Hammer Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Funny, today my TACC Form 200 had several extra points that weren't in the 1801. Guess that's why we have two checklist steps for flight plans these days... Those are called climb and descent points.
Guest Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Those are called climb and descent points. You need points to tell you when to do such basic things?
ak47 Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 You need points to tell you when to do such basic things? No. As has been discussed all over this board, TACC is attempting to gnat's ass everyone's fuel. One good way to do that is to figure out when you're going to stop climbing and start descending. Those big power changes play a pretty big role in fuel planning. C-5, for example, will burn about 30k lbs in the first hour and <15k in the last hour. If they don't want you carrying extra gas, then they need to figure out exactly how much you need within a few thousand pounds and not 10k+. They call that inefficient.
Guest Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 No. As has been discussed all over this board, TACC is attempting to gnat's ass everyone's fuel. Oh. Bummer.
BolterKing Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 No. As has been discussed all over this board, TACC is attempting to gnat's ass everyone's fuel. One good way to do that is to figure out when you're going to stop climbing and start descending. Those big power changes play a pretty big role in fuel planning. C-5, for example, will burn about 30k lbs in the first hour and <15k in the last hour. If they don't want you carrying extra gas, then they need to figure out exactly how much you need within a few thousand pounds and not 10k+. They call that inefficient. A few diverts for gas will stop that nonsense.
Whitman Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 A few diverts for gas will stop that nonsense. Will it? It seems that TACC is quite comfortable with slightly increasing the risk of diverting to reduce the outrageous costs of carrying unnecessary fuel. Have you seen the numbers? It's staggering. I'll see if I can find them.
Prozac Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Will it? It seems that TACC is quite comfortable with slightly increasing the risk of diverting to reduce the outrageous costs of carrying unnecessary fuel. Have you seen the numbers? It's staggering. I'll see if I can find them. Can't tell if sarcastic. Anything looks staggering when applied over a large enough sample. I'm all for saving gas and operating efficiently. However, when you remove the chutes and then start eyeballing that ridiculously heavy 30lb galley....c'mon. Seems another thread takes a direction of its own...
StoleIt Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Can't tell if sarcastic. Anything looks staggering when applied over a large enough sample. I'm all for saving gas and operating efficiently. However, when you remove the chutes and then start eyeballing that ridiculously heavy 30lb galley....c'mon. Seems another thread takes a direction of its own... If they wanted to get serious they should think about removing the harmonic belts out back. I think those things weight several thousand pounds total.
disgruntledemployee Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 This is why I tell the pax terminal I can't carry pax...they cause me to burn more gas and thus more likely to call BINGO to ATC/Tower. Out
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now