

[Sonny Hammond]

All you ego fluffers need to grow up.

Descent at ECON? If the manufacturer says so, they'd probably know.
If it saves a valuable finite resource, i'll happily do it.
If it saves money, bonus. (literally, but not for me unfortunately)

250k/5000 and 210K/3000?. They also ask me to turn up on time, pass Sims, get a medical, wear my uniform straight and be nice to the guy next to me. Oh and get the machine from A to B in the manner they require.
Last pay slip I looked at reminded me I am paid pretty well to do as I am asked (or told).

If you need to desend at .80 to prove yourself, you probably shouldn't be flying people around in a jet yet.
Finally, .80/320 is actually slow for a jumbo, so keep yourself in perspective.

How is it any harder than this?

[Iakklat]

Kaptin M your last post sums up beautifully what Gnadenburg and others have tried to illustrate on these forums to the "low cost pilots" for some time now.
Well done your sceanario illustrates with such clarity the deplorable and backward state of aviation when individuals "buy a job", a pre- requisite for employment in Australian aviation these days.

[Wizofoz]

Sonny,

Very well said. I'm in my fifth airline and as such have worked out EXACTLEY the right way to fly a Jet Transport.... HOWEVER THEY B$%^&Y WELL TELL ME TOO!!!

[Kaptin M]

Unfortunately Iakklat, it's not confined to only Oz. But if the authorities condone it, and airline managements push it, do you really believe that low time pilots are NOT going to believe that it's okay to grab the opportunity if it presents?I'm in my fifth airline and as such have worked out EXACTLEY the right way to fly a Jet Transport.... HOWEVER THEY B$%^&Y WELL TELL ME TOO!!! That may well be the case, Wiz, and it really isn't hard to do is it, as the sop's are set to cater for the lowest common denominator.
But sometimes...just sometimes...I get a twinge of "professionalism", that GIVES the company something MORE than they pay for (lower fuel burn, less aircraft operating time).
....when I'm in a generous mood!

It can SO easy to go the other way though, isn't it.

One of the 18,000+ hour pilots who is leaving here this month made the comment to me several months ago (in a European accent), "You know M, these people are so stupid the way they try to FC:mad:UK us. I can make a 1 hour sector into 50 minutes, or 1 hour 20 mins. They are so stupid to try to FC:mad:UK us for a few dollars."

[Wizofoz]

Geez Kap,

There we were having a perfectly reasnoble discussion about operational matters, but true to form you had to launch into personal attacks and snooty put downs.

So, your definition of professionalism is to ignore SOPs and do what you like 'cause you know better. You'd make a great Training Captain. "That's what the book says, now here's how I WANT you to do it!!""

I well remember having to seek a briefing before any sim or line check to find out what the particular Check Captains' definition of "The ONLY way to do it" was. This was finally put to rest by the introduction of the PATs system at Ansett, which very accuratley and objectivley spelt out what the procedures were, and how they were to be adhered to. Anything else came under the heading of "Technique" which could certainly be discussed, but wasn't a matter of "This is how it SHALL be done.". The Airlines I've flown with in Europe have had similar, clearly defined SOPs and a pervasive culture of "As long as you are trying to follow the rules, we will always back you".

So, let me ask you- Does your current employer have a QAR scheme?
- If so, when was the last time someone rang you said "By not flying the SOP profile, you saved us 50KG of fuel, thanks!!"

You can rest assured the first time you or your crew scew up while doing your own thing, your Ass will be in a sling.

[Kaptin M]

Where have I stated that I "ignore" sop's, Wiz?
As a matter of fact, I'm a stickler for them, because they are the ONLY thing that WILL save your @ss when everything else goes pear-shaped.I well remember having to seek a briefing before any sim or line check to find out what the particular Check Captains' definition of "The ONLY way to do it" was. Sucker you! If you'd stuck to the sop's then NO-ONE - regardless of his petty likes or dislikes - can crucify you.

[Wizofoz]

sigh!! :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[Iakklat]

:O

[bloggs2]

I do, however, certainly agree with you re "Pay-to-fly" type schemes, the products of which then go onto "last resort" type airlines with high pressue ops and dodgey corporate cultures (I wouldn't want to HARP on about this, but an airline FRom Ireland springs to mind!!).

I am also resolved that it will take twisted metal and dead people to get this message across...

