PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Forgotten your Username/Password?
Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3rd November 2009, 10:52   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 119
Higher not always better?

Perhaps not the best place to be asking this, but couldn't figure where else to post it.

Yesterday flying from Bombay to Calcutta at FL330 had tailwind of about 40 knot. Over Nagpur, I asked the Captain if I may request for FL390 so we get more tail wind. The GS at this time was about 490 knot.

He asked if it would really be worth it... And asked me to request the controller for a climb. Which we did. Climb to FL390.


This time there was a tailwind of about 90 knot. I thought it would make me reach the destination a tad bit faster. To my surprise we lost 5 minutes and no change on the fuel. The GS at this time was about 515 knot

We were also, maintaining a constant M.78....

How did I lose 5 minutes despite being higher and in a stronger tailwind??
vinayak is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 11:11   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 130
Maybe the T.A.S. decreased with increasing altitude?
zlin77 is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 11:19   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 119
Yes it did. To maintain the same Mach at an higher altitude the TAS required is less.
vinayak is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 11:25   #4 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10,884
Regarding your fuel, you have to look at fuel used to climb against fuel saved at higher cruise level. Sometimes it is not worth it. Also, cruising above economic cruise level uses more fuel.
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 11:45   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 119
Econ was FL375...
vinayak is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 12:05   #6 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10,884
There you go! Captain was right . Why on earth choose 390?

Last edited by BOAC : 3rd November 2009 at 12:34.
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 15:47   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 53
Posts: 112
More info needed

You state that you lost 5 minutes and no difference in fuel.

How did you compare the outcome of the 2 situations? Are you talking about the FMC arrival estimates before and after the climb or are you comparing the actual arrival after flying at FL390 with the forecast figures that you had noted at FL330?

If you talk about both estimates, were the wind figures for the whole route FL390 inserted? If not, an estimate for a long flight to destination could be somewhat in error.

If you talk about the actual figures after arriving at destination, the difference could be in extensive approach vectoring, and the result from staying at FL330 could have been even worse.

And of course, as BOAC noted, if the remaining flight time was short, you may not have gained back the fuel used for the climb from FL330 to FL390.
EMIT is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 15:58   #8 (permalink)
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3,778
Nagpur was under 1 hour to TOD. Not enough time to make up for the fuel used in climb! If you picked up an extra 50 kt tailwind, you would have saved time. However, you must have dropped out of the high tailwind area. You should have most certainly gained time if not fuel.
Rainboe is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 16:05   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: EGTB
Age: 63
Posts: 701
Just a couple of points Vinayak:

How far to destination when you climbed? Less than 250nm and it's usually not worth it.

What did your OFP/CFP say about it? It usually knows best.

Did you insert all the winds, temps, trop etc either manually or via Acars in order to make predictions accurate?

What was econ Mach at 330 and 390 - M.78?

Please don't feel the need to reply, but the answer might be in one of the above points.

cheers
mcdhu
mcdhu is online now   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 16:57   #10 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10,884
Vinayak - I still have 2 questions:-

1) Why on earth choose 390 which must have been close to 'Max' cruise? Why not 370?
2) Why did your Captain accept that? Was he trying to let you prove something to yourself?
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 17:06   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 35
Posts: 367
Sometimes best to stick with the flight plan on short flights, worked MTC control in a small office of a small airline operating DC-9's. It was a constant struggle for the dispacher at my side, often on some of our really short legs it save fuel to cruise at fl280 for 15-20 minutes than climb to fl330 as the standard practices for that leg may have dictated.
muduckace is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 22:35   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Quabog Valley, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 1,267
My 2 cents:

It hurt more to be 1500 feet above optimum level than to be 2500 feet below optimum. Being too high hurts badly--upon level off, did the power smoothly reduce to CRZ power or stay at CLB trying to maintain M.78?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply
Old 3rd November 2009, 22:52   #13 (permalink)

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 62
Posts: 1,502
The only number that needs to looked at in this situation is the GS. By maintaing a constant Mach and increasing alitutude from a lower flight level to a higher flight level will decrease TAS. So if the GS did not increase after the FL change the time you lost, if in fact it was a true loss of time, was probably caused by the climb to the higher FL and the loss of TAS.

Remember the fastest TAS for most types of jet aircaft is attained in the mid 20's Flight Levels. Of course the fuel burn is at the top of the scale at those altitudes, so you are giving up a lot of range/endurance. But if you're in a hurry and have fuel to burn, so to speak, that's the trick. At least in every type of jet I have flown, which is, eight entirely different types of jet aircraft, not counting the different series of each type. Such as the Saberliner, I didn't include all of the series, the 40, 60, 75, 80 and the 65, all of which I have flown.
con-pilot is offline   Reply
Old 4th November 2009, 00:28   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Next door to Hell
Posts: 101
Did you put the arrival runway in after you climbed?
fender is offline   Reply
Old 4th November 2009, 00:47   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 538
It is hard to figure out without all the information.
If your groundspeed went from 490 to 515 as you say, it is indeed hard to imagine where you lost 5 mins. It certainly wouldn't have been in the climb to 390.
Personally I doubt that the flight actually took five minutes longer than it would have if you had stayed at FL330.
Basically i think the answer lies in where you are getting the information from that you lost 5 mins. I think it is not the right place.
Framer.
PS was FL350 and FL 370 not available?
framer is offline   Reply
Reply
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2010 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".