Descent speed
Didn't happen in my day...
Hi Bloggsy II,
I'm by no means a fan of TRSS, though having regularly flown with it's graduates, it's mostly a means of getting the same calibre of guys as they would anyway, whilst avoiding having to pay for their TR. They do it because they can. As employment picks up EZY will, as they have in the past, shift the emphisis back towards full time employment.
The difference is EZY will use TRSS to save money as long as they can get enough suitable guys to go that route, and then have them operate under EZYs high standardof flight OPS and conservative SOPs. FR will take whoever they can get and have them operate hell-for-leather. Any airline might have a mis-hap, but I would certainly put the odds of it being FR way ahead of EZY.
As to the whole fuelconservation thing, well, they consider the avoidence of fast approaches and go-arounds is worth the extra gas and, after all, it's their train set!
I'm by no means a fan of TRSS, though having regularly flown with it's graduates, it's mostly a means of getting the same calibre of guys as they would anyway, whilst avoiding having to pay for their TR. They do it because they can. As employment picks up EZY will, as they have in the past, shift the emphisis back towards full time employment.
The difference is EZY will use TRSS to save money as long as they can get enough suitable guys to go that route, and then have them operate under EZYs high standardof flight OPS and conservative SOPs. FR will take whoever they can get and have them operate hell-for-leather. Any airline might have a mis-hap, but I would certainly put the odds of it being FR way ahead of EZY.
As to the whole fuelconservation thing, well, they consider the avoidence of fast approaches and go-arounds is worth the extra gas and, after all, it's their train set!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say VB were getting favoured over me. We had 80 miles to go to descent point and were 5-10 miles ahead of VB at that point in a faster jet. VB were not on any time restrictions. We were 2000 feet above him which I suspect is the reason we got the massive vector.
What would have made a lot more sense was to track us to Rivet at our normal profile speed, track VB via the star at his normal speed and no-one would have been delayed at all. I did exactly the same flight the week before, with the same situation and the controller handled it beautifully. Why the difference over the two weeks?
What would have made a lot more sense was to track us to Rivet at our normal profile speed, track VB via the star at his normal speed and no-one would have been delayed at all. I did exactly the same flight the week before, with the same situation and the controller handled it beautifully. Why the difference over the two weeks?
Guest
Posts: n/a
En-rooter makes some good points in his post.
While some rocket scientist at Qantas tries to save a poofteenth of fuel on a descent they actually cause other problems which can end up costing more money and/or more fuel.
No use bagging the Qantas drivers. They follow the crap dished out as SOPs in the latest fuel "saving" requirements. Let me tell you most would rather use cruising mach into 300 kts as was the case. But as the saying goes,"its their toy and I'll play with it to their rules."
As for flying at FL410, qantas would but they usually have a full load of passengers, unlike the other nice domestic airline.
While some rocket scientist at Qantas tries to save a poofteenth of fuel on a descent they actually cause other problems which can end up costing more money and/or more fuel.
No use bagging the Qantas drivers. They follow the crap dished out as SOPs in the latest fuel "saving" requirements. Let me tell you most would rather use cruising mach into 300 kts as was the case. But as the saying goes,"its their toy and I'll play with it to their rules."
As for flying at FL410, qantas would but they usually have a full load of passengers, unlike the other nice domestic airline.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so thanks for the replies gang. My question has been answered.
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 16th May 2005 at 09:34.
Cunning,
These days fuel costs more than the airframe costs by about 3 to 1
Bear in mind I am referring only to the maintenance costs of the airframe NOT crewing etc.
This assumes a fuel cost of 75c AUD for fuel and about .7 as the USD-AUD exchange rate.
The addition of costs such as crewing, headoffice etc adds a fair bit to the cost of operating the aeroplane, but they are mostly fixed regardless of the amount of time the aeroplane spends in the air (overtime etc excepted)
It is often much "cheaper" to sit at 41 than down at 27, the cross over point varies for each company.
