No AOC for Skyairworld, delay for Solomon Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are right 16.0 is full tanks.
however with a max landing weight of 52.8 and a burn of 8t.( usualyy a bit more than that) that limits your take off weight to 60.8 tonnes.
with a max zfw of 48.3 this means 12.5 max uplift in bn. 12.5-8 equals 4.5 over the top in hn. if the weather is good there allow for 200kg approach visual circuit starting at 4000' over the vor. leaves 4.3 on landing. if however you dont get in the first time or god forbid a go around due to a stray dog, you are gonna burn AT LEAST 1.2 in the manouvere. that leave 3.1 tonnes on your next landing.
in other words, you are ....ed if you miss the first time and cant get in a second time.
these are the real figures and they are indiputable.
yes, using nauru as an alternate is possible, but the aircrqaft would be full, and would still be max landing weight limited back into hir, leaving you with the same dilemma, as far as fuel goes.
to be honest i havent been to either place for about 12 years, so things may have improved as far as services go, but the figures are always going to be correct.
ya
however with a max landing weight of 52.8 and a burn of 8t.( usualyy a bit more than that) that limits your take off weight to 60.8 tonnes.
with a max zfw of 48.3 this means 12.5 max uplift in bn. 12.5-8 equals 4.5 over the top in hn. if the weather is good there allow for 200kg approach visual circuit starting at 4000' over the vor. leaves 4.3 on landing. if however you dont get in the first time or god forbid a go around due to a stray dog, you are gonna burn AT LEAST 1.2 in the manouvere. that leave 3.1 tonnes on your next landing.
in other words, you are ....ed if you miss the first time and cant get in a second time.
these are the real figures and they are indiputable.
yes, using nauru as an alternate is possible, but the aircrqaft would be full, and would still be max landing weight limited back into hir, leaving you with the same dilemma, as far as fuel goes.
to be honest i havent been to either place for about 12 years, so things may have improved as far as services go, but the figures are always going to be correct.
ya
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no company insists that. its illegal.
but when the forecast is fine, there is no reason to carry more than the minimum fuel. we always carried an alternate into hn, however..... it was always a minumum fuel alternate, and if you werent sure you could get in the first time, it was usually a decision at top of descent, as i previously mentioned.
from memory, the zfw's were always near max, and yes this did require offloads many times due to weather/lighting. i was just saying to the tossers who questioned my figures before hand that they should perhaps get their figures straight. we can all go full tanks everywhere if we want, but airlines dont tend to last too long doing that. nor do pilots tend to stay employed.
look at air nauru, yep they'been going for a long time, but theyve always been propped up by the government in the past, the government is bankrupt, so therefore, so is the airline.
but when the forecast is fine, there is no reason to carry more than the minimum fuel. we always carried an alternate into hn, however..... it was always a minumum fuel alternate, and if you werent sure you could get in the first time, it was usually a decision at top of descent, as i previously mentioned.
from memory, the zfw's were always near max, and yes this did require offloads many times due to weather/lighting. i was just saying to the tossers who questioned my figures before hand that they should perhaps get their figures straight. we can all go full tanks everywhere if we want, but airlines dont tend to last too long doing that. nor do pilots tend to stay employed.
look at air nauru, yep they'been going for a long time, but theyve always been propped up by the government in the past, the government is bankrupt, so therefore, so is the airline.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ithinkso---ithinknot
you must like talking to yourself with four posts in a row.
Firstly my MTOW is correct ! There are a number of variants and if you looked up the boeing manuals you would see they vary greatly.Secondly the 400 might have your burns but the 300 certainly doesn't. In fact at very low weights it will burn less than 2000 kgs/hr and therefore 2400 kgs/hr is a pessimistic figure. Thirdly the sector is operated non-etops therefore no APU required. Forthly I don't know what approaches you do but standard planning for a 300 is 400 kgs for an approach not 1200 kgs. The navaids in the region are working and have been for a long while and were only recently flight tested by NZ.
