Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited
it doesn't matter if you're IMC or visual - the only difference is, if you're visual and you're not achieving the minimum gradient to avoid the ground, you'll get a great view of the it before you smack into it...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
It won't matter soon... Once Network get their 20 red tail A320's I don't think the 717 or cobham will be needed much longer (Qf shorthaul either for that matter). Checkmate
Didn't see that in the staff newsletter did ya!
Fuel-Off
Last edited by Fuel-Off; 4th Jan 2014 at 11:09.
BPA, just checked CAO 20.7 and above 22.7t you must calculate for IMC; no relief for VMC on-the-day:
Originally Posted by CAO 20.7.1b 12.1.1b
in the case of V.M.C. operations by aeroplanes at or above 22 700 kg maximum take-off weight and all I.M.C. operations
Network have failed their CASA RPT audits TWICE! The guys at Fort Fumble have given them one more chance before they won't allow any more attempts.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
Visual DEPS are also issued out of TL.
In the four types of HC jets I've operated out of CBR never had a problem using 35 in summer and operating DCT to BN, CG and AD.
Visual DEPS are also issued out of TL.
In the four types of HC jets I've operated out of CBR never had a problem using 35 in summer and operating DCT to BN, CG and AD.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be part of the reason MD bailed to VARA
MD was pushed aside from his chief pilot role and bailing out to VARA was a good way out (of Qantas) for him.
Originally Posted by BPA
Visual DEPS are also issued out of TL.
Originally Posted by BPA
In the four types of HC jets I've operated out of CBR never had a problem using 35 in summer and operating DCT to BN, CG and AD.
If you can get to BN off 35, you'll certainly be able to get to CG or AD...
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBR gradients
Ahh, Bloggs,
Leave you alone for a few years and you forget everything...
please throw the shovel out of the hole!
josephfeatherweight,
Yes, the OEI SDP gradient off 35 is around 3.2% - Type A is considered, along with other data, and there are procedural fudge factors for tree growth, survey errors, etc. That gradient is what underpins the RTOW calculations.
How's it Hanging,
Careful of the great myth that the gradient off 17 is so much lower than 35 - it is only 0.2% less, depending on how you plan to get out of the Tuggeranong Valley - and the tailwind may certainly erode that slight advantage when considering achievable OEI gradients...
BPA,
I never had a problem either. In a couple of memorable cases, that was only because nothing failed and so otherwise erroneous planning was never put to the test.
Did you mean that you flew four types of high capacity jets that had no performance restrictions below MTOW up to 42.2 deg off 35?
If so, I would appreciate you identifying the types and the departure path so that I can improve my knowledge of OEI performance of jet aircraft in Australia. Please?
And generally,
The aeroplane doesn't know if it is in VMC or in IMC. It can't climb any better just because you can see what is coming. Try a quick right turn off 35 OEI and see just how high Majura Range really is - particularly after discovering what a turn does to your climb!!!
Stay Alive,
Leave you alone for a few years and you forget everything...
please throw the shovel out of the hole!josephfeatherweight,
Yes, the OEI SDP gradient off 35 is around 3.2% - Type A is considered, along with other data, and there are procedural fudge factors for tree growth, survey errors, etc. That gradient is what underpins the RTOW calculations.
How's it Hanging,
Careful of the great myth that the gradient off 17 is so much lower than 35 - it is only 0.2% less, depending on how you plan to get out of the Tuggeranong Valley - and the tailwind may certainly erode that slight advantage when considering achievable OEI gradients...
BPA,
In the four types of HC jets I've operated out of CBR never had a problem using 35 in summer and operating DCT to BN, CG and AD.
Did you mean that you flew four types of high capacity jets that had no performance restrictions below MTOW up to 42.2 deg off 35?
If so, I would appreciate you identifying the types and the departure path so that I can improve my knowledge of OEI performance of jet aircraft in Australia. Please?
And generally,
The aeroplane doesn't know if it is in VMC or in IMC. It can't climb any better just because you can see what is coming. Try a quick right turn off 35 OEI and see just how high Majura Range really is - particularly after discovering what a turn does to your climb!!!
Stay Alive,
Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited
Why is it such a big surprise there are performance limitations out of CB. So 3.2% is the net gradient used for the CDP meaning you need 4.0% to get off 35 OEI. Given that's a fair bit more than the 2.4% min I'm surprised any jet can get off at mtow. From memory the jet I fly drops about 40t off mtow at about 25deg.
I don't think the surprise is that the jet is performance limited, Joker. As you say, most jets are limited at or approaching their MTOW.
The surprise(or lack thereof) comes from the fact that QF management oversaw the acquisition of another jet that is not entirely suited to the task employed.
If they haven't considered a 30+ degree day with 5kts tail and OEI, then they have not done their job properly and should be held accountable.
