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 ?

You're putting money in your pocket, don't complain.

Why on earth would it take you 3 times longer to get to your bay?.... Are you taxiing at 3 kts?

Oh sorry... Just read your last posts.... It's because you're a ****

Try to taxi a jumbo on 1 eng, it will take more than 3 times as long.

Single engine taxi?

Wait for the bills to come in for nose wheel mount wear and tear.

Maybe fuselage twisting etc.

False economy I say.

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! :ugh:

silver freighters anyone?
 

I still remember the mad dash around the offices to remove all (half-used) colour printer cartridges during SARS.

Common sense, anyone?

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 :eek:

And now we're gonna run out of water for the sake of saving a couple of litres of fuel. Way to go CX!

I can see some diversions and red faces coming :ok:

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

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.

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.

Yeah, on an MD-80 with near centerline thrust. Does SWA single engine taxi the 737? (Honest question)

Yes, they do.

Not aware of SWA policies. However, UAL was doing it on 737, A319/320, 757/767, and 777.

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

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.?

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:D

Imagine the fuel saving then!.. Only one reverse used also!:ugh:

Add this Baron as well.....

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...53217764,d.aGc