Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
FDX: "Fuel Sense", Common Sense, and Safety >

FDX: "Fuel Sense", Common Sense, and Safety

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

FDX: "Fuel Sense", Common Sense, and Safety

Old 08-03-2013, 09:24 AM
  #1  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Red face FDX: "Fuel Sense", Common Sense, and Safety

July 18:

Airbus (A300/A310) Default Flap Setting

Airbus pilots are informed via Flight Crew Information File that the new default flap setting will change to Slats 15 / Flaps ZERO.

The lower flap setting will increase climb/gradient performance and reduce fuel consumption. Pilots are advised they "may" notice
lower takeoff flap settings (DUH -- the new default is lower), higher V speeds and lower stop margins in certain conditions (certain conditions? more like ALL conditions!). In all caps, pilots are reminded of the most important technique: USE NORMAL PROCEDURES!! (The best technique is to use normal procedures -- now, THAT'S some sound advice!!)

Finally, and almost as a footnore, pilot's are advised: "It will not take as much effort to produce the desired [rotation] rate of 3 degrees per second. You will notice a quicker response to aft stick movement."



Ya THINK!?@!?




August 2:

Airbus Tailscrape Event

"This morning ... an Airbus A300 experienced a tailscrape during takeoff."


I wonder if there is any correlation. I wonder how much fuel needs to be saved in order to offset the cost of repairing a "tailscrape". I wonder why other airplanes have tail strikes, and this one has a tail scrape.


Maybe I wonder too much.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 09:46 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default MD-11/MD-10 flaps up takeoffs!

We MD-11 bubbas went through the same drill ... after hundreds of takeoffs with the new procedure, I STILL DO NOT LIKE IT. At the very least, it results in a MUCH higher rotation speeds (MUCH less stop margin!).

IF we run even 1 airplane off the end of a runway during a rejected takeoff we will have lost all of the benefit of the perceived fuel savings.
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 10:03 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 100
Default

Safety 1st*


*can revert to 2nd in the event of cost savings
Irishish is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 10:09 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: CJ4 manager/pilot
Posts: 948
Default

Non-FDX guy question: I thought I read somewhere the A300 (so I assume 310) could take off completely clean, is that true?
DirectTo is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 12:52 PM
  #5  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
Default

I heard that UPS does S-15/F-0 takeoffs as their SOP.
MEMbrain is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 12:54 PM
  #6  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
Default

Originally Posted by DirectTo View Post
Non-FDX guy question: I thought I read somewhere the A300 (so I assume 310) could take off completely clean, is that true?
No, it is not. 15/0 is the minimum configuration.
MEMbrain is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 01:26 PM
  #7  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by MEMbrain View Post

I heard that UPS does S-15/F-0 takeoffs as their SOP.

If so, did they ever get a chance to practice takeoffs in that configuration in a simulator environment (say in I/T/U or recurrent training), or were they simply given an edict to start doing it that way?


I'm not saying that the takeoff configuration is inherently unsafe. I believe it has advantages and disadvantages. It would be nice to have it as a selectable option based on the particuar circumstances of weather, weight, runway, and terrain considerations. As it is, we have no choice, we had no warning, and most pilots have only performed takeoffs with that configuration very rarely, if ever. Some Captains might even evaluate a takeoff with that configuration as one of those circumstances where he should, per FOM advice, perform the takeoff instead of the FO.

As MaydayMark mentioned, they did the same thing with the MD-11. New procedure, no training, just an edict. No tailscrapes to date, but we've had freight bumped because of discomfort with short stop margins. Saved fuel, but at what cost? Common sense?


A more prudent approach -- in my opinion -- would have been to include takeoffs in the new configuration in the annual training cycle to ensure all pilots were proficient, and then implement the new procedure. Then, to make it better still, allow the pilot to make an informed decision and select the appropriate flap/slat configuration for take-off.


But then we might not save as much fuel.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 01:43 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
If so, did they ever get a chance to practice takeoffs in that configuration in a simulator environment (say in I/T/U or recurrent training), or were they simply given an edict to start doing it that way?


I'm not saying that the takeoff configuration is inherently unsafe. I believe it has advantages and disadvantages. It would be nice to have it as a selectable option based on the particuar circumstances of weather, weight, runway, and terrain considerations. As it is, we have no choice, we had no warning, and most pilots have only performed takeoffs with that configuration very rarely, if ever. Some Captains might even evaluate a takeoff with that configuration as one of those circumstances where he should, per FOM advice, perform the takeoff instead of the FO.

As MaydayMark mentioned, they did the same thing with the MD-11. New procedure, no training, just an edict. No tailscrapes to date, but we've had freight bumped because of discomfort with short stop margins. Saved fuel, but at what cost? Common sense?


A more prudent approach -- in my opinion -- would have been to include takeoffs in the new configuration in the annual training cycle to ensure all pilots were proficient, and then implement the new procedure. Then, to make it better still, allow the pilot to make an informed decision and select the appropriate flap/slat configuration for take-off.


But then we might not save as much fuel.






.
It sounds you are making a mountain out of a molehill. 15/0 shouldn't be a big deal, although we have a way of making stuff more complicated than it has to be. I understand that it is their standard takeoff configuration. They use 15/0 unless conditions dictate otherwise. I'm sure they have situations in which they have to use 15/15 and 15/20. I've never heard of them having issues with using 15/0, so I would't get all worked up over us going to 15/0.
MEMbrain is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 01:55 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
I'm not saying that the takeoff configuration is inherently unsafe. I believe it has advantages and disadvantages. It would be nice to have it as a selectable option based on the particuar circumstances of weather, weight, runway, and terrain considerations. As it is, we have no choice, we had no warning, and most pilots have only performed takeoffs with that configuration very rarely, if ever. Some Captains might even evaluate a takeoff with that configuration as one of those circumstances where he should, per FOM advice, perform the takeoff instead of the FO.

.
Tony ... all of the above considered ... I don't hesitate to use more flaps if necessary to load additional freight (it's still selectable in the PAT). I also don't hesitate to use NADP 1 for any reason that might be to my advantage. In my mind making those decisions are part of being a Captain. I'm sure you'll agree?
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 02:00 PM
  #10  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by MEMbrain View Post

It sounds you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I doubt the pilots of the tailscrape airplane feel like it's a molehill, but I'm sure our "Just Culture" will take care of them.



Originally Posted by MEMbrain View Post

15/0 shouldn't be a big deal, although we have a way of making stuff more complicated than it has to be. I understand that it is their standard takeoff configuration. They use 15/0 unless conditions dictate otherwise. I'm sure they have situations in which they have to use 15/15 and 15/20. I've never heard of them having issues with using 15/0, so I would't get all worked up over us going to 15/0.

I think you're missing my point. It's not about the flap setting, it's about the poor implementation of a new procedure that is NOT without some risk.

THEIR pilots do it all the time, so OUR pilots ought to be able to do it with the publication of an FCIF. At some level (of management) that makes perfect sense.

Then you're in the airplane, having not performed a takeoff in that configuration in quite some time, if ever, and you've got a Zero stop margin. As you're rolling down the runway towards that higher V1 and VR and as you see the end drawing near, you don't want to rotate too slowly because you like to be airborne before the end of the runway and you'd prefer to fly ABOVE the obstacles. It's not a picture you're used to seeing. BUT, be careful, use your muscle memory to rotate and you'll be rotating too quickly and approaching that tail scrape.

THEIR pilots do it all the time. Good for their pilots. OUR pilots DON'T do it all the time. Can we think of a better, safer way to implement a significant change in procedure?

After all, we're not talking about something trivial like altimeter changeover procedures.






.
TonyC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices