Recent reflections on the current Economics Flights

Hello Pilots,

I'm sitting here at the Pilot's Pub and reflecting on the current setup for Econ Flights. I watch my fellow pilots struggle for that "perfect flight" as I do myself. Of course, there are many variables that can affect the modest measures that we currently track with the first three flight groups (one for each flight center - Mpls/St. Paul, Ketchikan, and Anchorage). I'm currently flying the long-range flights of the Mpls/St. Paul Center, and have opted for the new Aerosoft CRJ-700/900 payware regional jet. I started with the Aerosoft twin otter and then moved to the Carenado B1900D before settling on this newer and most challenging model of the CRJ-700/900. The most costly flight for me was with the B1900, where I opted to force a landing rather than a go-around and paid dearly for a hard landing and damaged gear.

Now, after flying the CRJ for a few flights, I'm fairly happy with my fuel planning and most of the flight handling, but I've found that it can be very touchy on landings. If I try to flare too much to make a soft landing, I managed this - but end up with a final scream from frightened passengers as the apparent g-force from this last-minute flare pushes me into a g-force penalty and a less than perfect flight. I've had two such flights now - ending in a last second of disappointing screams from passengers just as my wheels touch down, but before the auto-logging of the pirep - thus ensuring a penalty for my flight.

Well, it is what it is, and I've decided to use this challenging payware model for my Econ flights for this group. I think I'll leave the cost/revenue/penalty model as it is for now (at least for these 3 current Econ flight groups) so that other pilots can try their own flight skills (a test against their own abilities, the aircraft model of their choice, and the flight skills - and aircraft model of other pilots). So... while it's fun to see how your fellow pilots have fared, don't jump to any conclusions without considering the aircraft model they are flying, and things that you cannot see like realism settings, real world weather, and possibly other variables. This current Econ Flight Module - the official one with flights ending in "CB" not the practice page, really does offer you a new challenge to test your skills against your own previous flights and - to a little extent, against other pilots.

I've already explained my unfortunate experience with a hard landing that should have been a 'go-around', and the issues with the g-force and Aerosoft CRJ 700-900 (Oh, did I mention setting down the real-world weather? ASNext can cause similar g-force penalties due to how the turbulence settings can unrealistically bounce various aircraft around).

I'm happy to see several other pilots accept the challenge of these somewhat difficult flights - knowing that their flight results are final (as in the real world, no do-overs). I too have left the flight deck allowing auto-pilot to run things for a while, but this is risky when flying official Econ Flights. On one occasion I heard the plane make some sound I wasn't expecting, I checked the 'flight deck' and noted that the auto pilot had somehow disconnected and the plane was rapidly descending. I caught this in time to avoid a disaster, but it goes to show you...this is not the type of flight to just get up and running and then return to the simulator around landing time.

So, if you're up to a challenge, feel free to join me and the other Econ Flight pilots.

John

Interesting post John. I too have struggled with passenger screams and hard landings. I have been quite fortunate with the series of 11 CB flights I have done on the Ketchikan flight group. I think this is the result of several things. While I too use real ASN weather, I have limited the intensity of turbulence that it generates. I have been using the DHC-6 Twin Otter, but the "Extended" version. When I started to use this aircraft over a year ago, I found it somewhat difficult to handle. Slowly I have learned to overcome/avoid most of these problems, but it can still be pretty squirrely on short final. Nonetheless, I am familiar with its quirks, so I do have it pretty well "dialed in". Moreover, it's the right choice for Alaskan flights in midwinter.

Most of all, however, I have tried to be careful and diligent in my flight planning and execution. I have made several of the flights under IFR, but I have opted to return to origin on a couple of these flights because the destination airport was at/below minimums, or some aspect of my ILS suite was not working to my satisfaction. Since I did not land at my destination, I did not log these flights, because there is no do over on CB flights. But neither did I attempt to land, because I knew there was no backing out after the wheels touch the ground. In this respect, I did what a conservative real world pilot would do - I did not attempt landing I was not confident I could execute safely. It took me three tries to complete the Haines to Whitehorse flight because of tough weather at Whitehorse.