These days fuel costs more than the airframe costs by about 3 to 1
Bear in mind I am referring only to the maintenance costs of the airframe NOT crewing etc.
This assumes a fuel cost of 75c AUD for fuel and about .7 as the USD-AUD exchange rate.
The addition of costs such as crewing, headoffice etc adds a fair bit to the cost of operating the aeroplane, but they are mostly fixed regardless of the amount of time the aeroplane spends in the air (overtime etc excepted)
It is often much "cheaper" to sit at 41 than down at 27, the cross over point varies for each company.
DHD,
The other major "per hour" cost is lease/depreciation of the airframe which is amortised over it's utilisation. If saving time means you can get one more sector per day out of the aircraft, it pays for a lot of fuel.
The other major "per hour" cost is lease/depreciation of the airframe which is amortised over it's utilisation. If saving time means you can get one more sector per day out of the aircraft, it pays for a lot of fuel.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of airline policy causing delays, how do pilots feel about being delayed into Hobart because Jet* insist on a straight in instrument approach unless the weather is CAVOK onto R30? I'm not knocking the Jet* pilots as they're doing what they're told, and I can understand why they don't like GPWS going off flying the arc, but by being so restrictive, number two in the sequence can be pushed back to as far as 7 or 8 minutes behind.
R_S.
R_S.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DhDD, you may have over simplified it a little , that figure would depend alot on A/C age etc but if you use that figure on say a 737-700, average utilisation, it puts the running costs, inc lease payments ( not inc gas ) at around 1.5 mill per year..........now that sounds like a bargain boeing 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Moon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the exorbitant price of fuel these days (and it ain't gonna get any cheaper), it's hardly surprising a company that uses the amount of fuel that Qantas does is looking to save every last drop. It makes sense as a business to reduce costs wherever it can.
OK, in the beginning while everyone gets used to it, it will be confusing. In a year I doubt anyone will give a toss. No doubt the policy will be refined, if necessary.
To see this descend into pilots slagging off other pilots just because one company changes it agreed descent speeds really is quite pathetic.
For the record, Cruise is now at planned CI unless you are late (i.e. 15 mins behind sched on blocks). If you are early, slow down. Descent is now cruising MN(at whatever CI you are doing - not necessarily 0)/ECON descent speed, unless ECON spd is outside the range 265-285 in which case if ECON < 265, then use 265 and if above 285, use 285.
As they say, it's their train set - I don't really care how they want me to operate it, as long as it's safe. Hell, if they think I should whistle dixie because they think it will save fuel, I'll happily do it. Care factor - negative 20.
OK, in the beginning while everyone gets used to it, it will be confusing. In a year I doubt anyone will give a toss. No doubt the policy will be refined, if necessary.
To see this descend into pilots slagging off other pilots just because one company changes it agreed descent speeds really is quite pathetic.
For the record, Cruise is now at planned CI unless you are late (i.e. 15 mins behind sched on blocks). If you are early, slow down. Descent is now cruising MN(at whatever CI you are doing - not necessarily 0)/ECON descent speed, unless ECON spd is outside the range 265-285 in which case if ECON < 265, then use 265 and if above 285, use 285.
As they say, it's their train set - I don't really care how they want me to operate it, as long as it's safe. Hell, if they think I should whistle dixie because they think it will save fuel, I'll happily do it. Care factor - negative 20.
Why is that ridiculous Messiah?
If you are over-refuelled or you don't burn all the planned taxi fuel for a MTOW departure, you don't have much choice! Only the brave would depart above the MBRW.
If you are over-refuelled or you don't burn all the planned taxi fuel for a MTOW departure, you don't have much choice! Only the brave would depart above the MBRW.
Messiah, the Captain signs a loadsheet acknowledging the amount of fuel on board - assuming the fuel is loaded exactly as ordered - and pax on board using standard weights. This is an accepted method approved by CASA.
