I know derated takeoffs are used. Because bean counters are in charge of airlines, saving pennies at the cost of safety. When I am flying, there is no derating done because I want maximum power for my takeoffs.

I see your point, but if we are talking simulating rw, correctly calculated derating is the correct procedure. Safety in airtravel is a very large and interesting subject. Travellers are cheap and buy their tickets from lowcost airlines, thus this is what we get As consumers we get what we deserve.

What's with the sour attitudes in here?

This forum gets worse by the week.

I know derated takeoffs are used. Because bean counters are in charge of airlines, saving pennies at the cost of safety. When I am flying, there is no derating done because I want maximum power for my takeoffs.

 

How ironic....you assume that IRL by using less than the maximum thrust available airlines somehow compromise safety as if EVERY airline pilot on the planet cares little if nothing about his own safety - let alone that of his crew or his passengers!

 

IRL if airlines put into practice your flawed methodology their engines would require more frequent & expensive maintenance, have a very short life, be more susceptible to regular damage or even catastrophic failure, burn more fuel, create more emissions & as a result create more angst & heartache amongst the airline bean counters.

 

I get that you don't want to use TOPCAT (or programmes like it) but please don't try & justify you reasoning on the basis of safety whether in real life or within a simulated environment.

 

If you are old enough to drive legally (wherever you live on the planet) I bet you pull away from traffic lights like an F1 car every time & red line your engine in every gear...Oh!...you don't right?....I wonder why?

I know derated takeoffs are used. Because bean counters are in charge of airlines, saving pennies at the cost of safety. When I am flying, there is no derating done because I want maximum power for my takeoffs.

 

What is the safety issue? Sure, you get more power to get run away from the ground quicker (with a full rated takeoff). However, full rated takeoff thrusts substantially increases risk of engine failure which isn't a safe thing either. It's not just bean counters, there is good and bad on both sides and you simply weigh the risks and benefits.

How ironic....you assume that IRL by using less than the maximum thrust available airlines somehow compromise safety as if EVERY airline pilot on the planet cares little if nothing about his own safety - let alone that of his crew or his passengers!

 

IRL if airlines put into practice your flawed methodology their engines would require more frequent & expensive maintenance, have a very short life, be more susceptible to regular damage or even catastrophic failure, burn more fuel, create more emissions & as a result create more angst & heartache amongst the airline bean counters.

 

I get that you don't want to use TOPCAT (or programmes like it) but please don't try & justify you reasoning on the basis of safety whether in real life or within a simulated environment.

 

If you are old enough to drive legally (wherever you live on the planet) I bet you pull away from traffic lights like an F1 car every time & red line your engine in every gear...Oh!...you don't right?....I wonder why?

 

What's the point of this ridiculous rant? Derating to the exact runway distance is bean counting to save engine wear and fuel. Sorry if this truth hits close to home for some reason.

 

And pilots compromise safety all the time, they are usually told how much extra fuel to bring with them even if they might want more.

 

And yes, I really floor it in my Prius when the light turns green. You're a lunatic with anger problems. None of your post was necessary. I made a factual statement. You should bite your tongue and go play elsewhere.

 

What is the safety issue? Sure, you get more power to get run away from the ground quicker (with a full rated takeoff). However, full rated takeoff thrusts substantially increases risk of engine failure which isn't a safe thing either. It's not just bean counters, there is good and bad on both sides and you simply weigh the risks and benefits.

 

Not engine failure, but engine wear and maintenance. Engines are designed and tested to run at maximum power if needed. Derates are done so engine overhauls and routine maintenance can happen less often.

 

Losing an engine at a derated V1 is dangerous. That is the safety issue.

What's the point of this ridiculous rant? You're a lunatic with anger problems.

 

Excuse me?

 

Pot, kettle & black spring to mind.

 

Who are you BTW?

 

It's common practice to sign one's posts with one's real name about these parts - then at lease we can know who we are talking too.

 

Don't feed the troll guys.

TOPCAT simulates a couple of functions 1) weight and balance for fuel calculation and 2) performance data for takeoff and landing.

 

In the RW, we use a product called AERODATA that takes performance considerations into account for determinining payload/fuel for a particular mission. We apply it before we complete the release because the performance information for a particular set of conditions (runway contamination, wind, icing, etc..runway in use, etc) drives limitations on payload and fuel capacity. Once those factors are put in the mix, our planning software will kick out a flight plan, takeoff and landing report and weights.

 

Should you use TOPCAT?

 

If you are intending to just get in the airplane and fly? Probably not.

 

If you are intending to plan your flights, then fly your plan, especially with the PMDG 777X, then yes, not only will you want it, you will probably need it. If you plan the flight correctly, then the aircraft will do what you plan. While most pilots will take what the FMC gives them, really smart pilots will do a quick comparison with the planned performance to look for variances. Hint: Most pilots take a quick peek at the plan vs. FMC. Once that checks, they really don't use the takeoff/landing report again (TLR) unless something goes wrong with the FMC (not that it has ever happened...).

 

Unless you have the time and capacity to work through the performance charts for the aircraft (and unless it is PMDG, hope that they are reasonably close), having a product that will do that work for you makes the planning process go much faster.

