Stuck at Flaps 1 Until 10,000'

[emerydc8]

This is apparently what happens when a sovereign nation cedes control to a group of foreign technocrats.

[cagarini]

Bureaucracy in Europe, EEC, is as Pathetic as Patent Trolling in the USA...

What a "story" - Thanks for sharing. I wouldn't believe if I didn't read.... or recalled I live in the EEC...

[Markus Vitzethum]

Interesting story, thanks for sharing.

Having read German private pilot/GA flying magazines in the past, I readily seem to understand the reference to a "political battle between ATC and German GA enthusiats".
The opinion usually given from the GA point of view in the magazines is that introducing Class C (VFR on request) airspace up to FL100 blocks off huge chunks of airspace to the GA community. (Above FL100 is always Class C in Germany.) Private pilots don't seem to like that... (additional CVFR qualification required, at least for older licences).

The Class C airspace that protects e.g. EDDP extends only up to FL75, so you can legally fly without clearance above and around EDDP in class E airspace (although transponder mandatory) in  a light VFR aircraft. This is also true for many other secondary commercial airports in Germany. (e.g. EDDN, EDNY, EDDC, EDDR, ... ).

ATC and airlines of course see safety endangered here and want more protection by class C airspace extending up FL100, so all traffic around major airports can be ATC controlled. Indeed, there is a history of close encounters and near misses between jets and VFR traffic/gliders.

I know it from own company - you may have a working process and gentleman's agreement - but when you try to get it legalized/formalized or make a written procedure out of it, the bureaucrats step in....

Markus

[Hardy Heinlin]

If this is the case (flaps 1 climb), be assured that effects on climb gradient and fuel burns are negligible.

If it is negligible, why do they want to expel GA pilots from their beloved airspace? It's just a clash of converse interests. Not a moral conflict. GA pilots too have a right to fly. GA first. Make GA great again ...


|-|


I don't understand this sentence:

This is apparently what happens when a sovereign nation cedes control to a group of foreign technocrats.

Which nation is the sovereign one (USA or Germany), and which technocrats are foreign in which country?

[emerydc8]

We're talking about allowing a  heavy 747 to fly 10 or 20 knots faster under 10,000'. You would think it's asking for the world. I don't see why GA has to be excluded just to allow this but there is zero flexibility. Which nation is the sovereign? How much of Germany's laws are made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? More than half now?

[andrej]

Can prolonged extension time have a negative affect on 747? Like increased maintenance costs Greater wear and tear? Despite the fact that "effects on climb gradient and fuel burns are negligible", it can not be good in a long term.

The inflexibility is shocking. I can not see that a few 747's departing EDDP could cause serious issue to GA or any other traffic in the area. Just to make clear, I am an advocate for GA in Europe.  But this seems more like a bureaucratic problem. No flexibility what-so-ever.

EU has two forms of 'laws'. Directive and Regulation. Regulation is a law, immediately in effect. Directive is law that must be domesticated by respective Parliaments and National Assembly of member states. It is quite complex and complicated machine. And very bureaucratic as well.

Cheers,

[Hardy Heinlin]

Jon, my question regarding that sentence was honest. I thought you were referring to the two countries USA and Germany, not to the EU. I always assumed the Leipzigers are not foreigners in Germany :-)

You're asking why not faster? Why are the highway speed limits in the USA lower than in Germany? Why not 20 mph faster? "It's not much."

In my time as a GA pilot I often saw a pair of fighter jets -- very, very close -- flying by at 250+ knots. It's nearly impossible to escape in advance. 20 more knots on top of that is pretty over the top, I would say. By the way, in my opinion the highway speed limits in the USA are alright. I don't vote for higher speeds, neither here nor there.

