Virgin on a go slow?
 

Overheard an interesting conversation this arvo between BN CEN and several Virgin flights. The controller seemed baffled by their slow speed. When asked, the pilots responded that they were cruising (.61 to .63 mach) at such a cost index because the company "beancounters" instructed them to and insisted that they not diverge from these speeds.

Doing some (rough) calculations that puts a TAS at FL370 at about 355kt... thats slower than a Q400 at FL230! Granted, this was a quick calculation using a website I found (old CR-2 evades me...), and may be slightly out.

Don't you guys usually get about at .74-.78 depending on cost index??? That seems like an enormous difference. What's the deal? Just interested, as was the bloke I was flying with.:confused:

No Dash 8-400 in Australia is flying at 360kt TAS. "Something about engine longevity". :) They are more than likely operating around the 300-310kt TAS.

At the moment we are actually being able to use our designed cruise power in the q400 so on average TAS around 360kts.... Untill the company tell us we cant, in which case after getting used to the extra speed I don't think anyone will stop anyway.. ;)

I also heard that now "detent" is used in cruise the fuel bill is even less! I'm amazed Bombardier know more about the q400 than the Tamworth aeroclub.

End of the month , the boys are into overtime !

At FL 370 Mach .63 equals about 360 kts TAS and only around 200 KIAS.
A bit slow I would suggest for a 737, especially if you need to maneuver.

There wouldn't be a cost index that would give that slow a speed, CI 0 would be about Max Range Cruise and that would certainly be faster than .63, more like .75 perhaps?

I'm guessing but about Mach .68 to .70 giving 210 KIAS and 400 TAS would be about as slow as you would dare go up at 370 BUT that wouldn't burn the least fuel over a trip.

Maybe it was an EMB?

Does it matter? The issued cost index giving 0.61-0.63 is obviously less than standard cruise. Aircraft type is irrelevant. :ugh:

Econ with a C.I of 4 or 5 which is what is being used at the moment would give a cruise Mach of .63 or .65 down at fl 250 or fl 280. Depending on the headwinds that might be the planned level, and so be it. You can't cruise at .63 or .65 in a 737 at fl 370. I will categorically say there is no go slow. We are almost to a man (and woman!) supportive of the changes to the company and our future under J.B.

Dragun, Wrong..........."..................

Nothing like a 76 up your date at those speeds. Are you fellas letting ATC know? Nothing like running 7 or 8 miles between a couple of planes on climb (you fellas tend to follow each other around) to have the first one cruise at those mach's. Sphincter tends to tighten a little when you haven't been told :ok:

Sorry Jack, why would you have to notify anyone? It's already in the plan. It's not a decision the line drivers would make on their own, unless there is a mechanical reason for it.

Wrong on what count, auto brakes?

Porch,

Those cost index mach numbers are not the numbers published in our books. We expect you to cruise at your published figures, if not, let us know :ok: We don't have the time to check every flight plan!

The C.I dictates the Mach no. It simply varies with altitude. The plan will have the altitude, are you telling me that your flight plan notification doesn't have the tas/MN on it? If our plan says FL 260 at .63, that is what was submitted to you guys. Are you saying that isn't so?

I certainly hear what you say DNS, but no, they don't usually think like that. The usual thing would be that we'd up the speed at the lower level, cause that's what jets were made for! But if we were originally planned low and slow, then that wouldn't necessarily occur.

Jack, we don't have access to the range of numbers either. I always figured that's why we submitted flight plans........

On a VB 737 tonight SYD-ADL. Took about 2 hrs 15 mins.

The seat back track showed a consistent g/s of less than 600 km p/h ( around 320 kts) at FL240. Forecast winds around those levels were only -45 kts, slow trip, blamed by crew during pa on strong headwinds, 45 kts I don't think so, go figure.

business model for cost index.
 

So who is doing the CI calculation these days and what answer did they get?

Wonder if they recalculated the schedule blox times with the lower CI. Sounds like the AN days of low and fast in the 767 to beat the skippy jet.

