PAL Pilot Exodus
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Togo
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iata Fuel Efficiency Checklist Item On Weights
International Air Transport Association
FUEL AND EMISSIONS EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
10 WEIGHT MANAGEMENT
10.1 Do you have a program to manage aircraft weight?
(such as minimizing the carriage of unnecessary water, magazines and newspaper, toilets servicing,
blankets, cargo containers, crew baggage, carry on baggage, unnecessary galley supplies, ovens,
garbage, etc)
10.2 Do you have a center of gravity management system for passengers and cargo (C of G)?
10.3 Are your estimated zero fuel weights accurate (EZFW)?
10.4 Do you have a last minute fuel top-up policy especially for long-range flights to avoid carriage of
unnecessary fuel?
(The flight plan is re-optimized for actual weight changes (passengers or cargo), winds, cruise speed and
altitudes, connections, dropping of choosing a more efficient alternate, re-optimizing the discretionary fuel,
slowing down early flights for fuel efficiency, etc.)
FUEL AND EMISSIONS EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
10 WEIGHT MANAGEMENT
10.1 Do you have a program to manage aircraft weight?
(such as minimizing the carriage of unnecessary water, magazines and newspaper, toilets servicing,
blankets, cargo containers, crew baggage, carry on baggage, unnecessary galley supplies, ovens,
garbage, etc)
10.2 Do you have a center of gravity management system for passengers and cargo (C of G)?
10.3 Are your estimated zero fuel weights accurate (EZFW)?
10.4 Do you have a last minute fuel top-up policy especially for long-range flights to avoid carriage of
unnecessary fuel?
(The flight plan is re-optimized for actual weight changes (passengers or cargo), winds, cruise speed and
altitudes, connections, dropping of choosing a more efficient alternate, re-optimizing the discretionary fuel,
slowing down early flights for fuel efficiency, etc.)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somewhereoutthere
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turn-off your engines
One engine taxi to the gate or 2 engine taxi for 4 engined A/C.
improve contingency fuel planning.
Stick to the flight plan i.e. routes,FL's, Speed etc.
optimization of Alternate airport selections.
improve contingency fuel planning.
Stick to the flight plan i.e. routes,FL's, Speed etc.
optimization of Alternate airport selections.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Reality
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On fuel
This is for trans pacific flights.
Fuel burnout adjustment for the 747 is around 300kg for every 1 ton of baggage loaded according to the flight plan. Now here goes my 2 cents.
If ALL the crew maxes out their baggage allowance, the company would save 330kg (22x15kg) on the cargo which translates to 100kg of fuel savings. For flights going out of Manila, I don't think the baggage restriction really does make any difference since the only thing on the maleta's are just overnight clothes, and in special cases some pasalubongs. This will not really make any difference since even if these baggages maxes out, it still will be offset by the flight crew's maletas with only the overnight clothes.
Coming back from the US, we do need to shop sometimes, as we have families to feed and it really is just cheaper to buy food there. But this does not happen on all flights that we take, as our refrigirators can only take so much of these stuff. Granted, for the sake of argument, let's say that we are so engrossed with PX goods that we have to ALWAYS load up our bags to 35 kg. This still is just 0.1 ton of fuel...or a flight that burn up 150 tonnes, which translate to approximately 0.06% savings. Which can be easily recovered by using direct routings or using your optimal altitude.
Now, going back to my original claim that this does not happen all the time (maxing out the baggage allowance), I don't think the computation fo 0.1 kg saving x 4 (flights a day) x 365 days really holds. A negligible amount of fuel was saved (which can easily be recovered). The only thing that this accomplished was making the flight crew feel that they're a liability to the company's bottom line and the funny thing is, the company doesn't really save anything.
Fuel burnout adjustment for the 747 is around 300kg for every 1 ton of baggage loaded according to the flight plan. Now here goes my 2 cents.
If ALL the crew maxes out their baggage allowance, the company would save 330kg (22x15kg) on the cargo which translates to 100kg of fuel savings. For flights going out of Manila, I don't think the baggage restriction really does make any difference since the only thing on the maleta's are just overnight clothes, and in special cases some pasalubongs. This will not really make any difference since even if these baggages maxes out, it still will be offset by the flight crew's maletas with only the overnight clothes.