As far as I understand this issue, ATC wants to stick to their airspace class system to keep it as simple as possible (which is good), to avoid a chaos of special exceptions. So, higher speeds could be allowed without problems if a different airspace class would be applied, but the GA folks are against this change. I don't think the GA folks have a lobby in Brussels. (There are too many, ultralarge industry lobbies in Brussels; that needs to be changed in the EU.)


|-|

[emerydc8]

Thanks, Hardy. I'd say even 250 knots is too fast to see and avoid. Truthfully, we rarely look out the window as we climb out because we are too busy screwing around with the automation, typing into the box and making sure the airplane is doing what we tell it to do. Even if we did look out, the chances of seeing and avoiding a small aircraft would be slim to none. So, I don't see what 20 knots would matter.

As for the auto speed limits, I always believed Germany had it right, but sadly they will eventually be forced to lower theirs as Brussels mandates further limits, probably under the auspice of uniformity or bogus claims of environmental damage.

When you take away a peoples' right to govern themselves, it never ends well. This has been proven throughout history. We are facing similar problems with federalism here in the states. We have a US attorney general who has apparently forgotten (or never understood) the meaning of the Tenth Amendment (states' rights) and should be fired immediately. Federal overreach is out of control here. It's sad to see.

[Will]

Hardy, does Germany still have sections of Autobahn with no speed limit?

Oh, and as a student of German, "Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung" was always my favorite word.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Yes, Will, there are still sections without Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung.

As for the auto speed limits, I always believed Germany had it right, but sadly they will eventually be forced to lower theirs as Brussels mandates further limits, ...

If they will, Jon, they will not because Brussels mandates further limits but because most Germans are voting for a limit. This is a german debate, not an EU thing.

[Britjet]

I'm all for personal freedom but I really think that general aviation should stay in its own niche.
It all sounds wonderful being free as a bird in your light aircraft slicing willy-nilly though airspace that others spend thousands of hours getting qualified to fly in, but as Jon says, 250kts is still too fast to take reasonable avoiding action anyway.
With all respect, my experience is that GA aircraft can often be all over the place in terms of direction and particularly altitude. You can't make allowance for that. Someone is going to have a very nasty encounter one day...
It's not funny trying to look out for someone on a Sunday joyride in their Cessna when you are trying to fly a 747. It shouldn't happen in my opinion. Period. The US can be a nightmare sometimes, as JON will attest.
Peter.

[Hardy Heinlin]

It all sounds wonderful being free as a bird in your light aircraft slicing willy-nilly though airspace that others spend thousands of hours getting qualified to fly in, ...

It all sounds wonderful being free as a bird in your 747 aircraft slicing willy-nilly through airspace that others spend thousands of hours getting qualified to fly in.


|-|ardy


P.S.: I'm just trying to demonstrate that this is a clash of interests, and the one interest is not holier than the other. To mention the level of qualification is not a point, in my opinion. Of course, everyone needs to be qualified on both sides. This is a prerequisite. One can always make the other side bad by telling examples of bad piloting, be it on the airline side or the other. I think the actual point is just "I want to be there and you please go away" -- on both sides. Or: "My aircraft is bigger and more important". After all, it's just a vehicle that gets from A to B like any other vehicle, and the core problem is the same as in "Let's go on holiday in the mountains" -- "No, I want to go to the beach". Which interest is holier? "Let's fly to X with the 747" -- "No, let's fly to Y with the Piper". Which interest is holier?

Democracy requires compromises. Egoism is incompatible to democracy. Flaps 1 until 10000 is a mini compromise. Negligible.

[emerydc8]

If they will, Jon, they will not because Brussels mandates further limits but because most Germans are voting for a limit. This is a german debate, not an EU thing.

If I recall, the Dutch voted no, the French voted no, the Irish voted no, and most recently the Brits voted  no. And now we hear from Macron that the French would probably have voted no again if asked. Years later they are still not out from under the iron fist of BRU. So, I disagree that it will be a German debate. But that's only my opinion based on how I've seen these people operate over the past decade. People may think they are being given a choice but they really have none and if they pick the wrong answer BRU will just ignore it and ask again until they get the "right" answer. 

My company was being politically correct by couching the controversy over the airspace as a dispute between GA and commercial aviation. The bigger issue is that you have an EU regulation that trumps the Germans' ability to make decisions about what works best in their own airspace, like letting a 747 travel 20 knots above 250 knots for a few minutes. For whatever reason, they are being pressured to fall in line with BRU.

