Food at ATL

Blackhawk said:
Going faster in and of itself is normally not going to be an issue. It becomes an issue, however, when other factors are thrown in. Flying at a different altitude than planned. Holding. Deviating for weather. Some factors are put into the fuel planning, such as holding fuel. Often there is extra fuel as well to cover the deviating. The problem arises when a crew uses this contingency fuel while also flying faster than planed.
While a .02 mach difference between planned and flown is not that significant on a 1 hour flight, the longer the flight, the larger the difference between planned and flown mach, plus other differences (again, such as altitude, deviations), the greater the difference in fuel burn.
As an example, during the Chicago TRACON shutdown I had several flights where we were kept at a low altitude (14,000'), for over 15 minutes and our route of flight went around the Chicago area. Initially this was not planned and we did not learn about it until we took off. Flying CI we made the flight without an issue, though I had to keep an eye on the fuel. If we flew cruise power instead I would have had to deviate.
As for blaming the dispatcher that is bunk. The dispatch is a dual responsibility document between the captain and the dispatcher. If there is not enough fuel in the dispatch then the captain should never depart.

This argument is part of what I find infuriating about this website. A poster complained that pilots were "sandbagging" by flying too slow. I pointed out that many (probably most), airlines are moving to CI and SCI flight planning. A few immature pilots throw hissy fits and call me a liar for pointing out that crews have run into fuel issues by not flying their plan. I know this will come to a shock for many of the young pilots here who went straight to the airlines, but flight planning 101 that is taught to private pilots- If you don't fly the plan, your numbers won't work. Usually this is not an issue, but it can be.

Again to the OP. Sorry for the hijack. I'm not going to stand by while pilots who obviously have no clue about flight planning 101 jump all over me.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's right Mr. RJ Pilot Guy, you know all about flight planning, and the rest of us are clueless. :rolleyes:
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Negative.
Click to expand...
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1415041532.204956.jpg
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Ah, that's right Mr. RJ Pilot Guy, you know all about flight planning, and the rest of us are clueless. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It seems that way from the posts. I know it may come to a shock to you, but some airliners have run out of gas. Even big ones with those engine thingies on the wings.
A bunch of pilots on this board, including yourself, are up in arms because I pointed out that airlines are starting to go to cost index flying in order to save on fuel costs so they are not sandbagging when they don't fly mach .83. I don't care what the aircraft is- a J-3 Cub, a UH-60, a CRJ, a 747-400, if you don't fly the planned profile your fuel numbers will be off. If you land with an extra 2 hours of gas anyway, no big deal. If you start getting to the point where you won't make your alternate if you go missed... bigger deal.
How in the name of God is that an issue with people???
 
The issue is that you don't have a flippin' clue what you're talking about. No one is "going to" cost index flying. We've already been there for decades. You just don't know it, because apparently your company hasn't been doing it. Regardless, it isn't going to make much of a difference as long as your company gives you at least a little bit of contingency fuel. I flew standups for years. We always flew barber pole every flight, despite being flight planned at CI30. Never had an issue, because we carry contingency fuel like any responsible airline. Never even got close to the 45 minute reserve (which you're allowed to use, by the way).
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The issue is that you don't have a flippin' clue what you're talking about. No one is "going to" cost index flying. We've already been there for decades. You just don't know it, because apparently your company hasn't been doing it.
Click to expand...
New guys to the party always think they're on the cutting edge. I wonder how the concept of "Tactical Cost Index" will jibe. That's what we fly now. We get a target landing time window and adjust CI +/- from the initial planned number once airborne to land in the window.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The issue is that you don't have a flippin' clue what you're talking about. No one is "going to" cost index flying. We've already been there for decades. You just don't know it, because apparently your company hasn't been doing it. Regardless, it isn't going to make much of a difference as long as your company gives you at least a little bit of contingency fuel. I flew standups for years. We always flew barber pole every flight, despite being flight planned at CI30. Never had an issue, because we carry contingency fuel like any responsible airline. Never even got close to the 45 minute reserve (which you're allowed to use, by the way).
Click to expand...
Get OUT of here with your aviation talk. This is a thread about food!
 
Blackhawk said:
It seems that way from the posts. I know it may come to a shock to you, but some airliners have run out of gas. Even big ones with those engine thingies on the wings.
A bunch of pilots on this board, including yourself, are up in arms because I pointed out that airlines are starting to go to cost index flying in order to save on fuel costs so they are not sandbagging when they don't fly mach .83. I don't care what the aircraft is- a J-3 Cub, a UH-60, a CRJ, a 747-400, if you don't fly the planned profile your fuel numbers will be off. If you land with an extra 2 hours of gas anyway, no big deal. If you start getting to the point where you won't make your alternate if you go missed... bigger deal.
How in the name of God is that an issue with people???
Click to expand...

Going to cost index? Airlines have been using that for 30 years.. just because your regional started using it doesn't make it something new. It's like southwest making the grand announcement a few years back that they were on the cutting edge of technology by starting to use VNAV. Only 30 years late to the party on that one, too!

Your CRJ has advisory performance only, whereas the big dogs' performance is certified for use. We have uplinked and routinely updated winds and temps aloft as well, so a change in mach number will quite accurately reflect the end state burn in the box before talking with dispatch. Additionally, planes like the 744 tend to burn less the faster they go. I'll swear to it that fifi is the same way. ATL approach routinely lets me haul in at .80/340, and we always beat the burn target!

LIke cptchia said, at DL we use a tactical cost index now where we vary the CI to meet a target window.


Five Guys sucks.
 
RobertB said:
No one here wants MCN, CSG, or AHN... ZTL can have those sectors.
Click to expand...

The best part is that they make you take the airspace, but then give it back to the center on the mids cause they don't want to put the extra staff on at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
queeno said:
The best part is that they make you take the airspace, but then give it back to the center on the mids cause they don't want to put the extra staff on at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Best part is we don't have the staffing to take it during the day so we give it back early every afternoon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top