One engine taxi?

[kevinh 409]

Airlines tailor SOPs, not FCTM. If Boeing doesn't recommend something, they cannot go and recommend it.

Airlines can and do issue their own manuals based on Boeing's originals. Boeing's recommendations are not mandatory. The NGX FCTM is a Boeing manual. It hasn't been edited AFAIK apart from being marked as not for real world use.

[PMDG777 231]

Airlines can and do issue their own manuals based on Boeing's originals. Boeing's recommendations are not mandatory. The NGX FCTM is a Boeing manual. It hasn't been edited AFAIK apart from being marked as not for real world use.

The issue their own manuals which usually only contain any altered SOPs, and to include any custom equipment etc or anything extra they have on the flight deck. I highly doubt many (decent) airlines disregard what the aircraft manufacturer does not recommend.

 

Please prove me wrong, but if I had control over an airlines documentation, and the aircraft manufacturer explicitly mention they do not recommend something, I wouldn't then go and change that.

 

As I said earlier, while the NGX documents are actual Boeing docs, I highly doubt they're recent (mainly due to the cost of these documents alone, and for PMDG to give out for free...) and they are probably based on simulator docs and possibly altered by Boeing/PMDG.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

Hey guys.

 

Man, this topic has certainly changed from the Original.

 

The answer (at least for operators licensed in the U.S.) to the current debate lies in the information presented in this Wiki Article and its applicable references.

 

In the end, the question about promulgation of manuals boils down to Regulatory Compliance, Corporate Resources, and Organizational Management. It also bears mentioning that some aircraft systems can and do vary from Operator to Operator. Put all of this together, and add that different Operators sometimes find different ways to accomplish the same thing (in this case, Regulatory Compliance) and you'll be able to deduce the answer, which is "one size does not fill all" and therefore "it varies" and "it depends".

 

What is rather constant is that someone at the company (usually the Chief Pilot) signs/promulgated all of the manuals (Training, Maintenance and Operations)  - that's required..

 

I sincerely and respectfully hope this helps.

 

Let's taxi out of here and go fly!

[arnobg 0]

I really only started this topic so that I could get help on applying the procedure to FSX. During some events there's been times where when I'm number one for departure and I'm 100lbs. Below minimum takeoff fuel that sim brief dispatched. If one engine taxi procedures were utilized during the wait it could have been avoided.

 

Long discussion short, are there friction or steering fixes to allow the procedure in FSX easier?

[bjratchf 80]

if you have FSUIPC installed you could try their dynamicfriction.lua fix....... you will find it in your FSUIPC Documents folder under example LUA plugins.....

 

regards

Try this fix highlighted above- if you already have fsuipc installed, you'll find a dynamicfriction.lua file located in the fsuipc documentation folder. Unzip that lua file and place it in the modules folder of FSX.... In the fsuipc.ini, Paste this text:

 

[Auto]

1 = LUA DynamicFriction

 

And it will fix all of your aircraft (especially helpful with turboprops). Single engine taxi is now possible with only moderate effort on the tiller to maintain centerline.

 

As to "am I allowed to per Boeing/bombardier etc...)- it's up to the company, and comes down to a matter of balancing increased maintenance costs with the saving of fuel. In FSX, all of this may not be really useful since we don't pay for maintenance. Some VAs that track fuel usage may see some benefit, but usually there's not the pileup of traffic waiting for 22R/W departure at EWR that us real guys see in daily ops.

 

Interestingly enough, single engine taxi was not approved on the Q400 at my previous company, due to the fact that it causes extra wear and tear on the nose gear assembly. However I always saw the hydro-Quebec Q400 taxiing around on one, so there you have it- they probably calculated the maintenance costs and found it more beneficial to just save fuel. They also taxied around with their windshield wipers up, so god knows if their pilots just do what they want anyway...

[Copper. 78]

The issue their own manuals which usually only contain any altered SOPs, and to include any custom equipment etc or anything extra they have on the flight deck. I highly doubt many (decent) airlines disregard what the aircraft manufacturer does not recommend.

 

Please prove me wrong, but if I had control over an airlines documentation, and the aircraft manufacturer explicitly mention they do not recommend something, I wouldn't then go and change that.

 

As I said earlier, while the NGX documents are actual Boeing docs, I highly doubt they're recent (mainly due to the cost of these documents alone, and for PMDG to give out for free...) and they are probably based on simulator docs and possibly altered by Boeing/PMDG.

you obviously:

1. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.

2. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.

 

To answer the question, I'm not aware of any mods. If you do find one, then thanks in advance. I tried Engine Out Taxi in FSX; didn't like it.

 

I wonder if it actually saves as much fuel as they say it does. It is difficult to get a straight answer from the 'can do' people.

 

Brian Nellis

[kevinh 409]

The issue their own manuals which usually only contain any altered SOPs, and to include any custom equipment etc or anything extra they have on the flight deck. I highly doubt many (decent) airlines disregard what the aircraft manufacturer does not recommend.

 

Please prove me wrong, but if I had control over an airlines documentation, and the aircraft manufacturer explicitly mention they do not recommend something, I wouldn't then go and change that.

 

As I said earlier, while the NGX documents are actual Boeing docs, I highly doubt they're recent (mainly due to the cost of these documents alone, and for PMDG to give out for free...) and they are probably based on simulator docs and possibly altered by Boeing/PMDG.

Some airlines, typically larger and well established ones, issue their own custom version of the FCOM. Mostly these will be reformatted Boeing manuals but they will be specific to the carrier concerned. The Boeing manuals cover all versions and all options.