Coming back from the US, we do need to shop sometimes, as we have families to feed and it really is just cheaper to buy food there. But this does not happen on all flights that we take, as our refrigirators can only take so much of these stuff. Granted, for the sake of argument, let's say that we are so engrossed with PX goods that we have to ALWAYS load up our bags to 35 kg. This still is just 0.1 ton of fuel...or a flight that burn up 150 tonnes, which translate to approximately 0.06% savings. Which can be easily recovered by using direct routings or using your optimal altitude.
Now, going back to my original claim that this does not happen all the time (maxing out the baggage allowance), I don't think the computation fo 0.1 kg saving x 4 (flights a day) x 365 days really holds. A negligible amount of fuel was saved (which can easily be recovered). The only thing that this accomplished was making the flight crew feel that they're a liability to the company's bottom line and the funny thing is, the company doesn't really save anything.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Risk
Can I ask why PAL flew into manila during the typhoon when there was zero visibility. Is it really worth the risk esp after so many overruns? Cebu waited and did the right thing - remember safety saftey safety commercial can not run the airline must be driven by smart ops people .......................
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: B612
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
Can I ask why PAL flew into manila during the typhoon when there was zero visibility. Is it really worth the risk esp after so many overruns? Cebu waited and did the right thing - remember safety saftey safety commercial can not run the airline must be driven by smart ops people .......................
On the contrary. The morning of June 22, during the height of typhoon Frank, the very first aircraft to touch down on RPLL 06 was CEB 679, A319 arriving from Pudong, on the ground at 0336H, 6 minutes after the airport opened. Except for a long patch of weather stretching along the length of the approach ends of both runway 06 and 24, it was VMC and visibility was very good and the ceiling was about 1,300 ft., well above the published MDA of 380 ft. for the VOR DME 06 approach in use at the time.
The difficulty was brought about by the wind which was a steady 44 knot direct crosswind out of 330 degrees but it was just that, steady.
On the contrary. The morning of June 22, during the height of typhoon Frank, the very first aircraft to touch down on RPLL 06 was CEB 679, A319 arriving from Pudong, on the ground at 0336H, 6 minutes after the airport opened. Except for a long patch of weather stretching along the length of the approach ends of both runway 06 and 24, it was VMC and visibility was very good and the ceiling was about 1,300 ft., well above the published MDA of 380 ft. for the VOR DME 06 approach in use at the time.
The difficulty was brought about by the wind which was a steady 44 knot direct crosswind out of 330 degrees but it was just that, steady.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: neverland
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of Limitations and Airmanship (or the lack of it)
My only advise, don't try to be superheroes by pushing the aircraft to its limits. Landing an aircraft with a direct crosswind of 44 kts is just absurd. If the pilots did manage to land the airplane, well and good. But for me it still smacks of poor airmanship, perhaps a lack of knowledge of the aircraft limitations, and my greatest fear is the possibility that the pilots may have ran out of options so they just have to land the goddamn plane no matter what. My experience is that on VMC conditions, it's alright to attempt landing the airplane at the first stage of the approach by monitoring the wind conditions very closely. But reaching 500 feet and wind conditions still remain above the limits for landing (tail or cross) then just execute a go-around.
And for the Pal flight landing in Manila with zero visibility, again, the big question is WHY did they do that? Assuming that the pilots are LowVis qualified, but is the airport certified for actual CAT II/III approach? If you can't satisfy all the requirements for AWOPS (All Weather Operations), then you should never, never attempt to land the airplane below the published minima.
Flying in the Asian region where thunderstorms and typhoons are a common thing can be sometimes tricky. That's why fuel planning (and understanding the weather) is very esential. Remember that your diversion fuel is already incorporated in your flight plan, and it's always good to have at least two possible alternate aerodromes, with the farthest one always considered as your primary because you are given more fuel. And if your TAF shows inclement weather in your destination airport, then just uplift as much extra fuel as you can for holding if diversion is your last option. Remember that it's always best to have every options available to you while up in the air than run out of them.
Just my two fils worth of advise...take it or leave it. Fly safe always dudes!
And for the Pal flight landing in Manila with zero visibility, again, the big question is WHY did they do that? Assuming that the pilots are LowVis qualified, but is the airport certified for actual CAT II/III approach? If you can't satisfy all the requirements for AWOPS (All Weather Operations), then you should never, never attempt to land the airplane below the published minima.
Flying in the Asian region where thunderstorms and typhoons are a common thing can be sometimes tricky. That's why fuel planning (and understanding the weather) is very esential. Remember that your diversion fuel is already incorporated in your flight plan, and it's always good to have at least two possible alternate aerodromes, with the farthest one always considered as your primary because you are given more fuel. And if your TAF shows inclement weather in your destination airport, then just uplift as much extra fuel as you can for holding if diversion is your last option. Remember that it's always best to have every options available to you while up in the air than run out of them.
