One engine taxi?

[G-CIVA 62]

POT:   'Hello KETTLE this is POT over.'

 

KETTLE:   'KETTLE - send over.'

 

POT:   'KETTLE I have your colour as black - confirm colour over?'

 

Its a little rich to accuse some people of throwing around pseudo RW experience when you yourself throw in some partially correct factoids from a supposed RW source you claim to have laid you hands on whilst rubbishing the manual that came with the product as some sort of 'gamey quick start guide'.  Especially two or three posts after somebody has revealed some info from a large South American NG operator.

 

Then you wander off on tangents talking about 747s & Airbuses which are totally irrelevant. 

 

The funny thing is - the operator that you boast about actually does have a procedure for single engine ops under certain conditions.  The trouble is you just sound like another 'FS 101' type of person who seems to skim read & not study deeply enough before pressing send.  If that is incorrect then apologies but first impressions & all that.

 

Many people here do not have the luxury of access to RW info like you might have; that is why many of us like to point them gently back to the reference material that came with the product.  Its the best starting point & lowest common denominator.  The manuals that did come with the product contain pretty much all of what most simmers would ever need to slake their thirst.

 

Your approach - to just throw in a few comments & slam the 'FS 101' door right in their faces in a 'nope Boeing definitely does not recommend it' style is really not very helpful.

 

No RW experience ever claimed here BTW.

 

Happy flighting.

[Copper. 78]

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

 

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

As you'd well know, the title of someone who fixes aircraft changes, depending on many factors, primarily on the regulator.

 

So what might be an Aircraft Mechanic in one country, in another he is an Aircraft Engineer, or, in the case of the RAAF, an Aircraft Technician, again, depending.

 

I, according to CASA, am an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. I am employed, like many other esteemed participants of this forum, within the industry.

 

It becomes very easy to spot those who have no idea what they're talking about. You sir, are one of those people.

 

I use the NGX because it's entertaining, much like Battlefield 4. I neither want to be a pilot or a soldier. Your deduction is inherently flawed.

 

Brian Nellis

[PMDG777 231]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, dear Lords of the Aviation world, but at what point did I claim to have any RW experience. 

 

Oh dear Lords, I bow to you and your wise ways and seek to gain your wisdom of how much you know about flying an aircraft from your armchair.

 

Some points to note:

 

• Firstly, I never claimed RW experience ever, because I don't have it. Simple.
• Secondly, I provided a RW source of actual aircraft documents used by a real airline, and you rubbished it saying the manual that came for free with a software addon for a computer game is correct. Even if the PMDG manual is straight of the print from Boeing (which I doubt), a real operator will be more correct, even if different airlines have their different SOPs. No offence to PMDG, the manuals you provide are unbelievably good.
• Thirdly, You've gone on to claim that "the operator that you boast about actually does have a procedure for single engine ops under certain conditions" even though earlier in this thread, there was somebody who confirmed that the airline does NOT allow single engine taxi. "I can confirm "Europe's favourite airline" is not authorised for Engine Out Taxi (EOT)".

Please, sir, I want some more.

[pete_auau 1,154]

Even if the PMDG manual is straight of the print from Boeing (which I doubt)

 

This is quote  from kevins post  since you seemed to ignored his last post on this same issue

 

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

 

Until Ryan comes in  and  says differently they havnt been altered as you claimed they have been

[G-CIVA 62]

Your attitude sucks fella, tis you with the high & mighty attitude.

 

I guess taxi in on one engine does not qualify for single engine ops in the taxi...how mistaken I am.

 

Good day.

[PMDG777 231]

This is quote  from kevins post  since you seemed to ignored his last post on this same issue

 

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

 

Until Ryan comes in  and  says differently they havnt been altered as you claimed they have been

I never said they were free, I agree with his post entirely. My point was they (most likely) won't be the latest version released to airlines because I shudder to think what the cost of that would be. And as for paying our share, a copy of a manual will cost more than the price of the 737 + addon per person, which is my logic behind it being outdated docs/the original release docs. When I say altered, I don't mean changing of what Boeing do or do not recommend, I mean adapted for sim use.