Wiz, i'm confused :confused: which part of easy's TRSS or cadet scheme isn't a "Pay-to-fly" type scheme' ? Granted easy may not be as harsh towards its crews as FR, (they still don't give anything away though) but by your definition do you include ej in your last resort type airlines list? If it does happen (and hopefully not to any company) there may be just as much chance of the aircraft having orange writing on it as a golden harp. It comes down to the crews to fly the aircraft in a professional manner inside the limits of the SOP's, regardless of how restrictive they may perceive them to be. It can be confusing though when asked to conserve fuel as much as possible by carrying the min safely required and then being asked to fly a less than fuel conservative approach wrt speeds and throwing the gear out at 2000' agl regardless of the 40 knots on the nose on finals. I can understand where Kap is coming from particularly when you can easily save a couple of hundred kgs in the final stages of an approach, now though companies don't want their crews to use the old grey matter just do what the book says, who are we to argue:zzz:

[Capn Bloggs]

Wizzo,
This was finally put to rest by the introduction of the PATs system at Ansett
You mean at the NEW Ansett...:E Didn't happen in my day...

[Wizofoz]

Hi Bloggsy II,

I'm by no means a fan of TRSS, though having regularly flown with it's graduates, it's mostly a means of getting the same calibre of guys as they would anyway, whilst avoiding having to pay for their TR. They do it because they can. As employment picks up EZY will, as they have in the past, shift the emphisis back towards full time employment.

The difference is EZY will use TRSS to save money as long as they can get enough suitable guys to go that route, and then have them operate under EZYs high standardof flight OPS and conservative SOPs. FR will take whoever they can get and have them operate hell-for-leather. Any airline might have a mis-hap, but I would certainly put the odds of it being FR way ahead of EZY.

As to the whole fuelconservation thing, well, they consider the avoidence of fast approaches and go-arounds is worth the extra gas and, after all, it's their train set!

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I didn't say VB were getting favoured over me. We had 80 miles to go to descent point and were 5-10 miles ahead of VB at that point in a faster jet. VB were not on any time restrictions. We were 2000 feet above him which I suspect is the reason we got the massive vector.

What would have made a lot more sense was to track us to Rivet at our normal profile speed, track VB via the star at his normal speed and no-one would have been delayed at all. I did exactly the same flight the week before, with the same situation and the controller handled it beautifully. Why the difference over the two weeks?

[Duff Man]

Cutest, you two were probably not - and i'm just guessing - the only aircraft in the arrival sequence. Best to call ATC asap after landing to find the actual reason.

[king oath]

En-rooter makes some good points in his post.

While some rocket scientist at Qantas tries to save a poofteenth of fuel on a descent they actually cause other problems which can end up costing more money and/or more fuel.

No use bagging the Qantas drivers. They follow the crap dished out as SOPs in the latest fuel "saving" requirements. Let me tell you most would rather use cruising mach into 300 kts as was the case. But as the saying goes,"its their toy and I'll play with it to their rules."

As for flying at FL410, qantas would but they usually have a full load of passengers, unlike the other nice domestic airline.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Ok, so thanks for the replies gang. My question has been answered.

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz

[cunninglinguist]

I was always led to believe that 5-10 minutes extra on the engine/airframe ( especially if you end up 5 in the seq instead of 1 ) was more costly than a few litres of fuel :confused:

[Dehavillanddriver]

Cunning,

These days fuel costs more than the airframe costs by about 3 to 1

Bear in mind I am referring only to the maintenance costs of the airframe NOT crewing etc.

This assumes a fuel cost of 75c AUD for fuel and about .7 as the USD-AUD exchange rate.

The addition of costs such as crewing, headoffice etc adds a fair bit to the cost of operating the aeroplane, but they are mostly fixed regardless of the amount of time the aeroplane spends in the air (overtime etc excepted)

It is often much "cheaper" to sit at 41 than down at 27, the cross over point varies for each company.

[Wizofoz]

DHD,

The other major "per hour" cost is lease/depreciation of the airframe which is amortised over it's utilisation. If saving time means you can get one more sector per day out of the aircraft, it pays for a lot of fuel.

[Roger Standby]

On the subject of airline policy causing delays, how do pilots feel about being delayed into Hobart because Jet* insist on a straight in instrument approach unless the weather is CAVOK onto R30? I'm not knocking the Jet* pilots as they're doing what they're told, and I can understand why they don't like GPWS going off flying the arc, but by being so restrictive, number two in the sequence can be pushed back to as far as 7 or 8 minutes behind.

R_S.

[blueloo]

Good on them, a little bit more time will hopefully make things a bit safer.

[cunninglinguist]

DhDD, you may have over simplified it a little , that figure would depend alot on A/C age etc but if you use that figure on say a 737-700, average utilisation, it puts the running costs, inc lease payments ( not inc gas ) at around 1.5 mill per year..........now that sounds like a bargain boeing :cool:

[Fatter Bastard]

Given the exorbitant price of fuel these days (and it ain't gonna get any cheaper), it's hardly surprising a company that uses the amount of fuel that Qantas does is looking to save every last drop. It makes sense as a business to reduce costs wherever it can.

OK, in the beginning while everyone gets used to it, it will be confusing. In a year I doubt anyone will give a toss. No doubt the policy will be refined, if necessary.

To see this descend into pilots slagging off other pilots just because one company changes it agreed descent speeds really is quite pathetic.

For the record, Cruise is now at planned CI unless you are late (i.e. 15 mins behind sched on blocks). If you are early, slow down. Descent is now cruising MN(at whatever CI you are doing - not necessarily 0)/ECON descent speed, unless ECON spd is outside the range 265-285 in which case if ECON < 265, then use 265 and if above 285, use 285.

As they say, it's their train set - I don't really care how they want me to operate it, as long as it's safe. Hell, if they think I should whistle dixie because they think it will save fuel, I'll happily do it. Care factor - negative 20.

[Capt Fathom]

Why is that ridiculous Messiah?
If you are over-refuelled or you don't burn all the planned taxi fuel for a MTOW departure, you don't have much choice! Only the brave would depart above the MBRW.

[DirectAnywhere]

Messiah, the Captain signs a loadsheet acknowledging the amount of fuel on board - assuming the fuel is loaded exactly as ordered - and pax on board using standard weights. This is an accepted method approved by CASA.

If the aircraft is overfuelled, to remain legal, the Captain has one of two options - get the aeroplane defuelled or burn the excess. The second method is far quicker.

Realistically, 400 kg is going to make no difference to a 400 tonne aeroplane's performance or stucture, but that's not the point, is it?

You cannot seriously advocate that a Captain should accept a situation that is not legal, when there are options available to make it so?

Should an accident occur and the Captain knowlingly accepted an aircraft that he or she believed, to the best of their knowledge, to be overweight, they would be hung out to dry by both the airline and the regulator and rightly so.

[Wizofoz]

Messiah,

You are way out of line. No Skipper working for a legitimate airline would knowingly take off if the approved loading system indicated he was 400KG over weight.

I know the figure is arrived at using educated guess work and estimates, but it is APPROVED guess work and estimates, and the figure that is arrived at is what is legally held to be the actual weight of the aircraft.

If you are ever tempted to ignore this, bear in mind that 1) you are breaking the law and 2) if there is any mishap during the flight, even if it is unrelated to the weight, you will be hung out to dry and looking for a new professtion.

I be interested to know which "Brave" airline you are refering to, and how much they would appreciate you revealing that they flought the law on a public website!!

[Wizofoz]

The loadsheet is the legal document only

Messiah,

That is EXACTLY the point, and if you don't understand the implications of that, why don't you mention to your chief pilot, or whoever conducts your next Airline interview, that you don't feel constrained by the legalities of their operations!

[Capt Fathom]

Messiah...you have no idea do you..go away!

[DirectAnywhere]

Messiah, final fuel is found from the fuel receipt provided by the refueller which includes the quantity in litres and the SG. Any overfuel is calculated and then added to the final loadsheet weight provided by load control. Load control have no knowledge of what the final, actual fuel on board the aircraft is - only what the planned fuel is.

SG is therefore allowed for and cannot be used to explain any discrepancy. If we calculate thus, we are overweight and are NOT legal!! To the best of our knowledge, if we are up against a limit like this, we are overweight and must take appropriate corrective action. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[Wizofoz]

There is an allowable tolerance on the difference between expected refuel and actual refuel figure, on a -400 at some airlines that difference can be as much as 2 tonnes.

