Monarch 250 descent
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that somebody should be accused of being a Chuck Yeager because they fly too slowly.
That irony probably says a lot about the correspondent and the quality of his/her postings.
Who are these irresponsible cowboys flying around at death defying speeds at times of such high fuel prices?
Good airmanship stems from sticking to SOPs unless there is a good reason not to. As soon as you stop sticking to SOPs you are going through that first hole in the cheese, you are starting the chain of events.
That irony probably says a lot about the correspondent and the quality of his/her postings.
Who are these irresponsible cowboys flying around at death defying speeds at times of such high fuel prices?
Good airmanship stems from sticking to SOPs unless there is a good reason not to. As soon as you stop sticking to SOPs you are going through that first hole in the cheese, you are starting the chain of events.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LATLONG
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you will rather stick to your sop's and decline atc instructions as is happening out there?
Is there not a line in your ops manual to something along the line of the commander has the authority to deviate under certain circumstances?
Too many people are just following rigidly their sops without even thinking of the bigger picture.
Is there not a line in your ops manual to something along the line of the commander has the authority to deviate under certain circumstances?
Too many people are just following rigidly their sops without even thinking of the bigger picture.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I replied to you on the 03rd September with the included line :
If somebody is ignoring what is directly in front of them, should they really be lecturing others on the "bigger picture"?
SOP's are the standard operating procedures, an employing company wants you to apply to their operations. Clearly there are times when the the situation is non standard, and suitable modifications are required.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMCG
I fully agree....
You wrote "Good airmanship stems from sticking to SOPs unless there is a good reason not to. As soon as you stop sticking to SOPs you are going through that first hole in the cheese, you are starting the chain of events."
My issue is that people blindly sticking to SOP's when there is a good reason to deviate but blindly follow them anyway is just as dangerous.
This involves a decision making process by the crew...shock horror....even a call to ATC to say "would it help if we kept the speed up" at least theres some dialogue on the tape. To quote my example above this guy was back at 180knts 20 odd miles out like a mobile chicane and REFUSED a request by ATC to increase citing SOP on the RT as a reason
SOP's certainly economically derived ones cannot account for all situations, Why should other operators who wish to use more of their aircrafts abilitys be dictated to by some beancounter sat in an office in the UK.
If somebody within your oganisation decided that due to the slower speeds, sector times were increasing which impacted negatively on maintenance and or Oil came back to $55 per barrel you would all be "requesting high speed" again, so please refrain from reffering to those who wish to operate their aircraft perfectly legally and properly within the confines of their AFM as "cowboys".
If indeed we have a problem here, and if it is its probably going to give ATC the hardest time then it isn't going to get resolved on Prune, maybe a call at TOD and again when checking in with approach with your descent speed might just be classed as good airmanship, something that we all profess to have in abundance .
UK ATC will no doubt just deal with it, but in other parts of the world controllers might just feel the pressure of trying to sort it out, for the sake of a call, let them know - whats the worst that could happen? lose your place in the queue??
I fully agree....
You wrote "Good airmanship stems from sticking to SOPs unless there is a good reason not to. As soon as you stop sticking to SOPs you are going through that first hole in the cheese, you are starting the chain of events."
My issue is that people blindly sticking to SOP's when there is a good reason to deviate but blindly follow them anyway is just as dangerous.
This involves a decision making process by the crew...shock horror....even a call to ATC to say "would it help if we kept the speed up" at least theres some dialogue on the tape. To quote my example above this guy was back at 180knts 20 odd miles out like a mobile chicane and REFUSED a request by ATC to increase citing SOP on the RT as a reason
SOP's certainly economically derived ones cannot account for all situations, Why should other operators who wish to use more of their aircrafts abilitys be dictated to by some beancounter sat in an office in the UK.
If somebody within your oganisation decided that due to the slower speeds, sector times were increasing which impacted negatively on maintenance and or Oil came back to $55 per barrel you would all be "requesting high speed" again, so please refrain from reffering to those who wish to operate their aircraft perfectly legally and properly within the confines of their AFM as "cowboys".
If indeed we have a problem here, and if it is its probably going to give ATC the hardest time then it isn't going to get resolved on Prune, maybe a call at TOD and again when checking in with approach with your descent speed might just be classed as good airmanship, something that we all profess to have in abundance .
UK ATC will no doubt just deal with it, but in other parts of the world controllers might just feel the pressure of trying to sort it out, for the sake of a call, let them know - whats the worst that could happen? lose your place in the queue??
