A bit of help

Clonmel1000

Hello Guys

Looking for a bit of help on something. You'll have to excuse me if this post doesent make a whole lot of sense but I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to things like this.

I was on an EI flight from Arecife to Dublin last night. Flight due to leave at 19.50hrs. Boarded as normal at 19.20hrs everything seemed fine. About 20.15 pilot comes on to say we couldent take off for ten minutes more because of heavy air traffic on our route home and we had missed our take off slot. Came on about 20 minutes later and stated same thing. About an hr later we were told that due to unforeseen winds on our runway we couldent take off and fuel would have to be taken off and we would divert to Faro to refuel for the rest of journey on to Dublin. We were taken off the plane in Arrecife and spent about 30 mins in terminal. We took off finally at 10.40pm 3 hrs late and flew to Malaga(meant to be going to Faro but the airport there was closed) where we re-fuelled again. This time we dident disembark and finally got to Dublin at about 4am.

Just wondering why the wind in Arrecife(I dident notice it windy) would affect our flight path home? why we had to take off fuel? why we had to then land in Malaga to refuel? Ended up having to cancel work today had a 2.5 hr drive home from Dublin but moreso curious than anything else. Hope this post makes sense

Thanks

A319er

Lanzarote airport problems explained,so the wind direction is an issue which means the weight of the loaded plane has at times to be reduced,either fuel bags or people have to removed.

vevo

There are a variety of possibilities with this.

Temperature, passenger and cargo load, fuel price etc.

The temperature can effect take-off distance, as can the weight of the aircraft. Aer Lingus operate Airbus A320/A321 aircraft whilst Ryanair operate Boeing 737-800. Depending on the engine variant used, the thrust can be much higher allowing a shorter take-off distance.

Ryanair like to operate with as little cargo (luggage) as possible so the payload would be lower, Aer Lingus operate as a full scheduled airline and will take opportunity to carry any cargo for extra cash, even if this could mean an en-route stopover. The extra fee's for the cargo would override the cost of the landing in Faro.

The Airbus has the shortest take-off length at 2,560m, Boeing 737-800 at 2,652m.

Arrecife airport is 2400m in length, so both are weight restricted. Bearing in mind the full take-off length is also restricted due to the need to factor in stopping before the end of the runway in the event (very rare) of an incident.

The airbus also carries more passengers than the Boeing so, less passengers, less luggage allows more fuel and hence the Boeing can (normally) make it direct.

highlydebased

The wind wasn't affecting the flight path home but rather it affected how much fuel (for weight reasons) could be taken on departure to deliver the required takeoff performance. Looking at last nights weather for there it was a little bit gusty combined with the performance needed because of the terrain pretty much explains it.

Stopping at Faro for fuel is pretty common in the winter months I've noticed.

Shamrock841

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Hello Guys

Looking for a bit of help on something. You'll have to excuse me if this post doesent make a whole lot of sense but I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to things like this.

I was on an EI flight from Arecife to Dublin last night. Flight due to leave at 19.50hrs. Boarded as normal at 19.20hrs everything seemed fine. About 20.15 pilot comes on to say we couldent take off for ten minutes more because of heavy air traffic on our route home and we had missed our take off slot. Came on about 20 minutes later and stated same thing. About an hr later we were told that due to unforeseen winds on our runway we couldent take off and fuel would have to be taken off and we would divert to Faro to refuel for the rest of journey on to Dublin. We were taken off the plane in Arrecife and spent about 30 mins in terminal. We took off finally at 10.40pm 3 hrs late and flew to Malaga(meant to be going to Faro but the airport there was closed) where we re-fuelled again. This time we dident disembark and finally got to Dublin at about 4am.

Just wondering why the wind in Arrecife(I dident notice it windy) would affect our flight path home? why we had to take off fuel? why we had to then land in Malaga to refuel? Ended up having to cancel work today had a 2.5 hr drive home from Dublin but moreso curious than anything else. Hope this post makes sense

Thanks

It was more than likely the winds at cruising altitude (strong headwind) that the crew were referring to, the stonger the headwind component, the slower you fly over the ground so more fuel is consumed. Being a holiday flight I imagine there was near enough a full compliment of passengers and baggage which in turn means the aircraft is heavier (increases fuel burn).

