Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostGod I hope not. I don't ever want to board a flight that doesn't have that extra 'gas' in the first place.
I assume you are aware that:
1. ERJ 140/170 have some limits on their range when every seat is full.
2. That scientifically engineered procedures and regulations exist for exactly how much extra fuel you need for a flight, and said procedures are somewhat sacred and almost never violated.
3. Evil, profit-driven companies tend push towards the minimum fuel requirements since it costs $ to fly the weight of extra fuel.
You may not be aware that:
4. Sometimes excrement transpires and scientifically engineered plans (including weather forecasts along a route) fall apart.
5. Idiot, human pilots usually have the freedom to use Cowboy Improvisation and carry even more extra fuel if their flawed human instinct tells them the weather system and traffic conditions may be even worse than forecast- apparently they simply "ask for more fuel" and the airline generally, without-question, hops right to it.
The bike ride could be of some benefit to understanding #4- however, it is a rather gray (though valid) link.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostThe bike ride could be of some benefit to understanding #4- however, it is a rather gray (though valid) link.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI just returned from my bike ride. During that ride, and even though I know nothing of the weather or flight that day, I realized that the airline and the pilots did wrong and that they should have parked on terra firma rather than whizzing around the lightning in an ever-crowding hold pattern, with the gethereitis setting in.
Let me tell you what actually happened:
1. We departed on time.
2. Maybe we made some very slight route diversions to avoid the big line of thunderstorms that was indeed "in the area". I confirmed the storm presence with my smart phone. But this was a few years ago and I do not recall checking if our Flightaware path was 'normal' or not.
3. We landed on time.
4. A bunch of unneeded fuel was hauled- including the extra that was loaded for the weather. Some of that fuel was wasted to create lift to haul the fuel up to FL3something0 and keep it there, resulting in additional CO2 and global warming.
5. A couple of folks got a voucher for a domestic flight.
6. No one did died.
But I'm glad to know that 1) You realized the errors of the Trans States system and employees that day, and 2) You totally missed the point that not everything can be controlled. I question whether you actually took the bike ride.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI just returned from my bike ride. During that ride, it occurred to me that 30 minutes of holding fuel (sometimes 45 mins) and then adequate fuel to divert to the furthest of your designated alternates and then land with another 45 mins of fuel on board is required for departure.
A: Trip fuel to the intended destination (this must include fuel for anticipated weather diversions, holds, delays in ATC clearing you to the cruise altitude, etc, giving the assessed weather and traffic conditions)
B: 10% of A as contingency fuel in case you encounter diversions or delays that were not anticipated in A. (*)
C: Fuel to go around from 0 ft agl in the intended destination and go to the alternate.
D: Final reserve which can be 30 or 45 minutes depending on the type of flight. This fuel you are not supposed to use, and you cannot legally use it except in an emergency. You are required to declare emergency the moment that you anticipate that the present course of action will end up with you landing with less than the final reserves.
(*) And you can get away with much less than this 10% with tricks like RIF.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostYou got it wrong. There is no double 30/45 minutes. The fuel stack is:
A: Trip fuel to the intended destination (this must include fuel for anticipated weather diversions, holds, delays in ATC clearing you to the cruise altitude, etc, giving the assessed weather and traffic conditions)
B: 10% of A as contingency fuel in case you encounter diversions or delays that were not anticipated in A. (*)
C: Fuel to go around from 0 ft agl in the intended destination and go to the alternate.
D: Final reserve which can be 30 or 45 minutes depending on the type of flight. This fuel you are not supposed to use, and you cannot legally use it except in an emergency. You are required to declare emergency the moment that you anticipate that the present course of action will end up with you landing with less than the final reserves.
(*) And you can get away with much less than this 10% with tricks like RIF.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostYou got it wrong. There is no double 30/45 minutes. The fuel stack is:
A: Trip fuel to the intended destination (this must include fuel for anticipated weather diversions, holds, delays in ATC clearing you to the cruise altitude, etc, giving the assessed weather and traffic conditions.
Here's how I understand it.
Trip fuel is fuel-to-destination, period. This includes all known delays.
Discretionary fuel is for anticipated delays.
Contingency fuel is for anticipated en-route issues, i.e. unfavorable winds and weather-avoidance routing diversions, etc. So that can be burned up by the time you reach the destination.
Reserve fuel is for anything unanticipated.
