JurgenKlopp

Very simple answer. SCAB...

Sliceback

Ours only showed it in 500' increments. Maybe it's changed since I last flew, or jumpseated, on an Airbus 2 yrs ago.

Sometimes newer aircraft get delivered with some of the original specs. Because changing the spec in the manufacturers blueprints would cost money OR the FAA would required manuals to be rewritten, etc.

Airbus OPT is Boeing's 'Recommended.' Both are adjusted for winds. Boeing's OPT is the real OPT of the wing as is Airbus' OPT before any winds are uploaded.

With 100' increments you could probably get a tighter estimate on the baseline number (510-520) that I use to subtract aircraft weight to see what the OPT ALT is before winds are loaded. Look at 10 FMC's with the current aircraft weight and OPT ALT before winds are uploaded. So if there's a constant that works. I'd love to see the data if you get any.

Sliceback

Guy would have had to been 28 yrs old or younger to have been a scab and still flying at UA. Most of the scabs I knew/saw were older.

I just looked at 20% of the UAL 85 scab list. About 1.5% of the known ages that could still be flying (92% of the total) could still be flying. Assuming the 20% is representative of the whole their might be about 15 scabs left at UAL whenever the list was updated. It's says March 1....no year given. The odds are overwhelming that it wasn't a scab.

ClncClarence

I’ve been on the 319/320/321 for five years and every FMS I’ve seen shows 100’ increments. Could be a ‘newer’ software load? Who knows?

While you are obviously very well versed on the subject and I respect your knowledge, I can’t help but ask myself ‘who cares?’ The box tells you the answer without having to refer back to an old ‘rule of thumb.’ We also have some fancy iPad software that will give you recommended OPT and CI updates enroute in real time.

Sorry if the question is a bit rude, but just don’t see any good reason to remember all that.

ExperimentalAB

who cares about maintaining hand-flying skills either, given all the perfectly capable automation.

Cleared4appch

Hand flying skills??? Pppssshhh! Ain’t nobody got time for that!

ClncClarence

Don’t be obtuse. Not even close to the same thing. There is no conceivable situation where being able to mentally calculate OPT will affect the safe outcome of a flight.

Should we go back to having oral exams where we are asked to trace an air molecule through the pneumatic system?

ExperimentalAB

It’s the mindset. Clearly, you don’t have it.

ClncClarence

You’re absolutely correct. I don’t have the mindset that it’s worth my time to fill my head with useless trivia.

I’ll never understand why some of you put so much energy into needlessly overcomplicating this job.

Sliceback

How much long haul flying have you done? Knowing your altitude capabiity at given points is a must. Knowing your OPT ALT provides you a baseline to get your MAX ALT. The FMC doesn't provide it unless you know the relationship between fuel burn/weight change and it's impact on altitude capabilty.

Nothing like having a guy send off the track altitude request with a wrong MAX/ABLE altitude. FO fired it off....I get the message acknowledgement and doing basic math.......... I know it's too high. Senioir FO...he didn't ask me about the MAX/ABLE altitude. Hopefully they don't assign it to us. He thinks we'll be good for it. I know we won't. Murpy's Law...they as the erroneous max alt. The FMC doesn't tell you what your OPT and MAX altitudes will be in 90 minutes. He assumed since they'd done it last time that they would be capable of doing it again. That brings up the next question "what did that flight weigh vs our flight?" and "are we in the same type or a different type?" The 'uh oh' light went off. Who knows when he'd have figured it out if I hadn't told him that it wouldn't work AND could back it up. Trying to change altitude blocks approaching the entry point, when they gave you your 4th (!) choice meaning there's conflicting traffic, would have been a serious scramble. Learning moment for him. I was actually surprised since he was an experienced long haul FO.

Some might call it wasting time while I think it's a great way to analyze the flight plan vs what the wing wants to do. Does the flight plan altitude/speed combinations make sense? Keep in mind the DECS flight planning program will take you up to 100' below MAX ALT if it decides that's the best plan. On a long flight you're doing 2-4 step climbs. Analyzing the reasonableness of what a computer spits out might be worth verifying. To each his own.

Flying a light jet in retirement. "It can go right to FL450." True. But at ISA+10 the cruise boxes recommend being one altitude block lower until approx. 1000+ lbs after a max gross takeoff weight. Yeah it can go up there but it can't maintain normal cruise mach. I point it out to FO's or new PIC's that I fly with.