Interesting, well then even at a low Jet-A contract fuel price of say $3.50 / gal his estimate sounds about right, possibly low, and keep in mind this was several years ago.

I wouldn't want / expect pilots to be current on the "cost" of a go-around, and I would even expect them LESS to care, and perhaps those in front shouldn't even know the "price." Safety issues should almost totally take this out of the equation. Any "incident" would completely overshadow the cost for the go-around.

Similarly I have had talks with my hospital beancounters who told me about the "cost" of a delayed operation I canceled due to the patient having an infection. It was something outrageous and absurd, as they added in the cost of the operative suite sitting empty and the operation I "could" have done if I hadn't canceled the guy. Basically a shadow cost used for accounting.

I shrugged. Have to just do the right thing, and let the accountants deal with it.

It's about 1500 lbs of fuel on a 737/320 for a go around, lap around the patter, and approach/landing.

...and FDX's flying a heavy jet in the slip is making me twitch just thinking about it. Were they doing that before all the landing accidents or has that transpired after?

Well, 5000 lbs at the price you quoted is only about $2600 (about 750 gallons). I don't know about the other costs but I can't imagine they'd get the total up to 15 grand.

Airlines love love love, and I mean REALLY LOVE to assign a cost to everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.

But as you mentioned, they can also use public school/fuzzy math/accounting practices to derive that number.

And sadly, at EVERY airline doesn't matter which one, there are a minority of pilots that buy into it. And the collateral downside is that now you have a human factors condition of "costing the company money".

I say AGAIN, a minority of pilots. But it's there.

5-grand is conservative. It's probably doable with 3.5 to 4 with a quick pattern and cooperative ATC.

I think that was their procedure for many moons (although I don't think any landing accidents had anything to do with the preferred cross-wind landing method at FedEx). The attitude of some in the training department I talked with about it was the slip early technique was less demanding. So, they felt they were catering to the lowest common denominator and not asking too much of someone in the short hairs of the landing/flare environment. I obviously disagreed not that they cared. From what I gather, it's only an MD-11 thing (as far as it being mandated in any way). Someone's always telling us how big and bad and scary the MD is. Usually the guy who flies it once a month for landing currency.

It's only been in the last 2-3 years that they relaxed the procedural nature of the crosswind landing and removed the "controls in NLT altitude" and made it a bit more like a technique. Although, starting the correction at 200 feet is still a recommendation. I still brief Captains that I'll be putting in the cross-wind correction later than "recommended" (i.e. in the flare).

Yes I could definitely see that - this guy went to Sloan... definitely the type to focus on optimization down to the second.

Sorry it has been a really long day I can't even multiply. Again all I remember is the $15,000 number but I'll ask for a breakdown sometime. I'd bet a lot of it was for taking care of the people in back.

Keep in mind this is average... We've all had a missed approach then vectors to who-knows-where and a brief hold then ridiculously long vectors to final. If tight sequencing may be a lot more than a "lap" around the pattern even in a moderately busy bravo...

Long day in OR. Trick or treaters finally gone. Time to visit my second-favorite captain. Night fellas.

Keep in mind, pilot A hears one thing, pilot B hears another, C another.

A "dude, I heard sick calls cost us 15 million a year"

B "really? I heard it was like 10 million"

C "that's B.S., can't be over 5 million. They just say 15"

They then tell other people about it, telephone game begins......

While I agree with you in theory, there are some issues with this technique on some aircraft. The wing on a 777 is something like 20 feet off the ground to begin with Id venture to guess. Having lot of time in an aircraft with a 73 degree wing sweep with tips pretty close to the ground makes trying to slip it a big no no. Couldn't do it in a X or most Lears for that matter. We all develop techniques to land in crosswinds. My main thought in this whole scenario is why they did not just go around. Sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking but maybe we could all learn something from this. Learn to just say no if it doest feel right. We've all done something stupid in an aircraft and been lucky. I guess it should be a wake up call for all pilots.

My rant is over now.

777 go-around burned about 3,000 lbs of gas. $1200 in gas plus any other direct costs.

Another factor with the 777 is that you can develop a pretty high sink rate when you start to cross control for a slip. It takes the auto throttles a moment to catch up and of course you can simple add a bit of power yourself as you transition to a slip. But that is another factor as to why they recommend taking the crab out a bit earlier than other airplanes.

Just an FYI I don't operate the airplane like that. I just get to the round out, kick it and stick it.