Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Jun 18th 2002 | 9:20 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight delays.
According to a whistle-blowers' safety report published on the internet, some pilots
react "aggressively" when instructed by controllers to do something that could delay
their flights.
They are accused of, among other things, trying to save time by approaching
airports too fast.
But the main budget airlines operating in the UK have reacted angrily to these claims
saying safety and security are a priority.
An unnamed air traffic controller filed a safety report saying pilots were cutting
corners because they were working under "extreme pressure on the flight deck to
achieve programmed sector times".
The complaint was made to the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting
Programme, known as Chirp.
Claims denied
Among the incidents were "failure to comply with assigned intermediate and final
approach speeds... resulting in a go-around".
Pilots are also said to be ignoring longer flight paths which bypass residential
areas and instead flying directly over villages and towns, increasing noise
pollution.
But spokeswoman for airline Ryanair said: "We operate to the highest standards of
international safety and like all airlines we are regulated by the aviation
authorities."
A spokeswoman for KLM's budget airline Buzz said she was very surprised by the
allegation.
Officials at Go said safety was "non-negotiable" and an immediate investigation would
be launched if any pilot disregarded air control instructions.
"The success of the low-cost airlines means that pilots don't have to do this for
financial reasons," said a company spokesman.
"It's traditional airlines who are making big losses that are under the most
financial pressure."
David Learmont, safety editor of Flight International magazine, told the BBC's
Breakfast programme that in order to keep ticket prices so low, budget airlines
relied on their planes being in the air.
But he said: "There has been no safety breach. The airlines have very good
safety records."
Earlier this month, safety fears were raised over air traffic controllers' workloads.
Staff at the UK's main control centre in Swanwick, Hampshire complained that safety
could be compromised because they were too busy.
Increased complaints
Employees were making more than twice as many official complaints about their
workload than this time last year, a new study showed.
Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
journeys, boosting profits.
Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
Meanwhile tens of thousands of Britons are facing travel chaos when a series of air
industry strikes get under way across Europe on Wednesday.
Air traffic controllers last week rejected a 6% pay rise over two years offered by
the National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
Members of the Prospect union, which represents air traffic controllers, are meeting
on Tuesday to decide their next step.
Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight delays.
According to a whistle-blowers' safety report published on the internet, some pilots
react "aggressively" when instructed by controllers to do something that could delay
their flights.
They are accused of, among other things, trying to save time by approaching
airports too fast.
But the main budget airlines operating in the UK have reacted angrily to these claims
saying safety and security are a priority.
An unnamed air traffic controller filed a safety report saying pilots were cutting
corners because they were working under "extreme pressure on the flight deck to
achieve programmed sector times".
The complaint was made to the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting
Programme, known as Chirp.
Claims denied
Among the incidents were "failure to comply with assigned intermediate and final
approach speeds... resulting in a go-around".
Pilots are also said to be ignoring longer flight paths which bypass residential
areas and instead flying directly over villages and towns, increasing noise
pollution.
But spokeswoman for airline Ryanair said: "We operate to the highest standards of
international safety and like all airlines we are regulated by the aviation
authorities."
A spokeswoman for KLM's budget airline Buzz said she was very surprised by the
allegation.
Officials at Go said safety was "non-negotiable" and an immediate investigation would
be launched if any pilot disregarded air control instructions.
"The success of the low-cost airlines means that pilots don't have to do this for
financial reasons," said a company spokesman.
"It's traditional airlines who are making big losses that are under the most
financial pressure."
David Learmont, safety editor of Flight International magazine, told the BBC's
Breakfast programme that in order to keep ticket prices so low, budget airlines
relied on their planes being in the air.
But he said: "There has been no safety breach. The airlines have very good
safety records."
Earlier this month, safety fears were raised over air traffic controllers' workloads.
Staff at the UK's main control centre in Swanwick, Hampshire complained that safety
could be compromised because they were too busy.
Increased complaints
Employees were making more than twice as many official complaints about their
workload than this time last year, a new study showed.
Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
journeys, boosting profits.
Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
Meanwhile tens of thousands of Britons are facing travel chaos when a series of air
industry strikes get under way across Europe on Wednesday.
Air traffic controllers last week rejected a 6% pay rise over two years offered by
the National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
Members of the Prospect union, which represents air traffic controllers, are meeting
on Tuesday to decide their next step.
