Easy's first A319

[AlphaCharlie]

Was lucky enough to get a good look at easyJet Switzerland's first, brand spanking new Airbus A319 today!!

It had flown in from GVA to LGW to pick up some 'VIPs' to take them to GVA to show off the new plane!! The plane was gorgeous, nice and clean and fresh - very sparkly, still with the plastic covers on the carpet in the aisles!! The crew (cabin and the 2 Captains who were flying it) were very accommodating as I sneaked on board to take a glimpse and wander around on the tarmac!!

Can't wait to see more of these - very nice planes, and a wise decision by easyJet!

[angels]

Alpha - before this gets moved -- can you update your profile please? What's a student from London doing wandering around on planes airside at LGW?!

[No comment]

Alpha Charlie!

Was one of the said "VIP"s - well not really, blagged a jolly to GVA and back. Have to say, for an aircraft packed with 156 seats it seems really spacious with a v.wide aisle. Funny smelling a new aircraft too, just like a car! Not sure what it will look like after a few flights with punters in though!!

Did you see the touchscreen for controlling the aircon and lighting etc? Very snazzy, the cabin crew certainly seemed to like the aircraft so thats a good plus.

I'm sure it will perform well, the wide aisle in particular helping when the mad rush for seats takes place on the EZY/EZS flights! Means you dont have to squeeze past people.

Interiour aside, the 319 seemed like a dream to fly as we took a tour of the Alps well beneath the summit of Mont Blanc. Then on to the Matterhorn and Grand Dixence dam etc. Wish I'd taken the bl**dy camera now! Some of the best flying I've seen/experienced too...I'm sure the pilot used to fly Swiss F-5s along the same routes previously!

So a BIG word of thanks to the crew on board EZS9002 today for what had to be my best flight so far! Pulling G in an Airbus A319 was quite an experience as we did a 360° around a mountain lookout!

Thanks again
NC

[Flap Sup]

Why did EZY management choose to fit 156 seats into the 319s? The last six seats cost them an extra c/a.

One should think taht it would be more costefficient only to fit 150 seats (just my thoughts, dont want to start a EZY/LC bashing thread)

FS

[No comment]

Dogma,
If you're having to build a certain number of hours on a new aircraft before it enters revenue service (i.e. carry people who will complain if it breaks down) then whats the problem with taking it somewhere nice? I think I'd rather take a look at the Matterhorn from 1000ft than do circuits and bumps at East Midlands or cruise 20,000ft above the North Sea for a while... seeing as the aircraft was positioning to Geneva anyway whats the problem.

From your attitude towards the subject I get the impression you only fly for the money (or the uniform) and not the sheer enjoyment of it. If thats the case, Virgin Trains will pay you a packet for driving trains from London-Scotland so you might as well jack in flying...

[mjenkinsblackdog]

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Dogma]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

I love flying, enjoy yourself. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz

P.S What happened to my posts! :mad:

[BEagle]

....and there was another sparkling new EasyJet A319 sitting out in the sunshine at Finkenwerder today, ready for delivery :ok:

[morroccomole]

Flap Sup:

I believe that the legislation on CA numbers is 1 per 50, or part thereof, passengers carried.
If only 150 seats are occupied, only 3 CA's are needed. If EZY were to carry 150 on every Airbus flight, they would have a load factor of 96%. The publicly stated load factor each year is some way below that, nearer to 80%. Therfore there are going to be very few flights that actually need the 4th CA. Should one be needed ever, I believe an airport standby CA will be utilised.

[Tower]

Sorry Morrocco but you are wrong. It is one Cabin Crew member per 50 seats. So this means they will always have to carry four Cabin Crew. Even if they only have 1 pax.

[flapless]

Tower you are correct, but perhaps they can just take a few seats out and use them as spares.

[no sig]

Did the Swiss FOCA not approve the use of three cabin crew when under 150?

[Localiser Green]

Hmmm.. I'm not sure about this c/c required thing.

When I went on MYT Lite from BHX to BVA the aircraft had just arrived on stand from ALC (packed full) and then proceeded to do our flight with the same crew, with about 50-60% load.

One cabin crew member, however, got off and went home. I can't remember whether that left us with three or four though, four I think.

I doubt MYT would fly an aircraft with more than legal minimum cabin crew on any sector, so why was the extra crew member needed for the previous (fuller) flight if the regs are only about number of seats?

[FlapsOne]

Under current JAA/CAA rules it is 1 CC per 50 seats - whether or not there are bums on them.

Likewise under the same rules, it is possible to get 'one off' approvals to carry less than the legal minimum. This is normally for 1 flight only and requires a bucket load of paperwork to go with it - both before and after the flight

It's laid down in JAR OPS.

[In trim]

no sig,

It looked like the FOCA were going to approve this, but last minute change of heart.

Main argument for 3 on the eJ A319 is that it has the extra 2 exits (for just the additional 6 seats) and the self-help exit capability now beats pretty much any other aircraft on the market, given fuselage lenth, distance from exits, etc.

Perhaps, as a minimum option, eJ could gain agreement to "lock out" 1 row of seats as unusable (perhaps with tech log 'downgrade' entry?) and fly it as a 150 seater, but 'unlock' these seats on certain chosen sectors.

In any of these configurations the exit capability still beats 737-700 with 149 seats, A320 with same number of exits and 180 seats, etc.

In trim


p.s. Very nice aircraft, and that nice wide aisle should help with boarding and disembarking on those quick turnrounds. :ok:

[DOOBIE]

And the second aircraft is at LTN now and just about to go off on a company jolly. HBJZB.

[Colonel Klink]

And, interestingly enough, it went tech in GVA earlier today. I was on it a few hours ago, lots of room in the flight deck, especially compared to the 737, and a little more spacious inside. due to the wider aisle. I'll miss "squeezing" past the flight attendants on turnarounds, which is what makes the 737 such fun!
I have always been pro Boeing but this aircraft looks great, and I may have been converted................................................... ......!!!!:ok:

[Heavy]

Saw HB JZB in the hangar yesterday. Took off around lunchtime looking great in EZY/S colours.

Anyone know when the first commercial flight is?

[Engine overtemp]

Easy (Top Swiss) A319 at Gatwick again yesterday.

It was fully ready to go but the flight plan had been submitted as a B737. ATC wouldn't let it go until a new flight plan with the correct type had been filed!

:O

[FlapsOne]

It happened 2 days ago.

[AlphaCharlie]

Ok, people keep saying that these Easy A319s have 156 seats onboard, but the easyJet website says that the A319 only have 150 seats (one more than the 737-700, gained but having a full row of seats by the overwing exits - whereas on the 737-700s they have 1 row of just 5 seats)!!

Ok, so my question is ... are we sure that the easy A319s have 156 seats, and its not just a case of their being rows 1 - 26 but no row number 13 (unlucky number) so infact there are only 150 seats?

[Nineiron]

'Under current JAA/CAA rules it is 1 CC per 50 seats - whether or not there are bums on them.'

Does this mean you need CC to position an empty aircraft? As a freight dog I don't know about such things.

[kite]

Nineiron

No. Different rules apply to "Non Revenue Flights" and "Non-passenger Flights".

[FlapsOne]

The EZ 319s have 156 seats on them.

The web site is wrong.

[acm]

On the 3rd, the A319 made a flight with EZ employee over Wales and Bristol. The Captain made some brilliant demo of the fly-by-wire capability and half of the passenger were nearly sick or at least nauseous.
According to EZ, the A319 made a flyover the runway in LTN at 100 feet, before going around. Remind you something ?...
Last time an Airbus made this sort of demo, it's end up in the wood in France.
I thought we would learn from that. Are EZ pilots are trained for this sort of demo ?

[In trim]

acm,

"Last time an Airbus made this sort of demo, it's end up in the wood in France. I thought we would learn from that. Are EZ pilots are trained for this sort of demo ?"

I think you'll find that was a long time ago, in the early days of the Airbus, and when some of the 'fly by wire' and 'computer over-ride' functions were not so well understood. I can't remember the exact findings of that incident, but it was certainly preventable, but was largely down to a lack of understanding of the technology!

And yes, I think you will find that the training since that incident(and no doubt other early but less disastrous ones) takes good account of training in the Airbus cockpit philosophy.

Such a fly-by is a totally safe manoeuvre, and in this day and age (given the years of Airbus experience now available), if a Pilot is not deemed capable of this then I would not want to fly with them anyway!

In trim.

[Man Flex]

Can one of you knowledgeable chaps tell me if the new aircraft are fitted with airstairs? If not then I find it difficult to imagine how they can turn the aircraft around in 20 minutes! Also have easyJet not bitten off more than they can chew with this new adventure? The first low cost airline to operate two different types and requiring 300 pilots to meet their planned expansion; sounds like quite an ambitious undertaking to me!

[no sig]

Man Flex

No airstairs, they'll simply use ground steps, no problem there for a 20 min turnaround provided all is in place. Two types not ideal but the deal easy got on these aircraft makes it all worthwhile.

[BahrainLad]

Interesting article in today's FT about Easyjet's strategy.

A new departure for Easyjet with Airbus (Financial Times) (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480406371&p=1012571727108)

[Diesel]

In Trim

"Such a fly by is a totally safe manoeuvre..."

Are you serious???? At 100feet?...with passengers.......er doesn't sound remotely clever to me. Wonder what the CAA would feel about this?

[LateLandingClearance]

Diesel,

Are you suggesting that such things as go-arounds (maybe at much less than 100ft) are unsafe?

I've not witnessed this example, but seen many other missed approaches/low approach & go-arounds and not one has appeared to be even slightly verging on the edge of death, as you, presumably, feel they do.

And guess what, nearly all the go-arounds involve passengers down the back - :eek:

Get real. :rolleyes:

[javelin]

If it was 100', Jack must have been flying it :ok:

[Diesel]

Landingclearance

"get real" - Nice to see courtesy and reason are such strong points for you........


The poster claimed originally that the "319 made a flyover at 100feet" - not a go around. If we go around we simply stop going down and start going up! I took this to mean the a/c was doing a flyby to show off the new a/c in new colours etc.. Maybe I have misunderstood. However if it was really some sort of low level fly past then sorry but was that approved by the Authority? Passengers pay us to minimise the risk not increase it. If the original comment actually referred to a simple G/A then fine. These things happen. Just a happy coincidence that it was the new A319? If however it was actually a low level (100'?) flight down the runway, with passengers on board, then yes I am serious, it's completely inappropriate.

Trying to be "real".

Regards

Diesel

[Bobby Guzzler]

Can the dinosaurs in white gloves please be quiet for once.

No, it's not a good proper aircraft like the Tridents they're used to, this is a fly by wire Airbus! A 100' hover almost insults the intelligence of the a/c in it's simplicity.

I was on the flight too - everyone knew about the go-around prior to going on the flight and was happy about it. We also had some nice fly-by-wire demos that I'm sure would have split a few cups of tea. You're only young once though!:}

[Wodka]

yes I too was on-board the "terror flight" we looped and rolled, pullling massive g - everyone was screeming and crying shouting "no no no" all ...naturally... being captured by ITV for the next exciting series of Airline!

ahhh thank you Diesel you made me laugh so hard with your post I nearly broke a rip! Where do you people come from?!

[Diesel]

Guys

It would appear I have rattled a few cages. That was never the intent. Believe me I fully appreciate the pleasure of demonstrating a new a/c's ability. I do not wish to spoil your fun chaps. However my comment was only to highlight that we are there to MINIMIZE risk not increase it. For all of you out there telling me that flying down the runway at whatever height is fine because it's an airbus you should be ashamed. As a commercial pilot you are there to conduct the safest possible operation. If you wish to do some airshow work then please find an appropriate environment. If the aircraft concerned was going around, fine. If it was indulging in a low fly by I am inclined to ask if we have learned nothing from the countless accidents over the years.

Wodka, glad to have made you laugh.

Bobby guzzler, Never had white gloves. Your arrogance regarding the aircraft's fly by wire abilites is truly worrying. I do hope you are not a pilot.

I am amazed that my comment appears so controversial.

Regards

Diesel

[Wodka]

Not so much controversial Diesel just think we need to put this in perspective. The commander did not just think ... I fancy a fly-by. It was planned, briefed, cleared with ATC and executed. Job done.

If ATC or the CAA had a problem do you really think we would risk it on such an important occasion and face the prospect of bad news stories?

[Diesel]

Wodka

Fair enough. Didn't know that it was planned as you say. Obviously didn't read the thread far back enough. I was responding to comments that gave me the impression that someone had seen fit to do a low fly by on a commercial aircraft with passengers on board just because they had a new toy - no planning, organisation, discussion with authorities etc.. I stand corrected.

Regards

Diesel

[acm]

I don't think it is unsafe to do a fly by at 100' over a runway.
The problem is that somebody did that already on an Air France A320 and crash the plane in the wood killing 3 people.
The result of the inquiry highlighted, first of all, that airline pilot, whatever the briefing they may conduct, are not trained to carry out this sort of manouver.
In our business, we always try to avoid taking unnecessary risk or to avoid the possibility of a risk.
A lot of airline, starting with AF, suspend this sort of public demo, with passengers on board, and introduce a minimum of 500' for fly-by.
What are safety margin in level flight at 100' ?
Are you at 100' exactly ? (the AF pilot thought he was, but in fact was at 50')
I'm sorry, but airline business is to carry pasengers in the most standard way it is possible to achieve, not to have fun.
I'm not blaming anybody, I would like to know what level of preparation the pilot had to do that, what the CAA or and FOCA(swiss) policy regarding demo flight (public transport), and finally did they had the EZ Chief Pilot aprouval to do a fly-by at 100' ?