Last edited by G-SPOTs Lost; 5th Sep 2008 at 12:29.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you will rather stick to your sop's and decline atc instructions as is happening out there?
My Company pay me handsomely to fly their aeroplanes according to their SOPs and unless there is good reason not to do so, I will.
Anyway, who is out of line with the industry in the present times. Are most airlines now descending at ECON (255 to 260 ish) or are most still descending at 290 +?
Who says that those of us descending at slow speeds are the ones out of line? Maybe it is you at high speed!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In my house
Age: 74
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly with the tone and manner the Poster launched this thread it would be very easy for us MON guys to get defensive, but the facts as I see them remain:
1) Bigger brains than ours tell us ECON descents save enough fuel to make it viable.
2) The big brains made it an SOP are monitoring our compliance.
3) I've not heard anyone has refuse a request by ATC to fly at a given speed.
4) No one is being pulled up by management for speeding up when required.
5) We like our jobs and our Co. and we want to survive.
Others who would like to fly faster, less efficient, approaches may be frustrated but that doesn't give them the right to cast aspersions the airmanship of others. To my knowledge there has been no MOR's filled against MON by other operators or ATC units, ergo no safety case exists to initiate a change in our Co. ethos.
Regards.
1) Bigger brains than ours tell us ECON descents save enough fuel to make it viable.
2) The big brains made it an SOP are monitoring our compliance.
3) I've not heard anyone has refuse a request by ATC to fly at a given speed.
4) No one is being pulled up by management for speeding up when required.
5) We like our jobs and our Co. and we want to survive.
Others who would like to fly faster, less efficient, approaches may be frustrated but that doesn't give them the right to cast aspersions the airmanship of others. To my knowledge there has been no MOR's filled against MON by other operators or ATC units, ergo no safety case exists to initiate a change in our Co. ethos.
Regards.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny no stars - fair point....
For the record I certainly wasn't casting dispertions on anybodys airmanship, its the "unannounced change" in speeds that may become an issue, having said and I may be wrong its been prevalent for a couple of months now so ATC might have no issues with varying faster/slower descent speeds and have probably got used to them.
Faster (safe) approaches are not necesarily more inefficient, consider the captain of industry in the back makes a lot of money. 10-12 mins has a value, you might think "well he can get in line" but when the door closes we are the custodian of his time and it needs to be considered - goes with the territory. If total efficiency was paramount we'd all be flying ATR's with drop tanks wouldn't we!
FMCG
being in the majority does not prove your arguement, you make a good case about protecting the companies interests and job security and I respect that but consider others without those restraints who are still only doing what all the airlines were doing up until recently until fuel price became an issue.
For the record I certainly wasn't casting dispertions on anybodys airmanship, its the "unannounced change" in speeds that may become an issue, having said and I may be wrong its been prevalent for a couple of months now so ATC might have no issues with varying faster/slower descent speeds and have probably got used to them.
Faster (safe) approaches are not necesarily more inefficient, consider the captain of industry in the back makes a lot of money. 10-12 mins has a value, you might think "well he can get in line" but when the door closes we are the custodian of his time and it needs to be considered - goes with the territory. If total efficiency was paramount we'd all be flying ATR's with drop tanks wouldn't we!
FMCG
being in the majority does not prove your arguement, you make a good case about protecting the companies interests and job security and I respect that but consider others without those restraints who are still only doing what all the airlines were doing up until recently until fuel price became an issue.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If total efficiency was paramount we'd all be flying ATR's with drop tanks wouldn't we!
being in the majority does not prove your arguement
This is not a new thing. Ezy have been doing ECON descents for quite sometime now as have many airlines.
Am I to assume you are a GA pilot?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I am a GA pilot
Oh for gods sake 
it was a light hearted attempt at humour, you know nothing of my background or experience so lets assume you are right about you being no expert and lets agree that neither am I.
Still your majority arguement does not wash, I'm not suggesting that you should fly faster, I'm just asking that your company and others do not inflict their economic (not safety related) SOP's on other airspace users who have their own SOP's (0.79/295) by letting other faster traffic and ATC know what you are doing, we can either get sequenced accordingly or slow down early and save the fuel if we are going to have to slow down anyway.
Whats the problem, Is that too much to ask?? or should everybody slow down because you have 150 seats instead of 15
PS dont personalise this just stick with the discussion
Quote:
If total efficiency was paramount we'd all be flying ATR's with drop tanks wouldn't we!