Jun 18th 2002 | 11:20 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
nofrills <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4r7vgu80pado9vd2itis3nu6710u003gjn@news...
> Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
> Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
> instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight
> delays.
Yeah right - keep pumping it out mate!
Probably yet another story put out by the big operators to get passengers to switch
to loss making large airlines.
news:4r7vgu80pado9vd2itis3nu6710u003gjn@news...
> Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
> Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
> instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight
> delays.
Yeah right - keep pumping it out mate!
Probably yet another story put out by the big operators to get passengers to switch
to loss making large airlines.
Jun 18th 2002 | 2:20 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Who ever wrote this does not know too much about air traffic control....planes are
direct by vectors
If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
Bunch of bull!
"nofrills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4r7vgu80pado9vd2itis3nu6710u003gjn@news...
> Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
> Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
> instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight
> delays.
>
> According to a whistle-blowers' safety report published on the internet,
some
> pilots react "aggressively" when instructed by controllers to do something
that
> could delay their flights.
>
> They are accused of, among other things, trying to save time by
approaching
> airports too fast.
>
> But the main budget airlines operating in the UK have reacted angrily to
these
> claims saying safety and security are a priority.
>
> An unnamed air traffic controller filed a safety report saying pilots were cutting
> corners because they were working under "extreme pressure on the
flight
> deck to achieve programmed sector times".
>
> The complaint was made to the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident
Reporting
> Programme, known as Chirp.
>
> Claims denied
>
> Among the incidents were "failure to comply with assigned intermediate and
final
> approach speeds... resulting in a go-around".
>
> Pilots are also said to be ignoring longer flight paths which bypass
residential
> areas and instead flying directly over villages and towns, increasing
noise
> pollution.
>
> But spokeswoman for airline Ryanair said: "We operate to the highest
standards
> of international safety and like all airlines we are regulated by the
aviation
> authorities."
>
> A spokeswoman for KLM's budget airline Buzz said she was very surprised by
the
> allegation.
>
> Officials at Go said safety was "non-negotiable" and an immediate
investigation
> would be launched if any pilot disregarded air control instructions.
>
> "The success of the low-cost airlines means that pilots don't have to do
this
> for financial reasons," said a company spokesman.
>
> "It's traditional airlines who are making big losses that are under the
most
> financial pressure."
>
> David Learmont, safety editor of Flight International magazine, told the
BBC's
> Breakfast programme that in order to keep ticket prices so low, budget
airlines
> relied on their planes being in the air.
>
> But he said: "There has been no safety breach. The airlines have very good safety
> records."
>
> Earlier this month, safety fears were raised over air traffic controllers'
> workloads.
>
> Staff at the UK's main control centre in Swanwick, Hampshire complained
that
> safety could be compromised because they were too busy.
>
> Increased complaints
>
> Employees were making more than twice as many official complaints about
their
> workload than this time last year, a new study showed.
>
> Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make
more
> journeys, boosting profits.
>
> Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
>
> Meanwhile tens of thousands of Britons are facing travel chaos when a
series of
> air industry strikes get under way across Europe on Wednesday.
>
> Air traffic controllers last week rejected a 6% pay rise over two years
offered
> by the National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
>
> Members of the Prospect union, which represents air traffic controllers,
are
> meeting on Tuesday to decide their next step.
direct by vectors
If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
Bunch of bull!
"nofrills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4r7vgu80pado9vd2itis3nu6710u003gjn@news...
> Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
> Pilots working for some low-cost airlines have been accused of "disobeying
> instructions" from air traffic controllers because of pressures to avoid
flight
> delays.
>
> According to a whistle-blowers' safety report published on the internet,
some
> pilots react "aggressively" when instructed by controllers to do something
that
> could delay their flights.
>
> They are accused of, among other things, trying to save time by
approaching
> airports too fast.
>
> But the main budget airlines operating in the UK have reacted angrily to
these
> claims saying safety and security are a priority.
>
> An unnamed air traffic controller filed a safety report saying pilots were cutting
> corners because they were working under "extreme pressure on the
flight
> deck to achieve programmed sector times".
>
> The complaint was made to the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident
Reporting
> Programme, known as Chirp.