Jack Ranga

Cruise scheduled flight planned should match the ATC flight plan. If the crew are telling you they are different write them up. Good trick that one bro!:=

That's my point marauder. At that fl the 4 or 5 CI would produce only .63 or so, so slowish sector. The alternative however, up high, might be 150kts on the nose or more. Some bean counter has worked out that it will use less fuel at the lower slower profile. So that's the plan we get handed. Unless there is a real reason to do other, we fly the plan.

I know it's slightly different but I've been meaning to ask - when ATC says "Hold at XXX, expect to depart XXX at XXXX, speed reduction approved.", is there any limits to the speed reduction?:confused:
Heard some ATC cracking it the other day because a 737 slowed down to 215KIAS and "that if you are going to slow down that much you have to let us know." Huh? Since when? :confused:

.63!!!!! suddenly the BAe-146 looks good again...

b.

Boocs,the fruit bat has never looked good!

If that is the case then its a systemic problem. Not ATC's, not the pilots. If there is nothing that requires the pilot to tell atc their flight planned speed, and there is nothing requiring atc to read the flight planned speed off the flight plan, the system needs changing so that
a) pilots are required to give their mach number on change over or
b) atc are required to read the flight planned mach number.

Putting the responsibility with one or the other is the only way to avoid a big fat grey area.

Can anyone answer this,why do the company include it in the flight plan if it is not used?

Framer et al
There is an assumption we all, or most of us anyway, make is for consistency.
When we changed from reduced power to detent in the Q400, it took a little while for the system to adapt, including the drivers with the new jet like speed we had all been promised.
We do not have to use this setting and could change our speed on the fright plans if required. It just takes a little bit of time to adapt, e.g. when the wheel is re-invented with new check lists or advisory calls or the latest fly-by-talk system. :ugh:
Cheers
PS Maybe slow or slug or something similar needs to be added to the callsign, with company and ATC approval of course!

From where I work at the moment,

If ya got behind the other and the radar says its pac man, ya need to do something.

In reality it is very obvious if you have a problem. The ground speed is rounded to the nearest 10knots, so if it says 450knots on both jets, you may have 10 knots of closing. So the old how long ya got calculation eg, max 10 knots per hour of closing which means if you have 15miles to start with you got an hour before ya have to do something or you never will be cause they will be in sydney.

This doesn't work so good on the climb, especially with the A320s. I find that they can reduce ground speed quite a bit if they increase there rate of climb. 737s are not as bad. So its hard to judge and depends on the operator.

Here is a simple example of how it usually works. If you have a 767 and a a320, the A320 might be doing 400knots and the 767 420knots. Say you have 20 miles. So maximum closing would be 30knots which gives you 30 mins to sort something out. However, say the front today is doing 370knots, that make 50knots closing and that gives you about 10-15mins to do something.

So based on 20 miles, a bad case of 50knots closing you still have at least 10 mins to sort the problem. And if it is a problem, 5deg left and she'll be offset 5 miles after 7-8mins.

I work in germany. There are so many flights, companies and aircraft types that you just can't say its a 737 so it will do this. You would not last a day. I usually go on- if its more than 20, i'm sweet because i have 10 mins to do something with 50 knots closing, if its less then i got to be careful. You will only be caught out once and after that you will always be watching the ground speed once they level out.

However, after all this, I would be pissed if an aircraft slowed down from a high speed without notice. This is because once i have jets in the cruise, I expect that the the speed will remain fairly constant. I do not expect them to cruise at .79, then without notice drop to .68. It is quite possible that i have one 20miles behind without speed control and this would leave me with not much time to recognize the problem, especially if I am busy.

So for me, If the jet climbs and set cruise speed at .68 at Top of climb, then this is not a problem because i would be checking the speed against preceding/following traffic at that point or if not before hand. If you are doing .80 and then decide to slow to .70, you need to tell me.

Assumption is the mother of ****ups.