[mgeiss]

 

We're talking about allowing a  heavy 747 to fly 10 or 20 knots faster under 10,000'.

Out of curiosity: is ATC really able to tell for sure if you're flying 250 or 260 (or even 270) IAS? I thought they only see your GS, and without knowing the exact conditions at your altitude, location and heading they are not able to calculate your IAS accurately.

[emerydc8]

As far as I know, they can only see your groundspeed, so you could lie and probably get away with it and no one would be the wiser. Most of today's airplanes (my airline included) have FOQA installed, so if the company really wanted to pull the data, I think they could get the information. If you are in trail of another airplane under 10,000' and you are overtaking him then it gets a bit more complicated and harder to lie about your speed.

On a similar subject, with the FMCs, at least on the 744s, certain people on the ground can see what you've programmed into the CDU, so if they gave me some ridiculously low CI and I wanted to go faster, I usually speed intervened rather than program a new CI or a new cruise speed on the CDU VNAV 2/3. Once the speed window is open, certain people on the ground are out of the loop.

In addition, on the 767, the barber pole at cruise usually sits at .84 (MMO for the 767 is .86). There's not nearly as much room to play with as the 744 above your normal cruise speed. If you enter .83 on the VNAV cruise page and you encounter any turbulence, VNAV does a horrible job of preventing an overspeed, so I usually speed intervene and set an indicated airspeed. You could speed intervene and set a mach too, but you have more increments (finer control) with knots versus mach. For instance, you can set M.83 or M.84 -- nothing in between. M.84 will almost certainly overspeed you the first time you hit some chop and M.83 is a bit too slow. If you speed intervene with an airspeed in knots you can get it in the area of M.835 and it usually gives you enough overspeed protection, unless you are in moderate turbulence or you're crossing the Rockies where you get major wave action.

[Britjet]

Perhaps we need a next-gen TCAS system that fires air-to-air missiles....:-)

[Markus Vitzethum]

Let's look at roads as an analogy.

(And Peter, no, shoving that slow bicycle on your lane aside is not a good solution.  )

Yes, by principle, roads are for everyone, be it a tractor, long haul truck, bicycle, SUV, whatever. That's good and democratic. Indeed, there are a few towns in Europe which have removed all road signs, sidewalks, crossroads etc.. and apply the same speed limit to everyone everywhere. Traffic researchers say this works beautifully, reducing accidents significantly because everyone looks at each other and takes care of each other.

But if you mix completely different traffic flows (pedestrians, cars, bicycles, trucks), all going at different speeds, things are different and safety requirements becomes an extra principle, equally important to the democratic principle.
Apparently, the best solution for traffic planners is to separate different traffic types, e.g. motorways for car, cycle lanes for bikes, sidewalks for pedestrians, for the benefit of overall safety for all.

But then again, roads are small corridors, unlike airspace ...

Markus

[Hardy Heinlin]

I think there are two mistakes in this analogy, Markus.

1. It's indeed grotesque to ask a car driver to drive as slow as a pedestrian walks; the difference is huge. The original request, however, just asks a pilot to reduce from 270 to 250 knots for two minutes which is -- be assured -- negligible. In other words, this analogy exaggerates the differences in order to justify the installation of two exaggeratedly different speed sectors. I think this is unfair.

2. The analogy focuses the need for different speed sectors. Yes, they're needed. In fact, they exist already, for good reasons. But the original debate doesn't focus the "if"; it's about the "where" and "how much". Consequently, this analogy should draw a picture of people discussing "where" the pedestrian sector should be built, not "if" it should be built. So I think this analogy tries to distract from the actual point, moving to another point upon which everyone agrees. But -- that's not the point.