>
> Claims denied
>
> Among the incidents were "failure to comply with assigned intermediate and
final
> approach speeds... resulting in a go-around".
>
> Pilots are also said to be ignoring longer flight paths which bypass
residential
> areas and instead flying directly over villages and towns, increasing
noise
> pollution.
>
> But spokeswoman for airline Ryanair said: "We operate to the highest
standards
> of international safety and like all airlines we are regulated by the
aviation
> authorities."
>
> A spokeswoman for KLM's budget airline Buzz said she was very surprised by
the
> allegation.
>
> Officials at Go said safety was "non-negotiable" and an immediate
investigation
> would be launched if any pilot disregarded air control instructions.
>
> "The success of the low-cost airlines means that pilots don't have to do
this
> for financial reasons," said a company spokesman.
>
> "It's traditional airlines who are making big losses that are under the
most
> financial pressure."
>
> David Learmont, safety editor of Flight International magazine, told the
BBC's
> Breakfast programme that in order to keep ticket prices so low, budget
airlines
> relied on their planes being in the air.
>
> But he said: "There has been no safety breach. The airlines have very good safety
> records."
>
> Earlier this month, safety fears were raised over air traffic controllers'
> workloads.
>
> Staff at the UK's main control centre in Swanwick, Hampshire complained
that
> safety could be compromised because they were too busy.
>
> Increased complaints
>
> Employees were making more than twice as many official complaints about
their
> workload than this time last year, a new study showed.
>
> Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make
more
> journeys, boosting profits.
>
> Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
>
> Meanwhile tens of thousands of Britons are facing travel chaos when a
series of
> air industry strikes get under way across Europe on Wednesday.
>
> Air traffic controllers last week rejected a 6% pay rise over two years
offered
> by the National Air Traffic Services (Nats).
>
> Members of the Prospect union, which represents air traffic controllers,
are
> meeting on Tuesday to decide their next step.
Jun 18th 2002 | 3:20 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:12:07 GMT, "CS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Who ever wrote this does not know too much about air traffic control....planes are
>direct by vectors
>
>If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
>flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
>
>Bunch of bull!
Prove it!
Top-posting ****wit!
>Who ever wrote this does not know too much about air traffic control....planes are
>direct by vectors
>
>If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
>flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
>
>Bunch of bull!
Prove it!
Top-posting ****wit!
Jun 18th 2002 | 3:20 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
"CS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bunch of bull!
I'm inclined to agree unless I see corroboration of the claim.
Busting requested speeds would only result in more go-arounds, which will waste much
more time than the small savings that could be accomplished by the ploy.
For your amusement, I heard this whilst in the pattern at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport:
"American 223, go around."
(Annoyed) "Uh, well, that's going to burn us about $500 worth of fuel."
(Deadpan) "Uh roger, make a $500 go-around."
"American 223 going around."
The airline and flight number are fictitious, but the rest of the exchange is
verbatim.
news:[email protected]...
> Bunch of bull!
I'm inclined to agree unless I see corroboration of the claim.
Busting requested speeds would only result in more go-arounds, which will waste much
more time than the small savings that could be accomplished by the ploy.
For your amusement, I heard this whilst in the pattern at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport:
"American 223, go around."
(Annoyed) "Uh, well, that's going to burn us about $500 worth of fuel."
(Deadpan) "Uh roger, make a $500 go-around."
"American 223 going around."
The airline and flight number are fictitious, but the rest of the exchange is
verbatim.
Jun 18th 2002 | 7:34 pm
#6
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 243
From: Languedoc
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Hi
In the absence of accurate data, this remains a myth !
What is true is that many airlines carry marginal fuel reserves to save weight, and therefore, money.
Flying from the far east, I have been diverted to Stockholm instead of Copenhagen because of insufficient fuel caused by " an unexpected headwind".
This was with SAS.
I believe this is not uncommon.
Peter
In the absence of accurate data, this remains a myth !
What is true is that many airlines carry marginal fuel reserves to save weight, and therefore, money.
Flying from the far east, I have been diverted to Stockholm instead of Copenhagen because of insufficient fuel caused by " an unexpected headwind".
This was with SAS.
I believe this is not uncommon.
Peter
Jun 18th 2002 | 11:20 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
On 18 Jun 2002 21:08:37 GMT, nofrills <[email protected]> wrote:
>Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
(snip)
>
>Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
>journeys, boosting profits.
