Gunter

I think the question is how many pilots have to be fired to pay for the tail scrapes. We are overmanned.

Irishish

So, you guys leave cargo behind because of a more advantageous (for fuel) flap setting? Is there any way you can look at a weight restriction and see you are leaving cargo behind, then call dispatch to re-figure the numbers based on a different flap setting?

Sorry for the ignorance from a Pax guy, but this is exactly what we would do.

How much fuel savings are we talking here? 500lbs? 5000lbs?

Adlerdriver

That's not a normal practice. I was told about this incident during recurrent and my impression is that it was the result of a bad decision and misunderstanding of the stop margin in a balanced field takeoff data situation.

We can't choose flap settings when computing our data or call and get a different setting (at least on the MD-11). We must take what the 'puter gives us. Until recently, FedEx chose to compute takeoff data to get the lowest V1 possible, resulting in very high flap settings for takeoff and min time on the runway. Now to save fuel, the data is computed using the more traditional balanced field concept you pax guys probably use all the time. This results in lower flap settings, higher V speeds and longer takeoff rolls. Not familiar territory for some of the old farts who've never seen it done any other way. These guys had a stop margin of zero (reject and stop on the last brick) however, that doesn't included reverser effects. They chose to bump freight which most would probably agree was unnecessary and an example of what not to do.

cougar

Curious as too what advantage NADP 1 gives you performance wise?

Adlerdriver

Obstacle clearance? We like it in ANC to get above the bug smashers sooner, too.

MaydayMark

These kids today ... with a small amount of fear of being perceived as giving flying lessons (we all know that nobody likes that)?

Once upon a time (before there were laptops computers in the cockpit) we had to manually compute all the takeoff numbers manually from charts. One "technique" was to compute your takeoff data for the shortest runway and "assume" you could use any runway in that takeoff configuration. I've often wondered if the APLC gave todays "Glass Cockpit Pilots" (even Cessnas have glass cockpits these days) a lack of understanding of basic aircraft performance?

What advantage NADP 1 gives you performance wise? As just one example ... THE ORD departure pointed in the MEM direction has minimum climb crossing altitudes. NADP 1 seems like a reasonable selection to me. I would do it (have done it) on a line check.

Other examples? Maybe high altitude (technically MAX power, not NADP 1), heavy weight? Very high Vr speeds? I could probably think of other examples ...

3pointlanding

Continental did it for years. No problem. Even rejecting close do V1 was no big deal. The brakes got hot though. The crake fans took care of that, NBD. No fans? Carbon does not need fans

TonyC

I played with the APS (Airport Performance Software) on the EFB today. Frankly, I don't trust the accuracy of our books anymore, especially after a software change.

On the MD-11, takeoff flap setting is not selectable - take what you get. On the A300, takeoff flaps ARE selectable.

Moral of the story: Bus captains, be selective.






.

80ktsClamp

Tony- Why so alarmist on this? Airbus operators have been doing flaps 0 takeoffs for many many years. All it takes is a bulletin to be alert to increased pitch sensitivity on roll rate. We should never be slaved to muscle memory. That should be coupled to sight picture via instruments and outside.

I find it more concerning your alarmist reaction to your company starting to do something that has been utilized since the genesis of the A300.

matty

Deep thoughts by matty:

Change is often the genesis of mistakes. Minimizing the impacts of change is mitigated with training.

With the change to a takeoff configuration that only consisted of a "this is what we're doing now...and now do it" email/FCIF only lends itself to problems.

We spent countless hours getting ready for and practicing for EFB's. EFB's had nothing to do with the actual flying of the airplane. The paper charts were always there as a backup. "I can't figure this thing out...get the paper!"

We made a change as to how the airplane performs and there was zero sim/hands-on training involved.

I realize this isn't rocket science. I've read the FCIF's and know you can't put the yolk in your lap on takeoff. BUT, anyone who has flown the a plane for any period of time has seen people rotate like they are clearing a 1,000' mountain at the end of the runway. These are the people that some sim training would have benefitted.

Thankfully this scrape didn't cause any major aircraft or people damage, but if it did...would the 39 lbs. of gas with no training been worth it?

This is the last time I agree with TonyC...