PDA

View Full Version : A321 Range Question - MON5329/21SEP


Midland 331
23rd Sep 2012, 08:26
Folks,

My wife and daughter, returning from Hurghada to Manchester, were delayed by sixteen hours yesterday.

The aircraft had to tech stop in Venice, supposedly because of "shortage of fuel due to weather conditions". Once on the ground, it went tech., there was no engineer, the crew eventually went out of hours, and the passenger ground handing was utterly, utterly shambolic. Not a good week for Monarch...

My query is over the 321's range - surely this sector is well within it's capabilities? It's hardly a DC6 going west across the pond in 1953... Is there some issue with fuel at Hurghada that requires tankering? This is all a bit puzzling.

r

Johnny F@rt Pants
23rd Sep 2012, 08:37
Headwind........
As for the rest of the shambles:{

Double Hydco
23rd Sep 2012, 09:15
Yeah, did a trip to Slovenia yesterday from London, and there was a jetstream running NW to SE at about 110 knots. It was actually 10-15 knots stronger than forecast too.

DH

Doug E Style
23rd Sep 2012, 09:19
HRG-MAN is 2240nm. Before the sanctions bmi used to operate a 321 daily from Tehran to London (2393nm) which was not immune from tech-stopping, especially in winter. However, bmi's A321s had an additional extra fuel tank giving a total capacity of around 21 tonnes (or 21.5 on some of the fleet on a good day). The standard A321 which is what I suspect Monarch operate has a capacity of 18.6 tonnes, which is a difference of about one hour's flying time.

Midland 331
23rd Sep 2012, 09:40
Thanks, all.

I didn't realise that the 321's range would be marginal, thinking that it's comparable to the 757.

It just seemed mightily odd that it tech. stopped, then went AOG. Maybe the fuellers snapped the key off in the filler cap... :-)

As for the passenger side..... jeepers! It would make the combined efforts of Mr Bean, Homer Simpson, and The Chuckle Brothers look like a special forces operation.

Agreed, you can't always be ready for diverts at 0300L, but the lack of communication, joined-up thinking, and general confusion was astonishing. I've worked on the ground, and had to deal with delays, sudden diverts, etc, so would like to think I've some background on all this, but my wife's experience would make a great case study of "how not to do it".

Double Hydco
23rd Sep 2012, 09:54
Handling can be pretty chaotic in Italy even when they are expecting you. It could have been worse, they could have diverted to Naples. In which case you'd still be on the aircraft now.

Fuel stop (especially on a duty day like UK-Egypt), followed by a tech snag is just unfortunate. One spanner in the works, and everyone's best intentioned plan collapses like a house of cards!

Midland 331
23rd Sep 2012, 10:04
Thanks,

As I said above, I have some understanding of life on the ground, as I had a baptism of fire at the age of 23 at Teesside, having to re-route 70-plus fog delayed interlining passengers on my own many, many times. I can understand how things can go seriously "mammaries-vertical" for bizarre combinations of circumstances, not always fully understood by the punters.

However, someone from Monarch needs to have a little chat with their handling agent, and impress upon them the need for the "C-word". Communication.

A very nicely written letter was handed to the pax apologising for the delay, and explaining what was to be provided for them just as they were about to board., that, is, around ten hours too late.

On board, there was a PA from the front end to explain that the crew had been highly frustrated themselves, expecting boarding for around three hours, but the ground hadn't managed to get this arranged.

r

WindSheer
23rd Sep 2012, 15:20
To put it into perspective, First Choice used to have two 321's at BRS that were eventually replaced with two 75's due to performance issues out of the short BRS r/way.

A 321 in full economy config can be a bit of a headache...!!

DADDY-OH!
24th Sep 2012, 15:08
A321 18-21 tonnes fuel capacity...?
IIRC AIR2000/FCA A321 pax capacity was 220 pax, all 'Y' or Economy Class. Just out of interest what's the config BMI/BA use?

B757 34.2 tonnes fuel capacity.
233 'Y' class pax MAN - BGR (Bangor, Maine) easily enough, MCO (Orlando - McCoy) to MAN Non-stop (if you had an ave. 35kt tailwind component).
Or with 208 Pax CPH-BKK or UTP & return with a tech. stop in BAH on the way out & back.
With 170 seat 2-class config. it can do UK/Western Europe to Eastern USA non-stop.

