Staying on Flight Plan routes

[ProFracPilot]

Speaking from the "other side of the release", at SWA we run best winds routes when they would possibly be advantageous. Once you calculate crossing restrictions, etc, if the savings is enough you'll (in my experience) see the recommendation to stay on the best winds route.

I try to include the note "directs negate the savings", and the amount of time and fuel the route should save so the crew knows that if they stay on the filed route they will save xxxx lbs of fuel and save xx mins. While I have no problem loading the bird up with fuel when needed, if a best winds route will save 1500 lbs of fuel and 14 mins of flight time and a crew still chooses directs (with no specific reason why other than habit), that's when we have an issue because they're burning my profit sharing check.

Turb/Mtn wave avoidance routes get the same notice on the release and the directive to not deviate if at all possible while in the zone.

Great explanation.

Our flight plans are optimized for best winds / best fuel economy. The greatest effect is usually on an east coast-west coast trip. Depending on when we're offered direct, we may or may not accept it. If you're crossing a front or transiting a trough somewhere along the way, direct might negate the optimization built into the flight plan and end up costing both fuel and time.

 

[SKC]

We have specialists that build our routes, including crossing restrictions/altitudes, so those abnormal places like PHL that you're at 200 ft 180 miles out is reflected in the fuel burns. If I go in and manually select a best winds route I have to go back and manually input those restrictions.

In regards to software, there are major players in the game. Sabre/Bornemann, NavTec, Jeppesen, Lufthansa all have good software programs that all have the same basic ingredients. It's usually up to each airline whether they choose to have these profiles built. We use Jeppesen's JetPlan engine with an inhouse GUI for planning.

 

[IAHERJ]

It makes a big difference coming back from Europe in the winter. I've been WAY NORTH over Canada on a CDG-IAH and been given direct DAS(or something similar on the arrival to IAH). Looking at the heading, it would cost us a couple thousand pounds of fuel and we'd lose over 15 minutes. We might end up staying over Canada until West of Detroit before turning South for Houston. Never have landing weight restrictions on the 757 or 767 except IAH-LIM on occasion as we bulk out the cargo on that trip and get a huge shortcut causing us to fly the last hour of the trip at .82-.83 at around 24-26,000 feet. Good news is we end up around a half hour early.

 

[johnnyb]

Great Circle Route ......

 

[Smarta$$]

MY CONTRACT IS 5 YEARS EXPIRED. Flight planned route please.

 

[Whine Lover]

Sitting up, leaning over, and punching the new fix or route into the box is too tiresome....The path of least resistance is FPR.




YKW

 

[Cardinal]

Requested the 'filed route' much more often at my turboprop regional.

1 - Single-engine performance over the rockies. The release only guaranteed terrain clearance 5 miles either side of the filed route. To otherwise ensure technical compliance at lighter weights you had to dig out a performance chart + enroute chart, at heavier weights phone patch dispatch over Airinc to have the flight planning software chew on the new route, or just make sure it was really cold at altitude.

2 - Our worthless manuals left no wiggle room with dispatch even when the route was shortened. We were supposed to call them, period. Again, no Acars meant a ridiculous Airinc phone patch. If a fed was observing us, the ensuing conversation was going to be so professionally embarassing that it was much better and lower risk to stay on the route.

 

[say again]

Speaking from the "other side of the release", at SWA we run best winds routes when they would possibly be advantageous. Once you calculate crossing restrictions, etc, if the savings is enough you'll (in my experience) see the recommendation to stay on the best winds route.

I try to include the note "directs negate the savings", and the amount of time and fuel the route should save so the crew knows that if they stay on the filed route they will save xxxx lbs of fuel and save xx mins. While I have no problem loading the bird up with fuel when needed, if a best winds route will save 1500 lbs of fuel and 14 mins of flight time and a crew still chooses directs (with no specific reason why other than habit), that's when we have an issue because they're burning my profit sharing check.

Turb/Mtn wave avoidance routes get the same notice on the release and the directive to not deviate if at all possible while in the zone.

Thanks SKC for the explanation from the other side. Being a corporate guy, I do my own flight planning. Is the software you use available to outsiders? I currently use FltPlan.com, which is a very good site.

 

[cale42]

Requested the 'filed route' much more often at my turboprop regional.

1 - Single-engine performance over the rockies. The release only guaranteed terrain clearance 5 miles either side of the filed route. To otherwise ensure technical compliance at lighter weights you had to dig out a performance chart + enroute chart, at heavier weights phone patch dispatch over Airinc to have the flight planning software chew on the new route, or just make sure it was really cold at altitude.

Same... luckily our performance charts are pretty easy to reference. But certain weights and temps I know I can't meet driftdown over the hills.

cale

 

[ATLplt]

I get paid by the minute, and getting to the overnight faster by accepting direct doesn't pay the bills. If I could leave out 10 min early and arrive 13 min late every leg I'd do it. Even just 10 minutes x 3 legs = an extra half hour of pay every day. Multiply by 12-15 days per month and you get 6-8 hrs extra. Over the course of a year that's nearly an extra months pay for flying safely and adhering to the flight plan that the dispatcher and flight crew agreed upon.