The Russian

[Hugh Johnson]

"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."

Why would you even consider this?

 

[A Squared]

Why would you shut down a good engine?

Well, generally, when I do it, they ain't so good any more

 

[con-pilot]

"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."

Why would you even consider this?

Er, to increase range. However, remember I have never done this you understand.

(Or perhaps you like swimming 200 miles?)

Disclaimer: This is not an approved procedure that is taught or acknowledged by Dassault or Flight Safety.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Er, to increase range. However, remember I have never done this you understand.

(Or perhaps you like swimming 200 miles?)

Disclaimer: This is not an approved procedure that is taught or acknowledged by Dassault or Flight Safety.

Why are you accepting flights that are so close on fuel you have to be a test pilot to complete them?

 

[ackattacker]

Why are you accepting flights that are so close on fuel you have to be a test pilot to complete them?

Why are you being so confrontational?

He already said he hasn't done it.

If I flew a Falcon 50 or 900 (which I don't) I would want to know that little bit of trivia. All kinds of things could happen that suddenly demand just a little more range than you anticipated. I'd rather be a test pilot than captain of a rubber raft.

FWIW, The first unrefuelled non-stop around-the-world flight (the "Voyager") was equipped with two piston engines and shut one down in flight to save gas.

 

[A Squared]

Why are you accepting flights that are so close on fuel you have to be a test pilot to complete them?

Uhhhh, bud, you're acting like a sanctimonious punk, a sanctimonious punk who can't read.

He's already stated *twice* that he doesn't do it. However, I gotta ask, are you really so unintelligent that you can't imagine that a trick to stretch your range might come in handy if you unintentionally find yourself in a situation where you need the extra range?

Nobody (neither Con-pilot nor anyone else) has suggested incorporatating this into pre-flight trip planning, nor depending on in normal operations.

 

[con-pilot]

Thanks for the support guys. As I claimed, this is not an approved procedure and no I have not used this procedure.

However, it is something that anybody that fly this type aircraft needs to be aware of, just in case.

 

[svcta]

Back to the topic a little,


igneousy, your 1st post was right on....the point is(and maybe it's not the case in the 1900, in fact, I'm sure it's not) that when you begin to shut down a/c generators on some airplanes and revert to DC from a battery you can lose many, many things.

And even if you can run certain hydraulic systems on ship's power you will be running very limited ones and will likely radically change the situation.

It may be okay to fly a B-1900 like a king air or a baron, but that's about the size and complexity of a/c where you want to abandon CERTAIN ways of looking at airplane flying.

Flying airplanes is an art...flying heavy airplanes is an even better blend of art and science. With more emphasis on the science. Stick to the manual.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Thanks, the opinions are accepted from everyone. There are anecdotal procedures for every airplane. Every facet of life. My point is, why would you keep, in the back of your mind, "I can try this route, because I can always idle and engine to make it if I get in trouble." Its a big world, BUT, I would make the argument that there are no legs that would require that kind of planning. I am applying this to normal operations. If you have to leave Bahgdad without full fuel of course all bets are off.

A squared, I've never flown in AK and I know there are different FAA rules there, but I have flown extensievely in the military and civilian world, and other than the P-3 loiter procedures I've never heard of this. Do you this in the DC-6?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Extensively even...

 

[Hugh Johnson]

"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."

I guess the first thing I should have asked is, if you've never done this, how do you know? Who told you and do you trust that person with YOUR passengers lives?

 

[con-pilot]

"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."

I guess the first thing I should have asked is, if you've never done this, how do you know? Who told you and do you trust that person with YOUR passengers lives?

Okay, I'll try one more time to explain this to you. First I need to apologize for a typo I did not catch.

"Not that I have even done this you understand."

"even" should have been; ever done this......."

Now for the first question:

I guess the first thing I should have asked is, if you've never done this, how do you know?

I have experimented with this procedure a few times both in the 50 and the 900 at or above 41.0 during deadhead legs. With the number 2 engine at idle, not shut down. There is a major difference in case you do not understand that. As far as I could determine there could be an increase of range under certain conditions. However, despite your constant and repeated assertions I would never consider using any such type procedure for trip planning.

I have flown professionally for 40 years and have over 21,000 hours without an incident, accident or a violation. I did not achieve the above by doing damn fool stunts as you seem to be accusing me of.

Now for the next two questions:

Who told you and do you trust that person with YOUR passengers lives?