Just my two fils worth of advise...take it or leave it. Fly safe always dudes!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: neverland
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awops 101
Just to emphasize that pilots are not authorized to operate LowVis approach, take off and landing if all the requirements for AWOPS are not met, which means that 1) Pilots have to be Lowvis qualified; 2) Facility/Aeorodrome has to be certified for CAT II/III operations; and 3) Aircraft has to be certified meaning that it should have all the required equipment to carry out a successful CAT II/III Precision Approach. LVP has to be in force as well and as far as I know, RPLL is not certified as such, which therefore means that nobody can land even if it is ILS 24 esp if the prevailing conditions are well below the published minima.
Same thing goes for VOR/DME 06. I think the procedures are clearly written about conducting instrument approaches, whether Precision or Non-Precision. It is the understanding of these, and the adherence to such, that comes into question when pilots decide to take into their own hands to just land the goddamn plane no matter what and regardless if limits are exceeded and rules and regulations are violated.
Again it all boils down to experience, proper training and the safety culture existing in your respective companies that creates the big difference. We don't want accidents happening here just because the crew do not understand what they are doing, or what they are supposed to do and not to do. There could be one or two or more of our love ones riding in those planes you are flying, so for heaven's sake, study your craft and fly safe!
Same thing goes for VOR/DME 06. I think the procedures are clearly written about conducting instrument approaches, whether Precision or Non-Precision. It is the understanding of these, and the adherence to such, that comes into question when pilots decide to take into their own hands to just land the goddamn plane no matter what and regardless if limits are exceeded and rules and regulations are violated.
Again it all boils down to experience, proper training and the safety culture existing in your respective companies that creates the big difference. We don't want accidents happening here just because the crew do not understand what they are doing, or what they are supposed to do and not to do. There could be one or two or more of our love ones riding in those planes you are flying, so for heaven's sake, study your craft and fly safe!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: RPUX
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Airport
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LT wants to save fuel, taken from the little happiness left from the measly paid crew.
I dont get it!
Only a shewrd & scrooge man can think of that!
Knock your head!
bansai!
After all these years you havent known LT really....
I dont get it!
Only a shewrd & scrooge man can think of that!
Knock your head!
bansai!
After all these years you havent known LT really....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somewhereoutthere
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK
Still here, and calling for interested parties.EK recruitment still ongoing for the 777 fleet, Airbus 330/340s and the A380. Contact us for personal briefing.
First EK commercial flight of the A380 is on the 1st of August 08, Dubai to New York(JFK).
First EK commercial flight of the A380 is on the 1st of August 08, Dubai to New York(JFK).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: bored somewhere.
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.avherald.com
Incident: Philippine Airlines A333 at Sydney on Jul 17th 2008, takeoff without clearance, B737 crossing runway
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jul 18th 2008 12:13Z, last updated Friday, Jul 18th 2008 12:13Z
A Philippine Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration RP-C3333 performing flight RP212 from Sydney,NS to Melbourne,VI (Australia), was cleared to line up departure runway and hold, but the crew commenced takeoff despite another (unspecified) Boeing 737 crossing the runway.
The Australian Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident.
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jul 18th 2008 12:13Z, last updated Friday, Jul 18th 2008 12:13Z
A Philippine Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration RP-C3333 performing flight RP212 from Sydney,NS to Melbourne,VI (Australia), was cleared to line up departure runway and hold, but the crew commenced takeoff despite another (unspecified) Boeing 737 crossing the runway.
The Australian Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: House
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooo Scary!
If it is true, so scary!!! Scary for the Crew (licenses), scary for the 737, scary for the passengers and FA's, scary for the ATC, really scary. I hope it's not true.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somewhereoutthere
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So sorry
At one point of the report, it said * the approach was never stabilized. - they could have saved so much face , by just going around.
If this report is as Authentic as it seems, then the F/O is relieved.“Let’s circle again it’s too high”
followed by “High”.
Again, the F/O could have made a difference.....hhmmmm, bless us we were not in those seats.
So Sorry.
If this report is as Authentic as it seems, then the F/O is relieved.“Let’s circle again it’s too high”
followed by “High”.
Again, the F/O could have made a difference.....hhmmmm, bless us we were not in those seats.
So Sorry.