Mistakes because of Fuel Savings?

[ATR-DRIVR]

controller that will have you keep you 200kts "as long as possible" and when she hands you off to tower on a 3 mile final they need hard 90 degree S turns to maintain spacing with 27R arrivals.

VERY simple solution to that. When YOU start to get uncomfortable with your speed on final, SLOW DOWN, CONFIGURE, PREPARE TO LAND THE AIRPLANE. It is not your problem with spacing on traffic. If the controller says anything, you tell them you are preparing the aircraft to land. If they don't like it, tell them - don't ask - to re-sequence you so you can fly the SOP's.

 

[BoilerUP]

VERY simple solution to that. When YOU start to get uncomfortable with your speed on final, SLOW DOWN, CONFIGURE, PREPARE TO LAND THE AIRPLANE. It is not your problem with spacing on traffic. If the controller says anything, you tell them you are preparing the aircraft to land. If they don't like it, tell them - don't ask - to re-sequence you so you can fly the SOP's.

Yes, I am well aware of all that, thank you. I am comfortable keeping the speed up if requested by ATC and have no problem doing so and safely landing the aircraft, but when I start getting turned hard close-in and told to slow from 200 to "minimum approach speed" because the approach controller effed up the spacing again (after telling me to keep my speed up as long as possible) that's kind of a huge pain in the ass.

They are masters of crappy sequencing at PHL, telling you to slow down, then speed up, then slow down, then max forward speed to the runway, then hard S-turns for spacing. One only has to reference the number of go-arounds from 35 arrivals to verify that.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Ex-J41:

There is fuel burn and some of us worry about all the pollution we are dumping in our environment and try to do our little part to minimize it. If you need extra time, ask for it.

I greatly prefer to single engine taxi for several reasons, including trying to get off our highly congested ramp to make room for others. However, I try to plan the FO's checklists for the long taxi's on parallel taxiways while nothing else is going on because in most cases I have been to the airport a million times and know where those areas are.

But, you are correct to bring it up with your crew if you are feeling pressured and not getting everything done. About 1 out of every 20 FO's do seem to have a problem with single engine taxi operations and if so, I would rather have them on the team with me than struggling to keep up.

 

[Captain X]

I once saw SWA take off on the short runway in Islip. It's about 5000' and they used every inch. Yikes.

Did they clear the departure end by at least 35'?

 

[John Pennekamp]

Did they clear the departure end by at least 35'?

Not sure, but I think they cleared the trees by 50'. If i'm not mistaken, the 35' only applies to engine out go. If they lost one, I'm sure they would have eaten trees.

 

[DrewBlows]

The checklist at my company has driven me crazy since I started. In my opionion, there are too many items thoughout, but especially during taxi (when I would like to spend more time heads up).

Here's the break down.

From taxi start to take-off................................21 items.
Second engine start to take-off.........................16 items.
"Postion and hold" clearance to take-off..............5 items.
"Take-off" clearance to take-off........................3 items.


A lot of these items can be accomplished prior to taxi, and a lot of them can be eliminated all together. For instance, Anti-ice is mentioned in the "Before Takeoff" and "Line-up" checklists. In every other phase of flight we turn it on when conditions warrent. I don't see any reason why the same couldn't be done for taxi and takeoff. An argument could be made (rightfully so) that anti-ice is more important for takeoff and should be included in the checklist, so keep one and get rid of the others. I'm done ranting, I would just like to see a more streamlined checklist.

 

[ex j-41]

But, you are correct to bring it up with your crew if you are feeling pressured and not getting everything done. About 1 out of every 20 FO's do seem to have a problem with single engine taxi operations and if so, I would rather have them on the team with me than struggling to keep up.

I don't have a problem getting everything done nor do i struggle to keep up. I guess my point is, isn't it better to have two heads looking outside watching where we are going? Runway occursions happen to the best of us, low time, high time, or just people who are tired after a long 7 leg day. I doubt you could find one person that hasn't taxied down the wrong taxiway. ie E3 vs E4. Anyway i was just trying to vent a little because i believe some people take this fuel savings too far. If i look in my FOM it clearly states that Safety is our number one priority. Pass comfort is number 2. I care very much about the enviroment but accidents sure can make a hell of a mess.

 

[CatYaaak]

Ex-J41:

There is fuel burn and some of us worry about all the pollution we are dumping in our environment and try to do our little part to minimize it. .

Wow...you're serious.

Is anyone else here thinking "Captain Planet"?

 

[601Pilot]

I'll typically ask the FO to start the #2 engine about three minutes prior to anticipated takeoff. The start takes about 35 seconds which leaves us at least two minutes of warm up time (required - four minutes if engine is "cold"). Never a problem with rushing or lack of SA in this case (but it sounds like our checklists are run a bit differently than yours).

At ASA, Delta pays for the gas, so no single-engine taxi is pretty much standard these days.

As far as the two minute warm-up per GE, I have spoken to a few GE engineers and they say this is one of the dumbest ideas ever. To say 2 minutes is enough time for full-power application is absurd. They suggest a minimum of 8~10 minutes at idle power to ensure proper heat distribution. I have no doubt we will start seeing more fatigue issues with the CF-34 engines due to all of the single-engine taxiing. But, I believe GE has reduced the inspection intervals due to cracking in the turbine wheels observed during routine inspections.

 

[CaptDave]

ex j-41-

I understand and agree in some cases when some feel more rushed than other. In this case I doubt this was a factor. On the first flight of the day engine #1 would be started followed by engine #2 right afterwards to conduct a first flight of the day item. I believe this flight was a first flight of the day. (6:00AM) If it hadn't been then yes perhaps just #2 might have been running as they left the gate.