Just saw your latest post and I hate to burst your bubble but since when does MZFW limit your max fuel load??? I always thought it controlled your minimum uplift not maximum. Using your figure of 60800 brw minus 33500 baw would leave a payload of 27300 of which a minimum of 12500 would need to be fuel. You could go with full tanks and still carry 11300 kgs of pax /bags and cargo. So I don,t see how that means your f---ed to use your terms. Your figures may not be" indiputable" but they are certainly disputable and in fact incorrect. As far as using Nauru as an alternate you are again incorrect as a good proportion of your pax would be off loaded at their destination and would therefore allow the uplift of more fuel for the return landing and if required due weather fuel above your landing weight can be carried as long as it is burned prior to landing.
you must like talking to yourself with four posts in a row.
Firstly my MTOW is correct ! There are a number of variants and if you looked up the boeing manuals you would see they vary greatly.Secondly the 400 might have your burns but the 300 certainly doesn't. In fact at very low weights it will burn less than 2000 kgs/hr and therefore 2400 kgs/hr is a pessimistic figure. Thirdly the sector is operated non-etops therefore no APU required. Forthly I don't know what approaches you do but standard planning for a 300 is 400 kgs for an approach not 1200 kgs. The navaids in the region are working and have been for a long while and were only recently flight tested by NZ.
Just saw your latest post and I hate to burst your bubble but since when does MZFW limit your max fuel load??? I always thought it controlled your minimum uplift not maximum. Using your figure of 60800 brw minus 33500 baw would leave a payload of 27300 of which a minimum of 12500 would need to be fuel. You could go with full tanks and still carry 11300 kgs of pax /bags and cargo. So I don,t see how that means your f---ed to use your terms. Your figures may not be" indiputable" but they are certainly disputable and in fact incorrect. As far as using Nauru as an alternate you are again incorrect as a good proportion of your pax would be off loaded at their destination and would therefore allow the uplift of more fuel for the return landing and if required due weather fuel above your landing weight can be carried as long as it is burned prior to landing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ithinknot
You critisise others for using rubbery figures but use them yourself. Unless you have the actual figures they are using then your comments are guesswork at best. As far as Air Nauru financial status once again I think your comments are 12 years out of date.
You critisise others for using rubbery figures but use them yourself. Unless you have the actual figures they are using then your comments are guesswork at best. As far as Air Nauru financial status once again I think your comments are 12 years out of date.
Last edited by capt moonlight; 23rd Jul 2007 at 00:55. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moonlight, get a grip.
most companies allow a 300kg approach allowance from 1500' to landing.
the approaches in hn all start at 4000'. thats the first one you do,( which may burn 300kg), after your go around with repositioning, you will burn at least 1.2. fact.
as far as offloading pax in nauru, why would you do that. the sector is brisbane - hir. so all the pax would be going back to hn. therefore, as stated you are in exactly the same boat. fact.
max zfw in a 733 is around 48.3. you are correct when you state this. if you find prior to departure, your zero fuel weight is 48.3,(which it invariably was), it is one of the limitations for your dispatch, as well as a max landing weight hn . fuel will be added ontop of it. if you require more fuel than you can fit, you must reduce your zero fuel weight to add the fuel. this is pretty basic stuff. therefore reducing your payload. therefore losing revenue. fact.
yes the payload you state is correct(roughly), however if you care to check i i was talking at max payload. and with 12.5t departure bn, you are f...ed if you dont get into hn on the second attempt. fact
by the way a heavy 733, that is up near max weight,(just so your not confused), will be limited to around fl 330 for the first hour or so of flight. it used to, does, and always will, burn over 2500/hr. noramlly around 2.6-2.7 at that altitude and weight. LRC or ci40 will result in these figures. fact.
i appolgise for my poor spelling, but if thats all youve got, bring it on, get your facts straight, have some semblance of an idea about what your talking, and maybe one day youll get that job. maybe a fact??
oh ya
most companies allow a 300kg approach allowance from 1500' to landing.
the approaches in hn all start at 4000'. thats the first one you do,( which may burn 300kg), after your go around with repositioning, you will burn at least 1.2. fact.
as far as offloading pax in nauru, why would you do that. the sector is brisbane - hir. so all the pax would be going back to hn. therefore, as stated you are in exactly the same boat. fact.
