Single engine taxi vs no engine taxi?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: -
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single engine taxi vs no engine taxi?
I flew on a well known airline recently and sat at the over wing exits. I have over 1500 hours on the type flown and more on other types. Without doubt, we taxied onto the apron and at a decent speed, shut down both engines. At least 200 meters from the turn on. We then turned onto stand and came to a halt free-wheeling so to speak. It has happened on the airline before but usually just as we come onto the stand, not 200 meters from the turn onto stand.
My question: Is it safe? Is it legal? Is it now SOP in some airlines?
Screwballs
Ps. to assist in the technical side the aircraft type was a 737 NG.
My question: Is it safe? Is it legal? Is it now SOP in some airlines?
Screwballs
Ps. to assist in the technical side the aircraft type was a 737 NG.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, simple common-sense would dictate that this is not very sensible. For one, a last minute change of stand could make that very embarrassing. Or, being asked to stop by ATC for what ever reason.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As mini-jumbo already said, not very sensible. 
However, there is training going on or, as in some case, training to commence, for a one-engine approach to apron and gate. 
This is also in my company a discussed issue and there are cost saving reasons behind it.
Saving 2€ on fuel for each arrival (just a guess) on a fleet of more than 100 aircraft following this at least 4 times a day gives a saving of 365000€ a year.....
In case of lo-co airlines, having the #1 dead arriving at the gate allows for immediate deployment of the airstairs (B737NG) and saves about 18,5 seconds on turn-around.....
MOL will love it....
However, there is training going on or, as in some case, training to commence, for a one-engine approach to apron and gate. This is also in my company a discussed issue and there are cost saving reasons behind it. Saving 2€ on fuel for each arrival (just a guess) on a fleet of more than 100 aircraft following this at least 4 times a day gives a saving of 365000€ a year.....
In case of lo-co airlines, having the #1 dead arriving at the gate allows for immediate deployment of the airstairs (B737NG) and saves about 18,5 seconds on turn-around.....
MOL will love it....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One engine taxiing when there is a long taxi, I can see the argument for fuel saving, although as I don't fly a 2 engined a/c I'm not sure on the handling characteristics of single engine taxiing.
And yes, MOL will love the time saved on turnarounds.
And yes, MOL will love the time saved on turnarounds.
Last edited by mini-jumbo; 16th Apr 2008 at 11:45. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single-eng taxi in is SOP in my airline - assuming adequate engine cool-down time, no adverse taxiway/apron characteristics etc etc. Absolutely no problem with handling, as long as you anticipate any taxiway gradient. Saves in the region of $millions if applied over the whole (large) fleet.
Screwballs, I would be very careful of using the words without doubt in this industry; no matter how sure we are of something, we are still prone to error.
Down the back of a 737NG is not the best position to judge things.
Why not write to airline concerned, and ask for an explanation of their policy in this regard? Or file a quick CHIRP report, which can be followed up with the airline whilst preserving your anonymity.
Screwballs, I would be very careful of using the words without doubt in this industry; no matter how sure we are of something, we are still prone to error.
Down the back of a 737NG is not the best position to judge things.
Why not write to airline concerned, and ask for an explanation of their policy in this regard? Or file a quick CHIRP report, which can be followed up with the airline whilst preserving your anonymity.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Power arrival at gate.
Screwballs, I don't like to pour cold water on a good yarn, however I cannot believe that your "well known airline", or any other responsible airline would countenance an event as described by you. I note you have NO DOUBT that it happened. If you are ABSOLUTELY SURE the aircraft "free wheeled" for 200 metres you should, at the very least, change the airline you fly with to one with a responsible approach to the job. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: -
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am well aware of the usual "down the back" comments but I would bet my salary on it. I pax on the same airline, same seat about once a week. I know what it is like. So assume just for now, it is happening.
As it stands, the reason I posted on pprune was to see what people thought before I file a CHIRP report and contact the company. The reason I asked the question was because, when I actually thought about it, what is unsafe about it or illegal about it?
Legally; I couldn't think of any document that specifically prohibits coasting onto stand. But then by the same argument, you can't say it's allowed just because it isn't specifically dis-allowed.
Safety-wise; you still have electric hydraulic pumps, and if APU goes kaput then at least 6 efforts from the accumulator to come to a safe halt.
So to summarise, can you tell me if it is illegal to taxi without power, and why it would be unsafe? I'm just looking for opinions - I know what this place is like hence the anonymity of the airline.
Thanks for the contributions so far,
Screwballs.
As it stands, the reason I posted on pprune was to see what people thought before I file a CHIRP report and contact the company. The reason I asked the question was because, when I actually thought about it, what is unsafe about it or illegal about it?
Legally; I couldn't think of any document that specifically prohibits coasting onto stand. But then by the same argument, you can't say it's allowed just because it isn't specifically dis-allowed.
Safety-wise; you still have electric hydraulic pumps, and if APU goes kaput then at least 6 efforts from the accumulator to come to a safe halt.
So to summarise, can you tell me if it is illegal to taxi without power, and why it would be unsafe? I'm just looking for opinions - I know what this place is like hence the anonymity of the airline.
Thanks for the contributions so far,
Screwballs.
Last edited by Screwballs; 16th Apr 2008 at 15:06. Reason: spelling
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't know where you are but the UK ANO says:
An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the engines are running when the aircraft comes to rest.
An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the engines are running when the aircraft comes to rest.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No meat , no barbecue...
In the near future the airline financial genius will start to ask us to shut one engine down for descent.
Since I have never a seen a company get out of business because of the pilots , better to think about shutting some administration benefits down.
In the near future the airline financial genius will start to ask us to shut one engine down for descent.
Since I have never a seen a company get out of business because of the pilots , better to think about shutting some administration benefits down.
