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.

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.

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"?

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 never said that, if ATC ask me to speed up then I will.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Again this makes no sense at all. If most aircraft are descending at ECON then surely it is those descending faster that are out of line and so should attempt to fit in.

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?

Yes I am a GA pilot

Oh for gods sake :ugh: 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

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 :rolleyes:

In fact I think the relevant points have been made from all sides, time for consideration I think

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

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

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 :ok:

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.