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.

 

[bailout]

I have no problem with SE taxi when its warranted. When you push back from ramp three in ATL, can look over your shoulder and see NO ONE in line for 8R, and even after asking, the CPT still says SE taxi, then I will do my best to take my time doing my checklists to make sure that we arrive at the hold short line with one engine running. SE taxi at any out station is complete crap. (unless its JFK,CVG, etc)

 

[canyonblue737]

With all due respect, the FAA doesn't really care that SWA lands safely on useable lenghts of 5400' or less on a day to day operation even if you are within legal book/fudge parameters. The only time they care is on the day a tire blows on your 737 upon landing on 35 @ PHL and you end up in the grass on the other end and have to evacuate pax. This possible risk to save SWA a few bucks on fuel? The paycheck may say SWA, but not the ATP.

FAR 91.3 Resonsibility and Authority of the Pilot in Command
December 10, 1964 FAA Administrator's definition was "the inherent responsibility for pilots to be alert at all times for, and in anticipation of all circumstances, situations and conditions which affect the safe operation of their aircraft." What the adminstrator was saying is that every situation or circumstance simply cannot be covered by publication or regulation.

Of course, FAR 91.3's hot sister FAR 91.13 Careless or Reckless Operation is the FAA's main course to fry your a$$ on.

Dude you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Stopping margins on the 5400 rwy can be as high as 2000+ feet depending on the weight of the 737, information made clear with onboard data SWA runs for each landing. The 50 seat CRJs don't have slats and their approach speeds are higher and their stopping capablities less. MDW has 4800 OR LESS ft. available (beyond GS) on their LONGEST runway yet ATA, SWA, Frontier, and others land 737's, A320's, and 757's there around the clock. At BUR the runways are even shorter yet Jet Blue, SWA, and other majors operate there all the time.

 

[www.]

FAR 91.3 Resonsibility and Authority of the Pilot in Command
December 10, 1964 FAA Administrator's definition was "the inherent responsibility for pilots to be alert at all times for, and in anticipation of all circumstances, situations and conditions which affect the safe operation of their aircraft." What the adminstrator was saying is that every situation or circumstance simply cannot be covered by publication or regulation.

Of course, FAR 91.3's hot sister FAR 91.13 Careless or Reckless Operation is the FAA's main course to fry your a$$ on.

Ah, the old standby. If they can't hang you under Part 121 they will always pull these out of their hat in front of the ALJ.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Wow...you're serious.

Is anyone else here thinking "Captain Planet"?

Yes, and there is are a couple of cars in the garage with PZEV engines, one of them with sub seven second zero to sixty performance. If it makes no difference, why not make the choice that doesn't pollute as much? If they were making more of them and there was some product support on the East Coast, my family might be in the market for a Tesla.

 

[~~~^~~~]

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.

LEX is a short taxi anyway.... Even I would spin them both in the chocks.

 

[ERJFO]

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.

If the weight and balance and performance numbers were calculated correctley and allowed the T/O and the crew used the correct thrust and flap settings it doesn't legaly matter what "would" have happened.

 

[ERJFO]

I have no problem with SE taxi when its warranted. When you push back from ramp three in ATL, can look over your shoulder and see NO ONE in line for 8R, and even after asking, the CPT still says SE taxi, then I will do my best to take my time doing my checklists to make sure that we arrive at the hold short line with one engine running. SE taxi at any out station is complete crap. (unless its JFK,CVG, etc)

Not always...

"Acme 1234: Burlington Ground, Newark just went into a ground stop expect an update at 0030 time now 2230"

 

[172driver]

I'm 99.9% positive both engines were started. That is SOP at Comair for the first flight of the day. Also, never flown in there with a CA who didn't spin them both at the gate/push when 22 was in use.

However, the procedures/checklists on the taxi are also much longer for the first flight.

 

[fxbat]

With all due respect, the FAA doesn't really care that SWA lands safely on useable lenghts of 5400' or less on a day to day operation even if you are within legal book/fudge parameters.

Ok right out of the Op. Man. 737-800/cfm56-7b26

Normal config,Max Manual braking, 60,000 kg landing weight. Sea level, standard day, no wind, no slope, dry rwy, auto speed brake, Flaps 40, Full rev thrust = 860

Good 1375
Medium 1855
Poor 2395
MLW 66360kg (most, and I am to lazy to convert kg to lb just use 2.2)
Yes Boeing includes Rev. thrust in there landing figures.

So a bit more than a fuge factor.

 

[canyonblue737]

With all due respect, the FAA doesn't really care that SWA lands safely on useable lenghts of 5400' or less on a day to day operation even if you are within legal book/fudge parameters.

Ok right out of the Op. Man. 737-800/cfm56-7b26

Normal config,Max Manual braking, 60,000 kg landing weight. Sea level, standard day, no wind, no slope, dry rwy, auto speed brake, Flaps 40, Full rev thrust = 860

Good 1375
Medium 1855
Poor 2395
MLW 66360kg (most, and I am to lazy to convert kg to lb just use 2.2)
Yes Boeing includes Rev. thrust in there landing figures.

So a bit more than a fuge factor.

SWA doesn't fly the -800.