Request vs Require.
Hey I resemble that remark.....!!!
What was that saying, old bold Pilots?
I'm not old yet and I'm certainly not bold.
Willing to learn? Yep everyday.
But I've been around Airline aviation a long time and seen a fair bit without putting any scratches on the paintwork. I know generally what works and what doesn't, I know my limits and how to try and avoid the Swiss cheese holes lining up.....
Have I made mistakes? You betcha... Have I scared myself? You betcha....
That's how we live and learn.
That's why whenever there is a longer runway available into wind instead of a runway just long enough with a crosswind I REQUIRE the longer runway. ( if there is a choice available )
You?
Oh and by the way, Aviation is a marathon not a sprint. The goal is to finish your career on a high and enjoy a nice retirement preferably without the boss or the ATSB knowing who you are.
What was that saying, old bold Pilots?
I'm not old yet and I'm certainly not bold.
Willing to learn? Yep everyday.
But I've been around Airline aviation a long time and seen a fair bit without putting any scratches on the paintwork. I know generally what works and what doesn't, I know my limits and how to try and avoid the Swiss cheese holes lining up.....
Have I made mistakes? You betcha... Have I scared myself? You betcha....
That's how we live and learn.
That's why whenever there is a longer runway available into wind instead of a runway just long enough with a crosswind I REQUIRE the longer runway. ( if there is a choice available )
You?
Oh and by the way, Aviation is a marathon not a sprint. The goal is to finish your career on a high and enjoy a nice retirement preferably without the boss or the ATSB knowing who you are.
Last edited by ACMS; 26th Jan 2015 at 07:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the first question!
I REQUIRE the longer runway. ( if there is a choice available )
You may correctly use professional discretion when you REQUIRE a certain runway but where is that line and how do we deal with certain airlines simply not understanding a difference in terminology but by lack of experience or training they subsequently gain a commercial advantage through lack of basic ability.
The question was intended for a broad response in the first instance, not just how one crew may chose to operates on the day if they are caught out fatigued after a long duty.
BTW I don't believe after a long duty you should be fatigue, if your operator is professional enough to put in place correct mitigators.
Fortunately I can sleep well on board having faith in the other crew and sleeping before call having normally been accommodated in appropriate accommodation.
I understand not all days are like this, hence this is a generic question.
Personally I often felt more rested after a 16 hour flight than 4 or 5 domestic sectors on an 11+ hour day in a noisy "light twin" as some like to call it.
Mate really? I've always achieved as much rest as possible pre flight and during the flight where possible BUT how can you not be fatigued at the time of your circadian low body clock? Im-bloody-possible.
I know you mention that you have but you've obviously not done long haul overnight sectors......
It's impossible not to be tired. You do know being tired at that time is the same a being DRUNK to in excess of the .05 limit for driving....proven fact.
Personally after having done multi sector day flights causing tiredness versus overnight long haul jet lag I find the overnight to be more dangerous....our bodies just weren't designed to stay awake all night long AND be alert to land at 5:30 am
If you are different then lucky you...
Personally I do whatever I can to keep the operation safe and simple after being awake all night.
I know you mention that you have but you've obviously not done long haul overnight sectors......
It's impossible not to be tired. You do know being tired at that time is the same a being DRUNK to in excess of the .05 limit for driving....proven fact.
Personally after having done multi sector day flights causing tiredness versus overnight long haul jet lag I find the overnight to be more dangerous....our bodies just weren't designed to stay awake all night long AND be alert to land at 5:30 am
If you are different then lucky you...
Personally I do whatever I can to keep the operation safe and simple after being awake all night.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
I don't really care for your tone, you carry on like a troll,
If every long haul pilot, and we are many, carried on like you the system would shut down.
I prostrate myself before you and say you are a far better pilot than myself if that makes yourself feel better.
I'll keep my powder dry and when Ozzie controllers here me say "require" they had better believe it.
I don't really care for your tone, you carry on like a troll,
If every long haul pilot, and we are many, carried on like you the system would shut down.
I prostrate myself before you and say you are a far better pilot than myself if that makes yourself feel better.
I'll keep my powder dry and when Ozzie controllers here me say "require" they had better believe it.
Whatever floats ya Boat young fella.
Enjoy.
( just don't F*** up )
Oh and where did I say or imply I was a better Pilot than you?
This thread has more than lived it's useful life and should be locked.
Enjoy.
( just don't F*** up )
Oh and where did I say or imply I was a better Pilot than you?
This thread has more than lived it's useful life and should be locked.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, please lock it because I've seen enough of ACMS' superior intellect.