I hope this helps some bit and I'm sure some of the more knowledgeable posters on here will give you a better explanation than myself!

Alaba320

As already mentioned Arrecife is a strange cat. The runway is relatively short and as far as I know there are some high ground/obstacles to clear after take off. To get airborne before they run out of runway available and to get a better climb gradient for obstacle clearance they either have to be lighter or the headwind has to be stronger. You mention that "it didn't seem windy" to you... That's the problem.. If it was windy you may have been able to get airborne on before running out of runway without the need to unload some weight. I'm guessing that the winds at the planned take off time would have allowed for a take off, but due to the delays after missing your slot the winds must have died down in the meantime.

It's actually a really really common problem with flights from Arrecife.

Be thankful that the captain decided to unload fuel rather than passengers, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to just take a few passengers off and not have to stop on the way home. I'm presuming this was an Aer Lingus flight, and this is the reason I prefer to pay the extra couple of quid to go with them.

Strong head winds home to Dublin. Easy way of thinking of it. For easy of explaining let's say it's a thousand miles home, usually again for ease you fly at 250kts over the ground IT takes 4 hours but because of strong winds you fly at 200kts it now takes 5 hours. So, the aircraft has to take more fuel to cover that, but because fuel equals weight, you are more heavy. With a full flight of holiday makers and buckets and spades the aircraft it it carried the fuel needed to fly home would be over weight. So they split it, carry all the passengers and buckets and spades but elect for a tech stop for fuel on the way home.

Again don't nit pick the response because of the figures given I used them for ease of explanation.

Clonmel1000

Lads thanks so much for the explanations and taking the time to respond. Really appreciated and makes perfect(ish) sense now

Tenger

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Lads thanks so much for the explanations and taking the time to respond. Really appreciated and makes perfect(ish) sense now

The problem of course is that the captain cant really go into such details over the PA, it would confuse so many people and he is more useful crunching the numbers to try to figure out a way to make it home.

I know of a recent ACE-DUB flight (>90% fully booked) were they had the dilemma of RWY03 with a tailwind of 10 kts, or RWY21 with a headwind of 10kts. The problem there is that using RWY03 allows them full fuel, but if the 10kts goes up then the A320 cannot handle that, then they are in a fuel unload situation like the OP.....using RWY21 means less fuel (shorter) and a stop in Faro on the way home. (I may btw be mixing up 03 and 21....was told to me.)

Irish Steve

To clarify this a little, there are very specific regulations regarding the performance and flight capabilities during departure with one engine failed, to ensure safety in the event of an engine failing at the critical moment of take off, and for some airports, these requirement can and do present very specific and limiting parameters that mean either carrying less than a full load, or less than full fuel, or less of both, and that can then affect the trip, especially if there are then strong jet stream winds that make the trip longer than expected.

This flight was unfortunate, there are at least 3 factors that affected it. The first was the flow control delay, which is simply down to congested airspace. Then the performance issue kicked in, and unlike refuelling, most airports and operators will not allow defueling with passengers on board, so that was another significant delay, and then the originally planned top up airfield wasn't available,

That said, it's not uncommon on some routes at certain times of the year, there are regular diversions into Shannon to pick up extra fuel by 757's that are operating longer trans atlantic routes, and if the winds get above a certain strength, , they ain't going to get to their destination on the fuel they can carry, so the only option is to drop into somewhere en route to top up.

Another example is the BA London City trans atlantic flight that calls in Shannon westbound, which has the advantage of allowing the passengers to clear immigration and customs, but the real reason is that there is no way they can lift enough fuel out of the runway at City, it's just too short to allow the aircraft to operate the flight non stop

PukkaStukka

Irish Steve wrote: »

To clarify this a little, there are very specific regulations regarding the performance and flight capabilities during departure with one engine failed, to ensure safety in the event of an engine failing at the critical moment of take off, and for some airports, these requirement can and do present very specific and limiting parameters that mean either carrying less than a full load, or less than full fuel, or less of both, and that can then affect the trip, especially if there are then strong jet stream winds that make the trip longer than expected.

