Flydubai - DXB to KBL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flydubai - DXB to KBL
Flew with these guys a couple of days ago, but not with my baggage.
Spent an hour sat on the jet on the ramp waiting for a small 'operational problem' to be resolved. All this time 3 trolleys of bags were for-mating off the stbd wing melting in the midday sun.
Jet taxies and the baggage falls out of formation. 30 mins into flight I ask a cabin crew member if all the baggage got on - "some didnt" was the reply.
I sit contemplating if I may be lucky in the baggage lottery. I pass the time trying to figure out why there is a paxing FDXB crew sat in the overwings, hogging the inflight cabin service for a full 15 minutes. Service over I ask the Cabin supervisor if he or the captain had the contact number for the Station manager in KBL, explaining that this airport is not the easiest place in the world to recover unaccompanied baggage. A big smile from the crew member "nothing was left behind and everything is on board" Hooray! I settle into the new Foo Fighters album.
Moving onto to KBL, we arrive and get to the baggage carousel and wait for 40 mins - yes, no baggage was loaded in DXB.
The paxing crew? well they took over the a.m flights aircraft that had diverted to Karachi because the vis was down to 3500m and they required 4000? That jet should have left KBL ETD 0840, ATA 1700ish. A colleague on this jet said the trip from DXB took some 9 hours!
I had another colleague that flew out on this delayed jet having flown into KBL two weeks previous - with his luggage offloaded in DXB just like me!
My point? Why to FDXB op an aircraft (738) on a 2.5 hr sector that cant handle a full pax load, let alone attempt to load any baggage? My guess is that they might carry round trip fuel - but to the detriment of those that are paying for the fuel.
Spent an hour sat on the jet on the ramp waiting for a small 'operational problem' to be resolved. All this time 3 trolleys of bags were for-mating off the stbd wing melting in the midday sun.
Jet taxies and the baggage falls out of formation. 30 mins into flight I ask a cabin crew member if all the baggage got on - "some didnt" was the reply.
I sit contemplating if I may be lucky in the baggage lottery. I pass the time trying to figure out why there is a paxing FDXB crew sat in the overwings, hogging the inflight cabin service for a full 15 minutes. Service over I ask the Cabin supervisor if he or the captain had the contact number for the Station manager in KBL, explaining that this airport is not the easiest place in the world to recover unaccompanied baggage. A big smile from the crew member "nothing was left behind and everything is on board" Hooray! I settle into the new Foo Fighters album.
Moving onto to KBL, we arrive and get to the baggage carousel and wait for 40 mins - yes, no baggage was loaded in DXB.
The paxing crew? well they took over the a.m flights aircraft that had diverted to Karachi because the vis was down to 3500m and they required 4000? That jet should have left KBL ETD 0840, ATA 1700ish. A colleague on this jet said the trip from DXB took some 9 hours!
I had another colleague that flew out on this delayed jet having flown into KBL two weeks previous - with his luggage offloaded in DXB just like me!
My point? Why to FDXB op an aircraft (738) on a 2.5 hr sector that cant handle a full pax load, let alone attempt to load any baggage? My guess is that they might carry round trip fuel - but to the detriment of those that are paying for the fuel.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bunch of numpties. Heard them go around and divert to DXB the other day because a C130 reported braking as medium on KBLs interstate of a runway.
Girls. You either want to work or you dont.
Girls. You either want to work or you dont.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: on earth
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Rolandpull,
I can not verify if what you are saying is correct BUT if I was you I would write a letter to the company and ask for some explanation.
I have been operating to KBL quite a few times and never had to face this kind of problem despite the fact that you are correct , depending on the weather condition ( wind , temperature etc.. ) the landing weight is limited due to the requirement to be able to clear the high terrain in case of a missed approach with an engine failure....
It is true that we are trying to carry as much fuel as possible from DXB due to the very high fuel price at KBL and the fact that we need to have an acceptable alternate diversion in case of problem in KBL.
Nevertheless , I doubt the company will leave passenger luggage behind just to save some money on the fuel price and have a lot of passengers angry with a bad image of the company !!!
Now about the decision taken by the captain to divert due to a medium braking action reported by a previous aircraft , I was not there and so will not start to comment without all the parameters in my hand...
This decision could have been wrong or right depending on the landing weight , wind , temperature , runway in use etc... at that time.
But for sure as you were a passenger , I wonder where you have had your information from and still doubt that they are all correct as you should be careful about who told you this.
I know by experience that the information made public are very often completely wrong.
I remember a " bomb hoax " story a few months ago in which information were available on the internet even before the aircraft was back to the base and the all story made public at that time was completely wrong and exaggerated...
So don't always believe what you hear unless it comes from a reliable source and preferably from the people directly involved.
I can not verify if what you are saying is correct BUT if I was you I would write a letter to the company and ask for some explanation.