If only I was as good a pilot as he.
I'd imagine he flies his heavy as single pilot, because there's not enough room in the flight deck for his ego and anyone else.
If only I was as good a pilot as he.
I'd imagine he flies his heavy as single pilot, because there's not enough room in the flight deck for his ego and anyone else.
Aren't most of the carriers, implied in this thread, flying A330's? Aren't they fairly/relatively light at the end of a 10 hour duty/8 hour sector from Asia? Is their LDR really that close to 2000m as to be so concerned? Esp on Sydney where all runways are more than adequate... If they overshoot the landing zone by 300-400 m ... Shouldn't the risk mitigation, regardless of rwy in use/rwy length, be a go around???
LOSA'd a 777 into Sydney on RWY 07.... All crosswind, No issue... They even accounted for tailwind... Either it's possible... Or it's not. Risk mitigation is one thing.... But not simply being able to perform to a standard on EVERY (or ANY) sector you fly and hence REQUIRING the longest RWY everytime... Maybe you should be handing over?? Maybe you should be going fatigued? Maybe you should be flying the less risky/stressful/fatiguing short haul....
What say you are flying said same fatiguing sector to a destination where the luxury of multiple long runways isn't available, or have to divert to a non standard "short" runway... Are you going to refuse said flight/landing because you can't employ your risk mitigation?
To me this smells of a skipper I flew with once who wanted to refuse a STAR (... Yes a STAR... ) becuase he hadn't flown it before.... Despite the fact that the only difference was simply being from the east rather than from the north that he was used to.... 😳😳
LOSA'd a 777 into Sydney on RWY 07.... All crosswind, No issue... They even accounted for tailwind... Either it's possible... Or it's not. Risk mitigation is one thing.... But not simply being able to perform to a standard on EVERY (or ANY) sector you fly and hence REQUIRING the longest RWY everytime... Maybe you should be handing over?? Maybe you should be going fatigued? Maybe you should be flying the less risky/stressful/fatiguing short haul....
What say you are flying said same fatiguing sector to a destination where the luxury of multiple long runways isn't available, or have to divert to a non standard "short" runway... Are you going to refuse said flight/landing because you can't employ your risk mitigation?
To me this smells of a skipper I flew with once who wanted to refuse a STAR (... Yes a STAR... ) becuase he hadn't flown it before.... Despite the fact that the only difference was simply being from the east rather than from the north that he was used to.... 😳😳
Nowthatsfunny---But you've missed all of my points.
I'm not saying that at all, quite the opposite in fact.
Can you read English and comprehend at all???
One could say I'm admitting my shortcomings and being human...
Biatch---no no and no, please read all of the thread, some of us in here have said quite a few times that some operators ( like mine ) always arrive with Alternate Fuel and land at quite heavy weights ( @ 180 T,,,MLW is only 187 ) thus in SOME circumstances we have only 300m margin under LDA using YMML 27 or YSSY 34R. It's along thread but please read it all.
I'm not saying that at all, quite the opposite in fact.
Can you read English and comprehend at all???
One could say I'm admitting my shortcomings and being human...
Biatch---no no and no, please read all of the thread, some of us in here have said quite a few times that some operators ( like mine ) always arrive with Alternate Fuel and land at quite heavy weights ( @ 180 T,,,MLW is only 187 ) thus in SOME circumstances we have only 300m margin under LDA using YMML 27 or YSSY 34R. It's along thread but please read it all.
Last edited by ACMS; 26th Jan 2015 at 09:38.
No not at all.
He's happy to land at 5:30 am on a limiting runway after flying all night maintaining he copes well with long haul patterns. As are you it seems?
That's fine and I accept his opinion, it's just that in some circumstances I would make a different choice. Not that he's right or wrong, he's allowed to make his command decision BUT so am I.
He's happy to land at 5:30 am on a limiting runway after flying all night maintaining he copes well with long haul patterns. As are you it seems?
That's fine and I accept his opinion, it's just that in some circumstances I would make a different choice. Not that he's right or wrong, he's allowed to make his command decision BUT so am I.
Last edited by ACMS; 26th Jan 2015 at 09:57.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
Would you ever request a vis app into HK on a normal HK day with a normal HK 10k haze with a base at 5100', or what about into LA? As you should know, a vis app is pretty much an Australian and US (dom) thing.
Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything!
Complylot,
Your age (24) shows, as does your immaturity. I doubt you have anywhere near the experience needed to comment on something you haven't done.
Fishbowl,
Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing. Ask any airline pilot who hasn't flown a lighty how he'd go in a cessna. A d***h*** comment.
