Low and Slow Take-offs. Caveat Thai Air Asia, Qatar

[MacChine]

I have little experience with planes, am no professional but certainly know enough to notice all other planes have three times the altitude, and twice velocity about 15 k out of the airport as Thai Air Asia ( and maybe Air Asia, Malaysia, though doubtful, ) and Qatar.

They are saving fuel and is against the old pilot's saying; Speed is life, altitude is insurance.

I can almost see the individual windows.

Just a thought, it usually takes two or usually three mistakes to make a crash and this policy is worth about three.

Life is cheap, lies are free, go with the other airlines.

[tw25rw]

It might be economics or it might be other factors such as the weight of the plane, wind speeds and the weather they are flying into.. Plus they are under the direction of air traffic control.

[GrantSmith]

Flying low is not going to be saving fuel...

The direction of ATC would be the likely answer...

[tolsti]

what a load of <deleted>...... total drivel. Climb rates depend on temperature, load (pax/freight/fuel) and aircraft type and model performance. They are also restricted by ATC dependant on other traffic, wind speeds at higher levels and environmental concerns such as noise reduction over populated areas.

Edited August 7, 2013 by tolsti

[Bpuumike]

As you admit, you have little experience so don't worry about the technicalities.

Hey, always remember the pilots want to arrive alive same as you.

[NanLaew]

Since Qatar flies out of Suvarnabhumi and AirAsia flies out of Don Meuang, I wonder exactly where the admittedly inexperienced and non-professional OP is making his personal observations from.

[Satcommlee]

Strange post! There are so many factors and all are controlled via air traffic control despite which airline you are flying!

[lemonjelly]

Hilarious post… either a great sense of humor or onset of dementia…...

[monty]

For starters, jet planes burn much more fuel flying low compared to flying high!

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[lomatopo]

Many airports do have approach and departure specific routings for noise abatement. I do know that SBIA (BKK) does have noise abatement approaches for 19R - not sure about departures.

Obviously "low and slow" works for barbeque, not sure how it works for take-offs?

[kurnell]

Perhaps the pilot was flying low over his house to check if he left the lights on?

[khaosai]

Hi,

Bangkok's newest airport (VTBS) uses a departure method called noise abatement procedure A (NADP A) for all runways to the North and South.

You basically use take off thrust until reaching 1500ft above the ground and then select climb thrust whilst keeping the same speed and flap configuration. When you reach 3000ft you start to accelerate and retract the flaps then continue climb at normal climb speeds. You will burn more fuel adopting this technique. All airlines flying out of this airport will have to adopt this procedure. The old Bangkok airport may have a similar requirement but I can't honestly remember.

Not sure why your flight seemed to be at a lower speed and height but there are numerous reasons of why this could have been. What I understand from your post is that they seem to be climbing at a reduced rate and at a lower speed. I personally have never adopted such a technique with regards to fuel saving.

The sooner the aircraft can be accelerated to the climb speed the more time and fuel efficient the flight.

Edited August 8, 2013 by khaosai

[lomatopo]

The last few departures on UA, runway 19L - we get to listen to ATC on Ch. 9 at the pilot's discretion - we've been cleared for expedited/unrestricted climbs up ~ 26,000 feet, once we change over from the tower - which cleared take-off - and changed to the first/next frequency. Not sure if that's "Bangkok Departures", or just Bangkok 12x.xx.

[Chao Lao Beach]

They are saving fuel and is against the old pilot's saying; Speed is life, altitude is insurance

In a single or a light twin maybe, but defiantly not in a 320.

Once you hit V1 you are going.....

How you think staying down low in a burner is saving fuel has me beat.

Edited to be polite

Edited August 9, 2013 by Chao Lao Beach

[harrry]

Hi,

Bangkok's newest airport (VTBS) uses a departure method called noise abatement procedure A (NADP A) for all runways to the North and South.

You basically use take off thrust until reaching 1500ft above the ground and then select climb thrust whilst keeping the same speed and flap configuration. When you reach 3000ft you start to accelerate and retract the flaps then continue climb at normal climb speeds. You will burn more fuel adopting this technique. All airlines flying out of this airport will have to adopt this procedure. The old Bangkok airport may have a similar requirement but I can't honestly remember.

Not sure why your flight seemed to be at a lower speed and height but there are numerous reasons of why this could have been. What I understand from your post is that they seem to be climbing at a reduced rate and at a lower speed. I personally have never adopted such a technique with regards to fuel saving.

The sooner the aircraft can be accelerated to the climb speed the more time and fuel efficient the flight.

Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?

[Chao Lao Beach]

A Noise Abatement Procedure is publish by the airport/authorities in the airport data.

Then that is taken by the airline who has that airport as a regular port and incorporated into the companies procedures in a route manual, depending on aircraft type.

Here is a kind of example of what is a guide.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/bangkok.html

[Chao Lao Beach]

Harry: "Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?"

That is not a normal procedure with this.

[harrry]

Harry: "Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?"

That is not a normal procedure with this.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/article_05_1.html

so this is not the procedure used due to fuel saving.

Edited August 9, 2013 by harrry

[GrantSmith]

Harry: "Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?"

That is not a normal procedure with this.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/article_05_1.html

so this is not the procedure used due to fuel saving.

It may or it may not... Typically an A320 is not a slug like its bigger brothers the A340-2/3/5/600.. It requires much less room to move... It's like a ninja, where as big brother is a sumo... And once it's in the air - as Yazzie and Plastic Population sang - the only way is up...

