Compulsory Single-Engine Taxi HKG
Code:
However, taxiing out in PEK with an unknown delay before T/O that's another matter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other companies have been doing this for years. There will always be a group of pilots vehemently opposed to this simple procedure. But they really have to ask themselves what they base their opposition on. You do not have ANY figures to back up your claims that single engine taxi does not save fuel. Just speculation...
Again, other airlines have been doing this for years.
Again, other airlines have been doing this for years.
Yeah, in the US, in places like JFK, where taxi delays can stretch to 90 mins or more.
And it's optional anyhow. Captains decision.
Boy you CX guys really are hide bound by ridiculous SOP's.
Where's Dusky Dog to lecture us about 'airmanship'.
And it's optional anyhow. Captains decision.
Boy you CX guys really are hide bound by ridiculous SOP's.
Where's Dusky Dog to lecture us about 'airmanship'.
Last edited by Killaroo; 1st Oct 2013 at 07:35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all
With regards to SE taxiing,sure there may be a cost saving over a period of time,but surely if you have,say a crj2 doing se taxiing ops there would be ALOT of nose wheel/rudder input,therefore creating additional wear and tear...Or am I wrong in saying so?
Dan
With regards to SE taxiing,sure there may be a cost saving over a period of time,but surely if you have,say a crj2 doing se taxiing ops there would be ALOT of nose wheel/rudder input,therefore creating additional wear and tear...Or am I wrong in saying so?
Dan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tung Chung
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PENKO
Consider the time to bay in some airports. Shanghai 35L for example. Is a 25 to 30kt taxi on the long taxiways, without any traffic congestion, going to be quicker than a 5 to 10kt taxi? Hong Kong stopping and starting its hard to get the speed up and time to bay increases significantly.
If it was discretionary it would be a great way to save fuel on occasion. As it is compulsory, as the second contributor to the thread says, it puts money in your pocket through OT and the odd extra day off. If desk pilots flew more often and across the whole range of the network they would realize the common sense of making single engine taxi discretionary.
Consider the time to bay in some airports. Shanghai 35L for example. Is a 25 to 30kt taxi on the long taxiways, without any traffic congestion, going to be quicker than a 5 to 10kt taxi? Hong Kong stopping and starting its hard to get the speed up and time to bay increases significantly.
If it was discretionary it would be a great way to save fuel on occasion. As it is compulsory, as the second contributor to the thread says, it puts money in your pocket through OT and the odd extra day off. If desk pilots flew more often and across the whole range of the network they would realize the common sense of making single engine taxi discretionary.
Last edited by Follow the Follow Me; 1st Oct 2013 at 08:06.
If you turn one off when straight and pointed at the parking bay it still counts right?
The don
The don
Guys you are missing the point.
If CX tell me to fly inverted under the Sydney Harbor bridge to save fuel then that's what I'll do if under the circumstances it's safe. ( yes I know flying under the bridge inverted isn't safe
)
It's their it train set, if they think it could save fuel then what's the beef??
NIKE.
If CX tell me to fly inverted under the Sydney Harbor bridge to save fuel then that's what I'll do if under the circumstances it's safe. ( yes I know flying under the bridge inverted isn't safe
)It's their it train set, if they think it could save fuel then what's the beef??
NIKE.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow, a little bit of common sense is needed with single engine taxi ops. If you think you'll be adding power constantly, then it might not be a good idea to employ this procedure.
But be honest, is it really that bad? A little bit of power on the engine to build up taxi speed still burns less fuel than two engines running all the time.
On some occasions you will not save much fuel, on other occasions, like delays at the holding point, you will save massively. To me it's worth the hassle on almost every departure on my fleet.
So, I understand that you are not happy with the compulsory bit. But in my company where it is up to the captain to decide on single engine taxi, only about 35% of the flights taxi out on one engine. Why? Because we are a grumpy old bunch of prima donna's who don't like change. So I can understand why your airline thinks its better to make it compulsory procedure, even if that leads to inefficiency on some departures.
But be honest, is it really that bad? A little bit of power on the engine to build up taxi speed still burns less fuel than two engines running all the time.
On some occasions you will not save much fuel, on other occasions, like delays at the holding point, you will save massively. To me it's worth the hassle on almost every departure on my fleet.
So, I understand that you are not happy with the compulsory bit. But in my company where it is up to the captain to decide on single engine taxi, only about 35% of the flights taxi out on one engine. Why? Because we are a grumpy old bunch of prima donna's who don't like change. So I can understand why your airline thinks its better to make it compulsory procedure, even if that leads to inefficiency on some departures.
Last edited by PENKO; 1st Oct 2013 at 09:05.
