Flying slow to save fuel?

[flyer172r]

You all mention how guys are trying to save the company some $ with fuel here and there, etc. And then just today, I hear a CHQ who's at FL280 request to get back down to 220 so he can burn more fuel off on his way to (CLE? I think) his destination. haha. A double standard of sorts, it seems.

First of all, as we can see in this thread not everyone cares about saving fuel. Second, it's possible that he was trying to make sure he would be under max landing weight when he got to his destination.

 

[SSDD]

It happens quite often on short flights. ATC has these long preferred routes they want you to file, then, once you're enroute they have a hole and they clear you direct somewhere and now you're too heavy for landing.

SMF-SFO is typical. They want you to file north over Mendocino to join the Golden Gate arrival, and then once you're airborne they clear you direct Point Reyes, or Lozit, and sometimes you're 7 or 800 pounds over max landing weight. So you have to waste it. Not by choice, but...

 

[91100 100 set]

Ha! When PDT guys pull it back, it's not for fuel savings....

Back in the day at ALG, we didn't fly by airspeed, we flew by pitch attitude. Earning back the 9.5% one minute at a time.

 

[91100 100 set]

You all mention how guys are trying to save the company some $ with fuel here and there, etc. And then just today, I hear a CHQ who's at FL280 request to get back down to 220 so he can burn more fuel off on his way to (CLE? I think) his destination. haha. A double standard of sorts, it seems.

The 145 is often very close to max landing weight. A quick taxi, a good tailwind, conservative fuel burn planning, etc, and before you know it, you're showing 500 lbs over for landing. I've done more than a few scenic detours with the gear hanging to burn it off. For awhile, I was half convinced that the company would inflate fuel burn figures to raise the MTOW to limit passenger/bag restrictions.