I have been operating to KBL quite a few times and never had to face this kind of problem despite the fact that you are correct , depending on the weather condition ( wind , temperature etc.. ) the landing weight is limited due to the requirement to be able to clear the high terrain in case of a missed approach with an engine failure....
It is true that we are trying to carry as much fuel as possible from DXB due to the very high fuel price at KBL and the fact that we need to have an acceptable alternate diversion in case of problem in KBL.
Nevertheless , I doubt the company will leave passenger luggage behind just to save some money on the fuel price and have a lot of passengers angry with a bad image of the company !!!
Now about the decision taken by the captain to divert due to a medium braking action reported by a previous aircraft , I was not there and so will not start to comment without all the parameters in my hand...
This decision could have been wrong or right depending on the landing weight , wind , temperature , runway in use etc... at that time.
But for sure as you were a passenger , I wonder where you have had your information from and still doubt that they are all correct as you should be careful about who told you this.
I know by experience that the information made public are very often completely wrong.
I remember a " bomb hoax " story a few months ago in which information were available on the internet even before the aircraft was back to the base and the all story made public at that time was completely wrong and exaggerated...
So don't always believe what you hear unless it comes from a reliable source and preferably from the people directly involved.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add a bit more detail to the reply made by dubaigong, for those who are not privy to Kabul ops, some of the problems with it are as follows:
For ops into Kabul there are basically 2 approaches which most operators will use:
For those who've been to Kabul, you'll probably be well aware that the hills that surround the airport are both close-in and quite-high. As such, this requires a quite steep missed approach climb gradient, i.e. to ensure that you don't crash into the hills ( if / when going around, on one engine ).
For the last few weeks the visibility in Kabul has been somewhat limiting… it's that time of year!
On those days when the visibility has been less than 4.0 Km, it means that the only approach that will get you close enough to the runway, for you to be able to see it so that you can land on it, is the R29 ILS (with it's inherent WAT limit requiring a 4.8% missed approach climb gradient). In order to achieve that (steep) missed approach climb gradient (if / when on one engine) necessarily requires that the aircraft is not overly heavy and this, in turn, means that the aircraft's maximum landing mass has to be managed (by adjustment of passengers, baggage, and fuel) prior to departure.
As to who makes the decision about the amount of passengers, baggage & cargo, that gets loaded onto the aircraft, that's something that's not decided upon by the Flight Crew; though it's the Flight Crew who have to deal with any subsequent mess should the trip not go to plan.
And what of the case when the visibility is forecast to be greater 4.0 Km, but when one gets to Kabul one finds that it is less than that?!
In that instance you then can't do the R29 RNAV (GPS) approach (with it's 4.0 Km minimum visibility requirement and no WAT limit) and instead one would like to use the R29 ILS (albeit with its associated 4.8% missed approach climb gradient limitation).
However, you might now have the problem that the aircraft has been loaded such that, even if you burn-off any 'extra fuel', i.e. down to the point when you have just enough fuel (i.e. just enough to allow you to shoot the ILS approach, fly a missed approach, and then divert) you might still be too heavy wrt the R29 ILS WAT limit (due to the number of passengers and their baggage that was loaded before you took-off, remembering that the aircraft was loaded on the basis of one being able to do the non WAT limited R29 RNAV approach).
Thus you are screwed, and all you can do then is: divert !
It might well be the case that there are some airlines where the pilots would 'press-on' and endeavour to land, regardless of various aircraft performance restrictions & Regulations; but that's not the flydubai way !!
Now it's a purely personal observation, but it never ceases to amaze me how a new B737-800, with 27K thrust engines, can be so evidently outperformed by some of the other (did someone say, 'decrepit' ?! ) aircraft types that are often used for ops into / out of Kabul... or perhaps it's that some airlines and / or some pilots simply choose to ignore certain 'commercially inconvenient' safety regulations?!
Of course, maybe those who object to flydubai rigorously enforcing the safety requirements might, in the future, choose to fly with those those other 'more flexible' airlines, as they'd then always be assured of arriving at the same time as their baggage; one way or another?!
Now wrt carrying / tankering fuel into Kabul. Yes, when the passenger load & weather permits it, we do indeed tanker fuel into Kabul (as do most airlines).
That said, I can personally attest to the fact that the last time I went to Kabul (a time when I had to use the R29 ILS, and thus was WAT limited), in order to maximise the passenger & baggage loads, I did not take one single ounce more fuel than the absolute legal-minimum as required from the Flight Plan (the idea being to land at the maximum possible weight - made up predominantly through passengers and their baggage - albeit a weight consistent with also achieving a 4.8% go-around gradient, assuming one was doing so on one engine), i.e. just enough fuel to to get over to Kabul, do one instrument approach, a missed approach (if need be?), and still have enough fuel to divert to an alternate airport (which in fact means arriving at ones alternate airport with only 'Final Reserve' fuel onboard - which, trust me when I say, is bugger all fuel - but is still legal !! )... though that particular time we refuelled after we'd landed in Kabul.
