Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Single Engine Taxi v's annual profits

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Single Engine Taxi v's annual profits

Old 14th May 2017, 03:36
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
Only the first one. All the others get delayed by the tugs clogging up the taxiways returning to the aprons.

Plus, what if you have start problems? Do you want to find out close to the apron where you can return for engineering, or 100's, maybe 1000's, of metres away at a holding point, blocking access for everyone else.
How is it any different from taxiing out on one engine like we do already and then having start problems starting #2 or #3 or #4?

Just like anywhere else if an aircraft has issue while on the taxi out then you get parked in the penalty box, de-ice pads or elsewhere.

Personally though I can see the concept of electric motors on the wheels for ground taxi being a better solution than the logistics of tugs in the long term, just my own opinion without any solid data to back it up at all.
havick is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 06:02
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by havick
I agree, though think about how many hybrid cars are out on the roads these days without electric motor issues.

Wouldn't be hard for the OEM to install an interlock and relay the prevents the motors being energized until both engines see shutdown and the thrust levers at idle.
Hybrid car electric motors operate in a different way which doesn't involve the issue of having a connected wheel spinup from 0 to 250 km/h in 0.4 seconds upon impacting a concrete surface at up to 150 metres per second vertically, so it is improbable that they could ever venture into this area.

Interlocks and relays can and do fail. So I imagine there would be a lot of engineering development work and risk matrix work required before it became practical. Is it worth the expense? I don't know. Airlines have refused to wear the development and ongoing maintenance cost for things far less complicated than that!
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 07:23
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Single engine taxi before departure is very common in the US especially at busy airports and flying to busy airports where there is flow control even before you take-off. On the ERJ175s, we need 2 minutes after engine start before we can take-off. It's usually never a problem. I'm surprised it's not so common in other parts of the world.
VH DSJ is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 11:49
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by DutchRoll
Hybrid car electric motors operate in a different way which doesn't involve the issue of having a connected wheel spinup from 0 to 250 km/h in 0.4 seconds upon impacting a concrete surface at up to 150 metres per second vertically, so it is improbable that they could ever venture into this area.

Interlocks and relays can and do fail. So I imagine there would be a lot of engineering development work and risk matrix work required before it became practical. Is it worth the expense? I don't know. Airlines have refused to wear the development and ongoing maintenance cost for things far less complicated than that!
Totally missing the point. They are talking about using them for taxi only. I.e. Clear the runway, after landing checklist then shutdown the engines. So there's no reason for the motors to spin up at all until the aircraft is already at a complete stop and off the runway.
havick is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 14:15
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad
I think he meant surviving being forced to spin up by the action of landing.
Wether they are or are not providing power is irrelevant, the mechanisms still need to survive that wear and tear.
Ever heard of a freewheel unit?

Not that I really care, I'll happily keep burning fuel, but to say it's not do-able at all is a little closed minded.

Last edited by havick; 14th May 2017 at 14:38.
havick is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 17:04
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 67
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The economics are very simple. Single engine taxiing saves money. The more flights you do, the more you save. If you have a start problem then that is tough but really, ho many start problems have you had? My company have been doing it for near enough 12 years without a problem (100,000 flights per year). I'll also suggest that as soon as the economic case for having electric taxi motors is clear, airlines will fall over themselves to get them installed. Complexity is someone else's problem, looking after cash is theirs.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 08:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's an idea - electric pilot-controlled tugs that self-drive back to base via a tiny tug-only taxiway.

Someone do eeeeetttt!
AbsoluteFokker is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 09:48
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,082
Received 444 Likes on 122 Posts
Even better, they self drive in a tiny tunnel that doesn't need much ventilation etc, basically a tube / pipe.
framer is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 00:57
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bran Castle
Posts: 217
Received 40 Likes on 13 Posts
OP...

The amount of aircraft doing SE taxi is dynamic. This changes on a flight by flight basis dependant on a number of factors, predominantly taxi time. Once the APU is up and running and a sufficient cool-down period is completed (3 minutes for us), then the option to conduct SE taxi is there.

I'm yet to see anyone take it up taxiing out and imagine that the only time it would be is when the time to take-off is significant (above 30 minutes). In this case I would also suspect both engines would be started initially, and provided it's a normal start then would proceed to shut one down (and eventually restart) after being notified that the time to take-off would be extensive. I assume the provision is there to accommodate 'unusual' situations or for airlines running out of busier airports (Heathrow?) where taxi times are consistently long.

As for taxiing in, we burn 1.2 tonne/hour at idle (B767, two-engines), so discounting the extra fuel for the APU and the higher power settings for crossing runways or getting onto the bay/during turns, I guess 2 minutes you're looking at 60kg of gas saving per time we do it.

Hope this helps.
romeocharlie is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 02:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by romeocharlie
OP...

The amount of aircraft doing SE taxi is dynamic. This changes on a flight by flight basis dependant on a number of factors, predominantly taxi time. Once the APU is up and running and a sufficient cool-down period is completed (3 minutes for us), then the option to conduct SE taxi is there.

