To answer the above post
1. Taxi speed on one engine is the same as on two engines.
2. If you have to slow down to accommodate the 2nd engine start you’re starting it too late.
3. Even if you do slow down by 10 knots 1 eng + APU is still a significant saving over two engines unless you have a LEAP1A strapped to the tail.
4. Part of your pre flight briefing should be to identify the best place to start the 2nd engine for fuel saving vs workload.
5. If your worried about shutting down instead of starting or an excursion or other mistakes, up the rigour level.
6. In your start failure example those passengers would have missed all their connections anyway, SETO or not. Most busy airports won’t put you back on the same stand after push as it will already have been allocated and you aren’t fixing the engine quickly.
7. Even if in that example SETO did cause you to burn an hours fuel, if you do 5 mins SETO on subsequent sectors you’ll make that fuel up in 12 flights. That’s less than a week.
As I said right at the start of this thread, SETO intelligently applied poses no safety risk and enhances safety by increasing the amount of the available fuel during the flight. It also has cost and environmental benefits. Those that don’t want to do it will always find excuses which don’t actually stand up to scrutiny (same as for flap three landings).
Anyone can fly around with their mind in neutral and will find ways to justify their behaviour. Operating efficiently requires thought and effort but there are safety, cost and environmental rewards.
We’re not talking about timing the second start to the millisecond, just delay it as long as is reasonably practicable.
ATB
LD
Last edited by Locked door; 10th Apr 2024 at 18:05.