NADP ChoicesThe Company has recently introduced another fuel sense initiative, this time the switch to NADP-2 as the default departure profile. As with the delayed engine start program, this change will in fact save fuel and help the bottom line. But as with the previous effort, Captains and their crews must be aware of all the factors involved before automatically using NADP-2 versus NADP-1.

Among the list of things that Captains should consider are Climb Gradients, light civil traffic in the area (Anchorage in the summer comes to mind), Class B airspace and where it may overlay our operating airports, and bird activity.

As always, the onus is on the Captains and their crews. Do take the time to think about all the possible considerations before just automatically briefing, planning and flying the new gas-saving procedure.

 

what is your point?

 

Just more anti alpo stuff

 

I've flown for 5 airlines: 4 Part-121 US pax carriers (Two commuters. One LCC. And one Legacy). FedEx is my fifth (and hopefully final) airline.

ALL four of the previous airlines did the standard "start cleaning up at 1000 AGL type"-takeoff (NADP1). Of course, if there was a specific obstacle departure, airspace speed restriction, noise abatement requirement, etc, then yes, we did what was required.

FedEx is the first airline I've ever heard of that climbs to 3000' feet at EVERY single airline before nosing over and accelerating. The is the first change I've seen around here that is actually in line with what the rest of the airlines do.

 

hmmm...do we want to start being like every other airline???

 

how do you consider what you posted "anti alpo"? I still don't get it...

 

is it possible that the union is trying to ensure SAFETY FIRST above saving the company 300 lbs of gas per departure?

to paraphrase their last paragraph above - the onus is always on the Captain to ensure he conducts every flight with SAFETY as the top priority - not fuel savings. So, don't just blindly follow what the company is asking you to do (fly the NADP 2 procedure) without regard to SAFETY. If it is SAFER to use the NADP 1 procedure - it is up to the Captain to err on the side of SAFETY not fuel ($$$) savings.

maybe the union was just reminding all the Captains out there that SAFETY should still be paramount.

and, in a subtle way reminding them also that if they just blindly follow company guidance and use the NADP 2 procedure, and compromise SAFETY in doing so (conflict/collide with that VFR traffic at ANC in the summer?) - the onus is still on the Captain to be held accountable for his choice (the company won't be there to bail him out even though they directed him to use NADP 2)

any of those possible interpretations of the union's message?

 

Why is it exactly that people who haven't been at another airline automatically assume a negative correlation between the procedures/techniques/ideas from other carriers and that carriers' financial performance? I guess NADP 2 departures were the reasons so many carriers got into trouble. Perhaps they can begin teaching that in B school for the future. Really not a big deal, but it is something I find amusing from a logic standpoint. Oh, as for the topic of thread AFW is spot on imo.

 

just a little sarcasm... ....i didn't know it was a popular negative correlation...

 

Lighten up - Francis!