Weight restrictions on airbuses

[AstroLounge]

This is why I have asked for specific flight numbers/dates if possible. I received an answer from corporate that includes ccs up to 6 people inculding a VP. I need examples now to send them so if you have flights that are weight restricted or have to move people, please send me a PM with the flight/date asap so I can forward it to them. They do not think there is a major problem from the info I received and I need specifics so they can check them out.

WHY should anyone need to supply FLT Numbers and Dates? THIS INFORMATION should be VERY EVIDENT and APPARENT at OCC and CLP.............unless of course you are insinuating THE IDIOTS are Running The Asylum (which is pretty much how I'd call it) and need all the help they can get. What is the problem?

 

[terib]

WHY should anyone need to supply FLT Numbers and Dates? THIS INFORMATION should be VERY EVIDENT and APPARENT at OCC and CLP.............unless of course you are insinuating THE IDIOTS are Running The Asylum (which is pretty much how I'd call it) and need all the help they can get. What is the problem?

Yes, you would think the people running the place would know whats going on, but they have proved to us over and over again they don't. I agree with you totally.

 

[mike33]

Can someone please, just answer the question about the weight and balance issues without bringing the east/west garbage into it? I went to nonrev home the other day (PHX-SAN) and was told I could not get on because it was weight restricted. WTF, it was an A319 they have a range of over 3000 miles, right? PHX-SAN is like 400 miles tops. I questioned the gate agent who just repeated "you cannot jumpseat the flight is weight restricted." Finally just went down and asked the captain if I could please get onboard so I could go home. He let me on, but still, WTF? Can someone just provide a factual, nonemotional, non-east/west garbage answer, please? I just want to understand how a plane with such LONG legs can be restricted on such a SHORT flight.

JMM

All i can say to your situation is that PHX-SAN should not even be a concern as far as MTOW. BUT, I have noticed that more and more flts are ending their days as RON's with more overnite fuel. Could the Company be sacrificing revenue in one sense ( pax ) to save in another ( fuel cost at another station )?
Also known as tankering fuel.
Just a thought

 

[sharktooth]

Piney -- Why CLP dosen't work anymore is a mystery. Maybe it can't handle the increased number of aircraft and new cities, who knows. But I do know that having w/b in each station worked alot better and more accurate. And you didn't have to move pax to the back of an empty airplane.

From various snippets from people that should know, I consider that the SABRE divorce was a pretty costly affair and involves W&B issues as well.

Tempe's decision to go with less accurate table look-ups rather than formulas required greater "padding" for safety from the FAA. Another example of saving money in one department but costing many times as much in another, reducing costs reduces revenue, a sort of inadvertently (hopefully unintentional) cutting out muscle and bone while in the process of cutting out fat. It would be like saving fuel cost by tankering but losing many times as much revenue because of reduced payload capacity.

I believe the employees do have a voice in combatting the marginalizing impulses of Tempe. All it takes is a little exercise.

For instance, sitting at the end of a runway burning down fuel so one can do a "reduced power" takeoff is silly (and costly) when the paperwork allows one to do a max power takeoff at the present weight. Seen that one several times from a jumpseat.

Call dispatch/scheduling if something does not seem correct. Use the agents phone. I do not accept "Yeah, the computer says you're illegal" for some activity. I want to know a reason other than "the computer put up a red warning". Same thing with W&B. Demanding a signed fax from the appropriate person before push can get a lot of people moving in the right direction, like with the third "FAA waiver" in a row for an MEL, big difference between verbal assurances over the phone and something in writing.

 

[Planemx]

They have a harder time answering easier questions than this.... even if they tanker fuel it would have to be A LOT of fuel from PHX - SAN to be restricted.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

They have a harder time answering easier questions than this.... even if they tanker fuel it would have to be A LOT of fuel from PHX - SAN to be restricted.

Does the approach to SAN have anything to do with it? I loved landing there before they extended the runway, you think they were close now, you probably could strike a match against a plane before.

 

[Planemx]

Does the approach to SAN have anything to do with it? I loved landing there before they extended the runway, you think they were close now, you probably could strike a match against a plane before.

The approach has nothing to do with the amount of fuel req'd to fly the segment.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

The approach has nothing to do with the amount of fuel req'd to fly the segment.

More fuel means more weight, the angle of approach at SAN is alot greater than most approaches. If the pilot doesn't flare up, he could damage landing gear. That's what I am implying.

 

[mike33]

even if they tanker fuel it would have to be A LOT of fuel from PHX - SAN to be restricted.
[/quote

Well if you start ur day with 15k on an orig then you must have ended ur day leaving with alot of fuel when you should have only had abot 7k-8k to end it.



MONDAY

 

[Planemx]

Monday...

 

[dariencc]

More fuel means more weight, the angle of approach at SAN is alot greater than most approaches. If the pilot doesn't flare up, he could damage landing gear. That's what I am implying.

Did I really just read that???????

 

[soc-hpjester]

I think what Buffalo Joe means is he thinks the appr. to rny 27 is steeper than 9, but I don't see by how much.

 

[tadjr]

WHY should anyone need to supply FLT Numbers and Dates? THIS INFORMATION should be VERY EVIDENT and APPARENT at OCC and CLP.............unless of course you are insinuating THE IDIOTS are Running The Asylum (which is pretty much how I'd call it) and need all the help they can get. What is the problem?

No comment. If they need someone to spoon feed them info then so be it. Then they wont have any excuse to say there is nothing wrong. I'm sure everyone is so busy trying to cya regarding delays that the real numbers and info are being lost in manager land. Lets not try to show something isnt working and instead just cover it up and hope it goes away. This is US management tactic at its finest.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Did I really just read that???????

Two Planes same weight, Plane A comes down at a 12% angle and plane B comes down at a 6%, Plane B will land with less force. The numbers of angle decent are just example, I don't know the exact angle, but I know SAN is greater than most airports, this is just from my observation of which airports I have landed in.

And soc-hpjester, I never been on or seen an approach from the West at SAN, so I wouldn't know. I fly into SJC quite often and I landed from the north for the first time in about 21 years. I took off from both directions there. SFO I would love a Runway 1 approach, but that never happened and I hear that is like hitting the lottery.

 

[sharktooth]

More fuel means more weight, the angle of approach at SAN is alot greater than most approaches. If the pilot doesn't flare up, he could damage landing gear. That's what I am implying.

Visual descent for RWY 27 is 3.5 degrees giving one 7600 ft of FAA approved limits, considered "normal" by experienced pilots.

While the parking garage on the approach end of RWY 27 can be intimidating, if one is on visual glide-slope, there should not be a problem.

and, you are correct, BJ. The steeper the approach, the more energy that must be conserved to the flare (generally, with more speed) in order to properly round-out and touch down close to on-speed and avoiding high sink-rate touchdowns (crashing it on).

It is pretty impressive seeing a 747 land over the parking garage.