Yes there is. But it does NOT make it legal if that difference takes you over the MTOW. That M stand for MAXIMUM, and there is no way you can legally depart if the information at hand indicates you exceed it.

Very Qantas.

Well, I work for a European LCC. Six sector days and 20min turn-arounds. And if the load sheet ZFW+ the fuel on the gauges exceeds either the performance limited TOW or the structural, we don't go. period. It was the same in Ansett and has been in every operation I have been aware of.

So if this guy was a T**T for burning off 400kg, just how much over MTOW do YOU deem acceptable?

Do you know of any case where any regulator has thrown the book at the Captain for this sort of thing?

Read the report on the DC3 that went into Sydney Harbour. They nailed the Captain to the wall even though he was following company approved procedures.

the crew of QF1 (fore) kept their jobs didn't they, and they appear to have done everything wrong.

So your ethos is "Well, I'll probably get away with it, so to hell with the rules!!"??

Honestly, Messiah, you have a mis-conception as to how seriously most professtional pilots take adherence to the rules, and for one very good reason. Cover your A**E!!

Have you noticed the lack of any replys which agree with your take on things?

[DirectAnywhere]

Messiah, the regulator has never thrown the book at a Captain because it simply doesn't happen. No-one departs believing they're overweight. It's that simple.

Accept the fact that you've been proven wrong on this issue and stay away from the cheap shots. It does nothing to improve your already tarnished image on this topic.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Wiz and Cunning,

I didn't include lease costs because they are a fixed cost - yes they are amortised over the annual utilisation in order to determine an hourly rate for the machine, but in reality you pay the rent regardless of how many hours you fly.

The lease rates vary depending upon a number of factors and when you took the lease - lease rates on Sept 12, 2001 were very favourable!

With regards the extraction of another sector I agree, however on a day to day basis it also isn't a consideration - the operations people don't sit there and say "oh goody VH-XYZ is getting in early - lets bung on another SYD-BNE flight"

The reality is that going fast may well be a viable commercial policy which trades fuel costs for extra productivity out of the machine, but these are longer term strategic decisions.

By shaving a minute or two off a sector at a cost of 100 or 200 kg we are costing the company money - money which they will seek to get back by not offering us a pay rise come EBA! (the buggers!)

Finally the age of the aircraft doesn't necessarily impact on the hourly operating cost.

My components these days are on "power by the hour" deals where a fixed hourly rate for the component - engines, apu's landing gears etc is paid and the supplier undertakes to provide a servicable component. If it karks it, a new one is wheeled in to replace it at no cost (apart from opportunity cost, lost revenue due not flying etc)

It is all very involved these days and the old theories of faster is cheaper have been superceded.

[Wizofoz]

Messiah,

The relevence of the details of my operation is that you implied what is being discussed here is somehow uniquely Qantas. It isn't.

I'm afraid you still don't get it. Are you saying that, having used the approved standard weights for pax, baggage etc and having an indication that those weights plus the fuel your gauges show puts you over your Max Takeoff, you attitude would be "Well, they're only estimates, so to hell with it!"? By how much before you decide it's too much? One Tonne? 5?

As to legalities, you are LEGALLY OBLIGED to operate within the terms of your ops manual. Does yours say "Near enough is OK" or "Use the approved loading system". If you are operating outside the letter of the book, you are on your own.

The only "Good faith" information you have is the approved loading system. Ignore that at your perlil.

[Wizofoz]

loads of airlines who when following their ops manual are not required to burn that fuel that equates to 0.1% or less of the total aircraft weight before they take off.

Name two.

They would have to prove definitively how much over weight you were and as I said, it would be physically impossible.

No, they would only have to prove you knowingly acted in contravention of the ops manual and you would be history. If you've never been on the recieving end of an insurance companies lawer as they try and duck liability, you don't know what you're missing!!

Ok Messiah, I'll shut up if you answer two questions:-

1) Does YOUR ops manual say it's ok to take off with indications that you're overweight?

2) You say .1% is ok. Is .2%? If the Max TOW as calculated by the appoved system isn't the absolute limit, who decides what the limit is?

[Capt Fathom]

Re MTOW

Responsibility of pilot in command before flight:


CAR 1988 Reg 233 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR005930.htm) para 1(b)
CAR 1988 Reg 235 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR005950.htm) several references

Now, back to those Descent Speeds!

