Compulsory Single-Engine Taxi HKG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tung Chung
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory Single-Engine Taxi HKG
Hi All,
I would just like to apologize for taxiing at a walking pace and creating problems for ground controllers and other pilots .
For the life of me, I don't understand how this procedure can save fuel if a desk pilot is taking away my initiative by making the single engine taxi an obligatory SOP .
It takes me three times longer to get onto my bay . Yes, I broke the rules and ran a little trial. So if it takes me three times longer to get to the bay but my fuel flow is 50 % less. Am I saving fuel or burning extra ?
I would just like to apologize for taxiing at a walking pace and creating problems for ground controllers and other pilots .
For the life of me, I don't understand how this procedure can save fuel if a desk pilot is taking away my initiative by making the single engine taxi an obligatory SOP .
It takes me three times longer to get onto my bay . Yes, I broke the rules and ran a little trial. So if it takes me three times longer to get to the bay but my fuel flow is 50 % less. Am I saving fuel or burning extra ?
Last edited by Follow the Follow Me; 25th Sep 2013 at 02:06.
From a common sense point of view I would tend to agree with doubleu, single engine taxi on a twin has got to be a false economy. For the sake of maybe 100liters (80 USD ish) of fuel, the increase in wear on the nosewheel tires and nose gear, not to mention the increased thrust required, and therefore fuel burnt on the operating engine, has got to result in an increase in total costs! Where as shutting down engine(s) for taxi on a 747, subject to A/c weight and maneuvering requirements, as we've always done, makes perfect sense.
But then this would hardly be the first time CX has shot themselves in the foot trying to save fuel, silver freighters anyone? Never let common sense get between a bean counter and his money!
But then this would hardly be the first time CX has shot themselves in the foot trying to save fuel, silver freighters anyone? Never let common sense get between a bean counter and his money!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd think they would have figured out the fleet (CX/KA) is carrying around 5T of manuals around which could be removed instantly if they issued iPads to each of us.
But that means actually giving the crew something for free
But that means actually giving the crew something for free
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong Approach
Shutting an engine down during taxi in on a twin to save fuel, is about the same as sticking a bandaid on an arterial bleed . It might seem like a great idea at the time whilst sitting at a desk but it ain't going to solve the real problem
The single biggest waste of fuel is the result of an inefficient ATC system in HK . I know that HK ATC controllers are doing their best within the confines of their geographical location and limited airspace. But every time I go into the hold for 10 -20 mins, or get vectored all over the South China Sea at 10,000 ft or lower in many cases, the amount of fuel wasted on just one flight dwarfs the entire amount of fuel that I'm likely to save with this ill planned idea.
But hey if they want me to kill an engine and run the other one at much higher thrust just to keep moving I will .
Now if they wanted to make a difference, tow us out to the holding point before we start, that might save a bit of fuel especially in JFK . I'm sure JFK ground would be more than happy to accommodate us in this endeavor
The single biggest waste of fuel is the result of an inefficient ATC system in HK . I know that HK ATC controllers are doing their best within the confines of their geographical location and limited airspace. But every time I go into the hold for 10 -20 mins, or get vectored all over the South China Sea at 10,000 ft or lower in many cases, the amount of fuel wasted on just one flight dwarfs the entire amount of fuel that I'm likely to save with this ill planned idea.
But hey if they want me to kill an engine and run the other one at much higher thrust just to keep moving I will .
Now if they wanted to make a difference, tow us out to the holding point before we start, that might save a bit of fuel especially in JFK . I'm sure JFK ground would be more than happy to accommodate us in this endeavor
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, and Qantas implemented a robust cost cutting plan of not using reverse thrust in an effort to save on parts and maintenance costs, and we all know what the end result of that exercise was in Bangkok, when Professor Reasons Swiss cheese holes finally lined up 
Beancounters are dic#heads.
Beancounters are dic#heads.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In and out?
I'm curious.....are you guys being asked for S.E. taxi on both departure and arrival or only on arrival? Definitely not much to be saved on the 3 minutes from runway turnoff to parking bay. But, I'm aware that S.E. taxi on departure is somewhat taboo in this part of the world. FWIW, S.E. taxi for both departure and arrival is somewhat normal at U.S. carriers.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, S.E. taxi for both departure and arrival is somewhat normal at U.S. carriers.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense used to prevail, on a 4jet taxiing in, if the ac weight wasn't too great shut 1 or 2 eng down after the recommended cooling time.
Now we have to check NOTAM/Port pages and brief it, forgot to brief it? should I still do it. On a big twin you will get a fuel saving only, if the thrust is at idle, stop and increase thrust to break away and your savings are out of the window. New JFO who doesn't understand spool-up times and constantly increasing decreasing thrust lever position, even more fuel used. No doubt there will be a Learner's World program to complete, in your own time.
However, taxiing out in PEK with an unknown delay before T/O that's another matter
Now we have to check NOTAM/Port pages and brief it, forgot to brief it? should I still do it. On a big twin you will get a fuel saving only, if the thrust is at idle, stop and increase thrust to break away and your savings are out of the window. New JFO who doesn't understand spool-up times and constantly increasing decreasing thrust lever position, even more fuel used. No doubt there will be a Learner's World program to complete, in your own time.
However, taxiing out in PEK with an unknown delay before T/O that's another matter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the increased chances of FOD, through increase in thrust, on an under wing mounted engine.
Is it really a good idea to be conducting an engine start on a regular basis, away from the gate when both crew should be concentrating on other flight preparations and lookout etc.?
Is it really a good idea to be conducting an engine start on a regular basis, away from the gate when both crew should be concentrating on other flight preparations and lookout etc.?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have it all wrong!
You could save much more fuel if at 500 feet on short finals being visual with the runway and committed we should shut-down engine #2
Imagine the fuel saving then!.. Only one reverse used also!
You could save much more fuel if at 500 feet on short finals being visual with the runway and committed we should shut-down engine #2
Imagine the fuel saving then!.. Only one reverse used also!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts