I just don't get it..some explain?

[mcconnell14]

i have some ideas for aircanada to save costs. i was amazed how much time/fuel they wasted on a short hop from Toronto-Ottawa, then on my return trip back to yyz.

1) what the heck is the point of stuffing the plane w/ pop,beer,liquor, food for a 45 min flight to ottawa (cyow) from YYZ, i mean for all that extra weight on board the airplane dosent make sense, im a 18 yrs old and i can go an hour without food, or a pop. i was amazied to see the food cart stuffed with crap for a 45 minute flight. the majority of people on shorts hops like these are business men that could care less about anything but there blackberry.

2) waiting for other aircanada flights... leaving ottawa there was 3 (including us) air canada jets (2 were jazz)(no other planes just AC) taxing to the same runway at the SAME time. i mean waiting for your own guys while burning that expenseive jet- A fuel. i mean you cant help it when your waiting for other companies but cant your make your schedule better? and then waiting for ground crews for 15 mins to marshall you into the gate postion.(in ottawa)

3) using the speed brakes during the desecent( arent pilots taught to manage speed and not use the brakes, used then both ways, im havent starteded my flight training yet, soon so im not 100% sure) i mean the pilots of both of my flights used the speed brake over 50% of descent.

4) PTV's in every seat? for a 45 mins flight ? I know planes are often used on different routes, but they should really change that for these short hops, they make tons of these trips daily, why not have a Aircraft dedicated to it?. the added weight has to be underrated. ohh and why have 100 copies of the damn toronto star, (and others..) have a stand in the gate, with the paper, you want one take one. but paper weighs alot, and probably adds a good 50-70 lbs.)

when you make non-stop trips like these, the cost adds up they could potentially save the company huge amounts of money. I don't know, i know i wouldnt miss the crappy food, the pop and eventually the 6 dollar beer. would you?

anyone wanna explain to me? am i wrong? i would like to here some input
end of rant.
ps, i wrote this quick on my buddy's laptop im not used to, if i made a few mistake, sorry)

[BMR]

Well personally, I think the challenge of determining when an aircraft requires a food/drink cart is A LOT more work and organization (specially ground crews) then if they were to just have a FULL cart every time. Maybe one of the planes was scheduled to depart for a much longer flight afterwards? Just because you may not be thirsty doesn't mean the person who just rushed to the airport, rushed through security to make the flight isn't going to be thirsty. Sure airlines are always trying to find a way to save money but I'm sure their still trying to maintain a certain level of customer satisfaction.

2nd, with the LARGE number of Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz planes that depart and arrive into YOW and YYZ everyday, I think you're going to be hard pressed to schedule it to avoid any planes from crossing paths. I think the headache and costs involved in trying to work a schedule in that manner beyond just holding for 2 planes to takeoff in front of you isnt worth it. If you're changing the schedule for 1 specific plane it probably involves changing MANY other scheduled flights at that airport or other airports.

However, as with ANY other posts on avcanada, thats just my opinion.

[IflyaSewerpipe]

As far as the speedbrake. Often it's an ATC thing. You might want to start a descent, request it then get denied due to traffic or whatever reason. I can't tell you how many times coming in to YYZ we have no choice to use our brakes because they have to keep us above departing traffic.

[767]

I dont work for air can, but ill take a shot at it since im a fan of airlines.

With regards to aircraft taxing at the same time and they should have a proper scedule: it could be that flights dont leave on time possibly due to delays.

The speed brake issue. Like the above poster mentioned, it might be an ATC thing. I also think it might be the aircraft itself. The aircraft probably speeds up as it descends. Sure, the flaps can slow it down, but normally they dont put the flaps down at 35000 feet.

Air can pilots can explain better, im just guessing..

[AuxBatOn]

The speed brake issue. Like the above poster mentioned, it might be an ATC thing. I als think it might be the aircraft itself. The aircraft probably speeds up as it descends. Sure, the flaps can slow it down, but normally they dont put the flaps down at 35000 feet.

I don't know... IMHO, using speed brakes is the same as dumping buckets of fuel out the window. Unless you absolutely need it (most likely because someone screwed up, ATC or pilot, or for other ops restrictions from ATC), don't use it. There are other ways to control speed during the descent. May not be a player on severe clear days, but if you need to divert, you may wish you had that extra XXX lbs of fuel the speedbrakes took away from you.

[Jastapilot]

the best part about a descent into YYZ is every new controller changes the plan for you. first guy says keep the speed up, so you delay your descent, and rocket down. The second guy want's you to slow it up and STILL make your crossing altitude at said waypoint... DOH!, the third guy says speed's your discretion. It'll come in any combination on any given day. Too funny! Oh, and never trust the 'runway in use' until you're on the arrival freq.

[Brick Head]

Speed brakes are rarely used for speed control. They are more often than not, used to increase drag, which increases vertical speed during descent with the engines at idle. They are a tool at the disposal of the pilot. Used properly they increase the versatility of the aircraft with minimal impact on fuel consumption.

[AuxBatOn]

Speed brakes are rarely used for speed control. They are more often than not, used to increase drag, which increases vertical speed during descent with the engines at idle. They are a tool at the disposal of the pilot. Used properly they increase the versatility of the aircraft with minimal impact on fuel consumption.

You must be talking about spoilers then, because I'm 100% positive the speed brakes are used for... speed control

But even with spoilers, it creates drag, which means more fuel is dumped out the back than if you didn't use them. If you plan from far enough back, I'm sure you can achieve the same objective (idle descent on speed) without using 1 touch of spoiler.

[Brick Head]

You must be talking about spoilers then, because I'm 100% positive the speed brakes are used for... speed control

May I ask what your understanding is of the difference between speed brakes and spoilers?

[AuxBatOn]

You must be talking about spoilers then, because I'm 100% positive the speed brakes are used for... speed control

May I ask what your understanding is of the difference between speed brakes and spoilers?

A speed brake creates drag. They are installed anywhere on the aircraft (look at fighter jets, the F-18 for example, has a huge one on its back) Other than creating drag and modify the aerodynamic center of the aircraft, it doesn't do much.

Spoilers spoil lift and are usually installed on top of a wing. When deployed, spoilers will increase your stall speed, as well as increasing your drag.

In the end, both achieve more or less the same thing on a pilot point of view. You need to pitch down to maintain your speed, increasing your descent angle. However, if you're level and deploy spoilers, you will start descending because you just reduced the amount of lift developped by the wing. Deploying speed brakes won't make you descend, unless you pitch down to maintain your speed.

[Check Pilot]

Speed brakes get used because the departure controller is usually trying to get aircraft out below you and up to altitude a little farther out so the arrivals then get held high until in uncomfortably closer to the terminal area than most pilots like. I hate having to use the boards but the ATC folks usually explain the reason for the high altitude holds for arrivals. It seems it is becoming more common these days to be held high on arrival because, regardless of the economic downturn, traffic seems to be increasing in the terminal areas and thus more speed brake/spoiler deployments on the descent. Dump and dive is now much more normal than it was 5 years ago. It's got absolutely zip to do with fuel conservation. Hate 'em, have to do 'em sometimes, but it's part of jet flying these days so ya just gotta deal with it and git'er done. And it's still 250K below 10,000 on the way down to the arrival airport. Sometimes go down and slow down are really not compatible with each other so it takes a lot of "whoa" to get it done in a reasonable compliance with the rules without using the brakes.

[Brick Head]

Exactly,

In both cases drag is part of the equation when they are deployed. That drag is transferred into a higher decent rate when one maintains a constant speed. Rarely are speed brakes or spoilers used to slow down. They are used to get down. Well yes maybe an F18.

Although planning an idle decent to an airport is ideal, from a practical point of view it just can't be done at busy airports. For instance planning for a long down wind, in an engine idle decent, then using spoilers/speed brakes to shorten up if required, is more fuel efficient than planning for a short down wind, then left chugging down wind at low altitude.

Spoilers/speed brakes are a tool to be used wisely. They are not necessarily an indication of poor planning.

Check pilot above discussed the slam dunk arrivals that are very frequent these days. I would add that "overall" it is likely the most efficient way to operate a terminal area. Aircraft that are departing are burning way more fuel than those descending. Getting the departures higher faster is more important than providing a constant approach angle for aircraft that are arriving.

Knowing this I plan high all the time. Knowing full well I can use other forms of drag. Spoilers/flaps/gear as required to adjust to the needs of what ever I am handed by ATC.

[Dave T]

I don't work at AC but I will humour your questions.

1. While that plane may not require all the supplies for that flight they may for the flights following it. It is much easier to just fully stock generic items that don't spoil like pop and chips than to reconfigure for every flight. Also people are used to and like having a beverage on any flight, myself included. I am also always surprised at how much booze is sold on some flights, even short ones.

2. While it may make sense to stagger departures in a company as large as AC this is next to impossible. Flights leave late all the time for many different reasons. Also quite often you may have several flights connecting with several other flights that all come in and leave at the same time.

3. You have no idea why they were using the speed brakes. As mentioned earlier if you've planned an idle descent and then ATC changes plans on you often they are required to get yourself down. Otherwise you may need to fly farther away from the airport to slow down and get down.

4. I have no idea about the papers, AC has most likely looked at the issue and that is the best way for them to do it. The TV's are on all the planes because they fly all over the place. With maint, weather, ect it would be difficult to dedicate just a couple planes to one route. Also look the competition Westjet has them on all flights so you have to think about that as well.

Now some things like working on a little bit better customer service and not having planes waiting around for ground crews all the time certainly could save them some money.

[PilotFlying]

Great points, mcconnell14,

In short:

(1) Not every customer thinks as logically as you do about these things. I can't even begin to image the outrage that would result of no longer offering a 'free' beverage on a flight - however short it is. You saw what happened after the fuel surcharges and the second bag fees.