Here in the US it's more a practical reason in that the wait line to the off can be so long that if you have all engines burning on the taxi out you will likely not meet your min TO fuel. Indirectly I guess it's a fuel/cost saving measure rather than a more practical reason of not screwing the passengers over and returning to the gate to top up with gas.

I'm yet to see anyone take it up taxiing out and imagine that the only time it would be is when the time to take-off is significant (above 30 minutes). In this case I would also suspect both engines would be started initially, and provided it's a normal start then would proceed to shut one down (and eventually restart) after being notified that the time to take-off would be extensive. I assume the provision is there to accommodate 'unusual' situations or for airlines running out of busier airports (Heathrow?) where taxi times are consistently long.

As for taxiing in, we burn 1.2 tonne/hour at idle (B767, two-engines), so discounting the extra fuel for the APU and the higher power settings for crossing runways or getting onto the bay/during turns, I guess 2 minutes you're looking at 60kg of gas saving per time we do it.

Hope this helps.
In the USA normal practice is to taxi out on one engine until you see how long the line is. About 4-5 aircraft before your turn to take the runway then start remainder of engines with enough time to meet warm up limitations.

After landing taxi in on one after meeting cool down requirements, unless there's tight turns into the gate.
havick is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 09:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: YMEN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Curious novice here. Despite fuel burn being a non-issue in this scenario can somebody explain why its taboo to move say a Seminole from one part of an airport to another on one engine?
lo_lyf is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 17:21
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 40
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by lo_lyf
Curious novice here. Despite fuel burn being a non-issue in this scenario can somebody explain why its taboo to move say a Seminole from one part of an airport to another on one engine?
Probably because it's quicker to move it. And a secondary being that most piston engine wear is done in the first minute of start, so why start it for only a couple of minutes if you don't need to.
Shagpile is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 18:18
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Korea
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not taboo. They are not often used by commercial airlines run by bean counters. So nobody bothered to write a procedure for it and have it approved...
Kim Jong Il is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 22:36
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lo_lyf
Curious novice here. Despite fuel burn being a non-issue in this scenario can somebody explain why its taboo to move say a Seminole from one part of an airport to another on one engine?
I tried to single-engine taxi a Duchess once after a starter motor failure. Couldn't do it.
skkm is offline  
Old 16th May 2017, 22:45
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad
I think he meant surviving being forced to spin up by the action of landing.
Wether they are or are not providing power is irrelevant, the mechanisms still need to survive that wear and tear.
That was indeed my point.

And of course I'm not saying it's not do-able. I'm saying that the engineering and development effort with all the considerations required is highly unlikely to be cheap and easy.

It's not being closed minded, just realistic. Of course it is possible. But is it worth it? There are many risk vs reward considerations.

You can make an economic case for anything. My airline famously made an economic case for only using idle-reverse thrust on landing until it ran a perfectly serviceable Boeing 747 full of passengers off the end of a runway into a golf course. The aircraft was as near to a write-off as you can get, without actually being written off (the decision to repair raised eyebrows in some circles), then we spent the next 15 years using full reverse thrust on all landings.

How good do people reckon the economics were there?

You can make economic cases for instantaneous fuel savings for many things but you have to balance operational and engineering risks too, so it's just not that simple. Over my 30 year career I've not once ever seen a bean-counter who understands what "operational" or "engineering" actually means but I've seen quite a number of fuel-saving decisions reversed, reversed back again, then reversed back again, then reversed back again, etc. They sit at a desk (be surprised if they even have a window) and deal with numbers.

We had a scenario not long ago where one department in the airline made a decision to stop washing fuselages and compressors because it was expensive and it had no bearing on flight safety (true), and helped them meet their KPIs. It cost flight operations many millions of dollars in fuel penalties due to performance factor increases. Took something like 6 months after the supporting data was gathered to get it reversed, but in the meantime multiple millions of dollars fluttered away, never to return. Amazing how tenaciously senior managers hang on to their KPIs.

The whole thing is an absurd game. But I just fly the things.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 09:33
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,394
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Some airlines introduced s/e taxy after landing only to find engine maintenance increased due to bearing wear. If you want to reduce trip fuel put some pilots and cabin crew on a diet.
B772 is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 10:18
  #37 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
Enjoyable conversation but any ideas on the number of wide body jets and the number of narrow body jets in the QF group and how many sectors they average a day?
73qanda is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 21:05
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Shagpile
Small deviation from the original question: for large airports with long taxi's, have aircraft ever been pushed back & towed to the holding point & started engines 2-3 minutes prior to takeoff ?
Here ya go:

TaxiBot Now Certified on Airbus A320 Family | AviationPros.com
bafanguy is offline  
Old 18th May 2017, 12:14
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by B772
Some airlines introduced s/e taxy after landing only to find engine maintenance increased due to bearing wear. If you want to reduce trip fuel put some pilots and cabin crew on a diet.
Funny thing is that one of the analysts in American Airlines recently said that 80% of our fuel saving are simply by flying the dispatch release/flight plan as it's actually planned. The remainder is from single engine taxi etc
havick is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.