DIscretionary fuel is what 3WE is referring to. I say it seems sketchy because it might reveal that the airline isn't generally in the habit of adding discretionary fuel, or that the fuel issue is just a cover for overbooking the flight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostWhich regulations are either of you posting? Flag, domestic, supplemental or old PanAm? Because neither of you are correct.
§121.645 Fuel supply: Turbine-engine powered airplanes, other than turbo propeller: Flag and supplemental operations.
(a) Any flag operation within the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia may use the fuel requirements of §121.639.
(b) For any certificate holder conducting flag or supplemental operations outside the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia, unless authorized by the Administrator in the operations specifications, no person may release for flight or takeoff a turbine-engine powered airplane (other than a turbo-propeller powered airplane) unless, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel—
(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport specified in the flight release, if an alternate is required; and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport (or the destination airport if no alternate is required) under standard temperature conditions.
§121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostMan, that is soooo awesome what you say there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostSo, what if you use up your contingency fuel en-route (as anticipated) and encounter unanticipated delays at the destination: ATC issues, fog visibility issues, etc.? Do you immediately declare emergency? Or do you burn your alternate fuel while holding and then declare emergency?
Here's how I understand it.
Trip fuel is fuel-to-destination, period.
Discretionary fuel is for anticipated delays.
Contingency fuel is for anticipated en-route issues, i.e. unfavorable winds and weather-avoidance routing diversions, etc. So that can be burned up by the time you reach the destination.
Reserve fuel is for anything unanticipated.
DIscretionary fuel is what 3WE is referring to. I say it seems sketchy because it might reveal that the airline isn't generally in the habit of adding discretionary fuel, or that the fuel issue is just a cover for overbooking the flight.§121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
Any discretionary fuel that is not required but the pilot decides to add, is on top of all that.
So normally, even accounting for the anticipated factors, you should land at the intended destination with 10% of the trip fuel + alternate fuel + discretionary fuel + final reserves.
If when arriving to your final destination the airport became below minimums or ATC puts you in a traffic hold, you would normally have the 10% + discretionary fuel to bur before you need to decide if you go to the alternate.
At that point, it's a judgement call. If you stay any longer waiting around your intended destination, you are now committed to the intended destination. If you go to the alternate, you are committed to the alternate. But you are still expecting to land in either airport with the final reserves.
If you stay around your intended destination and then new information becomes available that makes you change your mind, you still can go to the alternate and land with less than the final reserves. The moment you make that decision you declare emergency.
It may also happen that you divert of the alternate earlier (maybe even when before you burned the 10% and discretionary fuel) and then find unanticipated delays at the alternate. The moment that you anticipate that the unanticipated delays will have you landing with less than the final reserves, you declare emergency.
The vast majority of the times declaring fuel emergency will have you ending up landing with more than the final reeves, since ATC will give you shorter routes, less holds, etc, and worst case you can just say "Sorry guys, going straight in from my position to RWY XX, make room". That's the "PIC prerogative" in emergency situations (declared or not).
Even just mentioning to ATC that the current course of action would have you landing with less than the final reserves and hence having to declare emergency, many times ATC will try to make accommodations for a new course of action that avoids that. But that's not always possible or they may end up putting other planes in a low fuel situation. So sometimes they will indirectly suggest that you declare emergency. That gives YOU the power to decide your course of action regardless of what ATC clears you t do and gives ATC the excuse to fuck up other flights (you will not find that in 14 CFR though).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI do. The nitrogen oxides emitted by diesel engines, which VWs emission control system was supposed to minimize, and it did, during testing only, kill more people that commercial aviation accidents. Except in a more indirect, more subtle, less yellow press worthy way. Not to mention that that WAS a totally intentional act of doing something that they knew was illegal and harmful for human health.
I see irresponsible and perhaps negligent behavior in Boeing's (and FAA's?) actions regarding the design and certification of the MCAS but, unlike VW, I don't see them intentionally doing something that they knew would result in having their planes crash and people get killed.
Edit to add: Do you understand the VW scandal? It was not "fudging AN emission test". It was equipping ALL the cars with the affected engines (11 million of them) with a required device to minimize the emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides, so their emission levels are within the limits required by the regulations, and then program software in that device that would identify when the car (each and every car with the affected engine) was undergoing emission testing (every time any given car would go through that test) to let the device work as intended, and inhibit it the rest of the time, during normal use of the car, so it would emit 40 times more NOx during normal driving than during testing. The device was there in the cars all the time, it cold have worked as designed to control the emissions, but VW decided to keep it turned off EXCEPT during testing. They intentionally broke the law while at the same time made it look as they were complying with the law they knew that this results in increased health problems that, they knew, end up killing people. How do you call that? Oh, yes, homicide in the 1st degree premeditated. It is not very different to adding mercury in the recipe of candy bars except the ones that I send to the FDA for testing.
