Engine shut down after landing
No it's not unusual and it's mainly done to save fuel...it also has the side effect of reducing the need to "ride" the brakes to control taxi speed - at lightweights with all engines running at idle many aircraft will accelerate.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Farnham
Age: 42
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also make sure you shut down the correct one. If you've got loads of left turns on the way to stand for example, then you want to shut down the left engine - a left turn on the left engine only will be interesting!
NW3
NW3
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a bad idea to check brakes after shutting one or two down to make sure you haven't lost brake hydraulics.
A UAL 747 capt found this out the hard way 30 years ago...
A UAL 747 capt found this out the hard way 30 years ago...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety First.
Originally Posted by dada
Is it unusual for a/c to shut one engine down taxying in after landing? also, what's the point ?
That said, starting or stopping engines away from the parking stand or airport gate is something that I personally consider to be a bad idea.
Here's why. In an effort to save some fuel, if I opt to start an engine during the taxi phase, and that engine should catch fire during the start, I am now that much further away from the ground staff who can put that fire out should it become un-controllable.
Furthermore, if I had to evacuate the aircraft due to an un-controllable fire, I would have hundreds of people sliding out and running around – in close proximity – to many other running aircraft. The potential for injury, or worse, would be immeasurable.
Near the airport gate, I have more available ground staff to assist, thus greatly reducing the risk of post evacuation injury.
Furthermore, the most common times that you find folks starting engine during taxi, would be when significant delays are encountered for take-off.
If theses delays were due to weather - and the above fire took place - the Airport Fire Brigade would have that much more difficulty finding you at the now congested, and weather effected airport (Haze, Fog, Mist, Rain, etc).
The same goes for shutting engines down during taxi after arrival.
Originally Posted by ETOPS
Just give it at least a minute after clearing the runway - thermal stress breaks engines...
If fuel is going an issue, and delays are expect, plan for it and fuel the A/C accordingly.
Originally Posted by barit1
Not a bad idea to check brakes after shutting one or two down to make sure you haven't lost brake hydraulics.
A UAL 747 capt found this out the hard way 30 years ago...
A UAL 747 capt found this out the hard way 30 years ago...
Finally, the important issue here is, to ensure that an un-compromising level of Safety, comes before Economics.
Cheers, and fly safe.
Last edited by TOGA Descent; 3rd Jun 2006 at 05:11.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an effort to save some fuel, if I opt to start an engine
On the 737 we have a recommended cooling period of 3 minutes, but 1 minute is acceptable, so unless you have a significantly long taxi in it is rare that it is worthwhile doing.
Other things to consider are;
APU serviceability
Aircraft systems availability with an engine shutdown
Direction of turns during taxi
Tightness of any turn
Taxiway slope (especially uphill)
Likelihood of delays (ie stopping during taxi)
Wx conditions and surface contamination
Ramp/ taxiway congestion
Familiarity with the airfield and taxi routes
I am sure there are probably a few more I have forgotten to mention.
Not a bad idea to check brakes after shutting one..........
Is another example of the many reasons not to shut them down whilst taxiing
Finally, the important issue here is, to ensure that an un-compromising level of Safety, comes before Economics
starting or stopping engines away from the parking stand or airport gate is something that I personally consider to be a bad idea
PP
Last edited by Pilot Pete; 3rd Jun 2006 at 07:48.
Bottums Up
When operating the venerable BAe146, if landing light and a long taxi to the parking bay, I would have #1 or #4 shutdown (gens only on these engines) to avoid the excessive speed build up or having to ride the carbon brakes to keep the speed under control.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
Everything we do in our SOPs is based on a risk assessment, and an evaluation of what is acceptable risk. Do you have data to support your theory that shutting engines down carries an unacceptable increase in engine fire risk?
Our SOPs does not support engine start-up or shut-down away from a parking stand or gate, as my companies Safety Department considers it a risk.
Why not? I can only assume that some airlines have higher safety standards than others. Are you going to tell me that this is a bad thing?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TOGA Descent
I can only assume that some airlines have higher safety standards than others. Are you going to tell me that this is a bad thing?
It could just be that your company has done a feasability study and decided that there is little economic benefit, or perhaps the aeroplane type has inherent higher risk of systems problems with an engine shutdown, or more likely that the person who makes the decision about such things just doesn't like it (which seems to be the way many pilot managers 'imprint' their mark on an operation).
PP
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
No - ASSUME - Makes an ASS out of You and ME. Assumption is just that, it means nothing. If you 'assume' your airline has higher safety standards then you are going off half cocked. I could 'assume' that it means your pilots are not capable of carrying out single engine taxi because it is too complicated.....but I would NEVER 'assume' that. Assumption is a dangerous thing in aviation and it is always better to be INFORMED and make an opinion that way.
It could just be that your company has done a feasability study and decided that there is little economic benefit, or perhaps the aeroplane type has inherent higher risk of systems problems with an engine shutdown, or more likely that the person who makes the decision about such things just doesn't like it (which seems to be the way many pilot managers 'imprint' their mark on an operation).
PP
It could just be that your company has done a feasability study and decided that there is little economic benefit, or perhaps the aeroplane type has inherent higher risk of systems problems with an engine shutdown, or more likely that the person who makes the decision about such things just doesn't like it (which seems to be the way many pilot managers 'imprint' their mark on an operation).
PP