Single engine taxi 757/767?

[stilton]

Ater being told for years that single engine taxi is uneconomic and can place undue stress on the airframe we have been told to start shutting down the right engine after landing to 'save fuel'

Any other operators out there doing this, I still think it's a bad idea...

[oceancrosser]

Not many carriers are doing it, Delta is about the only one that appears to be doing it as a normal procedure. Boeing at least used to recommend against it. I think KLM does it on some types after landing. My carrier looked at it and we decided against it for the time being, the benefits being unclear in our network

[SentryIP]

Happy Holidays!

Southwest Airlines just started this procedure. Personally, I don't like the idea of placing any asymmetric forces on the airframe, landing gear, and engine mounts, if it isn't necessary. Seems like the fuel saved is negligible for our taxi times, but the jury is still out on this.

[Jetstream Rider]

We are supposed to be doing it, I think our book says to "consider it".

Personally I won't do it before crossing an active runway, when its icy, when really heavy, if I have to go into a tight space or if the taxi is really short. There are a few other times when I don't like it too, but generally do it when we have a long taxi.

[InTransit]

My carrier employs the single engine taxi for fuel saving benefits (not sure what the actual figures are, but the bean counters considered it to be relatively significant over the course of a year). The other bonus of a single engine taxi was to shorten turn around times.

However, we can only use single engine taxi once clear of ALL runways, and during dry conditions.

[stilton]

Thanks for the replys.

Trying specifically to find out if other operators are doing SE taxi on the 75/6, if so their procedures to do this, which engine they shut down etc..

We are told to only shut down the right to preclude PTU operation, and only after landing at light weight.

As previously mentioned though, we were told for years it was a bad idea, this is an attempt to save fuel, but I think it misguided.

[Daysleeper]

We operate the 757 at some very light weights, on long straight taxys the aircraft has a tendancy to "run away" so it is an OPTION for the crew to shut down one engine to reduce brake wear and so forth. The procedure calls for the APU to be online and 1 min for engine cooling post landing.

[barit1]

Personally, I don't like the idea of placing any asymmetric forces on the airframe, landing gear, and engine mounts

The only item you've mentioned that might be adversely affected might be the LG (incl. tires).

And on an aircraft like MD80 or 727, with engines so close to the c/l, even than must be negligible.

As long as mfgr. recommendations re engine cooldown & warmup are followed, and it meshes well with taxi routine, I don't see much downside. In fact there is reduced FOD risk.

[stilton]

That is a very good point, and one of the reasons I don't like to shut one down.

I think that FOD problems are increased with the potential use of higher power settings for breakaway thrust.

[phd]

The company I work for is currently considering single engine taxi-ing for fuel saving reasons. The savings per sector are small but cumulatively over an entire fleet become substantial - amounting to hundreds of tonnes a year.

Buncefield fire has focussed all on the need to eke out the available fuel stocks at LHR.

Risks and benefits of this procedure need to be evaluated. There are several risks and one big benefit. Wonder which will take priority?

[NigelOnDraft]

Been an SOP in BA for a long time. That said, the 535C 757 has (had!) more idle thrust then the E4, so it was welcome / suitable. On the E4 / 767 less so.

You'd shut the one down on the inside of the stand final turn.

On the Airbus A319/20/21 we also do this, but shut down #2, unless airport Regs require us to shut down #1 beofre parking (A319 - engine can get close to fixed stands).

NoD