Nov 2 2009, 08:31 PM
QUOTE(stringfellow @ Nov 2 2009, 08:21 PM)
LOL I did not meant for the conversation to go this, but here goes. Yes, you are allowed, it's called Low-drag approach. It is practiced especially at busy airports where the lateral separation between aircraft on approach and landing is 5 miles. If you think 5 miles is loads of leeway to play around with, watch the ND screen, everyone's lined up and manouvering around and they are tons of them, they look like ants.
But no matter now much you wanna delay the landing gear, you need to be stabilised by minimum 500 feet off the ground, otherwise it is a mandatory go-around. So you gotta plan back from that 500 feet point so that you can have everything deployed, gears and flaps, and configured for landing before that point. Some may have a leaner tolerance against such condition, others wants it by the book. I look at who I'm flying with first before I am comfortable with him doing this.
As for saving fuel consumption, your standard operating procedure (SOP) should not be abandoned to achieve that. That is the golden rule. But the thing here is you see, as much as we pilots try to keep the company afloat with all the savings and all, you don't see a dime out of all this hard work, it goes into someone else's pocket, and someone else get the praise and pat in the back. What are our incentives to do this then?
There was a dark period during the operation of my company that everyone does thing STRICTLY by the book, and that costs the company a considerable amount of cost. They did not realise that all this while we have been fuel-saving for them, but then they fcuk us up and stab us in our backs by taking away our benefits and privileges and forcing people to work beyond the agreed MoU agreements, just because "they can".
Added on November 2, 2009, 8:26 pmAiyohhh sorry lah guys, I didnt want to turn this into such technical jargonfest boredom conversation. Ampun!
Now you're making me feel bad too, cause I'm the one who's asking all the questions...But no matter now much you wanna delay the landing gear, you need to be stabilised by minimum 500 feet off the ground, otherwise it is a mandatory go-around. So you gotta plan back from that 500 feet point so that you can have everything deployed, gears and flaps, and configured for landing before that point. Some may have a leaner tolerance against such condition, others wants it by the book. I look at who I'm flying with first before I am comfortable with him doing this.
As for saving fuel consumption, your standard operating procedure (SOP) should not be abandoned to achieve that. That is the golden rule. But the thing here is you see, as much as we pilots try to keep the company afloat with all the savings and all, you don't see a dime out of all this hard work, it goes into someone else's pocket, and someone else get the praise and pat in the back. What are our incentives to do this then?
There was a dark period during the operation of my company that everyone does thing STRICTLY by the book, and that costs the company a considerable amount of cost. They did not realise that all this while we have been fuel-saving for them, but then they fcuk us up and stab us in our backs by taking away our benefits and privileges and forcing people to work beyond the agreed MoU agreements, just because "they can".
Added on November 2, 2009, 8:26 pmAiyohhh sorry lah guys, I didnt want to turn this into such technical jargonfest boredom conversation. Ampun!
But it's kinda interesting to know all these stuff... do you think anyone can simply go to the cockpit asking pilot silly questions?
No, only in here only with string...I'm glad there's a pilot among nintendians
Quote
0.0370sec
0.71
7 queries
GZIP Disabled