A321 & B757 similar in size, vastly different in capabilities.

crewmeal
25th Sep 2012, 05:44
I guess Open Skies have had no problems operating ORY - IAD/JFK. But they don't stuff 228 passengers in their 757's. Having said that Caledonian used to have problems tech stopping on the way to Florida. BA when they operated BHX-JFK didn't. But I guess it was down to the payload.

walterthesofty
25th Sep 2012, 13:33
Whats so strange about a aircraft developing problems during a refuel stop??? a million and one things can occur, from a fueling truck hitting the aircraft to a no dispatch ecam warning, if no engineering cover is available your in trouble.

JetMender
25th Sep 2012, 21:15
The A321s operating HRG & SSH routes have an ACT (Additional Centre Tank) fitted. On this flight north-bound, there was a problem with the ACT so its fuel could not be used. Due to the headwinds, aircraft had to tech stop VCE for fuel. However, special tooling was required to isolate the ACT, which had to be flown out with an Engineer from UK. :(

Midland 331
26th Sep 2012, 06:53
JetMender,

Many thanks for your reply, which is most enlightening. I mess around with electro-mechanical stuff in my day job, and gain further training in patience and perseverance by messing around with old cars in my leisure hours, so have some kind of grasp of these kind of problems.

It's a shame that the engineer couldn't sort out the shambolic passenger handling...

r

spottilludrop
26th Sep 2012, 12:58
Perhaps if ground handling staff were paid half what engineers are paid they may be some improvement, ground staff are generally poorly paid and under resourced, unlike engineers who it seems to me are very well paid

Midland 331
26th Sep 2012, 16:04
I can't quite see the connection between pay and basic competency. McDonalds staff generally perform well.

At BMA in 1982 we were some of the lowest paid people in the industry, but still did a good job.

r

OntimeexceptACARS
26th Sep 2012, 22:00
Agree with 750XL, I tried it "between careers" for a year or two. Great laugh, but nearly cried when I got my first monthly pay... £1100 after tax. OT and extra shifts netted me £1400 at best. Could have worked on to Ops Controller or above but my bank didn't have time for that.....


Sorry for the thread drift.

spottilludrop
27th Sep 2012, 12:02
Sad fact is the only people paid as professionals in the industry are pilots, licensed engineers and ATC, the rest of the pros are generally paid a pittance and often earn less as said that someone flipping burgers:confused::confused:

Perhaps the fact that to operate as a pilot, engineer or ATC you have hold CAA licence, its time maybe that applied to other key groups who also play a vital role but receive nothing like the status or the financial rewards enjoyed by the above

750XL
27th Sep 2012, 12:21
Sad fact is the only people paid as professionals in the industry are pilots, licensed engineers and ATC, the rest of the pros are generally paid a pittance and often earn less as said that someone flipping burgershttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Also extremely sad that the above said "professionals" seem to have extremely low standards of ground / operational staff, despite these guys being the ones that keep them in the air on time :rolleyes: I wouldn't dream of speaking to anyone the way I've been spoken to by pilots in the past :ugh: They can be far worse than passengers because they want it and they want it now :yuk:

spottilludrop
27th Sep 2012, 14:43
Its not only pilots ,a lot of engineers appear to think the world revolves about what they do, fair enough they have a responsible job as do pilots but so do ops dispatch ground handlers who contribute equally to that on time departure:ugh:

Lord Spandex Masher
27th Sep 2012, 15:18
What, you'd suddenly be able to do your job better if you got a pay rise?

Why don't you try and earn a pay rise by proving that you can actually work better?

500 above
28th Sep 2012, 18:47
Don't listen to him chaps - he's a troll.

spottilludrop

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brum
Age: 36
Posts: 36
Any one the size the OP is should not be allowed to fly ,there a nightmare, they wreak the seats, make life a misery for the person seated next to them, increase the fuel burn and if the worst came to the worst would be a total liabilty blocking the aisles and exits ...ban em until they sort themselves out


From here:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/493863-can-fat-people-fly-easyjet.html

Obviously, he's a people person!

