Turning engines off before landing

[manintheback]

Bizarre report in the STImes today that SAS to save fuel will switch their engines off and glide the aircraft into land. This has to be a joke or some seriously bad reporting? Anyone know any more?

[NEW-CREW]

Surely a joke - what would happen if they had to go around? Would they not need the engines powered up for reverse thrust too?

[Hartington]

Cut the engines, we’re landing

The Scandinavian airline SAS has announced a radical pilot scheme to save fuel and cut carbon-dioxide emissions — by effectively switching off the engines as aircraft come in to land. The new technique, in which planes will glide into airports along a satellite-mapped flight path, could save about 100kg of fuel on a twin-engined jet.

at

News in Brief -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article6796838.ece)

Reading between the lines I identify this as a methodology that is becoming a fairly standard method of operation - it requires co-operation from ATC so SAS is probably only applying it at a small number of airports.

Continuous Descent Approach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_Descent_Approach)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/68/Basic_Principles_CDA.pdf

[Capetonian]

There's another thread where it's referred to as 'putting the engines into neutral' for landing. Hope they remember to double declutch as they change down!

[Rainboe]

It's just running the engines at idle (= minimum power). The idea is that no power is needed until landing. That is what we try and do now, but you have to fit in with circuit patterns and other traffic. All very well if everybody has to get out of their way so they can have a clear unobstructed and unrestricted minimum power descent! But what about the rest of us? We are all trying to do that anyway. It's just a load of hype and hot air. Maybe they are trying to use this as a means 'to get priority approaches'! Not over my ass they ain't!

[PaperTiger]

Yeah, I guess it never gets windy in Scandinavia. Or the guy behind never catches up, or you don't care about the poor bu**ers lined up for departure.

Just fit some winglets and have done with this nonsense :uhoh:

[PAXboy]

Yes, it's the Silly Season.

Since no pilot 'turns off' engines whilst they might just be useful for the purpose of flight - the story is clearly tripe. No need to take time explaining the truth, as folks have been doing continuous approaches for many years - where circumstances permit.

[FairlieFlyer]

sure its not the 'Who Dares Wins' variety of SAS? :}

[Dont Hang Up]

It is only really the same as driving a car without using brakes. A good aspirational philosophy that saves fuel (and brakes) and teaches you to think ahead.

But make it a hard-and-fast rule and you'll quickly run into the back of someone!

[betpump5]

"160 to 4 " springs to mind.

[Seat62K]

I've experienced lots of these "idle thrust"-type landings at Stansted on Ryanair. The reduction in thrust sometimes starts well before landing and I'm always impressed by the pilots' skill as we quietly glide in. Imagine, for example, knowing exactly when to take the foot of the accelerator of your car so as to roll on to your driveway neither too slowly nor too fast (and not come to a halt - or have to touch the accelerator - yards from the driveway, either)!

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

The reduction in thrust sometimes starts well before landing and I'm always impressed by the pilots' skill as we quietly glide in.


well lets hope thats from 30-50ft max. Coz if its from 4 miles out i would be sceptical about the stble approach criteria being met at eith 500 or 1000ft ( depending on what FR use).

I remember Dan-Air's 737's into LGW and MAN flew an early version of CDA's, not really for fuel benefit, but to be good neighbours. They kept the speed up and started configuring a little later on so thatat 500' they had fully configered, done checks and and approach power with the speed Vref + 5 or so. As soon as BA took overwith the LGW guys and girls the training capts blew fuses when they saw this happening.......and now what do we have.....CDA's and 170 to 5 miles at LGW. :}

[EGAC_Ramper]

BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES
well lets hope thats from 30-50ft max. Coz if its from 4 miles out i would be sceptical about the stble approach criteria being met at eith 500 or 1000ft ( depending on what FR use).

I'd more say that what the person means is actually idle thrust from TOD until finals rather than idle during whole of approach or we'd have more Amsterdam instances ocurring.


Regards

[phineas]

Why stop with the engines, shut down the hydraulics and get the passengers to move about. 'We need to bank would all passengers please move to the port side'

:)

[regle]

A modest first thread. In a 747 in 1981 , and very early in the morning, coming from New York at around 30,000 ft. I was passed from Dover to Brussels and cleared straight in to land and did so without touching the throttles again until I applied reverse on the runway. There is a Belgian Captain, now retired, who was my First officer that day who will vouch for me. Regle