Engine shut down after landing
 

Is it unusual for a/c to shut one engine down taxying in after landing? also, what's the point ?

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.

Some airfields request that outboards should be shut down when taxiing. Lessening FOD hazzards?

Just give it at least a minute after clearing the runway - thermal stress breaks engines...:ok:

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

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...

Safety First.
 

Most of the time it's a cost saving measure. At some airports - regarding 4 engine aircraft - it can be a FOD prevention practice to protect the outboard engines. However, it's not a procedure that I've encountered at any of airports that I've operated to, which include most major international airports around the world.

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.

True. And that break can cause a fire. Engine fires are more likely to happen during start-up or shutdown, so - in my personal opinion - this is something that should be done when closest to fire fighting equipment and personal.

If fuel is going an issue, and delays are expect, plan for it and fuel the A/C accordingly.

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.

Cheers, and fly safe.

That's not what he asked. All the airlines I have flown for forbid this on the Boeings I have flown. Shutting down on taxi in is not the same and Mr Boeing has no objections to it and I fail to see what sort of engine fire shutting fuel OFF to an engine can cause.

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.

No, planning ahead and using an authorised SOP to shutdown any engine during taxiing is what is required, knowing which systems will be affected and not deviating from the documented procedure (which will have been written to account for any systems' loss)

True, which is why a written procedure will be in your Part B (under JAR Ops) which has been authorised by the manufacturer and implemented by the airline. If, as Commander you consider all the consequences of single engine taxi in and you make your own risk assessment that you are NOT compromising safety, you are being professional and saving your company fuel and engine wear. It's the same as being professional and taking the right amount of fuel for the sector and not just loading an extra tonne for the wife and kids; sure it gives you a warm feeling, but it sure ain't being professional, as is not considering an authorised procedure to save the company money and making a blanket statement such as 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?

PP

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.

330 taxis very well on No1. Saves heating the brakes when you have a long taxi and it will turn either way at idle or just above.

On the classic 74 we commonly shut down #3 also #2 if light. It does help keep the brakes cooler.

If you read my entire post, you'd find that I provided the information that I did, then at the end directly answered the original question.

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?

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).:ok:

PP

Weren't we married once? Sorry about the late alimony payment, it won't happen again.

No not me guv, I don't go for the assumptive type;)

PP