[Macrohard]

Apparently DJ have recently ammended their descent profiles. All operations now have a requirement for max. 250kt AAE.
If it's cheaper to fly descents slower, then I guess its only a matter of time before all operators do Cost Index Econ descents.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Macrohard,
a mate tells me its 250 below 5000' AAE or 210 below 5000' AAE in G airspace.

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Macrohard]

Mr Sybian,

Your friend may want to re-read the manuals. Apparently the requirement for 210 BLW 5000' in G,D & E airspace was removed some months back.

My reference to 250kt BLW 5000' AAE was brought up as this is a new requirement in all classes of airspace.

Hope that helps clarify my previous post.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Macrohard,
have spoken to my friend again, my figures are correct. 210 below 5000 in G still applies. 250 below 5000 in all other airspace.
In case you haven't followed by now, these new restrictions imposed by both companies have little to do with cost.

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Wizofoz]

we don't know for CERTAIN that 400kg of fuel puts us over weight so therefore no reg has been broken.

My last word also Messiah. What you say above is simply, 100% untrue. You must legally follow the approved load system. If using that system indicates you are overweight and you go anyway, you are in breach of the regs. Period.

You've indicated that your main source of Aviation knowledge is asking a few guys over a beer. I strongly suggest you try either reading the book, or asking the person in your organisation whos' job it is to do so.

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Mr Buzzy.

Get your friend to read his manuals again because fom what I am reading now at a mates place (Check and Training Captain) - your mate is wrong.
He has confirmed also that Macrohard is absolutely correct here.

This is basic bread and butter type stuff that pilots such as your friend should know as a matter of course.
Your mate Mr Buzzy needs to get off his backside and amend his manuals.
We dont want your mate failing a check now do we Mr Buzzy?

Also Mr Buzzy the only reason both airlines are doing reduced speed descents are for fuel savings only (controlled airspace).
The manufacturers in conjunction with airlines and ICAO around the world have agreed upon the 300 knot desent as standard above 10,000ft.

Both QF and VB have petitioned ATC in Oz for this reduced speed descent in order to save a few kg of fuel per sector - nothing more, nothing less.
These savings can be quite substantial depending upon the number of sectors flown.

If airlines are doing speeds less than Air Services dictate for class E and G airspace then its for nothing less than fuel saving.

Trust me Mr Buzzy, jets dont like going slow on descent.
Perhaps you just dont get the real sensations using Flight Sim 2000 as opposed to the real world, eh Mr Buzzy?

[Mr.Buzzy]

Beer Can Dreaming,

I actually have FS2004. I usually wear my goggles and listen to my scanner when I am flying the big jets!
I just had another chat to my mate and he has directed you to the following references. ( A1 Chapter 8 Pages 189 and 196 ) I know my mate is no rocket scientist but he does read his books.

A simple apology will suffice.


bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Mr Buzzy.

Whats the use of your mate reading the books if they are not even amended !

Sitting here at one of VB's check Captains house and his book reads as follows:

Vol 1 Ch 8 P189 - realtes to low weather ops and low vis take-offs etc.

Vol 1 Ch 8 P196 - relates to ETOPS operations.

I would say that your mate has some catching up to do and shouldnt spend quite so much time with you playing FS 2004 !

So where is that apology now Mr Buzzy??????
Like I said, its bread and butter basic stuff.

[Mr.Buzzy]

I do hope it's going to be a nice apology.

bbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Fatter Bastard]

You look at the totaliser fuel quantity while you are at MTOW belting down the runway?

:ugh:

[Keg]

Isn't that why it's called 'max brakes release weight'?

C'mon Messiah, you're reaching! :E

[Quietachiever]

Someone in the office has decided that they have to finally pay for all that gas. Instead of FL 260 and flat as a rat they are now creating a traffic jam after TOD.
What a bunch of W******

[Mr.Buzzy]

Too many beers hey?

How's that apology coming?




bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz

[Mr.Buzzy]

Trust me Mr Buzzy, jets dont like going slow on descent.

You can trust Beer Can Man, he says to!

Sure thing Beer Can Man, do you have any more pearls of wisdom for us all? Maybe you would like to argue somebody elses Company Policy without having a clue yourself?

But please do go on. Tell us more about flying jets.