[goeasy]

For goodness sake people! This was not a revenue flight. It had staff on board for a familiarisation jolly.

Any pilot not capable of flying such an aircraft, at normal speeds, at any height above a runway safely shouldnt be there. Should they?

The Habsheim accident was a different scenario, I believe, with the FBW Alpha protections disabled.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Look Wetpants - this isn't the Womens Royal Auxillary Balloon Corps you know!

A properly planned, briefed and authorised runway flyby. Walk in the park.

WWW

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I may be of some assistance here. The legendary AF crash occurred because of foolishness on behalf of the pilot. Sadly this one accident, simply because it was shown so spectacularly on film, made everyone think Airbuses were death traps.

The A320 family has, among numerous other protections, a facility called 'Alpha Floor'. In essence this facility automatically selects TOGA power regardless of the position of the thrust levers if it detects a low energy situation. It becomes active when the the alpha (aoa) of the aircraft decays below Alpha Prot (the angle of attack when the sidestick starts to control alpha directly) and before the stall aoa known as Alpha Max. As all Airbus pilots will know it is not possible to command an aoa more than Alpha Max in normal operation regardless of how hard you pull back on the side stick. Nonetheless it is clearly not desireable to have a very high aoa and low energy, hence Alpha Floor kicks in to provide the necessary power to get out of the situation.

What the AF pilot did not realise was that Alpha Floor is only active from take-off to 100' radio on landing, and when he did his fancy manoeuvre he was below 100'! Therefore Alpha Floor never kicked in as he expected. Being an Airbus it just sat there at a high (but totally safe!) aoa moving gracefully just above the runway. By the time the AF pilot realised that he was not going to get TOGA power automatically through the Alpha Floor facility he manually selected TOGA by pushing the levers forward. The engines spooled up as normal (fairly slowly like all jet engines) and because he had used up so much runway he was unable to get a positive rate of climb on to climb above the trees at the end of the runway. He therefore flew in controlled flight straight into the trees with the engines in the process of spooling up as normal!

The difference between an Airbus and a Boeing is that had this spectacular manoeuvre been attempted in a Boeing the aircraft would have crashed at the the start of the runway instead of at the end! The bottom line is the guy blew it in spades and it was nothing to do with the aircraft which did its best for him.

I hope that very basic explanation is some help to people in explaining how even the most superb of aircraft cannot provide indefinite protection from overwhelming foolishness. For what it is worth, from what has been described here the 'flypast' alluded to previously was simply a standard go-around and sounded totally safe and normal to me.

[squarkident]

Norman Stanley Fletcher (;-)

Thank you for your superb explanation of the A320 crash. I have been wondering for ages what exactly happened to make it crash in such a horrifically spectacular and public fashion.

Am quite amazed that the pilot was not aware of the 100 ft+ "alpha floor" restriction.

[spekesoftly]

Norman Stanley Fletcher,

Thank you for an excellent description of some of the Airbus protection systems, but please could you clarify one point:

As all Airbus pilots will know it is not possible to command an aoa less than Alpha Max in normal operation regardless of how hard you pull back on the side stick.

Should that read "......... not possible to command an aoa more than Alpha Max ......." ?

[reverserunlocked]

Let's also not forget that Habsheim is essentially a field for light and general aviation a/c. The runway certainly isn't long enough for an A320 in normal operations and this was also factor in the accident. Many who watch the video think that the aircraft was demonstrating at an airfield it had taken off from - it hadn't.

If this fly-by had been at an airfield with a long enough runway for a big jet, and one clearer of obstacles at the end than Habsheim, then he'd have had time to fly out of it before hitting something....

Looking at the crash footage it seems a miracle that anyone got out alive - as it was I recall there were only one or two fatalities, but that's too many considering this was an entirely avoidable accident!

[LGS6753]

IF this manoeuvre, or any of the other coffee-spilling activities had resulted in a serious accident, just think of the press coverage...

The airline's brand new aeroplane, and a fair number of its pilots and other employees wiped out.

Would EZY/EZS have survived the (uninformed and sensationalised) press coverage? I think not.

Whilst the manouevres were undoubtedly properly cleared, planned and executed, I view the management decision behind this as inept.