Biatch,
Way to miss the point, since when did any of them say they couldn't or wouldn't land on a short rwy if it was the only option. It is risk mitigation if the circumstances are right.
Some here don't seem to understand the difference between tiredness and fatigue and for those who haven't done a lot of flying where BOC is like 60-70% of your flying you are tired most of the time.
WAGM,
Quote:
Personally I often felt more rested after a 16 hour flight than 4 or 5 domestic sectors on an 11+ hour day in a noisy "light twin" as some like to call it.
What, a 16 hr day trip starting at 8.00am, sure. A 16 hr duty starting at 9.00pm and I'd likely call you a liar, stupid or delusional as to your true "conscious" state. Btw, that type of flying is likely to make up to 50-60% of their flying and for HK based crew 60-70% as it would for ME crew, mostly late evening S/Ons and 6-7.00am S/offs with time zone changes of 16 hrs.
Btw, when next your operator DEMANDS you start to take min fuel DON'T argue, remember it's legal!
Would you ever request a vis app into HK on a normal HK day with a normal HK 10k haze with a base at 5100', or what about into LA? As you should know, a vis app is pretty much an Australian and US (dom) thing.
Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything!
Complylot,
Your age (24) shows, as does your immaturity. I doubt you have anywhere near the experience needed to comment on something you haven't done.
Fishbowl,
Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing. Ask any airline pilot who hasn't flown a lighty how he'd go in a cessna. A d***h*** comment.
Biatch,
Way to miss the point, since when did any of them say they couldn't or wouldn't land on a short rwy if it was the only option. It is risk mitigation if the circumstances are right.
Some here don't seem to understand the difference between tiredness and fatigue and for those who haven't done a lot of flying where BOC is like 60-70% of your flying you are tired most of the time.
WAGM,
Quote:
Personally I often felt more rested after a 16 hour flight than 4 or 5 domestic sectors on an 11+ hour day in a noisy "light twin" as some like to call it.
What, a 16 hr day trip starting at 8.00am, sure. A 16 hr duty starting at 9.00pm and I'd likely call you a liar, stupid or delusional as to your true "conscious" state. Btw, that type of flying is likely to make up to 50-60% of their flying and for HK based crew 60-70% as it would for ME crew, mostly late evening S/Ons and 6-7.00am S/offs with time zone changes of 16 hrs.
Btw, when next your operator DEMANDS you start to take min fuel DON'T argue, remember it's legal!
Here's a thought. If you think people are trying to queue jump by requiring a different runway because it suits them better all the time and trying to gain a commercial advantage from it, how about you have your company contact ASA and ask them to formally investigate why one carrier is always doing it?
Or is that too much of a simple and logical idea?
Or is that too much of a simple and logical idea?
Experienced commanders, like ACMS, certainly have the ability to bring their aircraft to stop on a short runway. But he has been trained effectively, and uses his experience to understand it is not always wise to do so.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.
ACMS,
They are winding you up.
It has been clearly explained on this thread what the landing distance is factored by, it has been clearly explained that it takes very little to eat into margins. A recent example has been provided where ATIS reported conditions ("worlds best practice") understated the tailwind (how very common) which could have resulted in an overrun at that landing weight.
It has also been explained that we dont care being vectored to fit into the sequence to get what we want, it is not about saving time or fuel, they are always our lowest priorities.
It has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.
They dont seem to complain when entering the Australian FIR we are asked to drop 30 minutes of flight time before top of descent. People are judging the dicking around they are getting by the last 5-10 minutes in the TMA, they dont look outside their playpen, others have been screwed over with a smile for hours. We are gone beyond caring about saving a minute by the time we get to the TMA.
It has also been explained that the domestic carriers have made a business decision to reduce aircraft size between trunk routes and increase frequency. The 20% of slots being used by all heavies in SYD and MEL is not where the slots gone to, the inefficiency of the slots is coming from the low load factor domestic carriers. If the domestic carriers did not decide to go down that business model, they would not have needed as many pilots.
It has also been explained that CX will not ALWAYS require the longest runway, I would say the majority of ADL-MEL flights I have done I have landed on 27. I have also explained that we land a lot heavier than domestic carriers as foreign AOC airlines are not allowed to use the same alternates as domestic carriers.
A lot has been explained in detail on this thread, many have been too quick to engage the mouth before the brain.
WAGM,
I dont know where you get this sense of "commercial advantage", none of us give a toss about saving 400 kg of fuel or 10 minutes. My experience is the opposite. Just looked at the last 90 days, we had a cracker that burned an extra 25 minutes of fuel going into SYD, about 20% of our flights are delayed by more than 10 minutes or more going into SYD.