>
>Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
>
I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and off,
plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic. Recent experience with Ryanair's
STN-SZG bears this out - both the outward and return flights (which rely on a 25 min
turnround) got more and more behind schedule as the day wore on. On another occasion,
the same thing happened at Hahn.
On arrival at Satnsted, a "shortage of baggage handlers" meant an hour's delay at the
carousel, but only Ryanair pax were affected.
STN - SXG -STN was, BTW, anything but a cheap flight (£148 return i/c taxes). Until
relatively recently, Lufthansa/British Midland did an Apex STN - Munich return fare
for £80, but Lufthansa have now pulled out of Stansted altogether.
I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might be
driven down, but so are service and reliability.
>Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
>
(snip)
>
>Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
>journeys, boosting profits.
>
>Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
>
I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and off,
plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic. Recent experience with Ryanair's
STN-SZG bears this out - both the outward and return flights (which rely on a 25 min
turnround) got more and more behind schedule as the day wore on. On another occasion,
the same thing happened at Hahn.
On arrival at Satnsted, a "shortage of baggage handlers" meant an hour's delay at the
carousel, but only Ryanair pax were affected.
STN - SXG -STN was, BTW, anything but a cheap flight (£148 return i/c taxes). Until
relatively recently, Lufthansa/British Midland did an Apex STN - Munich return fare
for £80, but Lufthansa have now pulled out of Stansted altogether.
I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might be
driven down, but so are service and reliability.
Jun 19th 2002 | 4:20 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Keith Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>. ..
> I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and
> off, plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic...
In the US, Southwest has a 20 minute standard and have been doing this for 30 years
or so. Seems to work well for them. I think JetBlue has the same idea.
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
The Southwest experience has proven this to be a false relationship. Price and
service is not related if you just do things the correct way.
Dave
news:<[email protected]>. ..
> I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and
> off, plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic...
In the US, Southwest has a 20 minute standard and have been doing this for 30 years
or so. Seems to work well for them. I think JetBlue has the same idea.
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
The Southwest experience has proven this to be a false relationship. Price and
service is not related if you just do things the correct way.
Dave
Jun 19th 2002 | 5:20 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Keith Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>. .. [snip]
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
But most likely prices are driven down more than the value of the lost service or
reliability. There are probably notable exceptions, Tower Air comes to mind. And I
can't particularly think of a safety based example, Value Jet not withstanding.
Reliability of course depends heavily on the concept of "what is my time worth".
But most folks probably can accept several hour delays considering they are
probably experiencing whole integer multiple savings in ticket prices. If there is
an area where it becomes questionable it is when folks fly to relatively remote or
distant airports and then lose much of what they've gained in ground
transportation costs. Furthermore, the counter example is that some of the budget
airlines compete by offering relatively flexible tickets in terms of flight
changes. This value can be fairly directly calculated and would almost assuredly
fall in favor of the budget airlines.
news:<[email protected]>. .. [snip]
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
But most likely prices are driven down more than the value of the lost service or
reliability. There are probably notable exceptions, Tower Air comes to mind. And I
can't particularly think of a safety based example, Value Jet not withstanding.
Reliability of course depends heavily on the concept of "what is my time worth".
But most folks probably can accept several hour delays considering they are
probably experiencing whole integer multiple savings in ticket prices. If there is
an area where it becomes questionable it is when folks fly to relatively remote or
distant airports and then lose much of what they've gained in ground
transportation costs. Furthermore, the counter example is that some of the budget
airlines compete by offering relatively flexible tickets in terms of flight
changes. This value can be fairly directly calculated and would almost assuredly
fall in favor of the budget airlines.
Jun 19th 2002 | 10:21 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
Keith Anderson wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2002 21:08:37 GMT, nofrills <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
> >
> (snip)
> >
> >Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
> >journeys, boosting profits.
> >
> >Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
> >
> I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and
> off, plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic. Recent experience with
> Ryanair's STN-SZG bears this out - both the outward and return flights (which rely
> on a 25 min turnround) got more and more behind schedule as the day wore on. On
> another occasion, the same thing happened at Hahn.
>
> On arrival at Satnsted, a "shortage of baggage handlers" meant an hour's delay at
> the carousel, but only Ryanair pax were affected.
