A320 single engine taxi out threats
I've lost count of the times SET aircraft fail to be ready at a time I could depart them. I normally then log the difference between actual airborne time and when they should have been airbrone and it is usually 5-10 minutes. Additionally the opportunity to use the runway can be lost, delaying every subsequent departure for for the rest of the day until runway utilisation is not limiting movements. One aircraft not ready at their base could cumulatively cost their company (aircraft that follow) an hour of extra delays at a busy airfield.
Only half a speed-brake
Excellent inputs showing what a multi-headed hydra SETD is. Thanks a lot Dan for the view from across the tower windows! Dare I say your experience would include a certain citrus fruit operator at their major base nearby Horley? If those guys can't get it right without shooting their foot...
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our baseline flight planning is two engine taxi which equates to 30 pounds per minute. Single engine with APU running equals 18 pounds per minute. We average about 15 minutes taxi time for each flight across our operation. We operate about 166 319/320 aircraft. I won’t do the public math, but the yearly savings using SE across the fleet is in excess of $1 million.
That is well and good but I would leave with this thought - Safety is paramount on the flights we conduct, it is absolute and our first priority, but can operating our flight as efficiently as possible lead to an increase in safety?
Each pound of fuel you save on your flight you put in your pocket for your use on your flight if you need it. A hundred pounds on the ground, a hundred on climbout, a few directs, CI monitoring, optimum altitude cruise, etc and over the course of a flight one might save 3, 4, maybe 500 pounds of fuel. All fuel saved for your use on your flight if you need it. If you don’t need it, fine, give it back to the company but if you do need it, like I did a few months ago when the gear didn’t come down on the first try (and second try for that matter - third time a charm) I was happy that I operated my flight as efficiently as possible to that point to give me a few extra precious minutes to sort that issue out.
That is well and good but I would leave with this thought - Safety is paramount on the flights we conduct, it is absolute and our first priority, but can operating our flight as efficiently as possible lead to an increase in safety?
Each pound of fuel you save on your flight you put in your pocket for your use on your flight if you need it. A hundred pounds on the ground, a hundred on climbout, a few directs, CI monitoring, optimum altitude cruise, etc and over the course of a flight one might save 3, 4, maybe 500 pounds of fuel. All fuel saved for your use on your flight if you need it. If you don’t need it, fine, give it back to the company but if you do need it, like I did a few months ago when the gear didn’t come down on the first try (and second try for that matter - third time a charm) I was happy that I operated my flight as efficiently as possible to that point to give me a few extra precious minutes to sort that issue out.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I asked my friend again and he confirmed what I said: Most of the time on the 319 they need to add power to get moving after releasing the parking brake. but they do operate often quite heavy tho.