I honestly thought we were over this VW stuff. First, the majority of those 11 million cars are mostly not in the US. It has been already discussed that the so-called defeat devices (the thing that detects the car is being tested and responds with altering the emissions) is illegal, but in the US only (and maybe a few other countries). It is NOT illegal in Europe. And that's not to benefit VW, but certain other manufacturers of diesel cars. I have already provided comparison data in this very thread:
https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...l=1#post680400
I can almost assure you VW and their diesels killed no one in the US. In Europe - maybe. And this matters - first, like I said, what VW did is illegal only in the US (and selling those cars in the US is VW's biggest mistake here). Also, in the US, VW diesel cars stand out from the rest in terms of diesel emissions (though there have been other such cases in the US, like the identical scandal with Cummins's truck engines). Second, in Europe, VW is just one brand in an entire industry. And at least now, under EURO 6 regulations, VW have some of the cleanest diesels.
Honestly now, how can one determine if someone suffered respiratory problems precisely because of NoX from diesel cars? And then how can they determine if it wasn't a dirty Fiat, or a dirty Renault, but that it was precisely one of those well-publicized dirty VW cars? This is nothing but media hype, where people are conditioned to lose track of the facts and the context. And in the meantime, the biggest offenders carry on.
No, I'm, not condoning what VW did in the US, but GM killed more than a hundred people with their faulty starter springs (which they knew were faulty), and they paid only a fraction of what VW paid in the US. Takata's airbags also killed people (though I'm not aware of what they had to pay). VW diesels did not kill in the US.
And to put it in perspective, VW was just part of a trend in Europe, and now they have the cleanest diesels there. The 737 MAX does not follow a trend - it is the only plane that has a poorly designed MCAS that can force the plane into the ground, and its safety record is worse than that of other planes, including its predecessor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Black Ram View PostI honestly thought we were over this VW stuff. First, the majority of those 11 million cars are mostly not in the US. It has been already discussed that the so-called defeat devices (the thing that detects the car is being tested and responds with altering the emissions) is illegal, but in the US only (and maybe a few other countries). It is NOT illegal in Europe. And that's not to benefit VW, but certain other manufacturers of diesel cars.
And, yes, defeat devices WERE illegal in Europe. These cars were tested and found to have emissions over three times the EURO 5 limit (and over seven times the EURO 6 limit).
Comment
-
Some people who smoke live healthy lives and die with more than 90 years of age for issues unrelated to smoking.
Some people who don't smoke die of lung cancer related to second-hand smoking, but you don;t know it it is due to Marlboro or Philip Morris so don't blame Marlboro.
Some people who don't smoke and is not exposed to second-hand smoking also dies of lung cancer.
And cigarettes and smoking is legal.
Therefore, smoking doesn't kill people and it was ok when in the 70's the tobacco companies lied to show that smoking was not a health issue when they knew and had proof that it was.
And most of the cigarettes were sold out of the USA anyway. So who cares about second-class people who doesn't leave in this huge country.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAnd, yes, defeat devices WERE illegal in Europe. These cars were tested and found to have emissions over three times the EURO 5 limit (and over seven times the EURO 6 limit).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostSome people who smoke live healthy lives and die with more than 90 years of age for issues unrelated to smoking.
Some people who don't smoke die of lung cancer related to second-hand smoking, but you don;t know it it is due to Marlboro or Philip Morris so don't blame Marlboro.
Some people who don't smoke and is not exposed to second-hand smoking also dies of lung cancer.
And cigarettes and smoking is legal.
Therefore, smoking doesn't kill people and it was ok when in the 70's the tobacco companies lied to show that smoking was not a health issue when they knew and had proof that it was.
And most of the cigarettes were sold out of the USA anyway. So who cares about second-class people who doesn't leave in this huge country.
So where is the analog to the MCAS issue? People were not warned of the danger in any way and had no means to find this out on their own. They were, in fact, led to believe they were flying on the world's safest means of transportation. There is nothing they could have done to save themselves from their fate. There is no laissez faire wiggle room here. As risks go, flying commercial is not considered risky behavior. Or at least it didn't used to be...
Comment
Comment