Dear Gentlemen,

normally, I don't participate in threads that start with a sarcastic political connotation like here in the first line of the first post (even worse when supported by Breitbart "facts"). I'm interested in politics, they are important; but this forum is supposed to be one of those places where people can share their common interests instead of polarizing their political differences. Sharing common interests is important too. We are human beings sharing the same planet, aren't we? -- Well, now I'm participating in this thread. However, it's not because I'm interested in the pros and contras on speed limits per se -- I don't mind which team wins, the GA team or the industry team. (I'm also aware that when I'm defending the point of those GA folks, here on our airline oriented forum, I'm just a little fly that'll get crushed by the majority of airline eagles.) I rather want to transpose the discussion up to a "philosophical" level, as this speed limit debate is a nice example -- just an example -- of a general "higher" problem that we all often encounter but don't notice. Me included. We are all not perfect.

What I mean is this: Nearly everyone of us sets its own personal moral rules, and nearly everyone wants these rules to be consistent, because at the end of the day we demand "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" or "Treat others how you wish to be treated".

The intellectual challenge for me in this thread is to check whether there are any consistencies in the moral rules that appear between the lines of the comments. For example:

Jon, you wrote the people should have the right to govern themselves. But I think there is a contradiction in your demand. The GA folks do exactly that: They want to govern themselves in their local region (no, their EU lobby, if it exists at all, is much smaller than the industrial airline lobby in the EU). Those GA folks politically fight against the influence from outside the country. They do what you do. They apply the same rule. So allow it or modify your rule.

Peter, you wrote GA folks shouldn't fly where the airline folks fly, because airline folks be better qualified. But I think this idea has a bug: Qualifications vary in both GA and in airlines. Some airline pilots flew hundreds of hours, some GA pilots flew thousands of hours. Some pilots even do both GA and airline flying. Your rule generalizes a group in order to be able to exlude the whole group. If this rule would be consistent, it should also be applied to car traffic. For instance: During rush hours, only the following drivers are permitted to use motorways: Drivers whose license has been issued at least 3 years ago, and drivers that are younger than 60. This sounds absurde, but why not? It's the consequence of your rule. Or maybe we build two separate motorways? One for the highly qualified, one for the less qualified? Is this possible? Yes and no. Yes, they exist already in form of 4 or 6 parallel tracks. No, if the separation needs to be wider than a meter. Anyway, your rule consequently applied, it should be applied to car traffic as well -- especially because your rule is solely supposed to be for everyone's safety: There are much more car accidents than aviation accidents.

I'm sure there are contradictions in my own rules as well. When I find an error, I try to improve my rules. You guys do this too. My point here is really not that speed limit thingy. I'm just using this as an example of the fact that our rules require permanent checks and rechecks, and that we're sometimes caught in our own tiny cockpit that doesn't provide a view out onto whole picture. It affects all aspects of our daily lives. Not just "speed limits". We need to see the whole picture in oder to be able to develop empathy, which is needed because we have to negotiate compromises, which is needed because peace is always based on compromises. One cannot always push through 100% of one's own interest. I'm getting poetic now. Crush.


Cheers,

|-|ardy

[Phil Bunch]

Hardy, does Germany still have sections of Autobahn with no speed limit?

Oh, and as a student of German, "Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung" was always my favorite word.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/german-english/geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung

feminine noun or Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung feminine noun

Word forms:Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung, genitive
Word forms:Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen, plural

speed limit
⇒ gegen die Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung verstoßen to exceed the speed limit

<it's been too many decades since I took my college German course!>

[emerydc8]

Jon, you wrote the people should have the right to govern themselves. But I think there is a contradiction in your demand. The GA folks do exactly that: They want to govern themselves in their local region (no, their EU lobby, if it exists at all, is much smaller than the industrial airline lobby in the EU). Those GA folks politically fight against the influence from outside the country. They do what you do. They apply the same rule. So allow it or modify your rule.

When I say "govern themselves," I mean as a sovereign nation. In other words -- and I think you would agree -- the debate over the airspace issue should be a German debate. Whatever the outcome, it should be decided by Germans -- not by unelected, irremovable bureaucrats in Brussels whom I'm sure you would have to do a lot of research just to discover their identities. I think (hope) you would agree that Germans should make decisions about what works best within their borders. Indeed, the first sentence of my OP declared that this is apparently not the case. It's clear that they are subservient to Brussels. How can that be a good thing?