If I were the CEO, heads would roll.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

spekesoftly

Sorry about that - you are quite correct. A slip in the rush to get finished! Edited out now. Cheers

[BALOO]

LGS6753
I'm reminded of an A A Milne story that goes something like -
Whinnie-the-Poo and Piglet are out walking on a blustery day and Piglet turns to Whinnie-the-Poo and says, "supposing that tree falls down on top of us and kills us". Whinnie-the-Poo turns to Piglet and says, "Supposing it doesn't" !!! :hmm:
Yes, any accident isn't going to help EasyJet but if we've got to watch our heads when we perform any 'properly cleared, planned and executed manoeuvre (max x-wind/Cat 3 approaches to minimums etc) - then we might as well give up now!!!!!!!
:rolleyes:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

If I were the CEO, heads would roll.

What? You are going to sack the pilots for performing a perfectly safe flight as requested.

This isn't - as I pointed out earlier - the Womens Royal Auxillary Balloon Corps my friend. An A319 is just an aeroplane and believe it or not you can just look out of the window and fly quite low and be careful not to hit the ground.

Would you also cancel the upcoming Conorde fleet flybys? If so have you ever hankered after a career as a Traffic Warden at all?

Cheers

WWW

[BEagle]

More likely a wheel-clamper.

And I bet he wears his yellow road-digger's bib with pride.... Probably between crew bus and car park, in case he gets run over.

[In trim]

I am amazed at how many professional pilots out there clearly are so concerned about pilot's abilities that this fly-by has been totally blown out of proportion. I presume the flyby was carried out by one of the senior / training Captains and with the correct briefings etc. all carried out, and no doubt with a third person on the flight deck given the amount of training which is going on whenever a new fleet is introduced.

If we all have so little confidence in such a senior crew member descending on an ILS to 100' before flying along the runway and climbing away (at an airport he is totally familiar with having operated through on hundreds/thousands of sectors), then I think I'll take the bus in future.

No-one is suggesting that this becomes a routine manoeuvre for anyone anytime, but do you all really have so little confidence in your own abilities?

[jettesen]

for all you guys out there who don't approve of what easyjet has carried out here, what about the times when you are due to land, and there is an undercarriage problem? Sime pilots will bounce along the runway and see if that will be enough to release the stuck gear! This happens with pax on. So what???? It is perfectly safe with or without pax on board. Get a grip for gods sake

[fiftyfour]

I imagine that the two guys who did this fly-by/go-around were very experienced, and not just a couple of training captains who had recently done ' the conversion course.' Most airbus pilots I know don't mess around with the aircraft, as they find out something completely new, and often very surprising, about the way it works on one or two occassions each month. Quite a humbling experience.
I have been flying the airbus for a few years now, and definately would not attempt anything outside a normal routine A to B scenario. Other aircraft that I've flown in the past - yes , but not with an Airbus.
As many in Easyjet are about to find out, it is an excellent passenger aircraft with a fantastic level of safety - but it is not nearly as conventional as the manufacturer would lead you to believe on a two month course at Toulouse. There are lots of little 'surprises' - like the lack of automatic full power prior to a stalling angle of attack, when in landing config and the aircraft is below 100ft as mentioned by Norman Stanly Fletcher. Another little 'got-ya' is attempting to do a go-around before telling the aircraft that it is in the 'approach phase' of the flight - now that is virtually guaranteed to bust you past the flap limiting speed.

[Colonel Klink]

Some of you may have forgotten the arrival of EZYG, the first of the 33V built to EZY's own spec, about 5 years ago. It was flown in from Seattle by two senior comapny pilots and did a low fly-by at about the same height, also pre-arranged with the tower at LTN I don't think I heard anything about it that time! Admittedly, if didn't have comapny staff on board, but it was no fuss then.

[Getold]

I'm afraid that Norman SF didn't state the full Habsheim scenario. It was worse than that ! The pilot disabled the autothrust, and flew above the runway at radio height 30 feet at alpha max (almost stall), with the copilot controlling the thrust - almost at idle. The trees at the end were about 80 feet high. TOGA was not applied until about 4 seconds before impact. What is the spool up time of a jet engine on the approach ?? Exactly !! The accident was bound to happen as soon as the aircraft was less than 8 seconds from the trees. At impact the engines were spooling rapidly towards TOGA.

Given the same scenario, that accident would have ocurred in a B747, B737, DC9 or ANY turbojet aircraft.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Thanks for that. It is worth pointing out that the 'Alpha Floor' function I discussed in a previous post will work regardless of the position of the thrust levers or whether or not the autothrust is armed. The only thing that can prevent it from working is if the autothrust is disabled or unserviceable in some way. To actually disable it would require pulling of CBs which is clearly very unwise! If, however, someone is desparate to crash then there is ultimately nothing anyone can do to stop them!

[calltheball]

Norman Stanley Fletcher

That's not entirely true...
Pushing either of the instinctive disconnect pushbuttons on the thrust levers for more than 15 seconds disconnects the autothrust for the rest of the flight (including Alpha floor!).

It can only be rest at next FMGC power up (on the ground).
Cheers
CTB

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

calltheball -

You are quite right, but I have to say that other than this incident I have never known of any occasion where anyone has ever done this! I personally can see no reason why anyone would ever want to use this facility. You learn about it in groundschool and quickly put it in the deep recesses of your brain for some strange occasion you hope never arises!

[No comment]

This has been blown out of proportion as much as Jordan's chest...

So we want to ban go-arounds, touch and gos, flybys as they're considered dangerous? what the hell lets scrap airshows aswell as the pilots are obviously risking life and limb there too!

[mjenkinsblackdog]

No sig,
20 min turnround no problem if all in place for an A319.
PMSL,LOL,PMSL.

My dear chap they cannot turn a b737 around in 30 minutes with forward stairs already fitted !

Dream on!

Thought youd left the orange padded room anyway!:cool:

[jettesen]

Indeed they can!!!! They do 20 min turnarounds in GLA EDI ABZ INV and BFS! Have seen them do 14 min turnarounds in GLA and EDI on many occasions. If everything is in place, there is no problem. INV has seen an 11 min turnaround with a pretty much full load. It can be done and has been done.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I suspect A319 turnarounds will be quicker. Its very rarely the flightdeck thats the critical path. Usually it is the time it takes to get them off, prepare the cabin, and then get them on.

Pax may well embark and disembark the Bus quicker as the aisles are slightly wider, the overhead bins more commodious and they can manage steps better than airstairs. The cabin ought to be prepared more quickly as there will be 4 cabin crew rather than 3.

EZY are taking the Bus around to each regional base for a day offering to take staff and families on a fun flight making a bit of a day of it. Which is kind of nice.

Cheers

WWW

[mjenkinsblackdog]

Certainly isnt the case at Luton.
The bus will be a lot slower there due to 2 sets of stairs and not enough staff.
These have been the excuses over the last 5 years Ive been dealing with it.
Plus the added problems of anything over 2 aircraft on the ramp the whole turnround falls appart.
If you dont believe me time it next time you are in TOI luton airport.:cool:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Two sets of stairs pronto is rarely a problem in BRS. Don't know about LTN yet - I've been avoiding finding out assiduously. In practice who knows which will be quicker - in theory I think the Bus will be quicker.

Cheers

WWW

[In trim]

My best guess.....

For the likes of LTN, GLA, BFS and BRS there possibly won't be much difference. The arguments above are valid, and my gut feeling is that the time lost by positioning steps will be gained back by the wider aisle, bigger bins, etc. I think the 'bus has a slight edge, but it's close.

Where I think we will see the biggest difference is on airbridge stands, e.g. Spain, AMS, etc. The airstairs vs. mobile steps debate is irrelevant, and yet you have all the advantages of the wider aisle and bigger bins which will speed the boarding process.

So when debating "will the Airbus be quicker" don't think of the quickest current stations....think of those where the use of an airbridge on a 737 currently causes slow boarding! Thats where I believe the biggest gains will be made.

[LGS6753]

Surely a more important aspect of utilisation than saving 5 minutes on turn-rounds is cruising speed?

What are the different cruising speeds of the 319 and 737-700?

[eurostar builder]

Why where the Airbuse put on the UK register only to be changed to Swiis within Days...

[Man Flex]

Just to let you know that my better half having worked on both the B737 and the Airbus suggests that with more space becomes more baggage, more duty frees. If the paying public have more room to manoeuvre then surely you're inviting them to bring more garbage and therefore take more time to disembark.

By the way, 11 mins to turnaround a B737 with a full load I don't bl***y think so!

[willywick]

Why where the Airbuse put on the UK register only to be changed to Swiis within Days...

Does this mean that all the A319s will now be HB-xxx or will they be G- ? I'm kind of comfused.

[kriskross]

I think you may find that it is for the same reason that 4 out of 5 of the Swiss 737-300s were also UK registered. If EZY want to swop aircraft around then it is much easier to do so if the aircraft has already been UK registered - it just re-assumes its previous identity, as indeed the 737s have.

[overstress]

LGS6753: (snappy username, btw!)