This flight was unfortunate, there are at least 3 factors that affected it. The first was the flow control delay, which is simply down to congested airspace. Then the performance issue kicked in, and unlike refuelling, most airports and operators will not allow defueling with passengers on board, so that was another significant delay, and then the originally planned top up airfield wasn't available,

That said, it's not uncommon on some routes at certain times of the year, there are regular diversions into Shannon to pick up extra fuel by 757's that are operating longer trans atlantic routes, and if the winds get above a certain strength, , they ain't going to get to their destination on the fuel they can carry, so the only option is to drop into somewhere en route to top up.

Another example is the BA London City trans atlantic flight that calls in Shannon westbound, which has the advantage of allowing the passengers to clear immigration and customs, but the real reason is that there is no way they can lift enough fuel out of the runway at City, it's just too short to allow the aircraft to operate the flight non stop

Excellent post that explains it all very well.

Just to add my own experience depart Arrecife a in 1997. We were on a Futura flight to Dublin with an Aer Lingus flight departing straight after us. Both aircraft appeared to be identifical 737's and similarly loaded with pax. However our Futura flight had to make a pitstop in Seville to refuel, whereas the Aer Lingus flight did it all in one hop.

I queried this with a buddy in Aer Lingus to try and understand why we couldn't do the route in one go as well. He made two points. Firstly our aircraft must have been heavier with pax / baggage and therefore they had to fuel it lighter to maintain the margins of safety during takeoff from what is a short runway. Secondly we took off overland from runway 03 and there are a few very high peaks below during the climb. So it's essential to climb quite quickly initially and have something in hand if there's a problem with an engine. A heavy fully laden plane is the last thing needed in such circumstances!

Stinicker

Do Aer Lingus ever send the A330 down there?

Jack1985

Stinicker wrote: »

Do Aer Lingus ever send the A330 down there?

No immediate plans to, although there are plans to deploy the A330 onto the 402/403.

A319er

Well oddly enough one was there this morning due Dublin airspace temp short closure whilst Garda chased a car in the helicopter, BFS got two 320s , but not a
Regular occurrence

PukkaStukka

Stinicker wrote: »

Do Aer Lingus ever send the A330 down there?

Jack1985 wrote: »

No immediate plans to, although there are plans to deploy the A330 onto the 402/403.

Given the tales ventilated here lately about the vagaries of the short strip in ACE, would a heavy 330 be even more susceptible to those same problems ?

eatmyshorts

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Given the tales ventilated here lately about the vagaries of the short strip in ACE, would a heavy 330 be even more susceptible to those same problems ?

Probably not, due to the fact that it would be relatively lightly loaded in relation to its capabilities.
I haven't been to ACE in years, so not too well up on its limitations.

And they're not "tales", they're facts.

PukkaStukka

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Probably not, due to the fact that it would be relatively lightly loaded in relation to its capabilities.
I haven't been to ACE in years, so not too well up on its limitations.

And they're not "tales", they're facts.

The limitations are well documented here in the tales facts!

ProfessorPlum

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Given the tales ventilated here lately about the vagaries of the short strip in ACE, would a heavy 330 be even more susceptible to those same problems ?

It's not so much the 'short' strip as the big hill at ACE. AT 2400m it's a lot longer than 16/34 at DUB and only 90m longer than Faro - a regular haunt for the a330. The A330 has much more powerful engines, and as eatmyshorts said, will be a lot less laden than for its usual TA sectors - it could be carrying 40 odd tons less fuel than for a west coast for example.

homerjay2005

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Probably not, due to the fact that it would be relatively lightly loaded in relation to its capabilities.
I haven't been to ACE in years, so not too well up on its limitations.