max zfw in a 733 is around 48.3. you are correct when you state this. if you find prior to departure, your zero fuel weight is 48.3,(which it invariably was), it is one of the limitations for your dispatch, as well as a max landing weight hn . fuel will be added ontop of it. if you require more fuel than you can fit, you must reduce your zero fuel weight to add the fuel. this is pretty basic stuff. therefore reducing your payload. therefore losing revenue. fact.
yes the payload you state is correct(roughly), however if you care to check i i was talking at max payload. and with 12.5t departure bn, you are f...ed if you dont get into hn on the second attempt. fact
by the way a heavy 733, that is up near max weight,(just so your not confused), will be limited to around fl 330 for the first hour or so of flight. it used to, does, and always will, burn over 2500/hr. noramlly around 2.6-2.7 at that altitude and weight. LRC or ci40 will result in these figures. fact.
i appolgise for my poor spelling, but if thats all youve got, bring it on, get your facts straight, have some semblance of an idea about what your talking, and maybe one day youll get that job. maybe a fact??
oh ya
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wheres RON, wasnt that reposessed, or did they just give it up. was that a wheel lock on it in melbourne.???
oh no we're out of beer, fuel er up and lets go get some. the bird **** will last forever, hopefully so will the detainees.
ohhhh, whiplash
oh no we're out of beer, fuel er up and lets go get some. the bird **** will last forever, hopefully so will the detainees.
ohhhh, whiplash
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ithink not
Getting personal checking profiles .You seem to have a personal agenda and therefore logic has gone out the window. Things have changed a lot since you were in the region apparently.It had to in order to allow survival. I don't want a slanging match just a sensible discussion.
Standard flight planning approach 400kgs. fact
High terrain into Hir from the west means engines at idle for most of the approach therefore burn almost nothing. fact
You are quoting Air Nauru and their network doesn't end in Hir and would therefore have pax for other ports. fact
120 seats full of pax doesn't reach your MZFW. fact
In the 300 you can carry full load and fuel sufficient not to be F---ed and still be well and truly profitable. fact
You can make a number of approaches into Hir and still divert. fact
If your 300 was making those fuel burns then I think it needs a service as 2400kgs/hr is more than achievable. fact
DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND DON'T BELIEVE ALL YOU READ IN PROFILES AS VERY FEW OF THEM REVEAL REAL IDENTITIES. fACT
The days of RON are long over and the hard working crew at the new (not only in name ) Our Airline are working hard to mould an operation to benefit all concerned so they should be encouraged . Anyhow that's what I think.
Getting personal checking profiles .You seem to have a personal agenda and therefore logic has gone out the window. Things have changed a lot since you were in the region apparently.It had to in order to allow survival. I don't want a slanging match just a sensible discussion.
Standard flight planning approach 400kgs. fact
High terrain into Hir from the west means engines at idle for most of the approach therefore burn almost nothing. fact
You are quoting Air Nauru and their network doesn't end in Hir and would therefore have pax for other ports. fact
120 seats full of pax doesn't reach your MZFW. fact
In the 300 you can carry full load and fuel sufficient not to be F---ed and still be well and truly profitable. fact
You can make a number of approaches into Hir and still divert. fact
If your 300 was making those fuel burns then I think it needs a service as 2400kgs/hr is more than achievable. fact
DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND DON'T BELIEVE ALL YOU READ IN PROFILES AS VERY FEW OF THEM REVEAL REAL IDENTITIES. fACT
The days of RON are long over and the hard working crew at the new (not only in name ) Our Airline are working hard to mould an operation to benefit all concerned so they should be encouraged . Anyhow that's what I think.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here endith your lesson,
the figures i have quoted are correct.
the arrival from brisbane is from the south. inbound on the 190 radial.
the fuel burn figures i have quoted are correct. talk to someone who does your flight planning, if you have someone.
as i said, its all fine if you get in the first time, but , very slowly now, each approach after that will cost you dearly in fuel, and very very slowly now, this means your alternate options are very greatly reduced.
melanesians carry lots and lots of baggage. do some time in the region and you will find it to be one of their only similar traits.
by the way i didnt read your profile, i didnt have to.
lesson over, have a nice day.
the figures i have quoted are correct.
the arrival from brisbane is from the south. inbound on the 190 radial.
the fuel burn figures i have quoted are correct. talk to someone who does your flight planning, if you have someone.
as i said, its all fine if you get in the first time, but , very slowly now, each approach after that will cost you dearly in fuel, and very very slowly now, this means your alternate options are very greatly reduced.
melanesians carry lots and lots of baggage. do some time in the region and you will find it to be one of their only similar traits.
by the way i didnt read your profile, i didnt have to.
lesson over, have a nice day.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ebye
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Board members
I see Tony Hughes is on the Board - very well respected in international finance circles & the original Governor of the Reserve Bank - a very nice Pom married to a Western lady... perhaps the best bloke in the whole country to have on there;
Also Gideon s back - formally an accountant & auditor of very high repute, and also former GM of the airline, another excellent choice.
This will see positive moves
Also Gideon s back - formally an accountant & auditor of very high repute, and also former GM of the airline, another excellent choice.
This will see positive moves
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity this thread has deteriorated towards a personal level as it has been the source of some interesting and, in the main, reliable material. It has, particularly, provided good comparisons between two different aircraft and their suitability for a common task but this has been lost in the developing spat. I have been moved as a result to get busy on the net and dig up figures of my own (with the help of some LAME mates) in order to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously two previous posters dispute the fuel burns of a 733. I've been able to confirm the following from having access to a Boeing 733 Performance Manual using the already agreed upon 60.0 tonne landing weight limited BRW for this HIR operation. At this weight the 733 can go straight to FL330 and the ISA burns once there are a little under 2500kg/hr. By the time it gets to HIR it's at 52.0 tonne and (having had the ability to step to FL370 by then) the burns are around 2200kg/hr - so an average a little under 2400kg/hr is reasonable.
Using the specific figures for this aircraft (CASA web search to get the MSN, then an FAA/APRMO search to get the original owner/operator and finally "MyBoeing Fleet" (LAME access) to get specific weights) there is a spread of 26.0 tonnes between the empty weight and the 60.0 tonne BRW. Allowing 14.0 tonne for fuel leaves a payload capability of 12.0 tonne. This equates to 120 pax/bags on average. I'm unaware of the configuration of this particuar aircraft but 120 seats is about average for a 733. It seems, then, that this aircraft can operate BNE-HIR with more fuel than the limiting 12.5 tonnes mentioned elsewhere and still be full of passengers.
One poster doubts there are any operators constantly suppressing the MZFW in this day and age but it appears IE/SAW are doing just that. Figures from an E170 pilot (SAW aren't the only Australian operators of the E170) indicate that the E170 requires full tanks for this operation. More website visits (incl. Embraer) confirms that a consequence of this requirement is a limited payload (ie less than MZFW) of around 55 - 60 pax (some 20% of capacity). The E170 pilot supplied figures indicate a burn of 4500 - 4800 kgs to HIR, so let's say 4600 kgs average. This is 3400 kgs less than the 733 but the latter can shift 60 more passengers for this extra fuel or, put another way, at a higher direct cost of less than 60kgs/fuel per pax which is pretty cheap or profitable (3400 kgs at around $1.20 kg versus the revenue from 60 pax) depending on your standpoint. Add the respective purchase costs (US$12m for a 733 from a desert somewhere against the US$25m for the E170 from HK) plus the loan servicing/leasing costs and the figures clearly go one way.
I'm not interested in personal profiles, teaching people lessons or the job status of anyone, so let's keep this thread on track and return to the higher level of debate and information that was previously so.
Obviously two previous posters dispute the fuel burns of a 733. I've been able to confirm the following from having access to a Boeing 733 Performance Manual using the already agreed upon 60.0 tonne landing weight limited BRW for this HIR operation. At this weight the 733 can go straight to FL330 and the ISA burns once there are a little under 2500kg/hr. By the time it gets to HIR it's at 52.0 tonne and (having had the ability to step to FL370 by then) the burns are around 2200kg/hr - so an average a little under 2400kg/hr is reasonable.
