Descent speed
Messiah, the regulator has never thrown the book at a Captain because it simply doesn't happen. No-one departs believing they're overweight. It's that simple.
Accept the fact that you've been proven wrong on this issue and stay away from the cheap shots. It does nothing to improve your already tarnished image on this topic.
Accept the fact that you've been proven wrong on this issue and stay away from the cheap shots. It does nothing to improve your already tarnished image on this topic.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 19th May 2005 at 01:46.
Wiz and Cunning,
I didn't include lease costs because they are a fixed cost - yes they are amortised over the annual utilisation in order to determine an hourly rate for the machine, but in reality you pay the rent regardless of how many hours you fly.
The lease rates vary depending upon a number of factors and when you took the lease - lease rates on Sept 12, 2001 were very favourable!
With regards the extraction of another sector I agree, however on a day to day basis it also isn't a consideration - the operations people don't sit there and say "oh goody VH-XYZ is getting in early - lets bung on another SYD-BNE flight"
The reality is that going fast may well be a viable commercial policy which trades fuel costs for extra productivity out of the machine, but these are longer term strategic decisions.
By shaving a minute or two off a sector at a cost of 100 or 200 kg we are costing the company money - money which they will seek to get back by not offering us a pay rise come EBA! (the buggers!)
Finally the age of the aircraft doesn't necessarily impact on the hourly operating cost.
My components these days are on "power by the hour" deals where a fixed hourly rate for the component - engines, apu's landing gears etc is paid and the supplier undertakes to provide a servicable component. If it karks it, a new one is wheeled in to replace it at no cost (apart from opportunity cost, lost revenue due not flying etc)
It is all very involved these days and the old theories of faster is cheaper have been superceded.
I didn't include lease costs because they are a fixed cost - yes they are amortised over the annual utilisation in order to determine an hourly rate for the machine, but in reality you pay the rent regardless of how many hours you fly.
The lease rates vary depending upon a number of factors and when you took the lease - lease rates on Sept 12, 2001 were very favourable!
With regards the extraction of another sector I agree, however on a day to day basis it also isn't a consideration - the operations people don't sit there and say "oh goody VH-XYZ is getting in early - lets bung on another SYD-BNE flight"
The reality is that going fast may well be a viable commercial policy which trades fuel costs for extra productivity out of the machine, but these are longer term strategic decisions.
By shaving a minute or two off a sector at a cost of 100 or 200 kg we are costing the company money - money which they will seek to get back by not offering us a pay rise come EBA! (the buggers!)
Finally the age of the aircraft doesn't necessarily impact on the hourly operating cost.
My components these days are on "power by the hour" deals where a fixed hourly rate for the component - engines, apu's landing gears etc is paid and the supplier undertakes to provide a servicable component. If it karks it, a new one is wheeled in to replace it at no cost (apart from opportunity cost, lost revenue due not flying etc)
It is all very involved these days and the old theories of faster is cheaper have been superceded.
Messiah,
The relevence of the details of my operation is that you implied what is being discussed here is somehow uniquely Qantas. It isn't.
I'm afraid you still don't get it. Are you saying that, having used the approved standard weights for pax, baggage etc and having an indication that those weights plus the fuel your gauges show puts you over your Max Takeoff, you attitude would be "Well, they're only estimates, so to hell with it!"? By how much before you decide it's too much? One Tonne? 5?
As to legalities, you are LEGALLY OBLIGED to operate within the terms of your ops manual. Does yours say "Near enough is OK" or "Use the approved loading system". If you are operating outside the letter of the book, you are on your own.
The only "Good faith" information you have is the approved loading system. Ignore that at your perlil.
The relevence of the details of my operation is that you implied what is being discussed here is somehow uniquely Qantas. It isn't.
I'm afraid you still don't get it. Are you saying that, having used the approved standard weights for pax, baggage etc and having an indication that those weights plus the fuel your gauges show puts you over your Max Takeoff, you attitude would be "Well, they're only estimates, so to hell with it!"? By how much before you decide it's too much? One Tonne? 5?
As to legalities, you are LEGALLY OBLIGED to operate within the terms of your ops manual. Does yours say "Near enough is OK" or "Use the approved loading system". If you are operating outside the letter of the book, you are on your own.
The only "Good faith" information you have is the approved loading system. Ignore that at your perlil.
loads of airlines who when following their ops manual are not required to burn that fuel that equates to 0.1% or less of the total aircraft weight before they take off.
They would have to prove definitively how much over weight you were and as I said, it would be physically impossible.
Ok Messiah, I'll shut up if you answer two questions:-
1) Does YOUR ops manual say it's ok to take off with indications that you're overweight?
2) You say .1% is ok. Is .2%? If the Max TOW as calculated by the appoved system isn't the absolute limit, who decides what the limit is?
Re MTOW
Responsibility of pilot in command before flight:
CAR 1988 Reg 233 para 1(b)
CAR 1988 Reg 235 several references
Now, back to those Descent Speeds!
Responsibility of pilot in command before flight:
CAR 1988 Reg 233 para 1(b)
CAR 1988 Reg 235 several references
Now, back to those Descent Speeds!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UAE
Age: 55
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently DJ have recently ammended their descent profiles. All operations now have a requirement for max. 250kt AAE.
If it's cheaper to fly descents slower, then I guess its only a matter of time before all operators do Cost Index Econ descents.
If it's cheaper to fly descents slower, then I guess its only a matter of time before all operators do Cost Index Econ descents.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UAE
Age: 55
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Sybian,
Your friend may want to re-read the manuals. Apparently the requirement for 210 BLW 5000' in G,D & E airspace was removed some months back.
My reference to 250kt BLW 5000' AAE was brought up as this is a new requirement in all classes of airspace.
Hope that helps clarify my previous post.
Your friend may want to re-read the manuals. Apparently the requirement for 210 BLW 5000' in G,D & E airspace was removed some months back.
My reference to 250kt BLW 5000' AAE was brought up as this is a new requirement in all classes of airspace.
Hope that helps clarify my previous post.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macrohard,
have spoken to my friend again, my figures are correct. 210 below 5000 in G still applies. 250 below 5000 in all other airspace.
In case you haven't followed by now, these new restrictions imposed by both companies have little to do with cost.
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
have spoken to my friend again, my figures are correct. 210 below 5000 in G still applies. 250 below 5000 in all other airspace.
In case you haven't followed by now, these new restrictions imposed by both companies have little to do with cost.
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
we don't know for CERTAIN that 400kg of fuel puts us over weight so therefore no reg has been broken.
You've indicated that your main source of Aviation knowledge is asking a few guys over a beer. I strongly suggest you try either reading the book, or asking the person in your organisation whos' job it is to do so.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Buzzy.
Get your friend to read his manuals again because fom what I am reading now at a mates place (Check and Training Captain) - your mate is wrong.
He has confirmed also that Macrohard is absolutely correct here.
This is basic bread and butter type stuff that pilots such as your friend should know as a matter of course.
Your mate Mr Buzzy needs to get off his backside and amend his manuals.
We dont want your mate failing a check now do we Mr Buzzy?
Also Mr Buzzy the only reason both airlines are doing reduced speed descents are for fuel savings only (controlled airspace).
The manufacturers in conjunction with airlines and ICAO around the world have agreed upon the 300 knot desent as standard above 10,000ft.
Both QF and VB have petitioned ATC in Oz for this reduced speed descent in order to save a few kg of fuel per sector - nothing more, nothing less.
These savings can be quite substantial depending upon the number of sectors flown.
If airlines are doing speeds less than Air Services dictate for class E and G airspace then its for nothing less than fuel saving.
Trust me Mr Buzzy, jets dont like going slow on descent.
Perhaps you just dont get the real sensations using Flight Sim 2000 as opposed to the real world, eh Mr Buzzy?
Get your friend to read his manuals again because fom what I am reading now at a mates place (Check and Training Captain) - your mate is wrong.
He has confirmed also that Macrohard is absolutely correct here.
This is basic bread and butter type stuff that pilots such as your friend should know as a matter of course.
