Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

B737 taxi with one eng.

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

B737 taxi with one eng.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Aug 2009, 07:15
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taxi in on one engine is no problem at all as it has been said earlier.

However, taxi back does not seem to be a good idea to me.
Unlike high wing turboprops like ATR, the engines on the Boeings are closer to the ground and a taxi back will have a great risk of FOD due to ingestion of dust and small stones on the apron that are blown up by your own engine's reversers.
TheWanderer is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2009, 11:34
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Posts: 896
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As far as I remember the Flight Crew Training manual states that taxiing on one engine is "not recommended"
Not anymore, at least for 757/767. Due to pressure from operators Boeing changed its stance and now we have a chapter title "Engine Out Taxi" in the FCTM.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 20:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: deep in the heart of taxes
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The reason you want to shut down No.2 engine on taxi in is
so the ground personnel can open the cargo doors and get
the bags out pronto. Guess what side the cargo doors are on?
Bullwinklejmoose is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 21:36
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It will take you one sec to shut down eng no2.So,I don t think this is a good and realistic point of view.
Visionman is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 22:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 70
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rumour has it that Boeing are looking at using reverse thrust (737NG) for backing out of airbridge positions rather than using tugs to push back. The cost savings is significant by eliminating need for tug drivers (saving in union driven high salaries, overtime, and other workers benefits) Single engine reverse is being considered to save fuel but the extra thrust means higher fuel consumption so at this stage two engine reverse appears the go. One company is known to be looking into the possibility of employing deaf and dumb marshallers or wing tip walkers during the push back process. This offers considerable savings on radio headsets now used during push back. Sign language manuals will be issued to flight crew.

Amazing what operational measures can be taken to contribute to the financial health of the airline - something we all need to ensure we have a job...

Rumor has it that Elvis And M. Jacson is training for a big comebac, on the moon !
Rumor has it that we're gonna have to carry around on a big electrical engine and alot of batteries for pushback and taxi.
Rumor also has it that sone day some stupid engineer is gonna design the pilot out of the cockpit.
Relax, it's all rumors.
Capt. Inop is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2009, 07:47
  #26 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do hope A37575 didn't remove any scalp as he went over.
BOAC is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2009, 08:04
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bullwinkle,

Do the ground staff at your airport approach an aircraft with the beacon still flashing?

Have to say at LGW they dont, but then again some of them do seem to be autonomous beings that must follow the strict rules as per the union. They buggers never come near us until we turn off the beacon, until it comes to loading and they do know best for the NG.

That said we SETI with the engine that will be on the inside of the final turn to stand, off. Our analysts have said that even two min with one engine can save 70-100 kgs. the 'added' extra power seems to generally be a non-event, unless we have to stop then its a pain in the ar5e.

259
rjay259 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2009, 08:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our analysts have said that even two min with one engine can save 70-100 kgs. the 'added' extra power seems to generally be a non-event
erm....come on! that would mean ONE eng uses 35kg/min during idle taxing.... kinda unlikely when u know that TWO eng INFLIGHT use 40/min...
FCS Explorer is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2009, 09:02
  #29 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
5kg/minute/engine as a 'ball park'.
BOAC is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2009, 09:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mumbai, INDIA
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Powerbacking on the B737 will have a cost on the Engine life too.Unless GSE not available then only use powerback on a B737...and remember to stop using FWD THRUST ONLY NOT the brakes.
regds
MEL.
HAWK21M 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



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.