OK

First if any of you are doing Class II Nav you'd better be using the Flight Plan and not the how gozit. Read your Class II Nav procedures. I also believe there was a memo recently about such a thing.

Second

" but when given a direct the first thing I do is pull up the progress page on one side and put the direct in the legs page on the other side, before accepting and executing I see what the new computed ETA and Fuel remaining numbers are."

Very bad idea, even domestically. A direct route is NOT always better and just plugging it in the FMC will not give you a correct or even close estimate of fuel. Why? Because it doesn't know the winds, especially on the coast to coast flights.

There has been more than one coast to coast which went direct and got a bit low on fuel.

The SOPs were/are written because someone made a point, probably using "technique" which caused them to be put in writing.

I fly 10+ hour trips and we rarely vary from the plan and normally arrive within minutes and with the fuel planned.

 

When you fly your 10+ hour trips you are more than likely on the tracks, and they are optimized for winds, and you aren't allowed to go direct anyway.

A lot of the rest of us are going into and out of busy airports, more often. FP's are not optimized for winds, they are optimized for ATC restraints.

I don't think a blanket statement that we should not request or accept a direct routing is always right. It might be right at 50N 150 W, but not necessarily everywhere else.

 

Probe:

"I don't think a blanket statement that we should not request or accept a direct routing is always right."

You didn't read it correctly at all and I didn't make a "blanket statement" to not go direct. There are two areas of concern here, the first was those who blow off the flight plan in general and that includes those who fly the international routes, who might pick their own speeds, altitudes and use the HOWGOZIT over the flight plan.

The second issue is going direct domestically, and I stated that way. "Very bad idea, even domestically."

I have flown coast to coast and points between in the USA for over thirty years. I am well aware of the National Route system and ATC preferred routing, but the writer stated how he or she decided to go direct and that is what I addressed. Unless the new 737s have a special FMC (they don't) we can't put direct routes in and give a good wind estimate and the longer the leg the worse the new prediction will be.

Yes I fly 10+ hour trips, but during the crew brief we review the winds, routing, enroute WX, time and fuel burn and sometimes even crew meals. Occasionally we come up with a route which requires the dispatcher to run it again and I have done the same with domestic routes.

My point is this, making changes without the information in the cockpit often leads to unplanned negative results.

And don't forget it's called a flight "plan," and not reality. The advantage is that today the planning tools are much more accurate than they were even ten years ago.

 

I don't recall the exact language in the flight manual, but I believe deviations more than 100 miles require notification to dispatch.

I do know that sometimes on coast in when taking a rather northerly route over the great lakes and then a hard left to get down to Houston I get offered short cuts. I anticipate the possibility of the short cut and about an hour to coast in I message dispatch with two possible shortcut scenarios that I am either thinking about or anticipating.

In most cases I don't take the short cut. I do recall one occasion whereby dispatch analyzed it for me and it came back as an extra 14 minutes of flying time and 2000 pound hit on fuel.

So, getting dispatch involved is a good technique on big shortcuts. They will have the most accurate winds and temperatures.

In those cases where I declined the shortcut the headwinds were very strong, and the northerly route was done to keep us out of the bulk of it.

 

This is for you and Motch I think who was commenting on this . . .

Yes there was a memo on the HOWGOZIT and it outlined it's possible uses . . .

The SABRE plan has 3 time columns ET/ETA/AT. One TECHNIQUE that is allowed and is the preferred technique in the 76T fleet and has been for the almost 2 decades I've been flying the Atlantic is after takeoff to fill in the ETA middle column with times from the HOWGOZIT. Then the estimated times you give either by voice or position report are recorded in the ET column and lastly the actual crossing time is recorded in the AT column. This is one of the techniques allowed in lieu of the green dot technique. No one is using the HOWGOZIT in place of the FPF. The HOWGOZIT is merely used to do the initial destination ETA check, fill in the ETA column on the FPF, and it can be a backup tool usable by the pilot not handling the MASTER FPF on international flights. On transcons since recording fuel over position is not required the HOWGOZIT is a convenient place that is easy to read and record your fuel score so you can keep an eye on the fuel and ETA trend.


When I have flown trips and followed SABRE I almost always land +- 400 lbs from the SABRE planned fuel. I realize there are many possible reasons why SABRE may be wrong on any given flight or day, but that doesn't mean it isn't a powerful tool to which we now have access. Whether we as crews choose to use the tools we are given to their full effect is up to us.

 

You have to send the Dispatcher any changes you are going to make (i.e. Mach, altitude, or route). Once they update on their end, the HOWGOZIT will be accurate.

 

That's probably true, but more to the point, it's all dynamic. We may be constantly changing various parameters during a flight. If it's not of any major consequence then you probably won't bother dispatch. If you added 2000 pounds of gas before your flight to make up for the inefficiencies of ATC, various other variables, then you are feeling confident that your fudge factor is within tolerance or at least your comfort level is on the good side.

 

I think the Front Page WSJ article today makes the case very clear:

We all need to move on and work with what we have . . . the Sabre plan is what we use now. It's a good product as is the HOWGOZIT. They both have a purpose and limitations, but that shouldn't negate you using the tools you are given. As pilots we are professionals tasked with a job. Why wouldn't we want to do the best job we can with the tools we have?

Sabre creates accurate FPFs when you engage Dispatch with the necessary parameters, and the HOWGOZIT will reflect that. If you look at a plan and say "that's stupid" but don't call dispatch to change it then "garbage in equals garbage out". Is that really why you became a pilot?

 

The bottom line is really this: Flexibility and adaptability is the key.

A plan is a plan. You can make the plan as good as you can make it and keep improving it until you raise the gear.

Most of my calls to dispatch go like this?

"I don't know captain, I just sat down."

"I am working many flights right now, I'll get to it when I have time."

"It's quicker for me to just go ahead and add the gas rather than crunch this out."

"what flight is this again."


Text messages sometimes take 30 minutes to be returned.


But, flexibility and adaptability allow for the crew to think on their feet. After all, it says in the ops manual and AIM, and lots of other places that we are required to use good judgement, prior experience, and known and forecasted delays in our calculations. If we are being thoughtful and conscientious and incorporating that into the plan and into our actual flight that's really all the company, our customers, and the regulators can ask.