Your mate Mr Buzzy needs to get off his backside and amend his manuals.
We dont want your mate failing a check now do we Mr Buzzy?
Also Mr Buzzy the only reason both airlines are doing reduced speed descents are for fuel savings only (controlled airspace).
The manufacturers in conjunction with airlines and ICAO around the world have agreed upon the 300 knot desent as standard above 10,000ft.
Both QF and VB have petitioned ATC in Oz for this reduced speed descent in order to save a few kg of fuel per sector - nothing more, nothing less.
These savings can be quite substantial depending upon the number of sectors flown.
If airlines are doing speeds less than Air Services dictate for class E and G airspace then its for nothing less than fuel saving.
Trust me Mr Buzzy, jets dont like going slow on descent.
Perhaps you just dont get the real sensations using Flight Sim 2000 as opposed to the real world, eh Mr Buzzy?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beer Can Dreaming,
I actually have FS2004. I usually wear my goggles and listen to my scanner when I am flying the big jets!
I just had another chat to my mate and he has directed you to the following references. ( A1 Chapter 8 Pages 189 and 196 ) I know my mate is no rocket scientist but he does read his books.
A simple apology will suffice.
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I actually have FS2004. I usually wear my goggles and listen to my scanner when I am flying the big jets!
I just had another chat to my mate and he has directed you to the following references. ( A1 Chapter 8 Pages 189 and 196 ) I know my mate is no rocket scientist but he does read his books.
A simple apology will suffice.
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 21st May 2005 at 03:01.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Buzzy.
Whats the use of your mate reading the books if they are not even amended !
Sitting here at one of VB's check Captains house and his book reads as follows:
Vol 1 Ch 8 P189 - realtes to low weather ops and low vis take-offs etc.
Vol 1 Ch 8 P196 - relates to ETOPS operations.
I would say that your mate has some catching up to do and shouldnt spend quite so much time with you playing FS 2004 !
So where is that apology now Mr Buzzy??????
Like I said, its bread and butter basic stuff.
Whats the use of your mate reading the books if they are not even amended !
Sitting here at one of VB's check Captains house and his book reads as follows:
Vol 1 Ch 8 P189 - realtes to low weather ops and low vis take-offs etc.
Vol 1 Ch 8 P196 - relates to ETOPS operations.
I would say that your mate has some catching up to do and shouldnt spend quite so much time with you playing FS 2004 !
So where is that apology now Mr Buzzy??????
Like I said, its bread and butter basic stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Speeeeeeeeeeed
Someone in the office has decided that they have to finally pay for all that gas. Instead of FL 260 and flat as a rat they are now creating a traffic jam after TOD.
What a bunch of W******
What a bunch of W******
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beer can dreamin!
Too many beers hey?
How's that apology coming?
bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz
How's that apology coming?
bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 23rd May 2005 at 23:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust me Mr Buzzy, jets dont like going slow on descent.
Sure thing Beer Can Man, do you have any more pearls of wisdom for us all? Maybe you would like to argue somebody elses Company Policy without having a clue yourself?
But please do go on. Tell us more about flying jets.
Still waiting for the apology.
bbbbbbzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 24th May 2005 at 06:21.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote . . .
Someone in the office has decided that they have to finally pay for all that gas. Instead of FL 260 and flat as a rat they are now creating a traffic jam after TOD.
. . . . and usually with 120 kts less headwind than the "W******s" sitting in the wind tunnel at FL410, Quietachiever. Something to do with Specific ground range . Actually achieving a lower trip fuel burn off than sitting up at optimum.
Now for some intelligent discussion.
WG.
Someone in the office has decided that they have to finally pay for all that gas. Instead of FL 260 and flat as a rat they are now creating a traffic jam after TOD.
. . . . and usually with 120 kts less headwind than the "W******s" sitting in the wind tunnel at FL410, Quietachiever. Something to do with Specific ground range . Actually achieving a lower trip fuel burn off than sitting up at optimum.
Now for some intelligent discussion.
WG.
Last edited by Waste Gate; 24th May 2005 at 23:38.