Hopefully this dispels the suggestion (made in the 1st post, above) that we'd tanker fuel, i.e. at the expense of the paying passengers and / or their baggage?!
As for not landing in Kabul when the runway braking action is reported as 'Medium', I'm not sure what that's about, but maybe there was more to that decision than just that one particular item ?!
For ops into Kabul there are basically 2 approaches which most operators will use:
- R29 RNAV (GPS). The minimum visibility requirement for this approach is 4.0 Km and it is not a WAT limited approach.
- R29 ILS. The minimum visibility requirement for this approach is 1.6 Km and it is a WAT limited approach.
For those who've been to Kabul, you'll probably be well aware that the hills that surround the airport are both close-in and quite-high. As such, this requires a quite steep missed approach climb gradient, i.e. to ensure that you don't crash into the hills ( if / when going around, on one engine ).
For the last few weeks the visibility in Kabul has been somewhat limiting… it's that time of year!
On those days when the visibility has been less than 4.0 Km, it means that the only approach that will get you close enough to the runway, for you to be able to see it so that you can land on it, is the R29 ILS (with it's inherent WAT limit requiring a 4.8% missed approach climb gradient). In order to achieve that (steep) missed approach climb gradient (if / when on one engine) necessarily requires that the aircraft is not overly heavy and this, in turn, means that the aircraft's maximum landing mass has to be managed (by adjustment of passengers, baggage, and fuel) prior to departure.
As to who makes the decision about the amount of passengers, baggage & cargo, that gets loaded onto the aircraft, that's something that's not decided upon by the Flight Crew; though it's the Flight Crew who have to deal with any subsequent mess should the trip not go to plan.
And what of the case when the visibility is forecast to be greater 4.0 Km, but when one gets to Kabul one finds that it is less than that?!
In that instance you then can't do the R29 RNAV (GPS) approach (with it's 4.0 Km minimum visibility requirement and no WAT limit) and instead one would like to use the R29 ILS (albeit with its associated 4.8% missed approach climb gradient limitation).
However, you might now have the problem that the aircraft has been loaded such that, even if you burn-off any 'extra fuel', i.e. down to the point when you have just enough fuel (i.e. just enough to allow you to shoot the ILS approach, fly a missed approach, and then divert) you might still be too heavy wrt the R29 ILS WAT limit (due to the number of passengers and their baggage that was loaded before you took-off, remembering that the aircraft was loaded on the basis of one being able to do the non WAT limited R29 RNAV approach).
Thus you are screwed, and all you can do then is: divert !
It might well be the case that there are some airlines where the pilots would 'press-on' and endeavour to land, regardless of various aircraft performance restrictions & Regulations; but that's not the flydubai way !!
Now it's a purely personal observation, but it never ceases to amaze me how a new B737-800, with 27K thrust engines, can be so evidently outperformed by some of the other (did someone say, 'decrepit' ?! ) aircraft types that are often used for ops into / out of Kabul... or perhaps it's that some airlines and / or some pilots simply choose to ignore certain 'commercially inconvenient' safety regulations?!
Of course, maybe those who object to flydubai rigorously enforcing the safety requirements might, in the future, choose to fly with those those other 'more flexible' airlines, as they'd then always be assured of arriving at the same time as their baggage; one way or another?!
Now wrt carrying / tankering fuel into Kabul. Yes, when the passenger load & weather permits it, we do indeed tanker fuel into Kabul (as do most airlines).
That said, I can personally attest to the fact that the last time I went to Kabul (a time when I had to use the R29 ILS, and thus was WAT limited), in order to maximise the passenger & baggage loads, I did not take one single ounce more fuel than the absolute legal-minimum as required from the Flight Plan (the idea being to land at the maximum possible weight - made up predominantly through passengers and their baggage - albeit a weight consistent with also achieving a 4.8% go-around gradient, assuming one was doing so on one engine), i.e. just enough fuel to to get over to Kabul, do one instrument approach, a missed approach (if need be?), and still have enough fuel to divert to an alternate airport (which in fact means arriving at ones alternate airport with only 'Final Reserve' fuel onboard - which, trust me when I say, is bugger all fuel - but is still legal !! )... though that particular time we refuelled after we'd landed in Kabul.
Hopefully this dispels the suggestion (made in the 1st post, above) that we'd tanker fuel, i.e. at the expense of the paying passengers and / or their baggage?!
As for not landing in Kabul when the runway braking action is reported as 'Medium', I'm not sure what that's about, but maybe there was more to that decision than just that one particular item ?!