Yesterday's flight from Yakutat to Juneau was a case in point. I was flying in yesterday's weather in Alaska. Yakutat was 1 SM, c. 200' OVC, so clearly I filed IFR. There are no SIDs published for Yakutat, so I used my Juneau sectional to ensure myself that I could climb out from Rwy 11 at my standard airspeed and climb rate (145 KIAS, 1000'/min.) and clear the terrain on my planned flight heading. That turned out to be a piece of cake, but ATC limited my initial climb to 7000', and I was headed into a quadrant where the terrain rises to 6700', too small a margin of safety in low visibility weather. Fortunately ATC cleared me to my filed altitude (14,500') just before I entered that quadrant. Once at altitude, I had good visibility of the high peaks, but could see plenty of clouds/fog lying in the mountain valleys. Since Juneau is at sea level and forecast for Few 1200, -5/-5, I turned on the deicing boots and was anticipating an instrument approach. Rwy 8 at Juneau has an LDA approach, that's a displaced LOC/DME approach, not an ILS approach (my FSX says there is an ILS approach to Rwy 8, but that doesn't exist in the real world, and I don't have an approach chart for it, so I wasn't going to try it). As I approached Juneau, I became annoyed with FSX ATC (don't get me started), as I wanted to get low soon enough that I could concentrate on the instrument approach. After all, this was a CB flight and I did not want to screw up. So, as soon as I knew it was safe, I requested an altitude decrease, which ATC granted. But then they threw me a curve ball and told me to expect "vectors to final on Rwy 26". Drat, I had planned, briefed and set the Nav radios for Rwy 8. Now, I was trusting ATC to thread me between the mountains into the Gastineau Channel for a kind of straight in approach to Rwy 26. So, I asked for the LDA approach to Rwy 8 and they told me "LDA approach to Rwy 8, circle to land on Rwy 26, approved". Thanks a bunch, now I was going to have to fly the pattern between two 3500' peaks. On top of that, Juneau was reporting calm winds, so there was nothing to prevent a more-or-less straight in approach to Rwy 8. The good news was that Juneau was also now reporting clear conditions. So, I accepted the idea, but cancelled IFR, so I wouldn't have to cope with their questionable instructions. In the event, I made the LDA approach to Rwy 8 and then flew a long downwind leg and made a, very careful VFR turn to final and set it down gently on Rwy 26. Whew, got away with another one.

So, the principal elements of success are no surprise: First of all, close familiarity with the aircraft you are flying: how all the instruments and switches work, and a real feel for how the aircraft handles. What is the right approach speed, when should you deploy the flaps, how much elevator to use in the flare, etc., etc. Second is careful planning of the flight. Know just what you expect to happen, how much time and fuel it will take, where the radios should be set, etc. Finally, conservative flight practices. Take the safest/surest way to get the job done. Build in margin. If things aren't going well, abort the flight or the approach until you can figure it out and fix it. In spite of all this caution, I know that I'm due for a fall. One of these days, I'll make a mistake of some sort and suffer the penalty. I just hope it is just a hard landing or the occasional passenger scream, and not what they call a "hull loss" in the trade.

While it's probably true that I have been a little more fastidious about simulating real world flying practices than the average simmer, flying these CB flights has brought me a lot closer to what I would probably do if my life, and the lives of other were at stake. Great idea John.

All good information Mike, and your extra effort I can see is paying off by your average revenue listing. My last flight with the CRJ 700/900 was due to unforeseeable bug with the plane model that caused it to make S-turns around the final ILS course rather than following it straight. I think I read of this on their forum. After realizing that it wouldn't self-correct, I turned off auto pilot and manually landed the plane. I guess this problem too could account for any type of malfunction in the real world requiring pilot intervention. Of course, this required a mostly manual landing (conditions were VFR, which helped, although I was still following the ILS approach and could have flown the standard ILS approach without autopilot).

Now some helpful information to you and other Econ Mode pilots, first - you can turn off the econ mode setting during flight and it will not record the flight as an Econ Flight. Also, you can land at an alternate airport. If you leave Econ Mode set, then SPAACARs will still log it as the regular Econ Mode flight for that number (it doesn't know that you landed at an alternate, however - this might affect your fuel planning and a possible fuel penalty). I've no rules in place for such events so it's up to the pilot as to how they wish to handle such events. I'm fine with this flexibility.