750XL
29th Sep 2012, 01:49
What, you'd suddenly be able to do your job better if you got a pay rise?

Why don't you try and earn a pay rise by proving that you can actually work better?

Funniest thing I've seen all week :ok: If you've worked for a ground handling agent you'll know what their pay scales and promotion opportunities are like. Generally you only get promoted if they want to axe you... As for pay rises, yeah right :ok:

At my station soon we'll be responsible for marshalling the aircraft on stand, currently done by Airfield Ops who are on £40k+ per year at the moment. Are we getting paid anymore for it? No, still £7 per hour...

I personally can't wait for the day a set of steps are impaled into the wingtip :ugh:

Lord Spandex Masher
29th Sep 2012, 10:06
I guess you knew the contract and pay when you signed up.

Simply put you won't get a pay rise just because you perceive others being over paid!

DADDY-OH!
30th Sep 2012, 13:43
All due respect to the 'Thread Drifters' but if PSA's, Airfield Op's or Groundstaff have 'A bad day at the office', it results in p*ssed of pax, pilots & customers filing complaint forms.

If a Pilot, Engineer or ATC'er has 'A bad day' it will probably end in a smoking hole in the ground, deaths & the end of an airline with lots of people in mourning or heading for the dole queues or both.

HENCE why Pilots, Engineers & ATC'ers are LICENCED, checked regularly & draw higher salaries. Speaking for Pilots, with 2 medicals per 12 month & 2 Sim' checks per year we are exposed to losing our Licence & livelihood before you factor in the usual reasons for losing ones job!

Rant over & PLEASE can we get this thread back on tack???

750XL
30th Sep 2012, 14:22
All due respect to the 'Thread Drifters' but if PSA's, Airfield Op's or Groundstaff have 'A bad day at the office', it results in p*ssed of pax, pilots & customers filing complaint forms.

If a Pilot, Engineer or ATC'er has 'A bad day' it will probably end in a smoking hole in the ground, deaths & the end of an airline with lots of people in mourning or heading for the dole queues or both.

HENCE why Pilots, Engineers & ATC'ers are LICENCED, checked regularly & draw higher salaries. Speaking for Pilots, with 2 medicals per 12 month & 2 Sim' checks per year we are exposed to losing our Licence & livelihood before you factor in the usual reasons for losing ones job!

Rant over & PLEASE can we get this thread back on tack???

So what happens when a dispatcher is having a 'bad day' and completes the loadsheet incorrectly? :ok:

DADDY-OH!
30th Sep 2012, 21:13
750XL

As alien a concept as it may be for you to grasp, we ARE trained to carefully inspect vital docs such as Loadsheets, NOTOC's, Tech. Logs, Flight Plans, MELs, CDL's & a whole host of other paperwork both industry standard & particular to an airport, country, operating authority or charterer.

In addition to studying for & passing exams in Aviation Law, Navigation Theory, Nav. Plotting, Met Theory, Met Practical, Instruments, Radio Aids, Flight Planning, Morse Code, Gas Turbines, Piston Engines, Theory of Flight, Flying Controls, Performance Groups A, C & E, Type Specific Technical Examinations (all with either 100% required pass marks or an archaic Penalty Marking System) General Flying Tests (3 of), Instrument Flying Tests (including extensive scrutinised flying of a twin engined aircraft with one 'shut down'), demanding & stressful simulator conversions & checks where career progression & continuation is on the line, line training sectors where 'Choppers' can end a career easier than it has started, demanding first jobs, sometimes flying knackered aircraft, at night in all weathers just to gain enough experience to join 'The Lo Costs' or Beach Fleets where we can be separated from our families or too knackered on days off to enjoy quality time off with our children whilst paying off around £100k of debt amassed while conducting the training that has blessed me with a job where I frequently get as little as 12 hours notice of a duty change, few weekends off & treated with a rapidly reducing amount of respect by passengers, non-flying management & the general public alike who seek to undermine our already diminished authority as Aircraft Captains. So I think we can & indeed have already spotted 'irregularities' on paperwork made by tired, overworked, underpaid, undervalued, p*ssed off Groundstaff, because we are an increasingly growing number of tired, overworked, underpaid, undervalued, p*ssed off PROFESSIONAL pilots, engineers & ATC'ers.