Like I said,I'm guessing that the assumption is reliant on Virgin contacting the atc servive provider and telling them about the change to their flight planning methods, or, every single pilot telling atc that they are doing something new. If it's the former then the system is reliant on one person doing something that they aren't legally required to do. Not much room for human error there.
If it's the latter, well, nice in theory but it'l never happen because too many individuals are involved with too many opinions and different views on what their priorities and duties are.
If it's a safety risk then the system needs changing. If it's just a few people having a whinge then no worries,thats what forums are for, leave it as it is and rock on :)

It comes down to controllers doing too many shifts, seeing the same thing day in day out, doing the 10 shifts in a row and on day 10 Vb goes at .68 wich he didn't for the last 9 days.

Here, we we have a constant variety so expect unusual stuff (the russians and french are good at that). In aus, 2 big players and tired atcs = people making assumptions. This is the systemic problem your talking about.

The Cost Index variations are one thing but more importantly, saving fuel is achieving the optimum level and a favouable postion in the traffic flow for descent. I have made more fuel by getting underneath and ahead of slower traffic to then get my optimum level and a clear path than slowing down to a crawl. Too much emphasize on CI at the expense of airmanship and good planning costs fuel too. At .63 you might as well land somewhere and put them on the train.

The idea in any Jet is to achieve the best kg/gnm. How you do it is up to you AND ATC to work out.
If .63 at FL240 below the wind is best then :ok:

I'm very out of date here, but, from memory ....

• Companies have Letters of Agreement with Airservices detailing a lot of stuff, including performance figures.
• ATCs are trained in line with those agreements.
• If the general performance figures are changed, the Company is expected to update the Letter of Agreement
• Speeds entered into the flight plan are not entered into the software that ATC use???? I think.

So, obviously ATCs are expecting certain speeds. When they don't happen ...

The PIC doesn't get to choose most of the time. As was pointed out the plan is issued to us and as far as VB is concerned if you want to vary from it you need good reasons. Just because I like to go fast, which is what jets are/were for, doesn't mean I can justify it in the eyes of so friggen beancounters. As I stated earlier, we get handed the plan and then fly it. Obviously the info isn't being read/ exchanged and that appears to be the problem. The info is in the plan, but I don't know what parts of that plan you guys get. I figured you would get levels and speeds. If you don't have time/inclination to read it, I don't know where to go from here. All I know that as far as I'm concerned, I am required to notify you of any changes to my flight planned speeds, and I do so.

I'll update my comment:--


The idea in any Jet is to achieve the best kg/gnm. The company will hopefully provide a flight plan to achieve this aim, you may need to modify your levels/speeds to actually achieve or better it on the flight, it is up to you AND ATC to work it out. If .63 at FL240 below the wind is best then :ok:

I dont think any Airline manager would disagree as long as reduced fuel burn was achieved.:ok:

That's why they pay us the big bucks, oops did I just say that:eek:

The question came in 2 parts. Is it a go slow? No. Simple answer to that part. Then we have the ATC/Pilot interface problem/question. I am required to notify any speed changes from what is on my flight plan. I do so. I am required to wherever possible, fly the plan as given. Sure, I can fiddle around the edges, no problem. But changing from .63 at FL 260 to .78 at the same level or vice versa isn't really fiddling about the edges. Same as going from .79 to .71 FL 370. Also not really fiddling about the edges. Both examples would require notification to the relevant ATC, and MAY require answers to operations at the airline. The problem appears to be when a low level and consequently low speed plan is submitted. That may be for all kinds of factors, weather, wind, maintenance issues, volcanic ash clouds, whatever. The crew complies with said plan, and it appears that it raises issues with ATC who, at least on here, are claiming "we are not aware, " or, "you should tell us".

The point I'm trying to make is that the plan given to the crew is the same as the one sent to ATC, and that is what we will be doing. If there are to be variations from that submitted plan, then the crew are obligated to tell ATC of the changes. As it should be. Now, if the information in the plan is incorrect, not being read or unavailable, how, as a member of the crew, would I be aware of that from ATC'S point of view?

Have we not all heard of the drag curve, flying this slow will burn more fuel. VB's CI's are seriously flawed. QF uses a lot higher CI's (someone confirm).

