Eastern Airways New Aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dad + No.1
Why bother lifting your 40 mile limit when there are about 40 perfectly qualified AREA RADAR controllers in the room? They are all rated to work as an autonomous unit. It is only due to "ring fencing" from a certain other largish Scottish unit that we have the ridiculous situation where aircraft leave "The Station", get transferred to that unit, who provide it with a RAS if they are lucky, for 50 miles or so and then they transfer it back to another part of our operation.
You know as well as I do that we could provide the aircraft with a direct route, under RAS instead of the FIS that they would routinely recieve from the aforementioned unit, for the whole flight, only we are not allowed to do it.
P.S. BWL et al, surely the fuel burn in an ATP at FL70 ain't that different to that at FL130.
Why bother lifting your 40 mile limit when there are about 40 perfectly qualified AREA RADAR controllers in the room? They are all rated to work as an autonomous unit. It is only due to "ring fencing" from a certain other largish Scottish unit that we have the ridiculous situation where aircraft leave "The Station", get transferred to that unit, who provide it with a RAS if they are lucky, for 50 miles or so and then they transfer it back to another part of our operation.
You know as well as I do that we could provide the aircraft with a direct route, under RAS instead of the FIS that they would routinely recieve from the aforementioned unit, for the whole flight, only we are not allowed to do it.
P.S. BWL et al, surely the fuel burn in an ATP at FL70 ain't that different to that at FL130.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hug Monster
I think the comment was made in jest but if you want to be so smug lets look at some numbers.
I have not flown turboprops for a while so forgive me for using a B757 flight plan I have to hand.
TFS-LGW 3hours 52 mins
Burn at 350 13462
Burn at 310 13900
Dfference of 438 kgs works out at around 110 kgs an hour, thats about 3%, hardly HUGE. So if a 757 can drop 4000 feet and burn an extra 110 a ATP won't burn much extra at all (I would hope!!).
The ATC in the UK is second to none so maybe we should leave them to their airspace debate without making without SMART comments.
That said it would be nice if we could have a RAS off Scottish in the open FIR.
By the way what does any of this have to do with Eastern's new toy.
I think the comment was made in jest but if you want to be so smug lets look at some numbers.
I have not flown turboprops for a while so forgive me for using a B757 flight plan I have to hand.
TFS-LGW 3hours 52 mins
Burn at 350 13462
Burn at 310 13900
Dfference of 438 kgs works out at around 110 kgs an hour, thats about 3%, hardly HUGE. So if a 757 can drop 4000 feet and burn an extra 110 a ATP won't burn much extra at all (I would hope!!).
The ATC in the UK is second to none so maybe we should leave them to their airspace debate without making without SMART comments.
That said it would be nice if we could have a RAS off Scottish in the open FIR.
By the way what does any of this have to do with Eastern's new toy.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've really forgotten all your basic atmospheric physics, let me remind you that there's a huge difference in the pressure differential between FL70-110 and the differential between FL310-350. Pressure lapse is not a constant rate, therefore the partial pressure of oxygen (which is fairly desirable for purposes of burning fuel) does not decay at a constant rate. It drops very rapidly at lower levels in the atmosphere, and then tails off exponentially.
Therefore your comparison with your 757 books is totally invalid.
I've just checked my ATR books.
At 21.5 tons, ISA, the burn at FL80 is 420 kg/eng/hr. That decreases by 10% at FL 120 to 383 kg/eng/hr, and by 26% to 312 kg/eng/hr at FL200.
If you think that an increase in fuel burn and consequently fuel costs of even a magnitude of 10% is insignificant, you have no idea at all about how small airlines' budgetting, finances and organisation works.
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]
Therefore your comparison with your 757 books is totally invalid.
I've just checked my ATR books.
At 21.5 tons, ISA, the burn at FL80 is 420 kg/eng/hr. That decreases by 10% at FL 120 to 383 kg/eng/hr, and by 26% to 312 kg/eng/hr at FL200.
If you think that an increase in fuel burn and consequently fuel costs of even a magnitude of 10% is insignificant, you have no idea at all about how small airlines' budgetting, finances and organisation works.
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzz I think your unit should concentrate on giving your APC RAD guys full APC tickets so that in the middle of the night a certain largish unit in Scotland is not pi$$ing about with pseudo "sid,s" and MSL's.
AyrTC
AyrTC
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huggy old chap
A whole 38 kgs an hour per eng difference for Fl 80 - Fl 120, at £120 a ton that makes it £9.12 more expensive .
That is really HUGE. It stikes me that you are the sort who would sit in turbulance making pasengers ill so save 100 kgs of gas.
I seem to remembr from my turboprop days the actual fuel flow differed hardly any between Fl 100 and Fl 150.
