Don't see much F3 at my base, but then we're mainly flying 320s and are all scardy-cats ;)
|
Which base ES? I notice there is a major difference in F3 usage between bases.
|
That would give away my dirty secrets.
But in seriousness, it's a nearly all 320 base and we fly to places with inevitable tail winds, so the tail strike risk is perceived as higher and so people don't usually take up the opportunity. |
The quoted figures are a statistical saving. The breakeven distances are nonsense and do not take into account the cost of time, only the cost of fuel. Nor do they take into account the cost of exiting the runway at 90deg vs RET (lower speed and NW wear). So they are a very rough guide. Just apply some common-sense!
Speaking about common sense. Some people will spend more than a minute thinking about their landing flaps but in the meantime will funnily enough: -fly a CDA with F2 VS-300 and thrust up -use speedbrakes inefficiently or ask for/fly more trackmiles than necessary -slow down/configure too early -follow the managed descent profile religiously despite winds and or speed-profile being incorrect -decline a visual approach It surprises me to see the amount of people that are declining visual approaches whilst this is where the real fuelsavings can be made, and they are more fun to do as well. Have to agree with sarah737 here. I understand that F3 landings save fuel vs Full landings when carefully considered but the saving is insignificant when compared to some of the stuff I´ve described. |
I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.
The conclusion was that it made sense to use F3 only in conjunction with LO BRK/IDLE REV. Anything more than that and F3 fuel savings will be offset by REV fuel consumption and/or increased brake wear. Surprisingly, the presentation stated that using FULL REV didn't affect engine wear - only used some extra fuel (~20kg IIRC) |
Hi EcamSurprise,
Some of our A320s have the new logic which will "protect" the aircraft, and forces the nose down when on the ground and a pitch pitch has been received What's the FCOM reference? |
Ecam, further to our PM.
I just looked at the books for WI and WO - there is no mention of this "feature" just that it will generate the callout. |
Heard a rumour that you orange guys and gals are doing 250kt descents? If so are you being vectored for extra track miles to allow faster (most) traffic to overtake and thereby negating any fuel savings from your F3 landings or do you just chug along in front of the pack and everyone else has to fall in line with the slower speeds (if true)?
|
Nope it hasn't changed for a few years. 270 in the decent or greater if required by ATC. Cost index 5 creeping in on a few routes and many times I'm being asked to speed up from .71 to .78 burning more fuel than calculated.
|
Hi Stuck_in_an_ATR,
I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3. Page 27 shows a fuel saving of 8 kgs for a F3 Landing plus 15kgs for Rev idle. We'll never manage to do a 100% efficient flight every time, but all the simple bits add up. |
Last time I used F3 for fuel saving, we got a "low energy warning", which ended up in a go-around, burning up additional ~400kg... Ooops, there go my savings... |
My ropey flying had nothing to do with it (this time, at least! :}). However, speed control by Autothrust was poorer than expected under conditions prevailing (slightly thermal/gusty, but nothing exceptional) and I attribute it partially to F3 (slower engine response at lower thrust setting). The bottom line is - we went around, burning 50x more fuel than we expected to save... I am not saying that F3 should never be used (in fact, my operator has just mandated them as standard/preferred setting). I am just not sure whether actual fuel savings will look as good as they do on paper... |
My apologies - I'd been labouring under the impression that the low energy warning was inhibited with the autothrust engaged. :O
|
So nobody has learnt the lessons of QF01 and how to park a B744 on the green of the first hole at the Bangkok Golf Club then.
|
gaunty :ok: apparently not.
Any data available on flap use in A31x/32x overrun accidents? Not seeking the bad apple aspects to blame the human, but organisational aspects of accidents which have origins similar to those being debated in this thread. “People are expected to be both efficient and thorough at the same time – or rather to be thorough, when with hindsight it was wrong to be efficient”. Why Things That Go Right, Sometimes Go Wrong. The ETTO Principle. |
Stuck in an ATR
I am really flabergasted that so much doubt, apprehension and emotion is created about landing in flap3. You seem to suggest that gusty and turbulent conditions on approach is not a good idea to do flap3 landing. It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. All abnormal landings are in flap3.Manufacturers test pilots surely know a thing or two about this.Flap3 landing is easier than full flap landing if proper technique is used. The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser. If conditions are bad for 3 then I can assure you they will be worse for full flap. |
It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. |
P.S. Question for the EZY guys - do you ever use F3 at LTN? |
Thx... How does it affect brake temps and ability to vacate A, or B on the 320? I've always thought distance to vacate is a bit short-ish for F3...
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.