Originally Posted by
Scoop
What is the consensus, if there even is a concensus, on being unable to make a crossing restriction and yet leaving in a de-rated climb? I see this all the time out of HND on the 330 - we will be showing unable to meet a crossing restriction and yet we have our lowest climb power set via a derate. Many Pilots seem adamant about not removing the derate. I understand that there is a financial incentive for DAL to use a reduced climb as much as possible but some folks seem to be taking it to an extreme. Yes, ATC may give you some relief if you ask but it seems foolish to plan on relief and then climbing out with less than full climb power and assume that ATC will oblige.
Sometimes its not even close and we need relief, but other times a simple change from D2 to D1 will solve the problem. There is definitely a communication issue out of HND that complicates the issues and at times to be honest I wasn't even sure if we were granted relief or told to make the constraint requiring an additional radio call. All of this seems foolish IMHO and definitely adds unnecassarily to the Pilot workload at a minimum and could result in a loss of seperation.
Seems to me DAL can save money so the 4th floor pushes it and the schoolhouse then inculcates it into our procedures without any consideration that it may not be appropriate at all times. Besides seeming to violate common sense it definitely violates the FOM priorities as laid out in section 1.1 of the FOM.
Thoughts?
Scoop
I would like to ask you guys and girls who fly these routes. You have to be near max gross weight takeoff on any of these routes out of Tokyo. Your derate power settings have to be near regular climb power settings. Going from your derated power settings to full climb has to be minimal. This argument from check airmen's trying to save money is ridiculous. There will be almost no difference when getting in the teens even though the book says mid 20's.