Before you make unfounded claims, how about documenting the "commercial advantage" of the domestic carriers using intersection departures, or being put ahead in the sequence on landing, or looking at how the slots are being used by low load factor domestic carriers.
CX have 4 flights a day to SYD, that represents 0.87% of the movements in SYD (December had 28,444 movements in total, of that CX contributed 248).
Under the HKG equivalency of CAO 48, none of the flights out of HKG to Australia require a sleep opportunity. None of the CX A330 have bunks, the "leg stretch" as it is defied in our operation is done on a business class passenger seat without a curtin. Where this leg stretch is not required, they may sell the passenger seat and the leg stretch is on the jump seat in the cockpit. The current push from management is to move all flights where possible to 2 crew to Australia which is legal under the HKG equivilant of CAO 48. CX have a rostering practices which sits ontop of the CAD regulatory minimums, this is supposed to be the circuit breaker between what is the regulatory legal maximum, and rostering norms.
I myself always like youself felt more rested after 3 long haul flights month where I have a bunk and a sleep even if that was 100 hours, 75-95 hrs regional/medium haul missing 8-10 nights sleep is no fun. You must also understand only a small portion of the Airbus flying is done into Australia where Wx and terrain hardly exist. I love departing HKG when there is a typhoon approaching HKG going to Australia. We have lovely patterns on the Airbus like CGK/SIN/BKK/ICN return through the night dealing with dodgy Wx and ATC which is fatiguing. You can go through the same typhoon twice in the same day.
Biatch,
You will find the mainland Chinese carriers are operated 4 crew into Australia, CX operate either 2 or 3 crew (depending on day/night and city pair, CX operate into 6 ports) into Australia.
The A330 can be at MLW on arrival. I have also landed at MLW with less than 60 passengers on-board, it has the same cargo volume (LD3s) as a 744. It would be not that unusual on say a HKG-SYD flight to be landing 5-10t below MLW, where a regional flight like TPE-HKG you could be landing 50t below MLW.
Flight time alone is not a good indication of landing weight.
They are winding you up.
It has been clearly explained on this thread what the landing distance is factored by, it has been clearly explained that it takes very little to eat into margins. A recent example has been provided where ATIS reported conditions ("worlds best practice") understated the tailwind (how very common) which could have resulted in an overrun at that landing weight.
It has also been explained that we dont care being vectored to fit into the sequence to get what we want, it is not about saving time or fuel, they are always our lowest priorities.
It has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.
They dont seem to complain when entering the Australian FIR we are asked to drop 30 minutes of flight time before top of descent. People are judging the dicking around they are getting by the last 5-10 minutes in the TMA, they dont look outside their playpen, others have been screwed over with a smile for hours. We are gone beyond caring about saving a minute by the time we get to the TMA.
It has also been explained that the domestic carriers have made a business decision to reduce aircraft size between trunk routes and increase frequency. The 20% of slots being used by all heavies in SYD and MEL is not where the slots gone to, the inefficiency of the slots is coming from the low load factor domestic carriers. If the domestic carriers did not decide to go down that business model, they would not have needed as many pilots.
It has also been explained that CX will not ALWAYS require the longest runway, I would say the majority of ADL-MEL flights I have done I have landed on 27. I have also explained that we land a lot heavier than domestic carriers as foreign AOC airlines are not allowed to use the same alternates as domestic carriers.
A lot has been explained in detail on this thread, many have been too quick to engage the mouth before the brain.
You may correctly use professional discretion when you REQUIRE a certain runway but where is that line and how do we deal with certain airlines simply not understanding a difference in terminology but by lack of experience or training they subsequently gain a commercial advantage through lack of basic ability.
I dont know where you get this sense of "commercial advantage", none of us give a toss about saving 400 kg of fuel or 10 minutes. My experience is the opposite. Just looked at the last 90 days, we had a cracker that burned an extra 25 minutes of fuel going into SYD, about 20% of our flights are delayed by more than 10 minutes or more going into SYD.
Before you make unfounded claims, how about documenting the "commercial advantage" of the domestic carriers using intersection departures, or being put ahead in the sequence on landing, or looking at how the slots are being used by low load factor domestic carriers.
CX have 4 flights a day to SYD, that represents 0.87% of the movements in SYD (December had 28,444 movements in total, of that CX contributed 248).
The question was intended for a broad response in the first instance, not just how one crew may chose to operates on the day if they are caught out fatigued after a long duty.
