Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
De-Rate Climb with Altitude restrictions? >

De-Rate Climb with Altitude restrictions?

Search
Notices

De-Rate Climb with Altitude restrictions?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-09-2024, 05:16 AM
  #1  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Default De-Rate Climb with Altitude restrictions?

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

Last edited by Scoop; 04-09-2024 at 05:52 AM.
Scoop is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 05:39 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FangsF15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,170
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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 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
Can’t speak to the 330. But The 321 CEO fleet also started a re-rate program. They even have a climb strategy in the FCTM for making crossing restrictions (basically leaving it at Flaps 1, and climbing slow). But the program was halted suddenly, supposedly after network got wind we were leaving passengers behind, costing them more money than they were supposedly saving by reducing the number of lifetime overhauls by one... They have halted any further re-rates, and that’s been something like a year ago. Haven’t heard much since.

Another example of stepping over dollars to pick up dimes, and the left-hand not really know what the right hand is doing.
FangsF15 is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 06:31 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tinpusher007's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,610
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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
It is my understanding that the derate is part of the lease agreement with RR for the Trents and therefore a required procedure. But FCTM 4.1.11 is pretty unambiguous in how to deal with the very situation you are describing at HND. In particular, the note at the end gives specific guidance on airports with restrictive climb restrictions.

Last edited by Tinpusher007; 04-09-2024 at 07:12 AM.
Tinpusher007 is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:02 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
GogglesPisano's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,811
Default

No derate climbs on the 7ER.
GogglesPisano is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:12 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tinpusher007's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,610
Default

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano View Post
No derate climbs on the 7ER.
This is a specific procedure on the 330, and maybe the 350. The initial derate setting reduces climb thrust by 12% and then 8% until full climb thrust is restored after the climb rate dwindles to approx 500 fpm. Seems practical for an aircraft that often gets close to MTOW doesn't it?
Tinpusher007 is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:24 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 105
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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
717 has a couple airports with climb restrictions. Fleet newsletters have had LCPs telling load full climb power, delay slat retraction, and check before departure to coordinate relief as techniques. I would say removing the derate is totally kosher, at least on our fleet.
HandFlyorDie is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:27 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2021
Posts: 413
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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
What kind of altitude restriction are you talking about? I don't know Airbus but Boeing derates "wash out" at 15K. Climb 2 vs. Climb even around 10000 feet doesn't make much difference in climb rate.
Nordhavn is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:34 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tinpusher007's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,610
Default

Originally Posted by Nordhavn View Post
What kind of altitude restriction are you talking about? I don't know Airbus but Boeing derates "wash out" at 15K. Climb 2 vs. Climb even around 10000 feet doesn't make much difference in climb rate.
On the A330, the washout occurs between FL270-300. But we do have guidance to use full climb thrust, when necessary, such as to meet climb restrictions.
Tinpusher007 is offline  
Old 04-09-2024, 07:46 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,227
Default

The technique I've seen used to make sure you make those crossing restrictions on the Rover departures is to keep climbing at 250 kts instead of accelerating. Departure control also seems to like that because we usually get an earlier turn to INUBO. Making INUBO at 250 is sometimes quite difficult at that point, but center has always been ok with that and sometimes even clears us farther down the line even to ADNAP cutting a considerable amount of time.
PilotFrog is online now  
Old 04-09-2024, 08:37 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2021
Posts: 413
Default

Originally Posted by Tinpusher007 View Post
On the A330, the washout occurs between FL270-300. But we do have guidance to use full climb thrust, when necessary, such as to meet climb restrictions.
Wow. I would think that at the operating weight out of HND you wouldn't have a whole lot of excess power. If you are max gross weight it seems you would not be able to derate climb thrust much especially into the flight levels. I would say 250 Kts would be the best way to handle it otherwise you will have to proceed so far north to get above the NRT arrivals before you can proceed to your track.
Nordhavn is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
andreas500
Safety
76
03-27-2016 04:32 PM
cantwin
Technical
6
04-28-2012 02:04 AM
silverlb
Corporate
15
11-18-2010 04:12 PM
tuna hp
Technical
60
08-23-2010 08:54 PM
Adlerdriver
Technical
7
04-12-2010 06:41 PM

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



Your Privacy Choices