Do I really need to explain to you how the 737 could have saved fuel and time by flying a nice visual instead of flying the aprox 22 miles after GAR during the full VOR procedure in the given conditions?

No, but you can tell me how much extra fuel they used by doing so. You can tell me why we should give a damn how much extra fuel you used. Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes.

We're they low enough to shorten their approach and not screw it up? Maybe they'd have had to fly the exact same track miles on a visual approach in which case what would be the point?

It's also possible to fly that whole procedure at flight idle, that'll still save fuel over the planned burn, maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.

Oh, what a nice professional and collegial attitude! Keep up the good work! :D

As I said, it takes some piloting skills to do a nice visual approach, but it's not that difficult. A little bit of airmanship suffices! I guess that's getting rare. :rolleyes:

But you haven't said how much extra fuel they used by flying the procedure! Of course, they may have had to burn off that extra fuel to get under MLW, who knows? Not you.

It's like this you see. I could save 50 kilos by shortening my approach. This might allow you to save 50 kilos too. Or I can fly what I've planned to fly, but more efficiently saving perhaps 40 kilos, which might make you use 2 or 300 kilos more. Net result - your lot spend more money. That's competition.

Or I could fly a bit faster, get in front of you and save myself 2 or 300 kilos by using a little bit more than planned and not having to extend miles downwind while you happily fly around in circles using up your reserves. Maybe you should've done that into Corfu.

Why, you think I should be bullied into a visual approach to save your airline some fuel? You think I'm not perfectly entitled to fly my flight planned route? If it causes you to use a bit more fuel why does that make me any less professional?

It can't be moronic if it's a fact. Which it is.

Maybe if you don't want your airline to spend more money try and be more flexible and proactive when it comes to the tactical situation that you should see developing ahead of you. I'm not going to help you out. In fact I'm going to go out of my way to ensure that my airline benefits.

John Smith is of the opinion that,,,

As a line trainer I feel it most important to expose my students to all forms of manual flight, regardless of weather, and traffic situations. It gives the student confidence during line training, and the learning process. Not every Captain, nor Line Trainer has the same threshhold of pain.

Lets assume you are in cruise with EGLL is your destination. The Wx at EGLL is RVR 600 in BR. The Wx at EGSS is CAVOK. Just prior to TOD, all the automatics are T/U, is one to declare a "Pan Pan" and divert to EGSS? Pax would be peeved to say the least. That would be a rather interesting conversation with the C/P.

That's why the need for as much hand flying without automatics, in the Jet, ( not the simulator twice a year) for those who wish to maintain their proficiency.

John, you keep quoting different things. I don't plan it but if the opportunity appears, usually because some idiot has got his head stuck up his :mad:, then I'll take it.

Let me give you a real life example.

Cruising merrily down to Spain and gradually overhauling an orange Airbus 2000 above us. Said orange Airbus starts weaving all over the sky, unnecessarily, to avoid some clouds. We start catching him up quite quickly now. After a while he requests descent and is cleared on the same arrival as we are. It's a procedural approach at destination and requires large spacing because they would only allow one aircraft at a time on the approach. At this point we also realise ATC are in no way interested in forward planning and have allowed us to get too close. Anyway, said orange airbus, now back at 245kts or so has descended through our level and is only 5 miles ahead of us. Not enough spacing and I can see us getting a hold or two, or three. So I elect to increase our speed all round and eventually get in front, then we request descent. We are first to the IAF whereupon ATC wake up and tell him to go around the hold at 7000' twice before he can start the approach. Que very unprofessional comment from said orange Airbus and much mirth in our flight deck.

So dear John you think I should've come back to min clean and let him go first, thereby screwing up our schedule and fuel plan or would you have done what I did, annoy them a bit and waste a few hundred kilos of their gas?

You or me pal.

Quite sure I have never before heard of quite such unprofessional conduct throughout my entire flying career. John Smith is correct at every level.

Oh yes, and by electing to increase your speed all round sufficient to get ahead in such a short timescale do you really think you saved any fuel?
Not a drop.:mad:

I always get slightly worried reading through these threads knowing I share airspace quite frequently with some posters on here.

All this adversarial language, speaking in terms of "your" and "my" airline, cutting people off, deliberately trying to screw over other pilots, etc...

Remember, you're all just one interview away from becoming actual colleagues in the same company, perhaps even from sitting next to each other in the flight deck.

Relax, go have a cup of tea and enjoy the weather. Most of us only get a few weeks of summer ;)

Absolutely right. ATC should have seen this situation developing much earlier. They even knew we were both going to the same destination from the time we entered their airspace. Awful behaviour indeed.

Yes. Let me explain for you. The extra time at high speed in the cruise used about 80 kilos more than expected. A high speed, flight idle descent used no more and not flying around the hold twice at 7000' used close to 400 kilos less than we would have used. Got it? :mad: indeed.

I guess you'd have been back at min clean over 100 miles out and a couple of holds? Good thinking Mr Efficiency:ok:

We weren't trying to screw anyone over deliberately, an opportunity presented itself and we took it, that's all. Is there any reason I shouldn't try and save money for my airline? It's my job after all. What you do for yours is up to you but don't expect me to follow you around at the speeds you fly, if I can get ahead and be more expeditious I will.

That's ok, it's nothing personal.

High speed overtakes, min speed clean from 100nm out...

How many sectors do you blokes handfly again? :hmm:

Lord Spandex Masher
 

What else do you do? Occupy the runway after landing to force the competition to go around?

What a disgusting creature you are!

Not yet, but thanks for the tip.

Maybe you could explain exactly what is so unprofessional and disgusting about flying faster than another aircraft? If your explanation is reasonable I will ask our flight planners to ensure that we never fly faster than anybody else.

Maybe you'd like to explain what you'd do in the situation I described.

LMS:
Intentionally causing inefficiencies, even to the competition, hurts the industry as a whole.