And they're not "tales", they're facts.

surely Acerfies runway would be too short for a 330?

as regards the hill, you'd think they have build the bloody runway at an angle that allows it to avoid the hill!

eatmyshorts

homerjay2005 wrote: »

surely Acerfies runway would be too short for a 330?

as regards the hill, you'd think they have build the bloody runway at an angle that allows it to avoid the hill!

No, its not too short. See above post.

Tenger

homerjay2005 wrote: »

....as regards the hill, you'd think they have build the bloody runway at an angle that allows it to avoid the hill!

Geography and prevailing winds rarely consider our convenience!

Strumms

Tenger wrote: »

Geography and prevailing winds rarely consider our convenience!

it's where they decided to build the hill that puzzles me. :pac:

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

it's where they decided to build the hill that puzzles me. :pac:

In fairness it was only a molehill when it started.

eatmyshorts

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness it was only a molehill when it started.

The M three got involved.

lord lucan

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The M three got involved.

jackstaff

So why don't they send the A330 rather than it going to faro

highlydebased

Would be away for too long before it is needed again for transatlantic duties

Tenger

jackstaff wrote: »

So why don't they send the A330 rather than it going to faro

As above. EI can use the A330 that lands in at 0500 to operate to AGP or FAO and be back before 1420 to operate the 1600 flights to the US. Going further field would be the longhaul widebody is unable to operate longhaul flights that day. (FAO/AGP are approx 2.5 hrs each way, ACE is 4 hrs each way)
The EI usage of the A330 downtime is a great use of a widebody during the peak season. Most other operators would have their aircraft idle on the ground between longhaul flights. I went to Warsaw a few months ago and saw 3x LOT B787 on hard stands before their T/A flights 2-3 hours later.
Now its not an easy thing to do, might not be possible for other operators in other locations. And I believe EI have had a few issues over the years with the A330 getting delayed/disrupted while operating the shorthaul sector.

A320

The Faro aircraft went for maintenance after its leg either on a tues or thurs and it wasn't used for Transatlantic afterwards as there was no need due to no SFO on tues or thurs

jackstaff

I flew to fao on the A330 last month ..

Great plane great to experience the widebody aircraft but when we landed it felt like the pilot stood on the brakes ..no reverse thurst or whatever the load noise is.

Jack1985

jackstaff wrote: »

I flew to fao on the A330 last month ..

Great plane great to experience the widebody aircraft but when we landed it felt like the pilot stood on the brakes ..no reverse thurst or whatever the load noise is.

Sometimes the weight of the A330 and the use of brakes alone is enough to slow her down very quickly. Advantage of no applied reverse thrust (most probably idle reverse was used) is a lot less engine wear.

ProfessorPlum

Jack1985 wrote: »

Sometimes the weight of the A330 and the use of brakes alone is enough to slow her down very quickly. Advantage of no applied reverse thrust (most probably definitely at least idle reverse was used) is a lot less engine wear.

FYP
Idle reverse approved across all fleets for landing on non limiting runways. I do wonder if the saving in engine wear isn't compromised by the in increase in brake wear.

Jack1985

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

FYP
Idle reverse approved across all fleets for landing on non limiting runways. I do wonder if the saving in engine wear isn't compromised by the in increase in brake wear.

Was only thinking that and I'd say you are spot on! Had it only said to me the other day apparently single engine taxi increases wear on the gears too? Always seems to be a drawback with any saving attempts.

A320

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

FYP
Idle reverse approved across all fleets for landing on non limiting runways. I do wonder if the saving in engine wear isn't compromised by the in increase in brake wear.

Maybe there's a fixed price brake contract or something :-)

eatmyshorts

A320 wrote: »

Maybe there's a fixed price brake contract or something :-)

Brake and wheel units are usually on a fixed price contract with supplier and maintenance. So it's more cost effective to use extra braking over engine wear.

ProfessorPlum

Yep, I'm sure the bean counters have it all worked out!

eatmyshorts

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yep, I'm sure the bean counters have it all worked out!

Where's the sarcasm smiley when you need it! :-)