A-320 Single Engine Taxi out Myth Busters
08-06-2010, 07:22 AM
#81
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Ferd,
As always, a very even-keeled post. The problem I see with your logic is that we DO have a procedure for SE taxi, and furthermore, SE taxi IS the standard procedure. We've already moved beyond the dabate phase, pretty much on an industry-wide basis: we all taxi SE whenever possible.
The world moves on. Just as we probably failed to follow some basic IT developments, failing to taxi SE is basically failing to recognize evolutionary trends in our industry.
I don't have any beef with different philosophies, and with healthy debates. The result of those debates will be some sort of procedure, whichh can go according to one group, or another. Once that happens, we will all make the individual choice of accepting it, or fighting it. It will not be a question of "can't", but of "won't" for those who don't comply.
Everything we do at Delta might be different, and it might be annoying, but it's fairly consistent as a system, and it's designed to allow for SE taxi, from the AWABS timing, to the F/O starting engines.
As we go forward, I'm sure we'll come up with a variety of mutually agreeable "best practices", but in this area I doubt we'll make this huge airline of ours go backwards in time, and push out more dinosaurs on the way to the runway. Now, I will admit that we didn't enjoy going to SE taxi, and that it took some time. We also had a bunch of guys arguing against it, and it took a while after we started going along, before people accepted the idea of doing a crossbleed start. There was a lot of SE taxi with the APU running, for quite a while. So that may be where we are now: slowly adapting. I've said it elswhere before: we pilots are surprisingly resilient to change. So I don't blame anyone for not liking the changes.
Another point: I for one am philosphically opposed to showing any dissatisfaction by pi$$ing out money (i.e. the needless SATCOM use), when there is no appreciable or noticeable effect. Or when the timing is wrong. On the other hand, I'm all for a pilot group that knows how to comply when it wants to, and knows how to use its' discretion to turn it off when it doesn't. Having all sorts of individuals routinely pulling in different directions precludes that sort of thing. Put differently, when we get to the point where we might withold services, I want those services to be highly valued, and sorely missed.
As always, a very even-keeled post. The problem I see with your logic is that we DO have a procedure for SE taxi, and furthermore, SE taxi IS the standard procedure. We've already moved beyond the dabate phase, pretty much on an industry-wide basis: we all taxi SE whenever possible.
The world moves on. Just as we probably failed to follow some basic IT developments, failing to taxi SE is basically failing to recognize evolutionary trends in our industry.
I don't have any beef with different philosophies, and with healthy debates. The result of those debates will be some sort of procedure, whichh can go according to one group, or another. Once that happens, we will all make the individual choice of accepting it, or fighting it. It will not be a question of "can't", but of "won't" for those who don't comply.
Everything we do at Delta might be different, and it might be annoying, but it's fairly consistent as a system, and it's designed to allow for SE taxi, from the AWABS timing, to the F/O starting engines.
As we go forward, I'm sure we'll come up with a variety of mutually agreeable "best practices", but in this area I doubt we'll make this huge airline of ours go backwards in time, and push out more dinosaurs on the way to the runway. Now, I will admit that we didn't enjoy going to SE taxi, and that it took some time. We also had a bunch of guys arguing against it, and it took a while after we started going along, before people accepted the idea of doing a crossbleed start. There was a lot of SE taxi with the APU running, for quite a while. So that may be where we are now: slowly adapting. I've said it elswhere before: we pilots are surprisingly resilient to change. So I don't blame anyone for not liking the changes.
Another point: I for one am philosphically opposed to showing any dissatisfaction by pi$$ing out money (i.e. the needless SATCOM use), when there is no appreciable or noticeable effect. Or when the timing is wrong. On the other hand, I'm all for a pilot group that knows how to comply when it wants to, and knows how to use its' discretion to turn it off when it doesn't. Having all sorts of individuals routinely pulling in different directions precludes that sort of thing. Put differently, when we get to the point where we might withold services, I want those services to be highly valued, and sorely missed.
08-06-2010, 07:28 AM
#82
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
We're supposed to be doing this over here as well but I won't participate either. Safety first and I don't want my F/O's head buried in the panel accomplishing an engine start. 4 eyes are better than 2 out on the taxiway.
08-06-2010, 07:32 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Any fuel balance issues on extended SE taxi? Just wondering if this occurs on the 757. Thanks.
08-06-2010, 07:38 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Got that right..........that and where does the ships headset go? My gawd, the inhumanity of it all!!Ferd
PS Speaking of headsets, now that I'm seeing more and more Dave Clarks I guess I'm going to breakdown and get a Telex 850. Cheapest noise reduction I've found for my APU battered ears. <------howz THAT for thread drift!
As far as headsets go. I got the 850 about a year ago 'cause I didn't want to deal with batteries. And now what do I do? I initially sit there with one ear off so I can hear cross cockpit (no hot interphone) and then at cruise I take it off and turn up the speaker.......DOH!
It does work well when flying into/over foreign countries and talking to ESL controllers.Denny
08-06-2010, 08:09 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 330 FO
Posts: 584
During those times where you're going to have no delay right to the runway, most guys are cranking them both so the engines have the required warm up time, anyway.
My experience anyway..
08-06-2010, 09:41 AM
#86
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
08-06-2010, 09:42 AM
#87
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
08-06-2010, 09:47 AM
#88
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
08-06-2010, 09:55 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Pretty sure the fuel flow of one engine producing 3000 lbs of thrust, will be much less than two engines, each producing 1500 lbs, due to the efficiencies of how jet engines work. Same with one engine producing 1500 lbs at sustained taxi, vs. two at 750 lbs. And of course, this doesn't include all the sit around time when you're burning idle power out of two vs one.
Not sure how to prove that scientifically, unless one took a lot of measurements on a lot of taxi-outs, but I believe it based on what I recall from so many years ago...
08-06-2010, 10:20 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Q1: Do you have kids?
Q2: If so, how do you respond when they pull that? Do you give in, because they threw a tantrum, or do you set your resolve even deeper?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
