A lil too tight on fuel?

[Dct_Bombi]

A few weeks ago I was at the 27 hold at Heathrow, usual 30/40 min wait or so and there was a 777 US carrier I think west coast bound who requested to shut down an engine as he stated " was a little tight on fuel ".
Just a query really from myself regarding the comfort margin this guy or company allowed for target fuel especially on a long jump. To me it did seem a bit strange, not being critical rather just looking for opinions. Yes I know its a fuel saver and single engine taxi is a viable option, but this was requested only after a normal taxi out and possibley a slower release of aircraft then expected due wx in the area. We all got away within 45 min and this guy opted to keep both running as he was given a 5 min wait from request.

The floor is yours.................

[Rainboe]

Flights to the West Coast- you can be certain of getting most efficient altitudes required. You can be certain of no holding at LAX even though it is hysterically busy in a way LHR can only dream of, SFO just possibly. Therefore you can cut down fuel reserves in a way you would never dare flying from there to LHR. So the guy is sitting watching 2 engines burn idle fuel waiting for an extended delay. Not unreasonable to decide to shut one down? Especially if it gives him more options at the other end? It's up to him to decide. If there's one thing pilots like, it's options. Not as if we get the 'share options' our managers do, but nice to have the other sort. Not really a discussion point, is it?

[joehunt]

This is a case in point. The legal minimum fuel is not always enough. Very often it is a long way short of enough in some parts of the world.

[Dct_Bombi]

If its options you want why leave yourself so tight before you even pushback, especially in somewhere like LHR with bad wx in the area.
Not really a discussion point but i did want to hear opinions, the opinion of my skipper with 30 odd years translatlantic under his belt was less then complimentary. I too was a little surprised but at least this guy was addressing a potential situation.
As for the legal minimum, why do i feel a little uncomfortable any time i approach it, should'nt i feel completely comfortable if its legal, as always I say WHAT IF? etc etc and then my legal requirement doesnt come close.

[Rainboe]

US pilots seem to be more dictated to about what fuel they will carry. Certainly European pilots are the decision makers in that respect. Even so, once you understand your company's fuel policy, you are behoven to operate within their parameters (as they are paying you for the job). It's what defines 'minimum fuel' that counts, and do you fully understand it. That US pilot who wanted to shut down was simply up against his comfort parameter. Sometimes I end up below my comfort parameter, as the other day when I was holding nearly 2 hours to get into a fogbound place the other day (and failing). It's knowing when and how far to go over your comfort line that counts- that guy was just following his intuition....and good luck to him. I'm sure he was immensely experienced and knew what he was doing! The fact that he despatched at all says something; the fact he wanted to shut down for a while gives another message. I have well over 500 transatlantic crossings- I know where he was probably coming from. Much as we would like to tank up to our heart's content, quite simply we can't. We have to follow our employers guidelines or be honest and tell the employer we can't, in which case we will be invited to get another job.

So cut the guy some slack!

[Dct_Bombi]

Hey rainboe

Thanks for your opinion, but lighten up will you. I was not trying to be citical about the guy rather looking for opinions in a learning capacity.
Its always nice to come on and see if there has been an interesting reply to one of your own posts and then abit of a pi5534 to see someone twist it as if it was an attack of some sort on the said individual.
So anybody else out there like to defend the honour of fellow colleagues against the heathen bombi.;) or perphaps just throw in an innocent opinion.

Thats it i off to a less hostile environment down the pikie fist fight tournament.:ugh:

[javelin]

Circumstances can change.

I plan for projected arrival fuel according to conditions and allow for a reasonable taxi out at the airport of origin.

If, once you have waited, pushed and started you get surprised by a 30 minute wait to departure, yep, that would cause a change in circumstances and in that instance a single engine taxi may be something to think about if another 10 mins of holding was forecast.

[FLCH]

Forget it Jav, Bombi is off to a less hostile enviornment....

[Dct_Bombi]

Nah I ran back to pick up my bayonet, Thanks guys.

[Rainboe]

You said it:
Just a query really from myself regarding the comfort margin this guy or company allowed for target fuel especially on a long jump. To me it did seem a bit strange,.....
I see that as critical - I would be offended if I saw someone commenting on my actions like that. Therefore I took the trouble to give you as good a possible explanation as I could guess. A Doctor wouldn't like to see another Doctor query his actions as 'seemingly strange'. Perhaps 'I don't understand why.....?' would be better? I don't see that disguised expletives were called for, or reflect well on you, considering you chose to openly question in a critical way a professional colleague's actions of doubtless far more experience than you and knowledge of a route you have never been on. What does pi5534 mean?

[FLCH]

Heathen Bombi,

I don't see it as being strange from this side of the pond, if you are in line going nowhere, why have two engines turning ? (Hell I've shut them both down if it's a real circus especially if it's a domestic flight) if you can save a little fuel for unforseen contingencies then wouldn't it be prudent to do so? There are some carriers in the US that have subtle pressure applied to from the ivory towers not to be not wasteful with fuel, but IMHO safety trumps all of that stuff, after all if something untoward occurs, the FAA will be calling me, not the President of Flight Ops. Besides maybe this guy wanted to emit a smaller carbon footprint ?? Yeah Right..... just an innocent opinion

[Dct_Bombi]

Thanks guys, no offence meant but you can never please everyone.

Ciao

[411A]

Hmmm, one need only look at past performace with aircarriers arriving in the London TMA with, shall we say, minimum fuel...VS comes immediately to mind.
To be sure it is not US airlines in this mix...not for quite some time.

In addition, many carriers westbound use re-dispatch to minimise fuel uplift, a procedure that works to perfection, provided of course it is properly applied.

Shut engine(s) down during a prolonged ground delay?
You bet.
Done it many times...waste not/want not.

[JW411]

Dct Bombi:

"A westbound 777...requested to shut down an engine...tight on fuel".

Can I ask you exactly who he asked permission to shut the engine down from?
I cannot believe that a 777 captain actually asked ATC for permission to shut one engine down.

It is up to the captain to decide how best to husband his resources and it has absolutely nothing to do with getting permission from ATC as to how many engines (or air conditioning packs, for that matter) he should run!

My record was being number 54 (out of 78) in the congo line at JFK one very filthy winter's night. In those days (perhaps it is still the same) it was not possible to hold on the gate. You had to get out there and join the congo line.

It took over 4 hours to get airborne. I was running the centre engine (DC-10) and the APU only. It would have been risable to have asked Kennedy Ground for permission to shut down an engine.

I suspect that this would get you sent straight to the back of the queue!

[BelArgUSA]

I dont believe what I read here...
xxx
An airplane asking for the blessings of ATC to save fuel and shut an engine to do so...
Is LHR getting to be the new London Zoo...?
Oh yes, I have to be politically correct too - now it is the "carbon print"...
Soon will be "shut down APU for noise abatement" as well...
Shall I request clearance for "galley power ON" to get a cup of expresso...
Or is that too much draw on the KWs...?
xxx
Heathrow Zookeepers: pilots learn to taxi with engines out + save fuel since OCT 1973...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Dct_Bombi]

He asksed Tower freq at the time, he stated " a lil tight on fuel" and the reason for the query i gather at the time was to ensure he had time to shut down and save some fuel and then restart to be ready for roll, probably prompting for any update in time of departure from tower to see if it was worthwhile.

[Shanwick Shanwick]

Whether he was tight on fuel or not, why sit at any holding point for 30/40 minutes with all engines running, needlessly burning expensive fuel if his operation permits shutting one of them down?