>
> STN - SXG -STN was, BTW, anything but a cheap flight (£148 return i/c taxes). Until
> relatively recently, Lufthansa/British Midland did an Apex STN - Munich return fare
> for £80, but Lufthansa have now pulled out of Stansted altogether.
>
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
Only ever used Easyjet out of the low cost UK operators. Fine - although I noticed at
Luton that their flight was flagged as 'delayed' on the monitors and only by luck got
to the 'gate' literally just in time, had to 'run' to the plane - lol. Suggests some
lack of co-operation between the airport operator and Easyjet. I did hear they had
some ding-dong with Barclays Bank who seem to be involved in some way with the
running of LTN.
Easyjet also get my vote for the cheekiest and flirtiest ( in a nice way ) FA I've
met.
Graham
> On 18 Jun 2002 21:08:37 GMT, nofrills <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Budget airlines' pilots cut corners BBC News
> >
> (snip)
> >
> >Low cost airlines thrive on fast turnaround times which mean they can make more
> >journeys, boosting profits.
> >
> >Some only allow 25 minutes between flights arriving and leaving.
> >
> I think that there is a problem here - 25 minutes to get pax and baggage on and
> off, plus sometimes re-fuelling as well, is unrealistic. Recent experience with
> Ryanair's STN-SZG bears this out - both the outward and return flights (which rely
> on a 25 min turnround) got more and more behind schedule as the day wore on. On
> another occasion, the same thing happened at Hahn.
>
> On arrival at Satnsted, a "shortage of baggage handlers" meant an hour's delay at
> the carousel, but only Ryanair pax were affected.
>
> STN - SXG -STN was, BTW, anything but a cheap flight (£148 return i/c taxes). Until
> relatively recently, Lufthansa/British Midland did an Apex STN - Munich return fare
> for £80, but Lufthansa have now pulled out of Stansted altogether.
>
> I am beginning to wonder if cheap flights end up as a false economy. Prices might
> be driven down, but so are service and reliability.
Only ever used Easyjet out of the low cost UK operators. Fine - although I noticed at
Luton that their flight was flagged as 'delayed' on the monitors and only by luck got
to the 'gate' literally just in time, had to 'run' to the plane - lol. Suggests some
lack of co-operation between the airport operator and Easyjet. I did hear they had
some ding-dong with Barclays Bank who seem to be involved in some way with the
running of LTN.
Easyjet also get my vote for the cheekiest and flirtiest ( in a nice way ) FA I've
met.
Graham
Jun 19th 2002 | 11:20 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Pooh Bear wrote:
> Easyjet also get my vote for the cheekiest and flirtiest ( in a nice way ) FA
> I've met.
Georgia's very cute isn't she?
--
Fight the demons in my head.
http://www.munted.org.uk (updated 13 June 2002)
> Easyjet also get my vote for the cheekiest and flirtiest ( in a nice way ) FA
> I've met.
Georgia's very cute isn't she?
--
Fight the demons in my head.
http://www.munted.org.uk (updated 13 June 2002)
Jun 19th 2002 | 11:20 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
On 19 Jun 2002 08:15:33 -0700, [email protected] (David) wrote:
> In the US, Southwest has a 20 minute standard and have been doing this for 30
> years or so. Seems to work well for them. I think JetBlue has the same idea.
Southwest DOES attempt to get the most direct routing on approach and, if it doesn't
impact the pattern, will tend to descend more rapidly and avoid the usual vectoring
all over the nearby countryside when a straight-in will do. Here at BNA, aircraft
approaching (if they're SW) will descend from 30K to about 2500 without a series of
descent clearances and while maintaining good speed. They will then drop the gear,
dirty up the airflow and turn short final and put 'er on the numbers.
The other airlines here seem to enjoy being vectored thru a downwind, base leg, and
then turn to long final.
Michael
> In the US, Southwest has a 20 minute standard and have been doing this for 30
> years or so. Seems to work well for them. I think JetBlue has the same idea.
Southwest DOES attempt to get the most direct routing on approach and, if it doesn't
impact the pattern, will tend to descend more rapidly and avoid the usual vectoring
all over the nearby countryside when a straight-in will do. Here at BNA, aircraft
approaching (if they're SW) will descend from 30K to about 2500 without a series of
descent clearances and while maintaining good speed. They will then drop the gear,
dirty up the airflow and turn short final and put 'er on the numbers.
