EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general consensus is that in 2 years time there will be approx 5 airlines left in europe and i want to make sure i am working for one of those 5.
i am only flying sop's, if it annoys a few cowboys along the way then so be it, the savings are actualy greater than you think because you rarely get CDA's outside of lgw and most of europe cannot cope with the volume of traffic.
i really don't care what happens in the usa, like the previous post said, they have enough troubles of there own to be worrying about ours.
and it ain't always 250, as i said we fly a cost index, look up the effects on aircraft speed if you are unsure.Besides the difference between flying approx 250 and flying 300 on most descent approaches into destination, probably saves minutes! whats the hurry?
i am only flying sop's, if it annoys a few cowboys along the way then so be it, the savings are actualy greater than you think because you rarely get CDA's outside of lgw and most of europe cannot cope with the volume of traffic.
i really don't care what happens in the usa, like the previous post said, they have enough troubles of there own to be worrying about ours.
and it ain't always 250, as i said we fly a cost index, look up the effects on aircraft speed if you are unsure.Besides the difference between flying approx 250 and flying 300 on most descent approaches into destination, probably saves minutes! whats the hurry?
Cummulo Granite sums it up well in several of his previous posts. We're working for the most "go-around" minded Company I've ever worked for and I like it! Our Company culture is one that lays no blame on those who go-around and would never subject those crew to ridicule, implied or otherwise. Unfortunately this view does not seem to be shared by some who have recently been absorbed / taken over by said Company, from whom unprofessional R/T comments have been heard following a recent go-around of mine downroute 
And after the go round.....
It's nice to have sufficient fuel to allow some time to gather ones thoughts, complete the checklists, talk to all interested parties and make another approach!
Unfortunately, we are not always encouraged to carry enough fuel to make a go round and circuit to land in the event of simply buggering up the approach.
Unfortunately, we are not always encouraged to carry enough fuel to make a go round and circuit to land in the event of simply buggering up the approach.
For the benefit of the general public who may be concerned by the post above, I can assure you that there is ALWAYS enough fuel on board to carry out a missed approach and land thereafter.
Mistrust in Management
hec7or
Unfortunately, we are not always encouraged to carry enough fuel to make a go round and circuit to land in the event of simply buggering up the approach
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One might not have fuel to go-around and circuit to land at the same airportstill with final reserve fuel, unless using diversion fuel iaw JAR-OPS. One will always have go-around plus div fuel unless you've already burnt it iaw above (in which case you should make damn sure you are stable!).
Bottom line is: any decent company (e.g. easyJet) would rather you go-around and divert, than press on and land, if not stable by 500'. Their trainset, their rules, and in easyJet you will receive 100% back-up from pilot management if you fly the jet in accordance with that policy. It is not unsafe, just slightly more expensive.
Bottom line is: any decent company (e.g. easyJet) would rather you go-around and divert, than press on and land, if not stable by 500'. Their trainset, their rules, and in easyJet you will receive 100% back-up from pilot management if you fly the jet in accordance with that policy. It is not unsafe, just slightly more expensive.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hec7or
Unfortunately, we are not always encouraged to carry enough fuel to make a go round and circuit to land in the event of simply buggering up the approach.
BOAC
I suggest you read JAROPs. There is no requirement to carry diversion fuel providing certain criteria are met. In this case you must carry 45 minutes final reserve fuel.
QED
QED
Last edited by hec7or; 26th Aug 2008 at 16:46.
hec7or.
If any of us land with just final reserve fuel in the tanks then we have had a very bad day at the office and it certainly was not a planned event when we left the departure airfield.
Your post makes me suspect that you do not know what you are talking about!
If any of us land with just final reserve fuel in the tanks then we have had a very bad day at the office and it certainly was not a planned event when we left the departure airfield.
Your post makes me suspect that you do not know what you are talking about!
Airbrake
If you planned to land at AMS on a nice day using no alternate, with just final reserve fuel, subject to the criteria mentioned in JAROPS, you would be in full compliance with the law and I suspect EZY SOPs would allow you to do this.
Whether it would be sensible is another matter.
Whether it would be sensible is another matter.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Where my head rests
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can chose to have no alternate but you are required to carry an extra 15 mins and also certain weather etc conditions apply. It's not as easy as saying 'we won't have an alternate today' there are considerations. And certainly going to a single runway airport with no alternate is not allowed!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing in ams with 45 minutes gives you an alternate: Rotterdam.
Anyway, we are not allowed to plan a flight without an alternate, company rules. Sometimes we even need two alternates.
In earlier times , when going to an isolated aerodrome and thus without an alternate, we had to take an extra 2hrs of cruise fuel. I can't find that requirement anymore though.
Anyway, we are not allowed to plan a flight without an alternate, company rules. Sometimes we even need two alternates.
In earlier times , when going to an isolated aerodrome and thus without an alternate, we had to take an extra 2hrs of cruise fuel. I can't find that requirement anymore though.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........and the airline, as requested, please, hec7or? I note you cannot complete a g/a, circuit and land in 15 minutes also. Were you perchance a bomber pilot in former life?
What I was getting at is this...
When you plan the flight, how often do you add an extra 700 to 800kgs merely to compensate for your own mistakes and allow for a go round, radar vectors and a 10 mile ILS without compromising your capability to divert. I've used 1200kg to land after a go round.
Most guys put on 200kg for "this and that" (insert your own preference) which is not a lot of use for any practical purpose.
This may explain why a crew may elect (wrongly) to continue with an unstable approach, because to do the correct thing and break off will use up diversion fuel if they've been good company men/women and taken flight plan fuel.
With more pressure on companies to minimise fuel burn both for the benefit to the environment and for cost, crews will come under increasing pressure from management and from the training department to justify carriage of extra fuel above flight plan minimum. My company have a fuel manager whose sole responsibility is to monitor and minimise fuel useage by optimising routings, looking at closer alternates etc. More and more of our alternates are "fuel alternates" where the approach would be even more difficult than at the destination and the fuel burn required for the alternate may be miminimal.
This adds to the pressure to get in first time!
We all know when to carry extra fuel, but we never know in advance when were going to misjudge or mishandle a normal approach. My contention in my earlier post is that we are not encouraged to carry "approach energy mismanagement" fuel as we don't plan to mismanage the approach.
Stan Woolley
Thank you Sir
When you plan the flight, how often do you add an extra 700 to 800kgs merely to compensate for your own mistakes and allow for a go round, radar vectors and a 10 mile ILS without compromising your capability to divert. I've used 1200kg to land after a go round.
Most guys put on 200kg for "this and that" (insert your own preference) which is not a lot of use for any practical purpose.
This may explain why a crew may elect (wrongly) to continue with an unstable approach, because to do the correct thing and break off will use up diversion fuel if they've been good company men/women and taken flight plan fuel.
With more pressure on companies to minimise fuel burn both for the benefit to the environment and for cost, crews will come under increasing pressure from management and from the training department to justify carriage of extra fuel above flight plan minimum. My company have a fuel manager whose sole responsibility is to monitor and minimise fuel useage by optimising routings, looking at closer alternates etc. More and more of our alternates are "fuel alternates" where the approach would be even more difficult than at the destination and the fuel burn required for the alternate may be miminimal.
This adds to the pressure to get in first time!
We all know when to carry extra fuel, but we never know in advance when were going to misjudge or mishandle a normal approach. My contention in my earlier post is that we are not encouraged to carry "approach energy mismanagement" fuel as we don't plan to mismanage the approach.
Stan Woolley
Thank you Sir
may I ask a simple question what does stabilizsed mean to you all at the airline in question?
in a lateral/ longitudinal sense?
in a height speed sense ??
why would you go around--when you can see that you can 'make it'?
I see ICAO recommendations being quoted but---what is stabilized???
this thread scares me a little
PA
in a lateral/ longitudinal sense?
in a height speed sense ??
why would you go around--when you can see that you can 'make it'?
I see ICAO recommendations being quoted but---what is stabilized???
this thread scares me a little
PA
Easyjet use manufacturers criteria for stabilised approaches with a couple of home-made rules which have come from experience.
To answer why would you go around if you think you can make it, perhaps recapping the Southwest 737 that visited the gas station would be a good pointer!
To answer why would you go around if you think you can make it, perhaps recapping the Southwest 737 that visited the gas station would be a good pointer!
---didn't meant to give that impression
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Bollox to the unions!
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections is straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and fly in a professional manner, then what's the problem?
Flight data will only show what has happened, in order to know why something happened it should be investigated, this means that the crew (as proffesionals) should be able to explain the "why's". If these explanations are to be used against the crew because of an occurrence, crew could not openly and honnestly contribute anymore. This in turn would be the end of a good safety system
Bollox to the unions!
If an unsafe flight or event has occured that requires an internal investigation because of a flight recorder event (or crew filed ASR), then the data can and should be used appropriately.
All this crap about unions and their objections is straight from the 1970s.
If you are a professional crew and fly in a professional manner, then what's the problem?
Flight data will only show what has happened, in order to know why something happened it should be investigated, this means that the crew (as proffesionals) should be able to explain the "why's". If these explanations are to be used against the crew because of an occurrence, crew could not openly and honnestly contribute anymore. This in turn would be the end of a good safety system