Just shows you know nothing of airline economics. I am no expert but I am sure that this comment is of no relevance at all.
If total efficiency was paramount we'd all be flying ATR's with drop tanks wouldn't we!
Just shows you know nothing of airline economics. I am no expert but I am sure that this comment is of no relevance at all.
it was a light hearted attempt at humour, you know nothing of my background or experience so lets assume you are right about you being no expert and lets agree that neither am I.Still your majority arguement does not wash, I'm not suggesting that you should fly faster, I'm just asking that your company and others do not inflict their economic (not safety related) SOP's on other airspace users who have their own SOP's (0.79/295) by letting other faster traffic and ATC know what you are doing, we can either get sequenced accordingly or slow down early and save the fuel if we are going to have to slow down anyway.
Whats the problem, Is that too much to ask?? or should everybody slow down because you have 150 seats instead of 15
PS dont personalise this just stick with the discussion
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put there to ensnare assumptive fools, Cessna - manufacturer of the worlds fastest civilian aircraft.
and as for
Also a winner of a Collier trophy. You'll find Cessna in between the Wright brothers, SR-71 and the F-117 http://www.aerofiles.com/collier-trophy.html
Anytime you would like to say something constructive and/or get back on topic let me know
In fact I think the relevant points have been made from all sides, time for consideration I think
and as for
'cessna's finest' (surely a contradiction in terms)
Anytime you would like to say something constructive and/or get back on topic let me know
In fact I think the relevant points have been made from all sides, time for consideration I think
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundstar
Well thank you, if after 4 pages thats the best you can do even with your degree is suggest that I write to customer services then err.......great, full marks must be OU.
Anyway technically you are right about concorde its sincerely a very great shame that your airline can't order one tomorrow isn't it.......
For me, I'll think I'll leave it there whilst you think you are ahead, I was just suggesting an R/T call might help grease things along.....
Your reference to came saw conquered just sums things (you) up wonderfully..bet you're a hoot in the cruise
All the best...
And before you reply and tell everybody your degree is from Kings College Cambridge - don't nobodys interested
Well thank you, if after 4 pages thats the best you can do even with your degree is suggest that I write to customer services then err.......great, full marks must be OU.
Anyway technically you are right about concorde its sincerely a very great shame that your airline can't order one tomorrow isn't it.......
For me, I'll think I'll leave it there whilst you think you are ahead, I was just suggesting an R/T call might help grease things along.....
Your reference to came saw conquered just sums things (you) up wonderfully..bet you're a hoot in the cruise
All the best...
And before you reply and tell everybody your degree is from Kings College Cambridge - don't nobodys interested
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying at ECON speed is not a problem. Everyone has been doing it for years, with the associated differing speeds that may result. It seems that change is what some object to, especially because the ECON speeds seem to be slow now. There is still no problem flying at ECON, because ATC will assign a speed (as they always have done) should they require you to change the speed you are currently at. They can see who is slow and who is quick and do a great job of sorting it all out.
I suspect more operators are using a lower cost index than higher now, with the resulting slower descent speed, so I suspect those flying faster are in the minority. Nothing wrong with a pilot following his company SOP and flying ECON descent speed, infact that is what ALL pilots should be aiming to achieve, let ATC ask you to deviate from that if required for operational purposes and don't get to stressed by it all!
It would be interesting to hear who is flying slower descent speeds due to low cost index. I'll get the ball rolling.
1. Monarch
2. Thomsonfly
Who else?
PP
I suspect more operators are using a lower cost index than higher now, with the resulting slower descent speed, so I suspect those flying faster are in the minority. Nothing wrong with a pilot following his company SOP and flying ECON descent speed, infact that is what ALL pilots should be aiming to achieve, let ATC ask you to deviate from that if required for operational purposes and don't get to stressed by it all!
It would be interesting to hear who is flying slower descent speeds due to low cost index. I'll get the ball rolling.
1. Monarch
2. Thomsonfly
Who else?
PP
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyJet and bmi have both sent generic letters to en route ATC authorities in the UK, advising they will be flying economic profiles in the climb and descent. So at least we know about them specifically 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask my wife, mother or employer
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slowing Down in the Crz
Slightly off topic, but for instance when taking off from the UK to TFS, there are now financial penalties associated with arriving early on stand. If econ speed will still get you there a little too early - would you be prepared to reduce to for instance 0.72 in a 737 Classic or just take the hit.