 

As for flight planning, until we have PFPX, FSBuild is what we have. It's not a bad program...just a bit aged and because it is aged, it doesn't take wind calculations into the planning process as well as in the past. The nice thing about FSBuild is that you can copy a flight plan from Flightaware.com and if your AIRAC is updated, you can build a flight plan pretty fast that is based on current conditions.

 

More as PFPX hits the street....when it hits the street.

 

Dave Lamb

FAA Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher

Captain, BA Virtual (BAW141)

Not engine failure, but engine wear and maintenance. Engines are designed and tested to run at maximum power if needed. Derates are done so engine overhauls and routine maintenance can happen less often.

 

Losing an engine at a derated V1 is dangerous. That is the safety issue.

 

This is a simplified view. Yes, the immediate result is less wear and lower full consumption. However, an engine that has been worn further is more likely to fail, so yes, engine failure is also more likely. Yes, engines are tested to maximum rated thrust, but that doesn't mean they will never fail and they are more likely to do so under the higher stresses of full thrust. Yes, an engine failure is dangerous at V1, but in that event the remaining engine is advanced immediately to maximum continous thrust, so it's no different with a derate. I just can't agree that there is a marked saftery issue either way-derated or full thrust. They're tradeoffs.

 

Eric Szczesniak

What's the point of this ridiculous rant? Derating to the exact runway distance is bean counting to save engine wear and fuel. Sorry if this truth hits close to home for some reason.

 

And pilots compromise safety all the time, they are usually told how much extra fuel to bring with them even if they might want more.

 

And yes, I really floor it in my Prius when the light turns green. You're a lunatic with anger problems. None of your post was necessary. I made a factual statement. You should bite your tongue and go play elsewhere.

 

 

 

Not engine failure, but engine wear and maintenance. Engines are designed and tested to run at maximum power if needed. Derates are done so engine overhauls and routine maintenance can happen less often.

 

Losing an engine at a derated V1 is dangerous. That is the safety issue.

 

Derated takeoffs and climbs use MORE fuel, not less, so your accusation that it's a money saving scheme is utterly stupid.

 

A derate is calculated to assure takeoff is achievable with a single engine failing at V1, so it's not dangerous at all. In fact, with assumed temperature derate, you're free to advance power on the operating engine anyway.

 

If you're going to accuse people of ranting then doing so your self, I suggest not doing it from a point of ignorance.

 

 

Derated takeoffs and climbs use MORE fuel, not less, so your accusation that it's a money saving scheme is utterly stupid.

 

A derate is calculated to assure takeoff is achievable with a single engine failing at V1, so it's not dangerous at all. In fact, with assumed temperature derate, you're free to advance power on the operating engine anyway.

 

If you're going to accuse people of ranting then doing so your self, I suggest not doing it from a point of ignorance.

 

I think it is pretty clear 'gear up' has no idea what he is talking about. since it is not safe to cancel a derate in the event of an engine failure due to Vmcg/Vmca I would be interested to know his views on selecting TOGA on the remaining engine at Vr? From the sounds of it, always use TOGA V speeds..

 

Gear up.. Nothing unsafe about using max derate/assumed temp, nothing unsafe about going TOGA and respecting the time limit on the engines, it is all about understanding the machines limitations and correctly applying the appropriate perf calculations. Hense why this topic started.

 

You can talk all you want about bean counters, however the simple fact is the more you push a machine to its limits the faster it will eventualy fail.

It's my impression from reading various posts on their forum, that if you already own a registered copy of Topcat, that its functionality will be integrated into PFPX and available along with the route and fuel planning functions.

 

yea i agree with you if you got top cat it will be linked to your purchase of pfpx so you got everything in one package flight planning and fuel and weight planning all in one. Just watched the Aoa latest flight video and they showed the version of pfpx although they only got the beta package and it still had a few bugs in it still, and it is looking good what you can do with it.

I know derated takeoffs are used. Because bean counters are in charge of airlines, saving pennies at the cost of safety. When I am flying, there is no derating done because I want maximum power for my takeoffs.

 

This is changing since fuel costs are higher than maintenance costs these days. That means the airlines changing their politics. So it is more likely to take off at full power then to derate to get up to the cruising flight level as fast as possible and to stay there as long as possible.

 

 

 

 

This is changing since fuel costs are higher than maintenance costs these days. That means the airlines changing their politics. So it is more likely to take off at full power then to derate to get up to the cruising flight level as fast as possible and to stay there as long as possible.

 

You wouldn't take off at full power, you would increase the climb power to keep the bean counters happy, TOPCAT is about take off & first segment climb, obstacle limits etc. The remaining climb is down to company SOPs and captains discretion, higher the climb thrust less fuel burn.

 

You wouldn't take off at full power, you would increase the climb power to keep the bean counters happy, TOPCAT is about take off & first segment climb, obstacle limits etc. The remaining climb is down to company SOPs and captains discretion, higher the climb thrust less fuel burn.

 

Take off power of course. But engine wear is less expensive at the end of the day as fuel costs. Btw. I know what topcat is about.