Lastly - all flights will get logged as a regular pirep regardless of the Econ Mode setting, so the only question is whether you want to also have it log such flights as an Econ Flight, and then how you want to handle the following flight, ie. re-fly the route so you can complete the actual route or move on to the next flight number and destination. Either way is fine with me - again, no rules related to this.

Note, if you choose to fly both the alternate airport flight and the follow-up repeat of that flight (or from your alternate to the final destination), it is important to remember that Econ Mode flights record only the first flight of a given Econ Flight number as the official flight. Subsequent flights with the same flight number will count toward your regular flight hours and your pirep will show in your pilot's logbook, but will not show up as an Econ Flight because your first (alternate airport flight) will be the official flight entry.

So, with that information, pilots can handle these situations as they wish. Just don't alter the numbers by an alternative number or letter scheme, as this might interfere with future or current flights that are, or will be, assigned to that number.

Finally, pilots may have noted some changes to the display of the completed flights on the official Cargo Econ Page. I have separated the flights now by the various flight center groups. It is my intent to keep various flight groups separate as the different airports, types of aircraft required, etc. make comparisons more accurate. Also, it gives pilots a 'fresh start' for each new group.<br /><br /><!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: jer029, Dec 28, 2017 - 09:13 AM</em><!-- end editby -->

Thanks for the clarification John on the way CB flights are handled. I think that provides more realistic options than what I have been doing - basically not logging an econ mode flight if I cannot complete it safely at the original destination. It wasn't obvious to me how to turn off the econ mode setting, I assumed it was built into the flight number, but gather you can simply use the pull down menu in SPAACARS in the middle of a flight. Is that right?

Your problem with the ILS bug in your CRJ is a good example of the sort of thing that would cause me to abort an Econ Mode landing. You safely recovered, but making changes late in an approach is a dangerous procedure. This is memorialized in the well-know saying: "the secret of a good landing is a stable approach". In fact there was an article in last week's Aviation Week about this subject. It noted the common practice of commercial pilots who experience problems during a automated instrument approach is to try to fix the problem with the automation. Sometimes, both crew members end up trying to solve the problem, rather than flying the aircraft, with disastrous results. The advice they give is to turn off the automation and fly the plane. As is often the case, this is a problem I first learned about through flight simulation. I became so intrigued by the bells and whistles of the automated cockpit that, when it wasn't working like I thought it should, I would devote a lot of time and energy during the flight trying to get it to work right. This is OK in flight simulation, but not a good idea in a real cockpit.

Yes Mike - you understood correctly. Most SPAACARs settings (and even the flight data on the main page) can be changed during flight and will be reflected in the final pirep. By turning off the 'Econ Mode' in SPAACAR's dropdown settings menu, the pirep will not enter Econ data into the database and that flight (even if you kept the Econ Mode flight number) should not show up in the Econ Flight page.

Of course, I've not tested all of this very much, although I rechecked the code and it appears to be as described here. I believe that an earlier flight made with an econ mode number but no econ flight setting checked should not interfere with a later flight made with the same number but with the econ mode checked ie. the first non-econ flight with econ mode number should be disregarded and only the flight with the econ mode setting checked should register as an official flight. Much information related to Econ flights is recorded in a separate database table, and that is not recorded when Econ Mode is turned of in the settings, so the display should handle this correctly.

Let me know if this turns out not to be the case and I will make necessary corrections on the official Econ Display page.

Your bit about the pilots both working to solve a problem with disastrous results reminds me of the 1972 crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401. The pilots were trying to trouble-shoot a landing wheel indicator light as they approached Florida for landing. Both pilots became so preoccupied with the landing wheel indicator that they failed to notice that the captain's leaning on the yoke disconnected the autopilot and started the plane into a gradual descent. The plane smashed into the Fl Everglades killing 101 passengers and crew. All the more tragic, the landing gear was working fine, only the indicator bulb was burned out.

Some might recall this crash and the related book and TV movie based on the crash called "The Ghost of Flight 401", based on reports that the ghosts of the flight crew were seen on aircraft with parts salvaged from 401. The departed 401 crew members of these ghostly appearances forewarned the later flight crews of problems that occurred on these later flights before they happened. It was an interesting book and TV movie (starring Ernest Borgnine as the 401 Captain if I recall correctly).

John