Hot heavy departure

[Eric Mc]

I think we just have to learn to live with it.

[JuniorD]

On more than one occassion, early evening usually, I've went into pushback in the expectation (i.e. hope) that the ambient temperature will have dropped 1 or 2 degrees by the time the holding point is reached. Mostly you know you would be able to get away anyway, it's just that you want the maths to work out.

[Eric Mc]

Back in 1999 I flew from Luxor to Aswan in a tired old Boeing 737-230. The plane took off just before lunch time and the temperature was well into the 30s. It was the longest take off run I can ever remember. At one point I thought the pilot was planning on driving us all the way to Aswan.

[tim0409]

Yertis said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

What the f does that have to do with anything?

Why, just why, do you feel the need to respond like that?

Indeed, it's needlessly offensive and not something we should tolerate on PH.

[perdu]

IforB said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

BOH said:

Let me guess, this was an Airbus, right?

What the f does that have to do with anything?

Because they are f'in slugs.

In answer to the OP's question, the reality is that this happens a lot more than we'd like.

From an operational point of view, a tech stop for fuel is a pain in the proverbial wasting a lot of time and money. We want to avoid them at all costs if we can.

Often there's not a lot in it and a few hundred kilos would make the difference, but the rules are that if the figures say no, then you either have to offload passengers and/or bags to reduce weight or put on the fuel you can and go somewhere with a longer runway to top up the tanks. The second option is very much preferable compared to dumping passengers!

Now that is the answer I needed, concise and convincing thanks

I dont mince away at 'fruity' language* and always enjoy a detailed informative post

(*I've had enough addressed to me and reciprocated similarly in my time)

[Eric Mc]

Is there a reason why Airbuses are sluggish? Are they a tad underpowered - or more probably - set to power levels that give the best economy?

[V8A*ndy]

This has just given me a flash back to a holiday in Corfu.

Excel airways if my memory is correct.

I suppose my question is how does the pilot know how heavy the luggage is. Is it an estimate or does it rely on check-in weight?

The missus and I had got caught up in an air traffic controller dispute and upon arriving at the mayhem at the airport our luggage was just passed on through at check-in as fast as possible.

The guy sitting beside me on the plane was having a right rant about how the baggage wasn't weighed at check in.

I asked why this was a problem and he said "just wait until we get to the end of the runway, it's a bit tight"

Plane was full and it did seem a bit tight as it seemed forever getting of the ground. Although if he hadn't of mentioned it I'd would have never given it a second thought.

[Eric Mc]

They use standard weights.

[J4CKO]

Eric Mc said:

Is there a reason why Airbuses are sluggish? Are they a tad underpowered - or more probably - set to power levels that give the best economy?

Isnt that like saying "Audis are slow", dont Airbus make a load of different models, of different sizes with different engines ?

I remember chatting to a lady pilot about the BAE 146 she had been flying, I asked her if it was good to fly and she said that it wasnt really, I said I assumed it must be pretty good as it was fairly small and it had four engines, she said "Yes, but they are four very weedy engines"

[Yertis]

Eric Mc said:

Is there a reason why Airbuses are sluggish? Are they a tad underpowered - or more probably - set to power levels that give the best economy?

I've a friend at Airbus who is well placed to answer that question – I'll find out for you.

[J4CKO]

Yertis said:

Eric Mc said:

Is there a reason why Airbuses are sluggish? Are they a tad underpowered - or more probably - set to power levels that give the best economy?

I've a friend at Airbus who is well placed to answer that question – I'll find out for you.

Looking at a 737 vs a 320 through my inexpert eyes, the Airbus is a bit heavier but has more thrust to compensate, it isnt like comparing a 105 bhp Skoda Superb with a similar sized Audi 3.0 tdi.

I cant imagine Airbus would produce something vastly less powerful, Airliners (I would imagine) are not specified with power to please pilots and give them willy waving rights on PPRUNE but to ensure safe operation and enough power to do the job in the circumstances they are going to operate in ?

[itwasntandy]

J4CKO said:

Looking at a 737 vs a 320 through my inexpert eyes, the Airbus is a bit heavier but has more thrust to compensate, it isnt like comparing a 105 bhp Skoda Superb with a similar sized Audi 3.0 tdi.

I cant imagine Airbus would produce something vastly less powerful, Airliners (I would imagine) are not specified with power to please pilots and give them willy waving rights on PPRUNE but to ensure safe operation and enough power to do the job in the circumstances they are going to operate in ?

also depends on the a320 variant

e.g. if A319 is going to be much more sprightly than an A321.