The other airlines here seem to enjoy being vectored thru a downwind, base leg, and
then turn to long final.
Michael
Jun 20th 2002 | 12:20 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:12:07 GMT, "CS" <[email protected]> caused to appear as if
it was written:
>Who ever wrote this does not know too much about air traffic control....planes are
>direct by vectors
Yes. And they are vectored to an approach. They then land. ATC will direct aircraft
to slow down if necessary... but once an aircraft is cleared to land, the landing
itself is entirely up to the folks in the pointy bit.
>If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
>flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
The remarks are specific to airlines that tend to operate sectors that are much
shorter than "hours long".
And obviously it may have an impact on separation! That's why people are calling this
a "safety issue".
>Bunch of bull!
Really? And you know this... how?
It is unquestionably true that Southwest's aircraft tend to taxi faster than those of
other carriers...
The issue is whether such practices *might* lead to increased risk, and whether
regulatory pressure should be applied to counteract commercial pressure.
Malc.
it was written:
>Who ever wrote this does not know too much about air traffic control....planes are
>direct by vectors
Yes. And they are vectored to an approach. They then land. ATC will direct aircraft
to slow down if necessary... but once an aircraft is cleared to land, the landing
itself is entirely up to the folks in the pointy bit.
>If a plane was to disobey a directed landing speed - what do they save 10s out of a
>flight which may be hours long? This may have an impact on plane separation!
The remarks are specific to airlines that tend to operate sectors that are much
shorter than "hours long".
And obviously it may have an impact on separation! That's why people are calling this
a "safety issue".
>Bunch of bull!
Really? And you know this... how?
It is unquestionably true that Southwest's aircraft tend to taxi faster than those of
other carriers...
The issue is whether such practices *might* lead to increased risk, and whether
regulatory pressure should be applied to counteract commercial pressure.
Malc.
Jun 21st 2002 | 10:20 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
"H Pylori" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Bunch of bull!
>
> I'm inclined to agree unless I see corroboration of the claim.
>
> Busting requested speeds would only result in more go-arounds, which will waste
> much more time than the small savings that could be accomplished by the ploy.
Actually, most people do try to keep their speed up as long as possible. The saving
in time and fuel is worth doing so. Being too fast on final and having to go around
because of it is another story, but I understand that the 10k speed limit is busted
on a regular basis. ;0) Of course, they can only issue you an airspeed, and not a
ground speed, if you know what i mean....nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Limey Dave.
>
> For your amusement, I heard this whilst in the pattern at Phoenix Sky
Harbor
> airport:
>
> "American 223, go around."
>
> (Annoyed) "Uh, well, that's going to burn us about $500 worth of fuel."
>
> (Deadpan) "Uh roger, make a $500 go-around."
>
> "American 223 going around."
>
> The airline and flight number are fictitious, but the rest of the exchange is
> verbatim.
>
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Bunch of bull!
>
> I'm inclined to agree unless I see corroboration of the claim.
>
> Busting requested speeds would only result in more go-arounds, which will waste
> much more time than the small savings that could be accomplished by the ploy.
Actually, most people do try to keep their speed up as long as possible. The saving
in time and fuel is worth doing so. Being too fast on final and having to go around
because of it is another story, but I understand that the 10k speed limit is busted
on a regular basis. ;0) Of course, they can only issue you an airspeed, and not a
ground speed, if you know what i mean....nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Limey Dave.
>
> For your amusement, I heard this whilst in the pattern at Phoenix Sky
Harbor
> airport:
>
> "American 223, go around."
>
> (Annoyed) "Uh, well, that's going to burn us about $500 worth of fuel."
>
> (Deadpan) "Uh roger, make a $500 go-around."
>
> "American 223 going around."
>
> The airline and flight number are fictitious, but the rest of the exchange is
> verbatim.
>
Jun 21st 2002 | 1:20 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Budget airlines' pilots cut corners
"Limey Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, most people do try to keep their speed up as long as possible.
Absolutely, but once I got to age 55, I said to hell with it.
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, most people do try to keep their speed up as long as possible.
Absolutely, but once I got to age 55, I said to hell with it.