Our CI's have not changed by more than 5 units in the last 3 years. What has Sing Jet done in those 3 years.

Mate at PB says they are experimenting with LRC or higher CI's and burning less and taking up to 10 minutes off 4 hour legs.

Porch:

Thanks, I can totally understand what you are saying. It's just that I heard 5 aircraft at speeds ranging from .61 to .65, and 3 of the 5 aircraft on frequency were coming from different directions. The way the contoller was asking questions gave me the distinct impression that he had never seen this before. That's the only reason I asked whether or not there had perhaps been a change in policy at Virgin.

Cheers for the reply. :ok:

They have a policy!:eek: Who would have thought! :}

Welllllll, sorry old mate, I guess I live in fantasy land (coz I'm not in Canberra)

When I started in ATC a 737 cruised at .76 to .78 everyday. A 747 cruised at .84 everyday. A 767 cruised at .80..................everyday. An A320? (who the f@ck knows what those things are doing at any point in time?). And they all climbed at 300 to 320 its.

It's only in the last couple of years that all this econ bull**** came into vogue. I can sit at the radar screen and literally see who's getting a self induced shafting because some tool thinks it saves money. I have in the past said 'Mate, if you fly that speed in the cruise you are looking at a 10 minute delay, profile, 0 minute delay'

Meanwhile aircraft that aren't flying econ bull**** are leapfrogging you in the sequence because of your time at the feeder fix. Send your dead**** MBA's down to a centre for just one day to sit with the flow or a sector that feeds onto an arrivals sector :cool:

Memo to dead**** MBA: It's all about your time at the fix.

Further memo to dead**** MBA: The only time your econ speed is going to work is at around 4am into Launy (that will go over the MBA's head so you pilot types better explain it to him/her).

Meanwhile, back at the screen. Figures are sent to ASA from the company that dictate a range of speeds their aircraft will fly all the way to the threshold.

If you plan and fly something different it has the potential to get nasty for the ATC. I'm not saying you all are going to crash and burn because it WILL get picked up. But a bit of professional courtesy can save your friendly ATC from a little 'holiday' and un-favourable comments being inserted on their record. And it will ensure that your 'friendly ATC' stays friendly.

I re-iterate, we are not checking every flight plan that comes through to the console. We don't keep your flight plan on a lapboard tied to our thighs and refer to it to update estimates.

Halleluja Brother . I've been wondering this for years . It must be that experience thing no one cares about anymore. What was one of the basics that we were all taught ? Never view anything in isolation . Thats why the powers that be have set up stand alone departments all screwing each other .

Spot on. If you are going to fly at such ridiculous speeds why don't you excercise some airmanship and tell someone.

Better still everytime you get a flightplan with this ridiculous cruise speed ring dispatch and enquire as to why it is so. Then complain to fltops via whatever means you have available everytime it has obviously cost you a slot in the sequence.

Help ATC and they will help us!!

Yep, DNS, we are.

I watched two departures out of Canberra for Melbourne yesterday afternoon about 2pm. Because of this thread I quicklooked them. Virgin departed first, cruised at F280. As the QF 73 climbed through it's level (on its way to F340) it was grounding 50 Kts faster (I **** you not!). I looked at maestro, the QF 737, zero delay (it was about 8 miles behind the Virgin 73) the Virgin 73 had about 12 minutes delay programmed.

A QF 73 out of Sydney was smashing them both (GS wise).

There was a little flow (or sector manipulation) that kept the Virgin 73 in front but still with a delay.

Now, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news to your MBA superstars, you are a pack of imbeciles to think that you have all the answers with about 25% of the information. I could save y'all a mint by giving me a radar feed and letting you know where and when your bull**** econ speed is going to work.

But your inflated ego's (MBA) won't permit you to acknowledge that a Year 10 graduate (me) could do a much better job than the 'smartest guys in the room'

It's so bloody simple it's laughable, but no, lets complicate and beauracritise a job so that it looks like only an MBA could do it.