Jump to content

C-210 causes incursion with term "bingo fuel"


Jkarl

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...