Still waiting for the apology.

bbbbbbzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Waste Gate]

Quote . . .

Someone in the office has decided that they have to finally pay for all that gas. Instead of FL 260 and flat as a rat they are now creating a traffic jam after TOD.

. . . . and usually with 120 kts less headwind than the "W******s" sitting in the wind tunnel at FL410, Quietachiever. Something to do with Specific ground range . Actually achieving a lower trip fuel burn off than sitting up at optimum.

Now for some intelligent discussion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WG.

[DirectAnywhere]

Funny, I don't remember reading anything in the document in question that removed a Captain's prerogative to descend to take advantage of more favourable winds.

In fact, the exact opposite was mentioned. Management don't get everything right all the time but fair's fair.

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Mr Buzzy.

Sorry I havent been around to reply but one must work for a living.

Now lets get one thing straight here son.
When a very very senior Check and Training Captain (that could possibly decide the degree of competence of your friend) says blatantly that both you and your mate is incorrect, who am I to question his professionalism?

No Mr Buzzy, as a professional aviator I will not enter into diatribe and petty arguments when you clearly have neither experience nor little knowledge on the subject at hand.

It is also clear that your mate has not amended his manuals, especially when you quoted inacurrate manual references from an unamended manual.

Just stick to listening to your scanner and playing Flight Sim 2004 Mr Buzzy.
Who knows pal, you just may actually learn something from those twits that did the programming!

No apology is required or will be forthcoming Mr Buzzy.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Beer Can Bozo!
I have now seen the manual with my own eyes!

You are wrong wrong wrong!!!

Admit it and you will be one step closer to not being an arrogant ar*ehole!

Like I said and have said all along.

Ít is 250 below 5000' with the exception of class G where it is 210 below 5000'

Vol A1 Chapter 8 pages 189 and 196 effective the 13th of May 2005!

You and your mate need to check your data by the sounds! From what I have seen you are wrong and are belting into my training area at 250 knots when you should be 210!

Go on say it! Apologize f&*kwit, its the first step for you!

bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[TIMMEEEE]

Mr Buzzy.

Sounds like some sage words from BCD here.
Carry on like a juvenile brat and thats how people will treat you.

And just where is this precious training area Mr Buzzy?
You dont even adequately cover your location in your profile so dont expect to be taken seriously by anyone when you use masked expletives.

[Mr.Buzzy]

"sage words" now what the hell does that mean? Get over yourself and speak English!

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzz..sage!..bzzzzzzbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz

[Capt Claret]

Messiah

Your words of wosdom seem not to have influenced the Australian Airlines guy this morning telling the POCO that 300kg more fuel than requested had been loaded, and the as they were now 300 kg over MBRW, they would be late departing, as opposed to off blocks, while they burned the excess fuel before releasing the brakes.

Sound management I thought.....

[Capt Claret]

Messiah, not sure what you mean by totaliser.... I have to add the value on the three gauges visible to me to work out how much fuel is on board.

But, to answer your question, when accepting the load sheet, if it says I am at or below MBRW, I sign and go.

As the LDP will not allow out of limits sheets, one should know at the time the fuel load is checked to be within the required 3%. if too much fuel has been loaded.

If too much fuel, liaise with the POCO and agree to either off load pax or baggage or freight, or burn the excess before take-off. This of course assumes that the over fuelling doesn't put one above MRW.

As for checking fuel amount on the take-off roll ... get real.

[tinpis]

:{ I was always to slow to look at all em gauges at once.
The bloody thing seems to spring from Toga to 80kts check and steer the bloody thing down the runway .

[Keg]

Geez Messiah, are you STILL flogging that well and truly dead horse. You still don't get the concept of MBRW do you!

To answer your question. I go. Why? Two reasons. 1. I wouldn't be looking at the totaliser anyway as the engine instruments and the performance are more important to me than the fact that the fuel sloshing towards the back of the tank will have registered an increase of a couple of hundred kg. 2. I was under the MBRW weight when I released the brakes to begin the take off roll. The totaliser isn't as accurate when under acceleration which is what we are doing when passing through 40-80 knots on the take off roll.

When I released the brakes at the start of the take off roll (hence the term max brakes release weight) if I was indicating under that weight I'm legal. If I was 100kg over, I'm illegal.

Get it yet? It really isn't that hard!! Who gives a stuff what the totaliser says at 40, 80, 150 knots or at any other stage it is under significant acceleration! It's MBRW that matters!

A wise mentor once told me that sometimes it's better to just shut up than continue to dig the hole for yourself. Trust me, stop digging.

[tinpis]

FO : STOP !

(Sudden braking , reversers)


CAPT: WTF?


FO: I swear i saw the fuel gauge move.

:hmm:

[Ibex]

Mr buzz off and beer can up my arse;

MY very good mate who is a very very very junior check and tripping second captain whose place I was just at has the REAL manuals and I would like to refer you to page 968 38259487, paragraph 34257 which states that

"....those associates of flight crew who are obsessive and anal over their interpretations of other companies FCOMs really do give the impression to others reading that they are exquisitely anally retentive in their life pursuits and would make exceptionally boring, uninteresting and useless cockpit companions"

Yes, these blokes certainly don't need to use condoms for birth control.

What the hell do these "mates" you are quoting from think of such useless and pointless my manual quoting is better and more accurate than yours?


bbbbbbbbbbbb but but but I really do bbbbbbbbbbb buzzzzzzz shshshshshsh**** like a moron.
:yuk:

[Mr.Buzzy]

No prizes for second IBEX.

bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzz...f*&koff...bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[The Messiah]

Isn't MBRW and MTOW the same thing? My aeroplane only has MTW and MTOW anyhow.

It appears the only reason given for this ridiculous practice is to cover your ar$e in the event you stuff up. That seems to be a very sad way to operate an aeroplane in fear for your job. If you were to do an RTO why would you end up in the bushes off the end unless you stuffed it up big time anyway thru your own incompetence? If that happened you have a lot more to worry about than whether the fuel gauge read 200kg more fuel or not.

It does not make any operational sense whatsoever and I would be embarressed to tell pax you are just WASTING fuel before you go and then stopping for fuel on the way because you can't make it non-stop as planned.

You tossers!

[Wizofoz]

Like I said Messiah, PLEASE go ahead and display that attitude next time you have the CAA on board, or next time you have an interview with a decent airline....

It will mean that much less competition for the rest of us...

[applehead]

Messiah

You are the absolute laughing stock of this board. Clearly, you are a senior check and training captain on MS flight sim 2000, and the instruction book doesn't quite explain the concept of MBRW. You have dug yourself into a monumental hole, and now your posts are just becoming plain amusing. Even a 152 pilot could comprehend this very simple topic! I have pity on you, Messiah.

[Keg]

He's not 'THE' Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy! :D :}

[The Messiah]

This whole forum is the laughing stock and is only viewed for entertainment value.

The Triple 7 has no MBRW only MTW and MTOW. Cannot remember if the 152 has sorry.

I found out about this wierd fuel burning practice from a KA pilot over a beer, and can tell you that the blokes I have spoken of this from EK, CX and KA all think I'm joking.

So yes WIZ I'll keep displaying this attitude and maybe if you can see past all the red tape one day you'll get a job with a decent airline too.

[Wizofoz]

Got one thanks awfully

[blueloo]

lol classic keg

[M.Schumacher]

To the messiah, you are so wrong. Trying to convince people you are right is like trying to convince people that Michael Schumacher is not actually the greatest driver of all times.

( I know some may argue he has not had the competition of other notable drivers I would say the truth is different. I believe it has not been the case that the competition he has faced has been bad but the fact that his brillinace makes the competition look very ordinary indeed. One only has to look at the many times when against all adversity he has triumphed.)

Also I take strong exception to the names you are using to refer to your fellow pilots. Come join Qantas (not that they'd have you) and we'll teach you to respect properly your fellow pilots and in particular your superiors. We'll teach you how to refer to your superiors as 'Capt' or 'Sir', which is the least they deserve after years of sterling service (You, safely assuming you are not a captain, probably refer to your captain by his christian name such is the disrespectful attitude you have displayed in this forum). No doubt taking into account your indifferent attitude neither do you even try to make such gestures as carry their bags after a flight when they have through their operation been enriching you with their knowledge and skill. NO RESPECT that's your problem. I think you should apologise immediately now and admit you are wrong.

[readbackcorrect]

love these non sensical arguments. Its a Catch 22. I mean does everyone really obey the speed limits on the road? When driving with ur kids in the back, do u exceed the speed limit ever?