As CLB said above, once you've hit V1 there's only going to be tears if you pull out...

At 15kms from the airport (as I think was mentioned in the OP) the aircraft in question are still going to be visible and you're likely be able to see the windows - they're not going to be like the old Kai Tak visible but visible nonetheless...

With two operational airports in close vicinity of each other, airspace around Bangkok is fairly well covered and controlled, as was mentioned above, UA (United Airlines) allows passengers to listen to ATC via their inflight entertainment system and for the aerosexuals on their flights it's their biggest selling point, because let's face it, there's not much else going for UA With the ATC feed, you get fairly good idea of what's going on around the area...

[Jay Sata]

The other point is that you never firewall the throttles. The engines are expensive bits of kit.

Weight balance etc is worked out before the pilot sits in the front left hand seat.

Take off and climb speeds are worked our.

I'd be more worried about being hit by a motorbike than dropping out of the sky.

Here is what it looks for me landing a Cessna in Mae Hong Son which has a mountain at the end of the runway. This would scare you

non pilots. And for the pilots yes I'm high on the vasi but it gets bumpy sliding down that approach.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jay Sata

[GrantSmith]

A but like landing at Lukla, Jay

[lomatopo]

UA (United Airlines) allows passengers to listen to ATC via their inflight entertainment

I confess to listening to Ch. 9, I fly mostly on UA, mainly on departure and approach. You get a good feel for what to expect re: wait times/penalty box, ground-stop times (more important with domestic ops in the U.S.), arrival gate (or remote stand) number, but I do like to listen to all the other aircraft, on that same frequency, as well. I usually pick up Ch. 9 into BKK when we get handed off from Viet-Nam control to Bangkok control, and then into and out of NRT. And then on arrival into the U.S. On the far north routes like IAD/EWR-NRT I sometimes sneak a listen to the Russian ATC.

Edited August 10, 2013 by lomatopo

[Ace of Pop]

I remember my first flying Lesson. On the way to the Flying School someone had altered the Welcome to The Pope sign to Welcome Pop Eye. Anyway later on we came to the Stall,and Restart Bit. Not my Favorite. Got a PPL but ran out of money for Circuits to keep the Hours up. .

[khaosai]

Harry: "Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?"

That is not a normal procedure with this.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/article_05_1.html

so this is not the procedure used due to fuel saving.

Hi,

Using the onboard performance tool computer will allow the crew to generate take off speeds, flap and thrust setting. You input certain information into the computer and it calculates and outputs the performance figures for you. Quite often the flap setting will be lower with higher speeds utilised to get airborne. It's a clever piece of kit, even ensuring you don't exceed the tire speed limits when taking off at high altitude airports.

It's more accurate than the old paper charts and thus the airlines save money. It's like any computer tho, garbage in, garbage out, so you need strict procedures in place to ensure safety remains a priority. It works very well for both take off and landing performance.

Edited August 10, 2013 by khaosai

[khaosai]

The other point is that you never firewall the throttles. The engines are expensive bits of kit.

Weight balance etc is worked out before the pilot sits in the front left hand seat.

Take off and climb speeds are worked our.

I'd be more worried about being hit by a motorbike than dropping out of the sky.

Here is what it looks for me landing a Cessna in Mae Hong Son which has a mountain at the end of the runway. This would scare you

non pilots. And for the pilots yes I'm high on the vasi but it gets bumpy sliding down that approach.

Looks like fun.

[baboon]

Harry: "Does your method use a reduced flap setting for the takeoff and hence a longer take off run?"

That is not a normal procedure with this.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_08/article_05_1.html

so this is not the procedure used due to fuel saving.

Hi,

Using the onboard performance tool computer will allow the crew to generate take off speeds, flap and thrust setting. You input certain information into the computer and it calculates and outputs the performance figures for you. Quite often the flap setting will be lower with higher speeds utilised to get airborne. It's a clever piece of kit, even ensuring you don't exceed the tire speed limits when taking off at high altitude airports.

It's more accurate than the old paper charts and thus the airlines save money. It's like any computer tho, garbage in, garbage out, so you need strict procedures in place to ensure safety remains a priority. It works very well for both take off and landing performance.

I take it you are an Airbus pilot? I am a big fan of Airbii...

[Jay Sata]

I'm a fan as well. The A380 is a wonderful piece of technology.

[khaosai]

Hi,

Never flown an Airbus, but nice equipment by all accounts. The 380 is a great passenger experience. Give me a 757 and I would be quite content.

[harrry]

As a passenger I went into perth on THAI a couple of years ago. There were about 5 windshears in the few hundred feet. I thought it handled so well that it must be the auto pilot but the capain said it was him when I asked. That airbus was a real plane and not just a flying building.

Edited August 12, 2013 by harrry

[MacChine]

OK about 10 minutes ago , Couldn't see the colours but don't know how it cleared the mountain between me and the airport and as low as I've ever seen and a front just then pushing through I swear I hear the engines spool up alarmingly.

This habit theirs is very dangerous.

OK KIll me I"m wrong about saving fuel though I think flying slower saves fuel but yep OK I"m no pro like some of the others here

Sigt seeing then? Why would these two airlines consistently fly so much lower and slower than others? And why isn't it dangerous?

Edited August 30, 2013 by MacChine