I think on European sectors cruising speed difference between 737 and 319 is not relevant. Standard speeds, holds and other restrictions level the two out.


On the ground swift turnrounds are only possible with a truly co-ordinated effort. Only one cock-up (eg steps break down) and you have chaos.

Security checks of seats also take considerable time. 30 mins is an achievable tgt, and 25 would be a fantastic figure for any full EZY 319.

[skyedog]

Is it true the Easyjet Airbus have no brake-fans???

Could scupper the 30 min turnarounds......:hmm: :eek: :p :cool:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Yes it is and no it won't.

Cheers

WWW

[unwiseowl]

WWW - How can you be so certain that hot brakes will not be a factor?

[skyedog]

WWW. Do you fly the Airbus? Your reply suggests that you know more??? I can't see how they can do loads of sectors with short turnarounds - especially in summer - without being limited by brake temperatures.Please elaborate on your response !!:confused: :*

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I saw a picture of Ray kicking the tyres on the first one and could not see any brake fans fitted. I assume the brake spec is standard across the fleet and that the first aircraft is an accurate representation of the fleet.

I further then assume that someone at some time looked into whether or not brakefans were needed and concluded that they were not.

I'm doing a lot of assuming here and I know very very little about flying an Airbus so I might well be wrong.

Cheers

WWW

[kriskross]

When I was invlved in things technical, I asked about brake fans inthe original spec to assist with the short turn round times, and was assured that they WERE to be fitted.

As crew food was on its way out in the eyes of senior management, ovens were NOT going to be fitted, but due to pressure crew food was retained, and the single oven reinstated.

As the spec has changed, it may be that this also happened in relation to the brake fans.

I have since left all things technical, and don't know.

[skyedog]

Maybe they planned to do-away with the oven for the crew meals and decided to also save on the cost of brake fans.The crew will always be able to heat their meals up on the hot brakes during the turnaround if the single oven is u/s....;)
:) They will have plenty of time while they wait for the brakes to cool below 300 deg.C !!

[kick the tires]

If brake temps were a problem we used to put the gear down a couple of mins early before landing - the airflow soon reduced the temperature!

The 300C is a limit for the hydraulic pipes in the wheel well bay - Airbus have set a limit of 300C to avoid overheating these pipes. It doesnt affect the take-off performance or turnround times only restricts you on when the gear can be raised!

There are many ways of restricting the amount of energy that goes into the brakes most signiifcant of which is to land without autobrake (as per Boeing). The amount of effectivness this has depends on whether the brakes are carbon-fibre (likes lots of heat quickly) or steel.

Having said that the brake fans ARE very effective in getting the temp down to 250C (The temp on the ECAM is the core temp and 250 represents equivalent of 300 when the fans are switched off)

[Man Flex]

Maybe easy have disabled the brake temperature indicators.

Ah, ignorance is bliss!

[TopSwiss 737]

The 319's definately DO have brake fans. I've personally only had to use them twice so far. Hot brakes are really no problem, even with 25 min turnarounds. By the time you get taxying for the next departure they've cooled well below 250 degrees.

[kriskross]

And EZY normally land the 737 with autobrakes on, normally 2, no matter what length the runway, but as there are no brake temp guages, as Man Flex says ' Ignorance is bliss'.

[RAT 5]

KTT's

I'm only a simpleton, and not an Airbus driver, but:

I'm confused. How does putting the gear down early before landing reduce the brake temperature? I'm assuming that the temperature rose due to braking and taxi-ing after landing, and would continue to rise if locked away in the belly.

You then said that "high temp's did not effect the takeoff performance, only when you could put the gear up. Delaying gear retraction would cool the brakes."

Delaying the gear retraction will surely cool the brakes, (I had to do it on a quick turn-round from a short runway in B767), but it will also effect the takeoff performance calculation if the gear is left dangling longer than expected.

Moving on quickly to the 'tongue in cheek phase'; I heard, many years ago from an old sage, that he had flown with a miss-guided youth who believed that fast taxing, and via all the puddles, would cool the tyres and brakes. While this might be true for racing cars and bikes, when on dry tyres, it sure ain't true for lumbering non earth bound machines.

tara.

[kick the tires]

RAt 5,

putting the gear down early before landing is like using almighty brakes fans! The chill factor of a 200mph wind is great for reducing the brake temps - after all thats exactly what brake fans do, albeit at a slower speed!!

Like early starts/late finishes, its all about culmulative fatigue or in this case temperature. If you have just done a sector, quick turnround and off again the brakes will 'store' a lot of heat in them - they may be, say, 180C when the gear is retracted as opposed to, say, 80C after the first take off of the day. If you then go on to do another 3 sectors with 20 min turnrounds the brake temps will increase more and more and the store of heat could get to the magic 300C. Used to be a problem going from Skiathos to thessaloniki - and that was after an hours turnround.

Agreed, take-off performance will be limited if gear is left down after takeoff, quite significantly I recall, somewhere in the order of 7 tonnes. but at the weights we fly around at it could still be possible.

A chap did a study once, in parallel with Airbus, and its such a complicated subject. very involved with considerations of OAT, speed brakes applied, what temp were brakes before application determining how much of a skim was taken off the carbon fibre discs etc etc etc. The upshot was to get as much heat into the brakes as quickly as possible and do so in one contimuous application (carbon fibre brakes, NOT steel) and so NOT to use autobrake!


Take cover!!!!

[Man Flex]

The use of Autobrake results in a constant deceleration rate during the landing roll which is achieved by modulating the brake pressure within a single application. A single application means reduced brake wear. It is also a means of brake temperature optimisation. To increase carbon brake life brakes should be operated either cold or hot but not at intermediate warm temperatures. Brake wear is highest at temperatures between 80 and 250 degrees centigrade (indicated).

P.S. If the brake fans are running then the limiting temperature of 300 degrees is equivalent to 150 degrees indicated (not 250!).

[FlapsOne]

kriskross says

but as there are no brake temp guages

In that case, how might Top Swiss 737 know when they are below 250C?

[kick the tires]

brake temps are read off the lower ECAM on the Wheels page.

[kriskross]

My posting was in relation to the 737 NOT the 'bus!!

[CONF iture]

Norman Stanley Fletcher,

I know I'm referring to a quite old post now, but please, could you clarify one point:
It becomes active when the alpha (aoa) of the aircraft decays below Alpha Prot (the angle of attack when the sidestick starts to control alpha directly) and before the stall aoa known as Alpha Max
Should that read:

" ... when the alpha (aoa) of the aircraft increases above Alpha Prot ......." ?



Also, except from the FCOM, could you specified on which bases you was able to conclude on this specific accident …

Thanks

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Hi Conf iture

I said "It becomes active when the alpha (aoa) of the aircraft decays below Alpha Prot (the angle of attack when the sidestick starts to control alpha directly) and before the stall aoa known as Alpha Max"

On the PFD, the speed tape shows speed which decays with high alpha. Also alongside the speed tape is a 'tiger's tail' which shows the area between V Alpha prot and V Alpha max (note they are given in terms of speed and not alpha). Therefore from the pilot's point of view these 2 features are displayed not in terms of numerical value of alpha (although that is clearly what they are related to) but in terms of a higher and lower speed. Therefore when I used the expression above it would have been more correct to talk in terms of decays towards V Alpha Prot and V Alpha max to avoid confusion. As you will be aware an Airbus pilot has no readout of alpha directly but of speed only. The limits are displayed to pilot in terms of speed and not alpha.

Regarding the accident, Airbus have published a number of specific reports on this accident and I believe that what I stated is an accurate view of the Airbus 'view' of what took place. It is certainly the widely-taught view within Airbus operators and I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is not correct.

I hope that helps.

[CONF iture]

Thank you Norman for your reply,
but I'd like to suggest some reading on Habsheim, something a little different from the usual view
http://www.caac.cc/atcdata/html/1391.html

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Hi there

A very interesting view - but not one that I can have any real confidence in. I am intrigued by the website - an oriental one which seems to have an interest in 'conspiracy theories'.

I am forced to admit that I cannot say categorically that the accusations of changed data recorders, misfunctioning radalts, changed software and so forth do not have some truth in them. Therefore I cannot dismiss completely this particular conspiracy theory. I would go as far as to say that the accusations may have some significant truth in them. Frankly it would come as no surprise to me to find that Airbus (as Boeing have done under similar circumstances) have misreperesented things to ensure the pilots get the blame instead of them.

What I can say, however, is that there is a totally rational practical expalanation for why the engines did not spool up and why 'alpha floor' failed to kick in. My natural desire is to want to believe the conspiracy theory - my head says the pilot blew it! The simple fact is that since that time a vast amount more has been done in pilot training to prevent a repetition of Habsheim - and sure enough it has not been repeated! It is my hope that this would not happen again simply because there is such a wider understanding of the safety protections built into Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft (including their limitations). I know that when I went through the course, great emphasis was placed on understanding the protections and I am sure this is directly attributable to this unfortunate accident.