Last edited by Old King Coal; 28th Jun 2011 at 19:45. Reason: Terminological inexactitude
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercially inconvenient ... in aviation? Never!
From OKC:
“Now it's a purely personal observation, but it never ceases to amaze me how a new B737-800, with 27K thrust engines, can be so evidently outperformed by some of the other (did someone say, 'decrepit' ?! ) aircraft types that are often used for ops into / out of Kabul... or perhaps it's that some airlines and / or some pilots simply choose to ignore certain 'commercially inconvenient' safety regulations?!
Of course, maybe those who object to flydubai rigorously enforcing the safety requirements might, in the future, choose to fly with those those other 'more flexible' airlines, as they'd then always be assured of arriving at the same time as their baggage; one way or another?!”
Thanks. Another personal observation:
The performance for some operators (“flexible airlines” and cowboy outfits) with older (“decrepid?”) aircraft types operating into OAKB/KBL and OAIX/OAI in particular could be attributed to the following:
1. Airport Analysis provider – surprising and significant differences do arise when comparing results. Especially for take - off performance, the minimum EFFRA and any special OEI procedures make a big difference.
2. NAA oversight, audit, inspection and checks – when was the last time flying into any Afghanistan or Iraq (or many other Kiln Clause LSW617F destinations for that matter) did you have a base visit, Flight Ops Inspector on the jumpseat, or a ramp check on arrival/turnaround? NAA FOIs for whatever reason seem incredibly reluctant to fly to these exotic destinations! What if any RPM dispensation/difference/deviation has been approved? How interested and concerned are the UAE GCAA for local outfits and the Afghan MoTCA in KBL (even with the slow wip capacity building, support and assistance of FAA, ICAO, ISAF etc.)?
3. Other audits/checks – how credible, reliable and detailed are the other audits conducted by IOSA, UNHAS, KBR, charter companies etc.?
4. Insurance – Is the broker, underwriter, reinsurer etc. interested in anything other than the war risk premium?
5. Operator safety management and compliance culture …
Without lessons being learnt, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. "Tick the box safety" is not always sufficient; another hull loss or two, maybe with some VIPs on board, might be just enough to focus the minds, avoid the inshallah effect, and jolt us all from the general prevailing complacency or profit motive where applicable. Very glad to learn that a nascent and hybrid LCC like FZ/FDB is not allowed to, or is not voluntarily going down the “cowboy” route in cowboy territory!
Good luck, happy take offs and landings, and diversions. If you can’t be safe, then be bloody careful!
“Now it's a purely personal observation, but it never ceases to amaze me how a new B737-800, with 27K thrust engines, can be so evidently outperformed by some of the other (did someone say, 'decrepit' ?! ) aircraft types that are often used for ops into / out of Kabul... or perhaps it's that some airlines and / or some pilots simply choose to ignore certain 'commercially inconvenient' safety regulations?!
Of course, maybe those who object to flydubai rigorously enforcing the safety requirements might, in the future, choose to fly with those those other 'more flexible' airlines, as they'd then always be assured of arriving at the same time as their baggage; one way or another?!”
Thanks. Another personal observation:
The performance for some operators (“flexible airlines” and cowboy outfits) with older (“decrepid?”) aircraft types operating into OAKB/KBL and OAIX/OAI in particular could be attributed to the following:
1. Airport Analysis provider – surprising and significant differences do arise when comparing results. Especially for take - off performance, the minimum EFFRA and any special OEI procedures make a big difference.
2. NAA oversight, audit, inspection and checks – when was the last time flying into any Afghanistan or Iraq (or many other Kiln Clause LSW617F destinations for that matter) did you have a base visit, Flight Ops Inspector on the jumpseat, or a ramp check on arrival/turnaround? NAA FOIs for whatever reason seem incredibly reluctant to fly to these exotic destinations! What if any RPM dispensation/difference/deviation has been approved? How interested and concerned are the UAE GCAA for local outfits and the Afghan MoTCA in KBL (even with the slow wip capacity building, support and assistance of FAA, ICAO, ISAF etc.)?
3. Other audits/checks – how credible, reliable and detailed are the other audits conducted by IOSA, UNHAS, KBR, charter companies etc.?
4. Insurance – Is the broker, underwriter, reinsurer etc. interested in anything other than the war risk premium?
5. Operator safety management and compliance culture …
Without lessons being learnt, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. "Tick the box safety" is not always sufficient; another hull loss or two, maybe with some VIPs on board, might be just enough to focus the minds, avoid the inshallah effect, and jolt us all from the general prevailing complacency or profit motive where applicable. Very glad to learn that a nascent and hybrid LCC like FZ/FDB is not allowed to, or is not voluntarily going down the “cowboy” route in cowboy territory!
Good luck, happy take offs and landings, and diversions. If you can’t be safe, then be bloody careful!
