Ryanair - Empty rows
Discussion
thinfourth2 said:
Seeing planes are normally a tripod with one leg at the front can they weigh themselves on the ground and work out cog
Hi,some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Rgds.
Edited by khaosai on Saturday 12th February 20:58
Silver993tt said:
D_T_W said:
It used to be Rows 1 & 2, but the bloody passengers kept complaining they weren't alloed to sit in the front seats, so it got changed to rows 3 & 4. Most crews ignored the change, simply to keep the passengers that little bit further away. It's bloody annoying when you've got 3 people staring at you and pestering you when you're trying to finish all the paperwork on a short flight, easier to keep row 1 and 2 empty and get some peace.
Must admit though, rule 2 was great. 6 rows between you and the pax, bliss. Caused no end of problems boarding though, even if you strapped the tables down, they's still climb over to get the window seat
Yeh, bloody passengers, eh? They're a real pain in the arse, better they weren't even let on board..............anybody would think that they contribute to the airline employees salaries and the airlines profits Must admit though, rule 2 was great. 6 rows between you and the pax, bliss. Caused no end of problems boarding though, even if you strapped the tables down, they's still climb over to get the window seat
After all, the money the staff gets paid comes out of some black hole that isn't their concern since they have enough on their plates doing their very complicated jobs.If you want somebody to blow sunshine up your arse while pouring you a gin and slimline tonic, I politely suggest you fly BA. I was aware how uncomplicated my job was, but it doesn't mean I need to put up with an obnoxious
who thinks they should be treated like royalty because they paid £50 to get on the plane. My view was and always will be, get on the plane, sit down and shut the fk up. If you want a gold plated service, don't be such a tight git. My job was to kick you out of the plane in an emergency, anything beyond that was me being polite. And I was one of the nicer supervisors.Ryanair is a flying bus service, the sooner people realise that and don't expect the earth the better. It used to be a decent airline to work for and fly with, but that all changed when they started recruiting in less desirable areas. Hence why I no longer work there.
khaosai said:
Hi,
some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
What aircraft are we talking about here? Four tons out on 320/737 size would most likely see my posty deliver my P45...
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Fair up to a point.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
bks, you're delving into VMCG/VMCA and for take off that's got cock all to do with FLEX/reduced thrust take off. That entire paragraph lost sense after your first sentence.
With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Again, what aircraft are you referring to here?
Rgds. (Confused Chuck)
some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
What aircraft are we talking about here? Four tons out on 320/737 size would most likely see my posty deliver my P45...
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Fair up to a point.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
b
ks, you're delving into VMCG/VMCA and for take off that's got cock all to do with FLEX/reduced thrust take off. That entire paragraph lost sense after your first sentence. With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Again, what aircraft are you referring to here?
Rgds. (Confused Chuck)
Edited by khaosai on Saturday 12th February 20:58
IM NUTS2 said:
mattdaniels said:
IM_NUTS2, eharding - give it up. You should realise by now that passengers who have flown regularly know far more about W+B, CoG, load sheets and safe commercial flight operations than the professionals.
Is that last comment directed at me about not knowing the above?mattdaniels said:
It's directed at you and eharding for *knowing* about the above. Whereas passengers just think they do.
Wow, you're really amazing, I mean you're a hero, a god. How on earth does a business do without your services, I can't understand it? I didn't realise it required such a high IQ to load up and drive a bus (as it's been referred to so much here) 
khaosai said:
thinfourth2 said:
Seeing planes are normally a tripod with one leg at the front can they weigh themselves on the ground and work out cog
Hi,some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Rgds.
Edited by khaosai on Saturday 12th February 20:58
I've always wandered why they don't wiegh passengers it can't be that hard to have a set of scales at check-in.
thinfourth2 said:
I'm surprised more planes don't do this as they don't weigh passengers and i'd imagine a plane full of americans is a good bit heavier then a plane full of japanese folk.
I've always wandered why they don't wiegh passengers it can't be that hard to have a set of scales at check-in.
Ryanair, in association with Weight Watchers..I've always wandered why they don't wiegh passengers it can't be that hard to have a set of scales at check-in.
"Pay up ya fat fecker!"
Now there's motivation for you.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Done a lot of Perf A have we? Because what you posted about Take Off Performance was rubbish!
Hi,fair enough point regarding Perf A, only enough study to pass the exam.
Stuff i mentioned was from a tech Bulletin based on using altenate CG on the B777.
Rgds.
Edited by khaosai on Sunday 13th February 10:05
Chuck328 said:
khaosai said:
Hi,
some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
What aircraft are we talking about here? Four tons out on 320/737 size would most likely see my posty deliver my P45...
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Fair up to a point.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
bks, you're delving into VMCG/VMCA and for take off that's got cock all to do with FLEX/reduced thrust take off. That entire paragraph lost sense after your first sentence.
With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Again, what aircraft are you referring to here?
Rgds. (Confused Chuck)
Hi,some aircraft are fitted with a sensor which gives the actual weight whilst on the ground. Its interesting for sure, as i have seen it indicating 4 tons greater than the weight that had been worked out on the loadsheet based on the standard passenger and baggage weights most companies use.
What aircraft are we talking about here? Four tons out on 320/737 size would most likely see my posty deliver my P45...
When it comes to CofG its basically a take off performance consideration, as it can affect it greatly. Boeing present aircraft performance based on the most conservative position of CG which happens to be the forward CG limit. Daily operation differs by this quite a bit.
Fair up to a point.
Moving the CG aft reduces the pitching moment which results in a reduced downward tail load requied to trim the aircraft. Wing lift is also reduced which means less speed for the same pitch attitude and weight. Reduced speeds mean less runway used up during the take off roll and reduced tail loads mean reduced trim drag and thus better climb capability. You can also take off at greater weights and if if no runway performance limits then better assumed temperature values which prolong engine life.
b
ks, you're delving into VMCG/VMCA and for take off that's got cock all to do with FLEX/reduced thrust take off. That entire paragraph lost sense after your first sentence. With this method of alternate CG you get less loading flexibility but greater take off weights.
Again, what aircraft are you referring to here?
Rgds. (Confused Chuck)
Edited by khaosai on Saturday 12th February 20:58
sorry for the confusion. The 4 ton difference was on the B744.
The alternate CG stuff is for the B777, and the stuff i mentioned taken from a flight ops tech bulletin.
Rgds.
Rgds.
IM NUTS2 said:
Nope, a lot of them Fly for just Ryanair as they have enough flghts to go round.
I meant my comment from a tax perspective. To be self-employed, a HMRC requirement is that you have more than one client, otherwise they are classed as an employee of RyanAir and must be under PAYE.IM NUTS2 said:
Flintstone said:
Relatively few. HMRC are rubbing their hands together in anticipation.
Why are they? the few i know in the UK all pay their taxes and the rest are irish or from other european country's (sic) and live abroad, so i see no problems.Silver993tt said:
IM NUTS2 said:
Nope, a lot of them Fly for just Ryanair as they have enough flghts to go round.
I meant my comment from a tax perspective. To be self-employed, a HMRC requirement is that you have more than one client, otherwise they are classed as an employee of RyanAir and must be under PAYE.tting themselves. Rightly so.Silver993tt said:
I meant my comment from a tax perspective. To be self-employed, a HMRC requirement is that you have more than one client, otherwise they are classed as an employee of RyanAir and must be under PAYE.
The few UK crew i know are employed directly by Ryanair and the others are contracted through agency's.
Flight deck crew could get around that easy if they do private flight training
Flintstone said:
The second quote answers the first. The RYR crew that I know are UK based, paying (some) tax as 'self employed' and quietly stting themselves. Rightly so.
Up to them if they want to get screwed by HMRC but not all crew do that.tting themselves. Rightly so.IM NUTS2 said:
Up to them if they want to get screwed by HMRC but not all crew do that.
It's all part of the stty RYR culture. All but those with long service ie, those that signed on before the screws were turned even tighter, are registered as 'self employed' except with a single source of income that doesn't wash. The sooner the various authorities clamp down on that shower of ste that RYR call their management the better.IM NUTS2 said:
The few UK crew i know are employed directly by Ryanair and the others are contracted through agency's.
Agency's what?IM NUTS2 said:
Flight deck crew could get around that easy if they do private flight training
So they have to spend the thick end of £5000 to get an instructor rating then compete with the established instructors (and take their hours)? There's also the small matter of flight time limitations and everyone knows RYR captains are maxed out. Not so the FOs once their (bought) 500 hours are used up I suppose but even they'll have trouble finding the extra work.So, no. They can't "...get around that easy (sic)..."
Edited by Flintstone on Friday 18th February 15:28
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff