I believe the downturn has produced strain in our industry in every corner of the world, and obviously fuel is one of our main concerns as pilots.
Regardless of the state of the economy, or the prevailing cost of fuel, reasonable effort should always be made to conserve it. I'm not be any means a tree hugg'in whale defender, but face it, fuel is NOT a renewable energy source. If we can use our brains to save some (Without compromising safety) - regardless of it's current cost - then we owe it to everyone to do that.
Besides the obvious, I would like to initiate a serious discussion about fuel conservation.
And so you did!
For instance, could we quantify the savings for take offs with flaps 5 instead of 15 in Boeing aircraft?,
I can't speak for the current Boeing models, but the difference in the Airbus is about 80 kilos between Flaps 1 and Flaps 2 for take-off, with default ACC ALT, etc.
does somebody have a real formula to calculate cost index?
Yes, the manufacturers produce this information. However, CI encompasses more than just fuel. It's a strategic number that include the "Total Cost" of operations.
safety concerns ....of setting climb power at 500 ft. versus 1000
All engines running; there is no compromise to safety. Remember, if you're doing this; performance has been calculated, and is acceptable, for that procedure.
advantages of setting climb power at 500 ft. versus 1000
Here's where they may be confused. I played with this a little during an extended turn on the ground. Basically, plugged a variety of different numbers into the FMS and noted the predicted Arrival Fuel at the destination.
What I discovered - for the Airbus:
The default Thrust Reduction and Acceleration altitudes are 1500 AGL. When I changed them to 1000 AGL, it indicated no change in the arrival fuel.
But, when I set both to 5000 feet AGL, I found a 200 kg INCREASE in the predicted Arrival Fuel.
When I did the same calculation with TOGA thrust to 5000 feet, I found a 300 kg INCREASE in the predicted Arrival Fuel.
Of course, there would have been the additional wear & tear on the engines by using the increased thrust.
And before anyone gets it in their mind to beat me up over it, obviously, I followed my company's SOP for the actual flight, but it was interesting to note the differences.
The point. Cost saving is a compromise between reducing the costs on the hardware (Engines) and the cost of the consumables (Fuel).
I read somewhere that Lufthansa got a very good new program for this
Germans! I'd expect that.
