Originally Posted by
Locked door
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).
ATB
LD
Most of your comments are plain wrong, I won't indulge in answering point by point, it would just be repeating or sometimes clarifying myself. Just read my post again.
But this one is quite a marvel.
SETO
enhances safety. That is creative. Thank you for writing it.
The fuel saving is minimal. It can equate to around one minute of extra time.
On the other hand the increase in workload proved to cause safety problems during operations, many times.
You can read this thread :
A320 single engine taxi out threats
"Our company just had a runway incursion as a direct result"
Another example incident here :
https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...against-safety
Many other happened including some at our airline, nobody's perfect.
The threats include runway incursion, taxiway excursion (you're moving at 20kt with an incomplete aircraft), taxiway conflicts, including due to missed radio calls, higher workload preventing you from accepting a better runway, or managing any other specificity on that taxi out, mismanaging the procedure itself, etc.. That's without talking about passenger comfort and the noisy yellow pump, and punctuality.