It is none of your business of where and who informed me of this procedure. In fact there was more than one person. Yes, I would trust my passengers lives with them, a hell of a lot more than I would trust my passengers with YOU.

I have no idea if you are typed in any aircraft or your level of experience, however, hazarding a guess I would say you are low time with little or no international or extended over-water operations experience. Otherwise you should know that you need to know the maximum operational capabilities of you aircraft for the safety of YOUR passengers. All the information that is contained in the operations manuals of your aircraft and in addition the knowledge possessed by pilots with extensive experience in the aircraft.

In spite of all the new technology that we have today that is available to we pilots in weather predictions, flight planning and avionics occasionally things happen, completely out of our control, that can and will affect a flight. There will be times that the destination airport will be unavailable and the alternate airport has a single runway. After you divert an aircraft blows a tire, has a gear collapse and closes the only runway. Now what do you do?

Throw up your hands and give up because there is no "official procedure" that is in the manuals. Or do you pull every trick out of your butt that you have ever heard of to find some concrete with an airport attached.

All my takeoffs have ended up with me and the aircraft on concrete with an attached airport. I will use all of my skills, knowledge and experience to assure that it remains so.

Now, if you don't mind please stop asking the same question again, thank you.

 

[CA1900]

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/922/kaneklapiu6.gif

 

[A Squared]

Look Hugh, I don't know WTF your trip is, but you're really becoming pretty tedious here. For some reason, known only to yourself, you are determined to take what has been said and twist it completely out of context.

My point is, why would you keep, in the back of your mind, "I can try this route, because I can always idle and engine to make it if I get in trouble." Its a big world, BUT, I would make the argument that there are no legs that would require that kind of planning.

Right. Nobody, not one single poster, has said this. It has been suggested however that it might be useful knowledge *if* you're having a really bad day and you need some extra range. To suggest that anyone has said otherwise, as you have repeatedly suggests pretty strongly that you have no interest in a discussion, just an uncontrollable urge to be a jerk. Perhaps you ought to try just a little harder to surpress that urge.

A squared, I've never flown in AK and I know there are different FAA rules there, but I have flown extensievely in the military and civilian world, and other than the P-3 loiter procedures I've never heard of this. Do you this in the DC-6?

No, except for an arcane and little used variation on gross weight and a few modifications to Part 61 which address geographical realities such as the difficulty of logging night time when there is no night, the Regulations are the same regulations as in the rest of the US. No, we do not use 3 engine procedures to extend range. The 6 has far more gas capacity than we can use within Alaska, so range isn't a problem. I have however shut down engines in flight, quite a few times, so I have had ample opportunity to observe firsthand how it affects airspeed and fuel consumption. Like I told you once already, that's not "shutting down a good engine" because the reason I shut it down is because it's not a good engine any more. I have taken off on 3 engines on many occasions. That's what we do when we have a failure; Unload the load and ferry back to base on 3 engines. Just for the record, this *is* an approved procedure, it is documented in our manuals and we train for it. Also, if you look in the Airplane Flight Manual published by Douglas back when they were building the 6, you'll find procedures for 3 engine ferry, complete with max weight and cg range and detailed instructions. So, I am quite familliar with the fuel planning for 3 engine operation. I do it fairly often, not to extend range but because there's only 3 left operating. I don't short myself on fuel on a 3 engine ferry though, because if I lose another one, 2 engines at METO burn more fuel that 3 at cruise.

So, once again, just to clarify, because you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept:

Nobody, repeat nobody is recommending shutting down an engine to save gas or extend range in normal operations. Not one single person has suggested that. It is worth noting though that *some* multi engine aircraft, *may* under certain conditions get better range with one shut down, and if you are operating such an airplane, knowledge of that could be a useful tool in dealing with an emergency.

Are you really so thick that you can't grasp that?

 

[con-pilot]

Just to add to A Squared's post the Boeing 727, the Falcon 50 and the Falcon 900 are certified for two engine ferry as well. The procedures are in the operations manual. Obviously an approved procedure.

By the way, the manual recommends that if you have the maintenance facilitates available and the inoperative enigne is one or three is to change the configuration to have the inoperative engine in the number two position.

And no you cannot carry passengers on a two engine ferry. Not even the Flight Attendant.

Thanks again A Squared, perhaps we will not hear from him/her again, except for an apology.