there's nothing new about that. They've been saying this crap for a while and it's always from a legitimate source.

 

when I was an FO, i had a captain deselect the APU Gen, so we had APU pneumatics, but were powered by the ground power from the gate. Big mistake....ground crew disconnected power w/o asking because they heard the APU running, and the entire airplane fried. Remote CB trips galore, I would strongly advise against doing that. Not worth it

 

Me personally? Absolutely not! But it is an added thing to think about in the back of your mind that "motivates" you to complete the approach. Some guys in the company (not myself - I write stuff up all the time) might be tempted to continue an approach that isn't perfectly stable at 1000' (you know, stable slightly lower, say 800' or so). Especially if you're going into an outstation where contract MX will take a long time on the go home turn. Again, let me be clear: I'm not saying it impacts me personally, but I bet there are a couple guys who might have more "complete-the-approach-itis" with the new policy.

I gladly hope to be proven wrong when the newest FOQA data comes out showing approaches after this change. And I'm not doubting the company when the read file says it is not to discipline pilots, but instead to track engine wear. I just wish they better explained the different thrust modes in new hire training.

 

Uhhh, why would maintenance come out because you did a go around? it's a tracking write up. for tracking only. it's not a mechanical discrepancy. It's tracking an extra cycle. Tracking. Only. Should take about 3 minutes.

 

Agreed. I honestly hope nobody would ever avoid a necessary go around because it would result in a 3 min write up at the gate.

We are all professionals, it's our job, it's what we do. Sometimes doing the right thing takes time. If there are those who would put themselves or PAX at risk due to a simple engine tracking write up then I hope they adjust their attitude really quick.

 

You still shouldnt do it. Not only is this putting cycles on the apu you start getting gremlins that require power resets from transfering power between the 2

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

I honestly had no idea anyone cared unless it was hot out, I do get the gremlin side of it but do you or anyone else know if the cycle on the apu costs more then the 140 or so lbs of gas it saves? I always shut it down because I thought it saved money.

 

Who's money? Compass doesn't pay for the gas and Delta and American make BILLIONS off of YOUR back by paying you pennies on the dollar for doing the exact same job as their own pilots. They can afford it.

 

If we're talking the marginal difference in fuel it's less than that considering we're talking a difference of 20 min. Buit even if you assume 150 lbs, that 22 gal of jet A at less that 2 bucks a gallon is 44 bucks. IMHO all the reasons listed above outweigh 44 bucks in jet A.

 

Agreed. And if it doesn't require maintenance to come out, great! But the way I read it didn't seem that way, although I haven't gone around since the new procedure. But I'll just make sure my approaches are stable with good separation in the first place.

All I'm saying is it can seem to be a step backwards for those of us who remember hearing that FOQA was saying that crews were not going around because they didn't want to do a crew report (which takes the same time as a MX writeup or even less), so the company got rid of the go around crew report to encourage crews to do the right thing and go around when they're not stable.