The Russian

[mach zero]

Igneousy2 is totally correct. I speak from experience since I had to land the mighty SAAB twice with a red light on one of the mains. Nowhere in the checklist did it say to shutdown both engines. Specifically for the reasons cited by Igneousy2. It did however have us move passengers out of the seats near the prop arcs which we did. Granted I never flew the stretch King Air or E-120 but my experience with the SAAB and ATR's is if you grab both condition levers and slammed them into feather and shutoff at the same time the props would not match each other in movement.

As far as shutting down an engine inflight to save fuel. There are times and types of aircraft where this is an appropriate procedure. Just ask the passengers on that AirTransat glider if they wished the CA had shutdown that engine.

Bottom line is if you start making stuff up outside of the QRH you will get hung out to dry at the hearing.

 

[The_Russian]

Igneousy2 is totally correct. I speak from experience since I had to land the mighty SAAB twice with a red light on one of the mains. Nowhere in the checklist did it say to shutdown both engines. Specifically for the reasons cited by Igneousy2. It did however have us move passengers out of the seats near the prop arcs which we did. Granted I never flew the stretch King Air or E-120 but my experience with the SAAB and ATR's is if you grab both condition levers and slammed them into feather and shutoff at the same time the props would not match each other in movement.

Mach, a few questions:

1. What if you couldn't move passengers? i.e. a full boat of pax. Would it be an "oh well the QRH doesn't say to feather so good luck to those guys"?

2. Why wouldn't they feather at the same time? Even if they did, they couldn't be noticably that different. Have you feathered both in either aircraft while in flight or in the sim?

As far as shutting down an engine inflight to save fuel. There are times and types of aircraft where this is an appropriate procedure. Just ask the passengers on that AirTransat glider if they wished the CA had shutdown that engine.

Depending on the situation. Right cicumstances, right decisions. Always lean on the side of safety of course. Viper asked me earlier and I responded no. If he would have specified the circumstance, I would have given him an answer that would fit the needs of the emergency keeping overall safety in mind.

On the other hand.....

Just to solidify my point, where in the QRH does it say to shut down one engine to conserve fuel? I'm am absolutely shure there is not one that suggests it. There is too much liability. Is it the right thing to do for the situation you describe?

Yes.

But it isn't in the QRH.

Bottom line is if you start making stuff up outside of the QRH you will get hung out to dry at the hearing.

So why would you shut an engine down to save fuel in a min fuel situation?

 

[jke406]

Russian, unless you can provide some engineering credentials on the airplane you fly, get off your high horse thinking you can rewrite the manuals or checklists. granted, there is no substitute for pilot judgement in the rare circumstance that the manual doesn't cover a specific malfunction. there is also no substitute for knowing a pilot will adhere to published guidance in an emergency. i would never let my family fly on any airplane on which you were the captain.

there may be the outlying and extremely rare reason to deviate from manufacturer guidance. why would this be one of them? i've never flown this aircraft, but don't you think the engineers foresaw this eventuality, and wrote the checklist so jackass pilots like us would not have to second guess it when the time came?

news flash: you're not as smart or experienced as you think you are.

let's get this thread off the majors forum and over to where it belongs.

 

[igneousy2]

First off - maybe my standards are a little lower than they should be - but in an emergency, the damage or lack of damage to the airplane after the emergency is so far down the list of concerns that in a big emergency I probably don't even think about it.

I am actually starting to understand where the russian is coming from a little bit -

When I was working my way through my ratings the only way to experience Airline Ops was to read NTSB reports - air crash books - etc.

When you read those kinds of things you read - unsafe gear - plane departs runway - crash, cargo smoke light - plane errupts into flames - crash. Circuit breaker pops - recirc fan frys - crash.

What happens when you really get on the line and can only learn through experience is that the VAST MAJORITY of the time you have a warning light on NOTHING HAPPENS. If the gear DIDN'T collapse on these airplanes we would not be talking about it today. Now before I get jumped on I am not saying not to follow the procedures and assume that the gear is unsafe. But the response you do make can't cause more problems then you had to begin with - Like the doctor saying says - First, DO NO HARM.

So when you are just starting out - you see a red light and you think Oh my god the gear is going to collapse when we land! The senior CA sitting next to you's first thought is - damn it we are going to be late to the hotel.

I am for getting creative in an emergency - but the procedure you describe is so far out of the norm that I think you are creating a more dangerous situation by the maneuver then the unsafe gear itself poses.

I think the most creative I would get is to land on the safe gear and hold the unsafe gear off as long as possible - but not so long as I lose control of the unsafe gear's descent rate - to get as slow as I could before any potential collapse. But I think that's about it.

You are always better off crashing slow and in control then fast and out of control. I think anything that works against that should be avoided.

I am not sure what FAA publication you are speaking of as I didn't read through the thread that this one is a branch of but - every one I have ever read hardly speaks of flying techniques and procedures applicable to transports.

 

[say again]

What happens when you really get on the line and can only learn through experience is that the VAST MAJORITY of the time you have a warning light on NOTHING HAPPENS.

AND how do you know nothing is gonna happen?? Complacency kills!!! I treat all lights the same way-acknowledge the prob, asses the situation, use all my resources, and fix the problem. And if nothing does happen, great-and if it does, Im ready!!! Common sense goes a long way. :beer:

 

[A Squared]

The DC-6, when it is light, as in almost empty, will burn less with one shut down. If you're at or above MLW with one shut down it will gulp fuel like it's going out of style. The reason for this is that at higher gross weights on 3 engines the power you need to maintain above L/D max is above the power setting at which you may lean the engines, (normal cruise operation we lean well Lean of Peak) resulting in a really poor brake specific fuel consumption. If you shut one down on a loaded leg, you can pretty much forget about continuing on to destination and diverting to your alternate.

 

[con-pilot]

Back in the 60s JAL routinely shut down two engines on the 707 on their Tokyo-New York City route. This was discover by Pan Am, because no matter how they tried Pan Am could not do the same route non-stop, stopping at PANC for fuel. So they put some line Pan Am pilots on the JAL flight and they figured it out. A friend of mine was one of the Pan Am pilots.

The FAA was not amused.

Both the Falcon 50 and 900 under certain conditions can increase range by running the number 2 engine at idle. Not that I have even done this you understand.

Now, shutting down both engines on a turbo-prop before touch down can be viable depending on the type of engine and aircraft. Such as a King Air it would be a good idea. On the other hand in an MU-2 it would be attempted suicide. (Actually it would be suicide.)

 

[BushwickBill]

Back in the 60s JAL routinely shut down two engines on the 707 on their Tokyo-New York City route. This was discover by Pan Am, because no matter how they tried Pan Am could not do the same route non-stop, stopping at PANC for fuel. So they put some line Pan Am pilots on the JAL flight and they figured it out. A friend of mine was one of the Pan Am pilots.

The FAA was not amused.

What a bunch of rats!

 

[flyburg]

@moderator,

Why has this thread been moved and why has my post been removed. My response to the topic starter was to keep it civilized and to respond to content and not the person as it was obviously a personal attack to the russian after his comments on the dash incident.

????

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Why would you shut down a good engine?