If the aircraft is overfuelled, to remain legal, the Captain has one of two options - get the aeroplane defuelled or burn the excess. The second method is far quicker.
Realistically, 400 kg is going to make no difference to a 400 tonne aeroplane's performance or stucture, but that's not the point, is it?
You cannot seriously advocate that a Captain should accept a situation that is not legal, when there are options available to make it so?
Should an accident occur and the Captain knowlingly accepted an aircraft that he or she believed, to the best of their knowledge, to be overweight, they would be hung out to dry by both the airline and the regulator and rightly so.
If the aircraft is overfuelled, to remain legal, the Captain has one of two options - get the aeroplane defuelled or burn the excess. The second method is far quicker.
Realistically, 400 kg is going to make no difference to a 400 tonne aeroplane's performance or stucture, but that's not the point, is it?
You cannot seriously advocate that a Captain should accept a situation that is not legal, when there are options available to make it so?
Should an accident occur and the Captain knowlingly accepted an aircraft that he or she believed, to the best of their knowledge, to be overweight, they would be hung out to dry by both the airline and the regulator and rightly so.
Messiah,
You are way out of line. No Skipper working for a legitimate airline would knowingly take off if the approved loading system indicated he was 400KG over weight.
I know the figure is arrived at using educated guess work and estimates, but it is APPROVED guess work and estimates, and the figure that is arrived at is what is legally held to be the actual weight of the aircraft.
If you are ever tempted to ignore this, bear in mind that 1) you are breaking the law and 2) if there is any mishap during the flight, even if it is unrelated to the weight, you will be hung out to dry and looking for a new professtion.
I be interested to know which "Brave" airline you are refering to, and how much they would appreciate you revealing that they flought the law on a public website!!
You are way out of line. No Skipper working for a legitimate airline would knowingly take off if the approved loading system indicated he was 400KG over weight.
I know the figure is arrived at using educated guess work and estimates, but it is APPROVED guess work and estimates, and the figure that is arrived at is what is legally held to be the actual weight of the aircraft.
If you are ever tempted to ignore this, bear in mind that 1) you are breaking the law and 2) if there is any mishap during the flight, even if it is unrelated to the weight, you will be hung out to dry and looking for a new professtion.
I be interested to know which "Brave" airline you are refering to, and how much they would appreciate you revealing that they flought the law on a public website!!
The loadsheet is the legal document only
That is EXACTLY the point, and if you don't understand the implications of that, why don't you mention to your chief pilot, or whoever conducts your next Airline interview, that you don't feel constrained by the legalities of their operations!
Messiah, final fuel is found from the fuel receipt provided by the refueller which includes the quantity in litres and the SG. Any overfuel is calculated and then added to the final loadsheet weight provided by load control. Load control have no knowledge of what the final, actual fuel on board the aircraft is - only what the planned fuel is.
SG is therefore allowed for and cannot be used to explain any discrepancy. If we calculate thus, we are overweight and are NOT legal!! To the best of our knowledge, if we are up against a limit like this, we are overweight and must take appropriate corrective action. No ifs, buts or maybes.
SG is therefore allowed for and cannot be used to explain any discrepancy. If we calculate thus, we are overweight and are NOT legal!! To the best of our knowledge, if we are up against a limit like this, we are overweight and must take appropriate corrective action. No ifs, buts or maybes.
There is an allowable tolerance on the difference between expected refuel and actual refuel figure, on a -400 at some airlines that difference can be as much as 2 tonnes.
Very Qantas.
So if this guy was a T**T for burning off 400kg, just how much over MTOW do YOU deem acceptable?
Do you know of any case where any regulator has thrown the book at the Captain for this sort of thing?
the crew of QF1 (fore) kept their jobs didn't they, and they appear to have done everything wrong.
Honestly, Messiah, you have a mis-conception as to how seriously most professtional pilots take adherence to the rules, and for one very good reason. Cover your A**E!!
Have you noticed the lack of any replys which agree with your take on things?