More weight, more cost.Can they do that? I mean there is a reason the extra fuel is added. Not only is it risky but the pilots may feel the need to rush. What's it matter, if the plane lands with 45 minutes of fuel left, that's less fuel they need to add to the aircraft. It still equals out to the same cost, no? I dont see the logic in the math there.
Induced drag. The heavier the plane is, the more drag created, the more fuel is needed.Not only is it risky but the pilots may feel the need to rush. What's it matter, if the plane lands with 45 minutes of fuel left, that's less fuel they need to add to the aircraft. It still equals out to the same cost, no? I dont see the logic in the math there.
Got it. It still sounds a little too risky to me. I would think this option would be an absolute last resort.Induced drag. The heavier the plane is, the more drag created, the more fuel is needed.
And that is what USAPA is trying to get the public to see. But for a 30 minute flight do you need 4 hours of fuel? The only time we take anything extra is if we are tankering out of our home base where it is significantly cheaper then buying here in Boston.Got it. It still sounds a little too risky to me. I would think this option would be an absolute last resort.
Who do you work for? I know exactly how much fuel I have on board every time I release the brakes. Sometimes I want more, sometimes I want less. I'm the PIC. I'm responsible for everything that happens once the airplane is moving. If I'm going to be held accountable when the thing runs out of gas, I'm for damn sure going to have the final say on the condition of the aircraft before that happens. Cargo (or pax, I suppose), baggage, who sits where, MELs, fuel, etc. You can't have it both ways. How many NTSB accident reports have listed "probable cause" as "fuel exhaustion - act of God"?Ralgha said:They're not even aware of how much extra fuel is already built into the release fuel.
No one supports CA's authority more than me, but that simply wasn't an issue here. CAs at USAirways have every bit of authority to add fuel to the airplane. The issue on this was that several CAs were purposefully burning more fuel to "stick it" to the company. USAPA should have just asked the company for permission to discuss this privately with these CAs through Pro Standards. Instead, they went off on a crazy anti-company vendetta.I, for one, salute these guys for fighting the erosion of PIC responsability/priviledge.
Me neither. In my short experience out here, I have yet to run into a captain that is doing that. Wouldn't surprise me, though because all this less fuel stuff is still relatively new if you only look back 10 years or so, which is how long I've had my instrument and been in the game. Has anybody ever encountered this behavior before? That being crews purposely burning as much gas as they could when fuel prices are going up?The only time I have heard of captains burning more fuel is to get a better contract when it is negotiation time, sort of by re-establishing that they are the ones with the throttles to management.
I don't know how much of that goes on anymore now that gas an oil are through the roof though, it seems like people now just want to keep their job instead of boost their contract which i can't disagree with.
Can you provide any actual information to support your assertion that these pilots were 'trying to stick it to the company'? And why were they doing it?The issue on this was that several CAs were purposefully burning more fuel to "stick it" to the company.
Yep. I've seen it at Pinnacle before. Have yet to see it at AAI, but the union President claims that there are CAs flying at FL200 at max forward speed lately. It does happen, but it's usually rare.Has anybody ever encountered this behavior before? That being crews purposely burning as much gas as they could when fuel prices are going up?
Why would you retrain 5,000 pilots on a problem that is only an issue for 8 CAs? The truth is that this never should have gotten to company training. The union should have handed it over to Pro Standards and schooled these guys. Most companies are usually thrilled to allow the union the opportunity to knock some sense into pilots rather than having to deal with official training.Why only 8 of more than 5000 pilots? Why the senior pilots?
If the training module is so good, why is it not part of recurrent?
The dispatchers issued the proper fuel loading on the release, only to have the CAs demand more. There isn't a dispatcher around that will outright refuse a CAs request. They'll ask for a reason, give him his fuel, and then file a report. I can see no reason to go after a dispatcher on something like this.Since dispatchers and the PIC must agree on the fuel load, have any dispatchers been sent for training?
Sidesticks on airliners use fly-by-wire systems. I prefer some sort of direct connection to the flight controls, either through hydraulic PCUs like we had on the CRJ, or true direct connections like on the 717 that I fly now. I'm not a fan of computers that are designed to outthink pilots.Oh, and while I am asking stuff.. no response on your strong dislike for sidesticks? Why?
I'm kinda old-school that way, too. I'd much rather learn how to correct my mistakes than expect a computer to do it for me.Sidesticks on airliners use fly-by-wire systems. I prefer some sort of direct connection to the flight controls, either through hydraulic PCUs like we had on the CRJ, or true direct connections like on the 717 that I fly now. I'm not a fan of computers that are designed to outthink pilots.