Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 849446)

T,

I appreciate your passion, honest. I try and save money and gas every chance I get, not because I'm a company man but because I'm into dead dinosaur conservation.........shoot, I even got rid of my big sports car awhile back and got a Mazda 3. Momma, on the other hand, won't discuss her SUV:D

I just go back to fuel flows on the taxi out (I always encourage single engine taxi in) but I bet if you look, the difference between one at a higher power setting vs 2 in a lower setting or maybe even idle is not that great or maybe even equal. So, you gain an FO who is watching taxi traffic and listening to the radio etc vs starting the engine. Which, I'll remind you, is the whole reason you gave us for the FO starting the engine after push.......so the capt could watch ramp congestion.

But, I guess what I'm trying to say is we hear your concerns about money and dead dinosaurs. Cross flow is the answer because "try it you'll like it" or "mom says so" will fall on deaf ears:D

Ferd

The fuel flow argument was used here when we first started SE taxi some 15 years ago. It doesn't really hold water because you do not require breakaway thrust the whole time when taxiing, and while you are sitting still with only one engine running, the amount of fuel saved more than makes up for the extra gas needed in breakaway thrust requirements.

I hear what you are trying to say about the FO looking out and all that, and I would never advocate a policy that compromises safety, but I truly think that for the most part this is a non-issue. If there is a captain that truly believes this is an issue, stop the jet, set the brake and start the engine. I believe this is overkill, but in the interest of safety... whatever you think you need. The fuel savings will still overshadow current practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 849538)

---------------
I have more than 300 posts. I need to get a life!

Rookie.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddog25 (Post 849642)

T- I believe you must of understood the airconditioning comments on the 320. It has a very good airconditioning, and is capable of SE taxi and keeping the cabin cool with both packs running thru the open pneumatic bleed.

And yes, there is no airplane around that has as poor on ground cooling as the DC-9 series airplane. That is one thing that did not improve from the DC-9-10 thru the DC-9-95

No sir, I understood what he said. He was using that as an excuse for taxiing around with both of 'em turning, and I was throwing it back at him to say that if that were REALLY a reason, than the airplane is a piece of crap... which guys who fly it say is not true. I have been in the back of many of them and I have never been hot like on an -88... it is always comfortable. Your other post on this issue is outstandiung, and I salute you for it. Keep up the good work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosmo King (Post 849668)

Those complaining about not saving gas because the A320 isnt doing SE taxi and is leaving the APU running should take aim at fixing the bigger six figure $$$ fish first, like fixing FPS2 for the 747 and 330.

Really?? How much control over the FPS system do ANY of us have? How much control over the throttles do ALL of US have? Do what YOU can where YOU can and don't worry about the rest of it... hopefully those that DO have control are as interested as you and I are in saving money and will do the right thing. It takes time to change some of those things. SE taxi and proper APU useage can be done with the next pushback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 849670)

We just had an incident yesterday here in NRT where the crew was lining up with the runway, when a new AWABS came up. Crew had to get off runway to investigate and see what changed.

If AWABS was a guarantee of no further changes, then we should stay with it. But it's not. As such, I think we're better off heading for the runway and getting numbers on the fly. That extra 3 to 5 minutes per leg that you would gain is worth it, IMO.

Carl

Good point. I would also like to know why we get several iterations of the AWABS after pushback. I will see what I can find out about this...

I've seen a few cases lately where we received new AWABS when the only changes could have been handled within the tolerances of the first AWABS. Not a big deal, but it does introduce some confusion while you try to decipher why you got a new one. It would be nice if they could somehow highlight what changed when you get a new one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 850031)

The only reasons you ever get a new one after the first one is if they change pax numbers or the ramp guys change the cargo bin loads after they input the first numbers. There are other reasons why you could get a new one, but I've only ever seen a new one due to pax or cargo changes. Takes about .5 seconds to see what they changed.

T

In case I never said it, if I fly with you I'll do it the way you want it done......no question or debate.

You da skipper and I'm Gilligan.

Just be ready for me to be a little awkward at it.:o

The Little Buddy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 850033)

.5 seconds? I guess I'm kinda slow. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time...

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 850038)

.5 seconds? I guess I'm kinda slow. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time...

He's used to looking at it:D