[IforB]

Airbuses are generally less powerful and a damn sight slower in the cruise than the equivalent Boeing. In the case of the A320 series (especially the A321) they have short legs too. Unless you have the ACT (Auxilliary Centre Tanks) fitted, then you struggle to get the range to go far.

They are fuel efficient and safe and the cabins are wider, but meh, they're not exactly a fun machine to fly.

We've currently got an all airbus fleet, but I've got the pleasure of heading out to Seattle to sort out the new 737 replacements. I can't wait. Long 73's might be a pain to land nicely, but they are a lot better to pole about in.

[itwasntandy]

IforB said:

Airbuses are generally less powerful and a damn sight slower in the cruise than the equivalent Boeing. In the case of the A320 series (especially the A321) they have short legs too. Unless you have the ACT (Auxilliary Centre Tanks) fitted, then you struggle to get the range to go far.

They are fuel efficient and safe and the cabins are wider, but meh, they're not exactly a fun machine to fly.

We've currently got an all airbus fleet, but I've got the pleasure of heading out to Seattle to sort out the new 737 replacements. I can't wait. Long 73's might be a pain to land nicely, but they are a lot better to pole about in.

This is historically true. Newer gen Airbuses have comparable thrust/weight and cruise speed to equiv boeings though?
i.e. A380, A350XWB both seem to have performance equiv to 747/777…

[IforB]

itwasntandy said:

IforB said:

Airbuses are generally less powerful and a damn sight slower in the cruise than the equivalent Boeing. In the case of the A320 series (especially the A321) they have short legs too. Unless you have the ACT (Auxilliary Centre Tanks) fitted, then you struggle to get the range to go far.

They are fuel efficient and safe and the cabins are wider, but meh, they're not exactly a fun machine to fly.

We've currently got an all airbus fleet, but I've got the pleasure of heading out to Seattle to sort out the new 737 replacements. I can't wait. Long 73's might be a pain to land nicely, but they are a lot better to pole about in.

This is historically true. Newer gen Airbuses have comparable thrust/weight and cruise speed to equiv boeings though?
i.e. A380, A350XWB both seem to have performance equiv to 747/777…

I believe they are better, but I haven't any direct experience of them.

[MondeoMan1981]

I'm assuming you were on LS112 which was done by the Titan A320 that Jet2 have on lease, I think their only Airbus in the fleet. Saw it on stand at Glasgow in July when we travelled with Jet2 to Turkey, nice livery!

If the takeoff was landward then they will not have wanted to take any risks on their V speeds and subsequent climb performance. They didn't pick up any pax in Venice did they?

[Willy Nilly]

Do you aviation types speak in abbreviations in real life?

[anonymous-user]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

BOH said:

Let me guess, this was an Airbus, right?

What the f does that have to do with anything?

Because the smaller ones are underpowered and tend to suffer performance problems taking off from Corfu.

[anonymous-user]

MondeoMan1981 said:

I'm assuming you were on LS112 which was done by the Titan A320 that Jet2 have on lease, I think their only Airbus in the fleet. Saw it on stand at Glasgow in July when we travelled with Jet2 to Turkey, nice livery!

If the takeoff was landward then they will not have wanted to take any risks on their V speeds and subsequent climb performance. They didn't pick up any pax in Venice did they?

It's not really about taking risks.

You simply perform a performance calculation which gives the take off speeds. If you're too heavy the calculation tells you and you either offload some bags/passengers or stop somewhere for down route fuel.

If you're ok then off you go.

If there's high ground affecting the departure then there will be a special single engined departure procedure to follow which avoids the high ground, taking into account your reduced rate of climb on one engine.

Edited by el stovey on Thursday 3rd September 23:13

[anonymous-user]

perdu said:

Glosphil said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

What the f does that have to do with anything?

Perhaps if you asked him nicely with less implied bad language he might enlighten you to the reason for his comment.

As someone who might be travelling in a modern airliner I'd enjoy hearing/reading the answer to GG's question especially as she's just given a very clear answer to the OP

It all sounds great but she doesn't actually answer any of the OPs questions at all.

He asked how uncomfortable the flight crew would be and how often it happens.

The answer is that it depends on what type of aircraft it is, as take off performance differs hugely from one to the other.

It wouldn't make them feel uncomfortable as they follow set routes designed to avoid the high ground both on a normal departure and in the event of an engine failure.

The take off performance calculations ensure they can achieve the climb gradients required on one or two engines.