(2) The logistics of scheduling the aircraft of an airline the size of Air Canada is a carefully orchestrated art. The most import aspect of timing is the arrival time, not necessarily the departure time. Although these two go hand in hand, other factors play in such as ground delays, etc. The costs involved in synchronizing aircraft arrivals to facilitate expensive long haul connecting flights are more significant than the costs involved in minimal ground delays on the departure end. And, as 767 mentioned, the world we fly in is certainly anything but conducive to facilitating any schedule - however well designed it is - and often we end up with inevitable delays.

(3) Descents in jet aircraft are planned at or near idle for the very reason we're discussing here: fuel savings. Since an idle descent is planned at just that - idle - it limits your ability to increase the descent angle other than through the use the speed brakes. Our descents are planned using all the information available, i.e. forecast and current winds, expected crossing altitudes and prevailing weather conditions; however, it is often the case that these external factors are modified as the descent progresses. If any of these factors changes giving the aircraft a higher energy state, such as an increased tailwind component or the existence of icing conditions requiring the use of engine anti-ice (and therefore greater idle thrust), you will now find yourself above the optimum descent profile and will require speed brakes to compensate. And this is all assuming ATC will grant you the clearances required to facilitate this descent technique, which is almost never the case (as others have already mentioned). All this considered, is the use of speed brakes ideal? No. But it's still more efficient than starting down early and wasting fuel on a powered descent.

(4) In order to make the incredibly complex aircraft schedule discussed in (2) possible, airlines need aircraft to be versatile. And in order to be versatile, we need any given aircraft within a fleet to be able to operate on any given route. There are of course exceptions to this, but generally speaking it is true. Things change all the time - especially when irregular operations start playing into the equation - and by equipping certain aircraft within a fleet only for a particular route could be crippling in such a dynamic operation.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

[AuxBatOn]

I totally agree with all that was said. You cannot plan for everything, however, unless you have a valid reason, your "ideal" and initial plan should not include speed brakes/spoilers.

[PilotFlying]

I totally agree with all that was said. You cannot plan for everything, however, unless you have a valid reason, your "ideal" and initial plan should not include speed brakes/spoilers.

Absolutely!

[Brick Head]

I totally agree with all that was said. You cannot plan for everything, however, unless you have a valid reason, your "ideal" and initial plan should not include speed brakes/spoilers.

Simple question. Your going into a busy airport. You have no idea how far down wind you will go. Remember fuel consumption at low altitude is much higher than at high altitude. Do you plan for a long down wind and start down slightly late and use spoiler if required? Or do you start down exactly as would normally be planned and risk powering up for an extended period of time, at low altitude, if given a long down wind?

What is the more efficient way to plan the arrival?

A lot of this is intuition and experience. There really isn't a right or wrong answer. The use of spoilers is a tool, not an indication of poor planning

[whipline]

I agree with AuxBatOn. In the last 3500 hrs in the aircraft I'm on I have used the speedbrakes roughly 15 times. If you want to know how far downwind your going to go ask the controller. If your high increase your speed. You can make up roughly 6000 feet from top of descent just with speed management alone. If you know your getting high from a level off bring your speed back then increase it when your given lower. Everytime you pull the handle your wasting energy/fuel.

Out of curiosity, why is every departarture at AC a NADP 1? Why are the wing landing lights extended below 10,000? I always get a chuckle when we pull up to the gate the packs are turned off right away making everyone sweat saving 20 bucks in gas meanwhile you just wasted several hundred with the departure and arrival. Not to mention waiting for ground crew, which if I worked at AC would drive me crazy!

[PilotFlying]

Out of curiosity, why is every departarture at AC a NADP 1?

They're not. We use NADP 1 only when specifically required (i.e. YVR), or when operationally beneficial. Examples would be a departure noise limitation that prevents turns on course below a certain altitude (i.e. YYC), or when departing from a runway opposite the direction of flight; there's no point in going fast in the opposite direction of that intended. I believe this in the end saves more fuel than the added burn from the extra drag due to the delayed flap retraction.

Why are the wing landing lights extended below 10,000?

This is simply a 'see and be seen' philosophy. Worth the extra 20 bucks IMHO.

Not to mention waiting for ground crew, which if I worked at AC would drive me crazy!

It sure does!!!!!

Regards,

[Skyhunter]

Aux bat, you will soon be in situations where using the boards on descent will be part of the plan. Why, you will want to stay high as long as possible, the weather is IFR in YOD and it is backed up with everyone trying to get in at the end of a large mission. I am going to keep my formation as high as I can until I am sure I am in an approach sequence. If I have to hold I am already conserving gas. Unexpected holds and delays happen a lot, Viper takes a bird, someone clobbers the runway, hornet has to take a cable. I know I can stay high cause I can use the boards to get me down quickly when required. This is not even considering the formation requirements... giving your wingman some power to play with etc.

And yes for the rest, on the hornet, they are used both to get down quick as well as for slowing down. "I'll hit the breaks and he'll fly right by".... sorry couldn't resist.