 

As for overriding Boeing recommendations that is not a problem nor a concern. If it was a safety issue it would be mandatory, not a recommendation. For example Boeing recommends disconnecting the A/T in manual flight, except for the 777. Some airlines follow this advice, others don't. There are pros and cons to both methods of operation.

 

The manuals provided aren't free. PMDG would have had to pay to licence their use and we all pay a share of that cost in our purchase price. They aren't the latest release but they are as released to airlines. They aren't simulator documents (Boeing doesn't issue FCOMs, FCTM, etc for that purpose) and there's no sign they have been altered in any way apart from the watermark and warnings about usage.

[Spam3d 54]

Just to add detail about the cycles of the engine, each individual engine is going to have completely different hours/cycles associated with them, and typically engines are overhauled to a 'build to achieve 'x' cycles" since a single cycle consists of a takeoff and landing, it makes no difference to the overhaul of the engine as the cycles will still count if its running during taxi or not

[Singletracker 1]

My Airline introduced Single engine taxi in a few months back. Uptake from pilots has been almost zero. My own personal reasoning, finding a taxi in long enough after a 3 min cooldown (after coming out of reverse) is difficult. Not getting messed around by ATC and having to stop on a uphill slope is an unknown. Having to stop short of the gate due to the guidance or bridge not being ready is another unknown.Trying to break away from a stop in a full aircraft around the ramp or terminal area requires a stupid amount of thrust when on one engine therefore the jetblast dangers are an unreasonable risk to personnel or equipment. It all looks great on paper I'm sure, but at the end of the day I won't be participating.

[PMDG777 231]

you obviously:

1. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.

2. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.

 

To answer the question, I'm not aware of any mods. If you do find one, then thanks in advance. I tried Engine Out Taxi in FSX; didn't like it.

 

I wonder if it actually saves as much fuel as they say it does. It is difficult to get a straight answer from the 'can do' people.

 

Brian Nellis

Here comes the "I'm a fully certified real world (armchair) pilot at the largest (virtual) 737 operator in the world, thus I'm right and you're all wrong" posts. Next.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

 

 

Copper., on 23 Feb 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

you obviously:
1. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.
2. Don't have sufficient experience in the aviation/airline industry.

To answer the question, I'm not aware of any mods. If you do find one, then thanks in advance. I tried Engine Out Taxi in FSX; didn't like it.

I wonder if it actually saves as much fuel as they say it does. It is difficult to get a straight answer from the 'can do' people.

Brian Nellis

Here comes the "I'm a fully certified real world (armchair) pilot at the largest (virtual) 737 operator in the world, thus I'm right and you're all wrong" posts. Next.

 

 

It's a wonderful hobby, and those who delve deeply into it are at least partially responsible for the depth of realism we as a community have been able to reach.

 

We don't always agree, but we can certainly be respectful and honor each others commitment to increasing our knowledge and push towards higher levels of realism.  There is usually an alternative way to post disagreement... like "I'm not so sure I agree with you..."

 

Sincerely, thank you both for contributing to the topic.

[arnobg 0]

Try this fix highlighted above- if you already have fsuipc installed, you'll find a dynamicfriction.lua file located in the fsuipc documentation folder. Unzip that lua file and place it in the modules folder of FSX.... In the fsuipc.ini, Paste this text:

 

[Auto]

1 = LUA DynamicFriction

 

And it will fix all of your aircraft (especially helpful with turboprops). Single engine taxi is now possible with only moderate effort on the tiller to maintain centerline.

 

As to "am I allowed to per Boeing/bombardier etc...)- it's up to the company, and comes down to a matter of balancing increased maintenance costs with the saving of fuel. In FSX, all of this may not be really useful since we don't pay for maintenance. Some VAs that track fuel usage may see some benefit, but usually there's not the pileup of traffic waiting for 22R/W departure at EWR that us real guys see in daily ops.

 

Interestingly enough, single engine taxi was not approved on the Q400 at my previous company, due to the fact that it causes extra wear and tear on the nose gear assembly. However I always saw the hydro-Quebec Q400 taxiing around on one, so there you have it- they probably calculated the maintenance costs and found it more beneficial to just save fuel. They also taxied around with their windshield wipers up, so god knows if their pilots just do what they want anyway...

 

Thank you for the helpful detailed instructions, will give it a try.

[Q400lover 4]

I did a short single-engine taxi yesterday at Chicago, but I started it shortly after I got on the taxiway, ground just wanted to me to get moving so I decided to start the engine while moving instead of stopped on the taxiway. Also the air Canada q-300 do single engine taxis at PDX and I believe there Q-400 do the same although Canada's Q 400s don't come to PDX. QXE doesn't perform single inch and taxis their Q-400s

[Copper. 78]

Here comes the "I'm a fully certified real world (armchair) pilot at the largest (virtual) 737 operator in the world, thus I'm right and you're all wrong" posts. Next.

Wrong again. How many times is that now?

 

I'm an aircraft engineer/technician/mechanic.

 

Thanks again for the ground friction 'tweak' makes the taxi a little more workable

 

Brian Nellis

[PMDG777 231]

Wrong again. How many times is that now?

 

I'm an aircraft engineer/technician/mechanic.

 

Thanks again for the ground friction 'tweak' makes the taxi a little more workable

 

Brian Nellis

Which is it? Engineer, technician or mechanic? That is 3 different jobs. 

 

Sorry you're a mechanic wannabe pilot, same difference.