 

Either way, clearly some people can't take and accept other peoples opinions (myself included), so I'm going to bow out now and let this carry on on-topic, rather than hijack a thread to attack each other over something pathetic. We sound like children...

[Copper. 78]

Glad you've acknowledged that your not knowledgeable on such matters. It's a good start, tainted by the fact that you continue to make so many grand assumptions that push your posts beyond the border of the ridiculous.

 

The PMDG supplied FCTM is a copy of Revision 8 of the boeing NG generic FCTM. It simply has the PMDG logo slapped on it, and the warnings. Nothing else is changed. There may be easy ways to confirm that that is indeed the case. So again, you're wrong!

 

How many people must advise you of your incorrectness before you get the picture?

 

You are not a credible source of information. Your ARE incorrect. There is nothing wrong with that. Your incessant proffer of incorrect information and maintaining your defence of it, is the only reason we are challenging you... It's not to annoy you... Its to avert the the dissemination of incorrect information.

 

Brian Nellis

[PMDG777 231]

 

 

The PMDG supplied FCTM is a copy of Revision 8 of the boeing NG generic FCTM

 

6 years out of date. FCTMs are updated yearly.

[Copper. 78]

I don't know Boeing's revision cycle plans, but what you say sounds about right. The current and effective generic NG FCTM revision available from Boeing is 13.

 

Brian Nellis

[skelsey 765]

Meanwhile -- never mind single engine taxi, no engine taxi is (if you believe Lufthansa) not too far around the corner... http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/press/news-releases/singleview/archive/2015/february/20/article/3439.html%C2'>

 

My understanding is that whilst it has not always been the case, Boeing do now approve single engine taxi out on the 737, subject to the operator obtaining approval and establishing procedures for it.

[PMDG777 231]

Meanwhile -- never mind single engine taxi, no engine taxi is (if you believe Lufthansa) not too far around the corner... 

How does that work...? Is it different to being towed?

[skelsey 765]

How does that work...? Is it different to being towed?

 

 

 

If you Google "Taxibot" you'll find more information. From Lufthansa's press release of a couple of days ago:

 

 

Following approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Lufthansa LEOS, a subsidiary of Lufthansa Technik AG, has commenced operations with the innovative TaxiBot aircraft tractor, developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) with Lufthansa LEOS’ extensive support and cooperation. After extensive testing, the TaxiBot will now be used in real flight operations at Frankfurt Airport.

At a media event held at Frankfurt Airport on 19 February, the TaxiBot’s towing procedures were demonstrated for local and international journalists, while taxiing a Lufthansa Boeing 737 to the take-off position.

TaxiBot (NB) is a towbar-less 800-hp strong hybrid-electric aircraft tractor, controlled by the pilot and intended for towing aircraft between the gate and the runway with the aircraft’s engines turned-off.

 

Bad news for tug drivers!

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

 

uh, pop corn anyone?

 

Now where was that Ejection Handle?  Ah, there it.......whooossshhhhh!

[PMDG777 231]

If you Google "Taxibot" you'll find more information. From Lufthansa's press release of a couple of days ago:

 

 

Bad news for tug drivers!

Looks pretty good actually. Although I can foresee teething problems with the ground controllers losing connection to the tug when it's returning to gate/going out to pick aircraft up from runway.

How will this work with engine cool down/warm up times?

[arnobg 0]

Hey guys can I go back to the problem at hand now or am I gonna get my hands cut off?

 

Just wanted to say I tried the friction fix from FSUIPC and it works wonderfully. I've been following the PGA tour around in the NGX BBJ2 livery and keeping track of fuel costs based off prices where I pick fuel up, hence why I've been interested in saving fuel in a flight sim.... Sure it saved fuel during my 12 minute taxi at DFW yesterday.

 

Does anyone know if there are any cons to the friction change?