Anyone have any nonstandard requirements (more restrictive) than current FARS? Such as non 123 alt requirements and the like? And those flying the slatless wonder (RJ200) hows it going pax/bag wise planning to burn flaps45 (waste fuel vs clean config) to the alternate? (It only happened once to an Air Canada Jazz crew and the FAA/CRJ co freaked out thinking the barbie jet molded plastic flaps would lock up every time they were used)
nonstandard company requirements
- Thread starter A1TAPE
- Start date
Empennagie
Well-Known Member
From my time at OO flap failures were common enough that the ad made sense. Stricter than the FARs I can't think of off the top of my head but I'm sure there are some examples.
With rising fuel costs how much does that factor into the fuel bills? I doubt the "safety" buzzword would outplay the mighty dollar but if its a VFR day/night then what? And if its a regional imagine what the mainline partner thinks when they see a line item for untoward airport fuel on their Q/annual budget. How do you explain to shareholders oh BTW we waste fuel.
OO would have saved more money flying the barbie jet with no flaps at all vs the CRJFAA AD 200 (45 fap burn) Jet.
flynryan692
Well-Known Member
I don't get the impression you know how the flap ad is applied. You don't always have to add fuel, and the flap ad has more to it than a flap 45 burn.OO would have saved more money flying the barbie jet with no flaps at all vs the CRJFAA AD 200 (45 fap burn) Jet.
Care to advise me? Because a google search bought up so many ADs for the beleaguered jet I couldn't find the exact AD.
But I guess thats what you get when you convert a private jet holding 6-8 into a 121 jet cramming 50 and their bags into the same airframe.
Speaking of OO I seem to recall hearing about your company being restricted to lower FLs by the FAA due to your crews not being able to maintain speed (avoid low speed alerts) at higher FLs. But back to the main question of the thread, what company restrictions does your company have that have seem to have wasted money unnecessarily or are simply more restrictive than current FARs?
flynryan692
Well-Known Member
sigh
I guess. I'm going to simplify it because I don't want to type up a book about the flap AD, it comes up as the first option if you google it. Scroll down to "Requirements of AD 2007-17-07, Amendment 39-15165: Actions and Compliance".
Flap AD has a few parts...
First there is a flap extended diversion, which has two options. Option 1 restricts the pilots from lowering the flaps unless certain weather conditions exist for a precision and non-precision approach. Option 2, which is hardly ever planned (I did it once in training), includes using a fuel factor of 3.2 for the alternate burn. There is also an altitude restriction when selecting an alternate, you can't go above 15,000 so you can't have terrain above that (think Denver, can't go west).
Then there is the part that applies to take off alternates. You have to have at least 1,000lbs when arriving at the takeoff alternate with flaps in the takeoff position. There is a way of checking/calculating that with a fuel factor of 1.8, and you don't always end up needing to add more fuel. Same 15,000 ft altitude restriction exists there.
Then there is dispatch following a flap fail event, which has a bunch of requirements that must be met in order to operate. This includes operating the flaps a certain amount of times, checks for thrust reversers, spoilers etc, and then the LDA on a usable runway at the destination and alternate needs to be at least equal to the flaps 0 landing distance. That part is an either or, it can be either the destination or alternate but OO is more conservative and requires both be met, so I guess that ties in perfectly with the topic of your thread.
I took the bait, didn't I?
Empennagie
Well-Known Member
The company direction on the ad is clear but Ryan covered it well. It's not terribly confusing once you have a chance to practice it for real. The fail at an out station and reset procedure was done once for me in the 4 plus years I was there. Takeoff alternate Calcs were the common one and you could just double your burn to get a quick rough number.
Delta Echo
Well-Known Member
My airline utilizes OPSPEC C80 for scheduled pax ops to non towered or tower closed airports. The primary requirement is having reporting weather frequency and CTAF/Unicom plus a usable IAP with ability to safely conduct IFR operations.
You did good. A very interesting matter that also sounds like a pain. Reminds me of why I only dispatch wide-bodies
(kidding)I’m sure this is common, but all the operations I’ve worked with have added additional fuel to land at a company minimum that’s usually above FAR requirements.
Last edited:
autosave36
Go High Go Fast and Hold.
60 percent sure we had to apply the flaps ad with flaps stuck at 20, not 45.. but its been 3 years since ive touched a lawn dart and i may be misremembering.. or it maybe changed..
Empennagie
Well-Known Member
20 was for the takeoff alt, 45 for the destination.
Correct... Flap 45 fuel is option 2 of part one which next to never gets planned. Of the many hundreds of CRJ200 flights I planned, I think I added the 3.2 x alt burn maybe one time. Normally the crew just has to wait to extend flaps until reasonably sure they can land. So we really weren't using extra fuel for Flap AD. Other than occasionally for takeoff alt which is different discussion.
As far non FAR requirements, we add alternates for a whole list of forecast weather conditions such as TSRA even if not FAR required.
What the heck is part 123?? I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but I can't find it in CFR14. Are you talking about part 91 IFR alternate (mnenonic - "1-2-3") rules, or what? If so, don't those apply only to part 91 ops? If not, please elaborate. "Equiring Minds" want to know!
Last edited: