Helen-Damnation
Cool-down now, you're answering like if I was implying you, or your airline, in my statements. I was talking in general. I don't even know what airline are you flying with and I really don't care (but I'm glad you're not pressured by anybody when uploading more fuel, but others are...)
Quote:
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead
The fuel penalty to fly the whole sector at one level lower i.e. 2000', is less than the contingency fuel uploaded. Circa 600kg versus 1500kg on this sector length for this a/c type. Therefore, the option to take lower levels for part of the trip is not a problem. If it is a problem, see the next point!
and please, don't take my words out of context just to show you're a big wise guy...
here is what I said:
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead (sometimes reported to you in the middle of the Atlantic) when you're already half way to your destination?
I know the numbers for the 330 and the 340 and I also know that sometimes one level below is not enough to face severe turbulence.
That's what you're paid to do every time you go to work..... isn't it?
Yes, that's what we are all paid to do, when going to work and I'm not complaining. All I'm trying to highlight is the need for a more protective and safer fuel legislation, which would give us all better chances to face adversity and maybe would prevent some incidents/accidents to happen.
(Of course, those who are protected by Hades, know it all, need nothing to worry about, have no doubts what so ever...not me, I'm just human)