The surprise(or lack thereof) comes from the fact that QF management oversaw the acquisition of another jet that is not entirely suited to the task employed.
If they haven't considered a 30+ degree day with 5kts tail and OEI, then they have not done their job properly and should be held accountable.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stretching it a bit
OneDotLow,
What I gathered from the thread was some obvious trolling and some vaguely serious discussions about route planning options. I'm not quite sure what propelled you into:
Wasn't the discussion about deciding when and for how long you pay for the higher thrust rating?
I would have thought that being able to dial up the thrust (15 minutes on the tools and 45 minutes on the paperwork) on a pay-as-you-go arrangement is eminently flexible, both operationally and financially.
What I gathered from the thread was some obvious trolling and some vaguely serious discussions about route planning options. I'm not quite sure what propelled you into:
QF management oversaw the acquisition of another jet that is not entirely suited to the task employed.
I would have thought that being able to dial up the thrust (15 minutes on the tools and 45 minutes on the paperwork) on a pay-as-you-go arrangement is eminently flexible, both operationally and financially.
Yes it is. The rest of the fleet has an upgrade approaching summer and a downgrade approaching winter, every year.
Cheap? Maybe not, but it depends on the value you put on being able to fill seats.
Cheap? Maybe not, but it depends on the value you put on being able to fill seats.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simple and cheap?
OneDotLow,
Looks like I'm slightly late to the game, but that's the price of being old and easily distracted...
Anyway, my reading of the tealeaves presented here is that it is all relative to your decision metrics:
- The simple things are increasing the thrust rating and writing the cheques to pay for it for as long as you do it.
- I gather that the cost for the increased thrust is particularly expensive.
- I surmise that having the flexibility to do a daily/weekly/monthly/seasonal change is particularly cheap compared to funding a permanently higher thrust rating
- making the decision is simple if you are happy with your decision metrics
- life rarely permits simple decision metrics when the cost of an error is high.
I have to admit that route planning and yield are most definitely not my bag, but my experience operating to and from Canberra suggests to me that it would be a very difficult market in which to closely modulate capacity (a consequence of performance) given the distortions due to Parliamentary sittings, the dominance of government-related travel vis a vis tourism and private travel and the effect of seasonal weather.
Looks like I'm slightly late to the game, but that's the price of being old and easily distracted...
Anyway, my reading of the tealeaves presented here is that it is all relative to your decision metrics:
- The simple things are increasing the thrust rating and writing the cheques to pay for it for as long as you do it.
- I gather that the cost for the increased thrust is particularly expensive.
- I surmise that having the flexibility to do a daily/weekly/monthly/seasonal change is particularly cheap compared to funding a permanently higher thrust rating
- making the decision is simple if you are happy with your decision metrics
- life rarely permits simple decision metrics when the cost of an error is high.
I have to admit that route planning and yield are most definitely not my bag, but my experience operating to and from Canberra suggests to me that it would be a very difficult market in which to closely modulate capacity (a consequence of performance) given the distortions due to Parliamentary sittings, the dominance of government-related travel vis a vis tourism and private travel and the effect of seasonal weather.
Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited
I see the problem as having 40 min traffic holding at BN. This means you need to take around 3.5 hrs of fuel for a 1.5 hr trip if there is a tempo on. That's never going to be efficient.
Thread Starter
This whole discussion misses one important question. The flying was transferred from a 737 to a 717 due to cost savings. Is the updated thrust required to do the job properly part of the new cost and how much cheaper is it really?
Who de- ices it in winter and who pays for it? Like everything in Qantas the true costs are a blurred paradigm of smoke and mirrors. We shut down the APU on turnaround to save fuel but the 717 doesn't cause Qantas picks up the tab. Why aren't Qlink pilots flying the 717 instead of Cobham. Surely it would be cheaper and offer career progression. Or here is something novel. Why can't some pilots from mainline fly the thing for free! Yep they're getting paid to do bugger all at the moment. Bucket loads of F/O's with 10,000 jet hours wanting a left seat. Go figure!
Who de- ices it in winter and who pays for it? Like everything in Qantas the true costs are a blurred paradigm of smoke and mirrors. We shut down the APU on turnaround to save fuel but the 717 doesn't cause Qantas picks up the tab. Why aren't Qlink pilots flying the 717 instead of Cobham. Surely it would be cheaper and offer career progression. Or here is something novel. Why can't some pilots from mainline fly the thing for free! Yep they're getting paid to do bugger all at the moment. Bucket loads of F/O's with 10,000 jet hours wanting a left seat. Go figure!
The flying was transferred from a 737 to a 717 due to cost savings. Is the updated thrust required to do the job properly part of the new cost and how much cheaper is it really?
Unfortunately at the rate they are going they could end up sinking the whole thing. Whether that is part of the plan or not is yet to be seen.