Using the specific figures for this aircraft (CASA web search to get the MSN, then an FAA/APRMO search to get the original owner/operator and finally "MyBoeing Fleet" (LAME access) to get specific weights) there is a spread of 26.0 tonnes between the empty weight and the 60.0 tonne BRW. Allowing 14.0 tonne for fuel leaves a payload capability of 12.0 tonne. This equates to 120 pax/bags on average. I'm unaware of the configuration of this particuar aircraft but 120 seats is about average for a 733. It seems, then, that this aircraft can operate BNE-HIR with more fuel than the limiting 12.5 tonnes mentioned elsewhere and still be full of passengers.
One poster doubts there are any operators constantly suppressing the MZFW in this day and age but it appears IE/SAW are doing just that. Figures from an E170 pilot (SAW aren't the only Australian operators of the E170) indicate that the E170 requires full tanks for this operation. More website visits (incl. Embraer) confirms that a consequence of this requirement is a limited payload (ie less than MZFW) of around 55 - 60 pax (some 20% of capacity). The E170 pilot supplied figures indicate a burn of 4500 - 4800 kgs to HIR, so let's say 4600 kgs average. This is 3400 kgs less than the 733 but the latter can shift 60 more passengers for this extra fuel or, put another way, at a higher direct cost of less than 60kgs/fuel per pax which is pretty cheap or profitable (3400 kgs at around $1.20 kg versus the revenue from 60 pax) depending on your standpoint. Add the respective purchase costs (US$12m for a 733 from a desert somewhere against the US$25m for the E170 from HK) plus the loan servicing/leasing costs and the figures clearly go one way.
I'm not interested in personal profiles, teaching people lessons or the job status of anyone, so let's keep this thread on track and return to the higher level of debate and information that was previously so.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ivan, the region about which you are referring usually sits at around isa plus 20 on the ground. and wait for it, bout isa +15 at cruise levels.
generally you wont reach fl370 on a leg of this length, at heavy weights, even with step climbs, because of the higher temperatures, and because you would have to spend over 40mins at the higher level for it to be of any benefit,(the leg's just too short). just take it from someone that has flown the route on many, many occasions and with over 30 years experience in the area, that the route is constraining on just about all of the aircraft types that have been used for the route,historically speaking. especially when there is weather involved.
it seems though, that you have done your homework, so....
best wishes.
generally you wont reach fl370 on a leg of this length, at heavy weights, even with step climbs, because of the higher temperatures, and because you would have to spend over 40mins at the higher level for it to be of any benefit,(the leg's just too short). just take it from someone that has flown the route on many, many occasions and with over 30 years experience in the area, that the route is constraining on just about all of the aircraft types that have been used for the route,historically speaking. especially when there is weather involved.
it seems though, that you have done your homework, so....
best wishes.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: jungle
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thumps up ivan!!!!
enough getting up n personal dudes!!! time to give a hand to a failing airline!! don't we all want to have a bird to fly and be successful?
what do u think of the government intervernin and sacking the "board" for misinformation? one would think that they're acting upon the advises from the airline management team and if anyone should take the axe, should be the management.......um sure anyone with a nations "national airline's" interest at hand would have done all the economics and feasibility studies before embarking on such decision!!! they are employed and paid to run the day to day airline business.
with the new board selection (thumps up), wont be surprised if they're axed too, again due to mismanagement and being misinformed by management!!!
enough getting up n personal dudes!!! time to give a hand to a failing airline!! don't we all want to have a bird to fly and be successful?
what do u think of the government intervernin and sacking the "board" for misinformation? one would think that they're acting upon the advises from the airline management team and if anyone should take the axe, should be the management.......um sure anyone with a nations "national airline's" interest at hand would have done all the economics and feasibility studies before embarking on such decision!!! they are employed and paid to run the day to day airline business.
with the new board selection (thumps up), wont be surprised if they're axed too, again due to mismanagement and being misinformed by management!!!