Anyway all this is not really my point and I'm not going to get into anymore debate over this. My point is don't be so nasty to our ATCO friends they know more about this aviation lark than somtimes us drivers give them credit for and IMHO they do a great job. If you don't agree with me try flying around Greece where they are bloody hopeless.
Sorry about not having any turboprop numbers to quote but I can't be arsed going up to the attic to dust off the old books.
A whole 38 kgs an hour per eng difference for Fl 80 - Fl 120, at £120 a ton that makes it £9.12 more expensive .
That is really HUGE. It stikes me that you are the sort who would sit in turbulance making pasengers ill so save 100 kgs of gas.
I seem to remembr from my turboprop days the actual fuel flow differed hardly any between Fl 100 and Fl 150.
Anyway all this is not really my point and I'm not going to get into anymore debate over this. My point is don't be so nasty to our ATCO friends they know more about this aviation lark than somtimes us drivers give them credit for and IMHO they do a great job. If you don't agree with me try flying around Greece where they are bloody hopeless.
Sorry about not having any turboprop numbers to quote but I can't be arsed going up to the attic to dust off the old books.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AyrTC....had a "full" APC ticket but the accountants decreed that newbies wouldn't get them...so they took mine (and others) away = the procedure gets dumbed down to the lowest common level.
Buzz does have a valid point... wouldn't your Moray/Heb guys and gals not rather concentrate on the higher level stuff?
However, this is kind of getting away from the EZE Embraer
Buzz does have a valid point... wouldn't your Moray/Heb guys and gals not rather concentrate on the higher level stuff?
However, this is kind of getting away from the EZE Embraer
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bart, several points:-
Small operators can't get the sort of prices on fuel you quote. Therefore, the price is rather higher for Eastern than you appear to think.
If you budget a certain amount for anything in a tight operation, and a significant item (such as fuel) actually costs you 10% more, then you're in trouble. Or hasn't the idea of running to a budget ever occurred to you?
Dunno what turboprops you flew but an ATR the burn at ISA, FL 100 = 410 kg/eng/hr. At FL160 it's 359. Therefore on an hour's sector you will burn 102 kg more. Do that three times a day, seven times a week and the difference is 2,142 kg., or approx 2680 lt. At 15p per litre, that's over £400 more on your costs.
I don't particularly care how "I strike you", since you don't know me, but you still feel safe in making assumptions. Do you always make wild assumptions on the basis of no evidence at all? Because if so, your flying technique must be sort of interesting. For what it's worth, my priorities when flying are[list=1][*]Safety (after all, it should be everyone's priority)[*]Legality (I'd always prefer to be safe than legal)[*]Passenger comfort[*]Expeditious conclusion to the flight (Although occasionally there will have to be some trade-off with confort - let's face it, you're not going to sit in the hold for 2 hours waiting for things to calm down on a slightly turbulent approach)[*]Economy of operation (If I can save the company money, all other things being equal, by climbing to take advantage of better fuel burn, or descending to get out of a stonking headwind, I'll do it.)[/list=a]
Finally, I don't recall being "nasty" to ATC. I am well aware that they know a fair amount about the subject. So what? I know quite a bit about life in an ATC unit, but I'd never presume to tell them their job. If misconceptions occur, you think there's something wrong with correcting them?
Small operators can't get the sort of prices on fuel you quote. Therefore, the price is rather higher for Eastern than you appear to think.
If you budget a certain amount for anything in a tight operation, and a significant item (such as fuel) actually costs you 10% more, then you're in trouble. Or hasn't the idea of running to a budget ever occurred to you?
Dunno what turboprops you flew but an ATR the burn at ISA, FL 100 = 410 kg/eng/hr. At FL160 it's 359. Therefore on an hour's sector you will burn 102 kg more. Do that three times a day, seven times a week and the difference is 2,142 kg., or approx 2680 lt. At 15p per litre, that's over £400 more on your costs.
I don't particularly care how "I strike you", since you don't know me, but you still feel safe in making assumptions. Do you always make wild assumptions on the basis of no evidence at all? Because if so, your flying technique must be sort of interesting. For what it's worth, my priorities when flying are[list=1][*]Safety (after all, it should be everyone's priority)[*]Legality (I'd always prefer to be safe than legal)[*]Passenger comfort[*]Expeditious conclusion to the flight (Although occasionally there will have to be some trade-off with confort - let's face it, you're not going to sit in the hold for 2 hours waiting for things to calm down on a slightly turbulent approach)[*]Economy of operation (If I can save the company money, all other things being equal, by climbing to take advantage of better fuel burn, or descending to get out of a stonking headwind, I'll do it.)[/list=a]
Finally, I don't recall being "nasty" to ATC. I am well aware that they know a fair amount about the subject. So what? I know quite a bit about life in an ATC unit, but I'd never presume to tell them their job. If misconceptions occur, you think there's something wrong with correcting them?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North of the Wall
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll but a pint for the EZE crew which insists on going airways at SILVA. The less GAT in the North Sea, the better.
Let us get on with our "High Energy Manoeuvres" in relative peace. I suspect Tay might get the second round in?
Will all this "high level via airways" chat leave the recent rumour of a new airway NCL dct ADN dead in the water?
Let us get on with our "High Energy Manoeuvres" in relative peace. I suspect Tay might get the second round in?
Will all this "high level via airways" chat leave the recent rumour of a new airway NCL dct ADN dead in the water?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA,
Sorry, but I haven't got a map in front of me at this moment in time,but
"routing SILVA"
Then where? NEW? SAB?
As far as I am aware, [flames/corrections accepted] SILVA is on UL602, inbound NEW.
I fly EGSH....EGPD! Direct if poss. [That's why I cross B1, sorry Y70, 23nmE of OTR, 45nmE NEW DCT ADN.
It's called expedition/fuel efficient.
IF a RAS is aviliable, I will "gratefully" accept. Any lesser "service" [please note that word "Service"] is greatfully accepted.
I'm just an ATSA, but I [really] can add up
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Sorry, but I haven't got a map in front of me at this moment in time,but
"routing SILVA"
Then where? NEW? SAB?
As far as I am aware, [flames/corrections accepted] SILVA is on UL602, inbound NEW.
I fly EGSH....EGPD! Direct if poss. [That's why I cross B1, sorry Y70, 23nmE of OTR, 45nmE NEW DCT ADN.
It's called expedition/fuel efficient.
IF a RAS is aviliable, I will "gratefully" accept. Any lesser "service" [please note that word "Service"] is greatfully accepted.
I'm just an ATSA, but I [really] can add up
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some seem to have lost the plot on this thread !
Off-route in the UIR is only possible if the Montrose(ScACC) and London controllers are willing to take it upon themselves to co-ordinate against the military traffic, and speaking from the Montrose perspective, this is not a practical option except at weekends.
So, Chiglet, the option isn't there for EZE at their planned levels.
If, however the airline negotiated a service agreement with London and Scottish Mil, it may be possible to route direct, but always subject to their other tasks.
The route joining at SILVA then NEW-FINDO-ADN seems to work well and gives the paying passengers the protection of CAS all the way.
Finally the ADN-NEW-POL Airway is still very much under negotiation, and may well be with us in 2002(latest rumour).
Off-route in the UIR is only possible if the Montrose(ScACC) and London controllers are willing to take it upon themselves to co-ordinate against the military traffic, and speaking from the Montrose perspective, this is not a practical option except at weekends.
So, Chiglet, the option isn't there for EZE at their planned levels.
If, however the airline negotiated a service agreement with London and Scottish Mil, it may be possible to route direct, but always subject to their other tasks.
The route joining at SILVA then NEW-FINDO-ADN seems to work well and gives the paying passengers the protection of CAS all the way.
Finally the ADN-NEW-POL Airway is still very much under negotiation, and may well be with us in 2002(latest rumour).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North of the Wall
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet,
Empathise with you completely - I was just sounding off - it keeps the cleaners in our place happy too! Happy Flying (but watch out for the grey pointy things )
Empathise with you completely - I was just sounding off - it keeps the cleaners in our place happy too! Happy Flying (but watch out for the grey pointy things
)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OOPS!! Didn't mean to stir it guys, only a light banter!!
Ayrtc as Daddy says it ain't our unit's fault. Maybe if the local council would stop messing arounnd and let us open h24 that would let us have radar controllers all night.
Hugmonster
Don't get all upset now. You're no 1 is safety. Question which is safer, Radar Advisory Service or Flight Information Service? Which is quicker with less track miles, direct or via airways/advisory routes? Surely if I can provide a RAS and a direct route the two should kind of balance out, n'est pas? Even if it has to be done at a slightly less econimic level.
Give us a second to put my hard hat on!!!!
Ayrtc as Daddy says it ain't our unit's fault. Maybe if the local council would stop messing arounnd and let us open h24 that would let us have radar controllers all night.
Hugmonster
Don't get all upset now. You're no 1 is safety. Question which is safer, Radar Advisory Service or Flight Information Service? Which is quicker with less track miles, direct or via airways/advisory routes? Surely if I can provide a RAS and a direct route the two should kind of balance out, n'est pas? Even if it has to be done at a slightly less econimic level.
Give us a second to put my hard hat on!!!!
