Posted in the Asiana crash topic
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound
Automated sector: Fuel used 2,305 kg
Partially hand-flown sector: Fuel used 2,357 kg
The accountants see that 52 kg they multiply it by the number of sectors the company flies a day and decide that hand-flying costs their company £X.XX per year.
Where does this idea come from that handflying would use more fuel? That's bul%$hit! I'm sure the opposite is true! The pilots in my company save the company tons of fuel by flying visual approaches which are often 5 to 10 miles and 2 or 3 minutes shorter then many published full approaches or vectors to final. Almost every time I fly a visual approach raw data approach I land with MORE fuel in the tanks then my FMGC predicted I would have at touchdown! And even if you're hand flying a vectored approach you're not going to use more fuel then when using the autopilot!!!
Of course, I have to be careful. Very often when I hear a British carrier getting a visual approach, I can expect him to make MORE track miles then when getting vectored.
Happened to me a few days ago: A Thomson B737 10 miles ahead of us requesting and getting a visual app when he was on downwind for Rwy 25 in Rhodos at 3000'. This guy maintained 3000' and slowed down to 160 kts on downwind, positioning himself to leave 3000' on final on the glideslope. We reported having him in sight and were cleared for a visual as nr 2. We descended to 1500', turned base when he passed us on final. Got our landing clearance at 800' on final when he left the runway. We exited the rwy one exit sooner then he did, taxied back to the apron and got on stand before he did, even if we never hurried or attempted to do so!
We saved fuel. He didn't!
Was it you in the cockpit perhaps, "Speed of Sound"?
(just kidding)