Did I mention we are also trained in CRM?

750XL
30th Sep 2012, 21:46
I think that's obvious.

You don't think I'll sign your load sheet until I've checked it and find it acceptable do ya?

Clearly as a mere dispatcher I'm not quite as intelligent as yourself so I'm struggling, but maybe you could explain how you check the distribution provided to you on the loadsheet, as in-putted by the dispatcher? Likewise with passenger weights, bag weights, cargo weights and bay splits?

Thanks :hmm:

DADDY-OH!
30th Sep 2012, 22:28
Spottilludrop

Envy is a terrible, terrible thing.

750XL

Most airlines have, as you know, an SLP, or Standard Loading Plan to those who don't know. It is devised to be simplistic to check yet guaranteeing that the aircraft will be trimmed most efficiently & balanced for all phases of flight while reducing weight as it burns off fuel. One Third- Two Thirds or 1st 100 Bags in Hold 3, next 100 in hold 4, next 50 in hold 2, remainder in hold 3 are 2 of the systems I've encountered & they are easy to check within a couple of minutes on a pocket calculator, as are the passenger distributions in the cabin zones. This data is either taken from the Computerised Load Sheet or Load Form. If it's from the CLS, the aircraft details will be in the database & the take off Stab' trim setting will be calculated & displayed on the CLS. We are used to seeing a Stab Trim setting between a particular range of units. If you had inserted the wrong data into the wrong boxes, the Stab Trim setting will be abnormal & out of the usual range, triggering further investigation, possibly a total offload of pax & bags and starting the loading/boarding process again.
If your 'incorrect' data in 'incorrect' boxes arrives on a Manual Load Form, we have Manual Trim Sheets where bag & pax weights & indices are totalled & the data is plotted on a graph. The resultant MACTOW is plotted & corresponding Stab Trim setting is obtained. If the calculated trim setting is abnormal, we give the Manual Load Form back to the Dispatcher for further investigation & possible offload.
If however, you are saying that your 'incorrect' information is in the hands of the Ramp Staff & that they may 'Mis-Load' the aircraft, that is another matter. That 'failsafe' is hopefully covered by vigilant Pilots who note abnormalities such as more bags going in the front that the back, chatting to Rampers about how other airlines load similar aircraft & by the Rampers querying unusual loading practices.
Cabin distribution isn't a problem as Cabin Crew are trained to spot if the passenger seating distribution isn't normal & they will re-locate passengers if necessary after liaising with the Flight Deck Crew. If this happens, the Dispatcher will be quizzed by the Captain before he signs & accepts the Load sheet.

Lord Spandex Masher
30th Sep 2012, 22:31
750, are you talking about completing a load sheet incorrectly or loading incorrectly because they're two different subjects.

Surely you'd know that!

Anyway, I can see into which hold the bags are being loaded. I can see where my passengers are sitting, however, my crew complete a bay split form.

We use standard passenger weights so that's a simple case of division.

Bags are weighed at check in so I know as well as you how much they weigh.

Cargo weights I can't help you with but we do check the order that the ULDs are loaded as a gross error check and that has been approved by the CAA.

Steeloman
5th Apr 2014, 17:09
I am bumping this thread because I would like to find out how frequently the snafu with the ACT on the long range 321s occurs. Can ant one help?

Dan Winterland
8th Apr 2014, 15:04
Never had a problem with one personally. The ACT relies on cabin differential pressure to force the fuel out. If there's a problem with that, then an electric pump can be activated - but I've never had to use it.

A321 & B757 similar in size, vastly different in capabilities.

And operating costs. Which is why the 757 ended production in 2004 and the A321 keeps on selling.

Mr Angry from Purley
8th Apr 2014, 19:22
In Company XX we flew LGW-Banjul-LGW on a A320. Two issues;
1. Toilets filled up to overflowing, A320 not great for anything futher than Europe.
2. Started with 180 pax (i think this was the capacity) first flight Tech stop Accra ( i think) on the way down and Malaga (i think) on way back.

By the time the season was out it went round trip without tech stopping, but pax load was 130 something (i think)

Those were the days of Commercial and fag packets!

:\