BTW I don't believe after a long duty you should be fatigue, if your operator is professional enough to put in place correct mitigators.
Fortunately I can sleep well on board having faith in the other crew and sleeping before call having normally been accommodated in appropriate accommodation.
BTW I don't believe after a long duty you should be fatigue, if your operator is professional enough to put in place correct mitigators.
Fortunately I can sleep well on board having faith in the other crew and sleeping before call having normally been accommodated in appropriate accommodation.
I myself always like youself felt more rested after 3 long haul flights month where I have a bunk and a sleep even if that was 100 hours, 75-95 hrs regional/medium haul missing 8-10 nights sleep is no fun. You must also understand only a small portion of the Airbus flying is done into Australia where Wx and terrain hardly exist. I love departing HKG when there is a typhoon approaching HKG going to Australia. We have lovely patterns on the Airbus like CGK/SIN/BKK/ICN return through the night dealing with dodgy Wx and ATC which is fatiguing. You can go through the same typhoon twice in the same day.
Aren't most of the carriers, implied in this thread, flying A330's? Aren't they fairly/relatively light at the end of a 10 hour duty/8 hour sector from Asia?
You will find the mainland Chinese carriers are operated 4 crew into Australia, CX operate either 2 or 3 crew (depending on day/night and city pair, CX operate into 6 ports) into Australia.
The A330 can be at MLW on arrival. I have also landed at MLW with less than 60 passengers on-board, it has the same cargo volume (LD3s) as a 744. It would be not that unusual on say a HKG-SYD flight to be landing 5-10t below MLW, where a regional flight like TPE-HKG you could be landing 50t below MLW.
Flight time alone is not a good indication of landing weight.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Experienced commanders, like ACMS, certainly have the ability to bring their aircraft to stop on a short runway. But he has been trained effectively, and uses his experience to understand it is not always wise to do so.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.
)
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ocean
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Happy
ANCPER
"Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing."
Luckily for me I have absolutely no interest in what you are doing. I don't think I could grow my ego large enough to be a COMMANDER like you. I'm glad 99% of the captains out there are not like the select few on here.
Luckily I have had quite a bit of life experience and would bet that you wouldn't last 2 mins in my former occupation. I fly the small bug smashers as a hobby and for the enjoyment of it.
I suggest most of you lot go visit a radar centre/tower so you can appreciate what it is like being responsible for 20 or so aircraft.
It's quite staggering how a simple question can attract the hordes of the egocentric.
"Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing."
Luckily for me I have absolutely no interest in what you are doing. I don't think I could grow my ego large enough to be a COMMANDER like you. I'm glad 99% of the captains out there are not like the select few on here.
Luckily I have had quite a bit of life experience and would bet that you wouldn't last 2 mins in my former occupation. I fly the small bug smashers as a hobby and for the enjoyment of it.
I suggest most of you lot go visit a radar centre/tower so you can appreciate what it is like being responsible for 20 or so aircraft.
It's quite staggering how a simple question can attract the hordes of the egocentric.
Nunc est bibendum
Keg,
Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything
Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything
I don't want to get too bogged down in the semantics of this one. For the most part I don't have an issue with CX or ANZ or most other carriers requiring whatever runway they want. I trust that they know how to operate their aircraft appropriately. It's when some particular carriers on reflex always require the long runway- laughably at times when it's not very suitable at all.... recall hearing one of the China carriers request 16 in MEL when the wind was a 30+ knot westerly with up to 10 knots of downwind.
My point was specifically to the 'tired/ require ILS' point and nothing more.
t has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.
Anyway.....
I am active in GA quite regularly. And yes I do visit the YMML ATC centre a lot, more so in the past but my last visit was 2 years ago.
I take an active interest in all things Aviation and always will, a bit sad really!!
I take an active interest in all things Aviation and always will, a bit sad really!!
I really don't care that much what other operators do, it doesn't affect me enough to be worth worrying about. (Although it would be nice if certain individuals, holding for intersection departures off 16R, would move up close enough to the holding point to be in the same postcode, and stop blocking everyone on B.)
But this 'commercial advantage' thing? On the few occasions where we've required a longer runway, it's usually entailed a delay of 10-15 minutes. And that's just fine, we weren't requiring it in order to save time anyway. The only commercial advantage was in avoiding the potential for repair bills and bad publicity.
)But this 'commercial advantage' thing? On the few occasions where we've required a longer runway, it's usually entailed a delay of 10-15 minutes. And that's just fine, we weren't requiring it in order to save time anyway. The only commercial advantage was in avoiding the potential for repair bills and bad publicity.