Killer51883

boiler where did you get that chart?

BoilerUP

I can't speak for current practice, but when I was at AWAC they didn't SE taxi because of the stress SE taxi put on the running engine (large throttle inputs to get moving which results in large temp changes), to include the infamous "coking". What crews did do was shut both engines down whenever there was a long delay, which would require cranking both up, pulling forward 100 feet in line, and shutting them both down.

If the delay wasn't very long or there'd be quite a bit of movement in the line, it was easier to leave them both turning than constantly doing shut down & restart procedures.

That, combined with a large percentage of FLX takeoffs, FLX climbs to 10,000ft, and generally treating the engines as if they're freaking gold have provided the data for the chart above (which is derived from data collected by GE).

I do suspect that if AWAC was on the hook for every drop of fuel burned that they'd investigate SE taxi more...but they're not so they work to control costs they ARE responsible for (maintenance). I also don't doubt for a second beancounters of the same ilk as those who crunched the figures for AWAC know exactly how much fuel an AWAC flight burns on a particular segment vs. PSA and that those increased costs will play a role in any additional flying that MIGHT MAYBE POSSIBLY SOME TIME be given to AWAC.

Another thing AWAC has in its favor that PSA doesn't is the ability to finance new planes if necessary...Airways would likely rather spend their funds on mainline planes that generate more revenue than new planes for PSA/PDT.

But hey, I'm no accountant and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and PSA was always awesome to me when I jumpseated so hopefully there isn't any "hate" on the part of the average PSA/PDT crew toward AWAC pilots who have been forced to eat from the same schize sandwich.

CaptKrunch

I am not sure about past practice of SE taxi at AWAC. BUT it doesn't take much throttle to move even a weighted down 200 even on one engine. SE taxi combined with only starting the other when your number 4 in line or less puts some stress getting the job done on the FO but not much else. There have only been a few time when I actually shut them both down after leaving the gate.

colinflyin

I bet you this is anticipation for the new regulations that should go in effect about that time. Would love to get on there. Thats my $.02

resetjet

I've seen reversers cracked on light planes (mx flights etc.) but with a full boat on the 200 try going up a hill on one engine. The guys in ATL know what I'm talking about.

Hobbit64

AWAC also teaches limited use on T/R to save the engines.

I came to AWAC from ASA and went through basic indoc with mostly Indy Air folks. There was almost a riot when the instructor told all those old Indy guys that AWAC didn't use T/R on landing most of the time.

Argue all you want about the benefits but AWAC won't budge and has the highest mean time between failure as depicted in the graph.

I've been on leave for about 1.5 years but I think there was also a move to limit brake wear as well since I left.

wags3539

Yeah there is the brake wear and thrust reverser initiatives. Basically if they have it there way we'll be using nothing but aerodynamic braking landing 26 in PHL with a 9 knot tailwind and 50 people in the back.

NEDude

When I was at AWAC many people misunderstood the T/R policy. I even had a captain yell at me for using T/Rs while landing on 26 in PHL. I had to pull the manual out to show him what it said. Basically idle reverse was recommended on dry runways greater than 6000' - subject to captains discression. In other words, if the runway was wet, or less than 6000 feet (such as 26 in PHL) full use of reverse thrust was in fact recommended. If you read the policy, it was perfectly reasonable. Too many guys just heard from someone that you were not supposed to use reverse and they'd get all up in arms and bent out of shape.

resetjet

I understand the stress that T/R's put on engines but sometimes it's not practical to use just the brakes. High volume airports are not going to like you missing high speeds and using all 10,000' of runway when there are 10 aircraft behind you on final

wags3539

I was being sarcastic by the way. I still use reverse whenever I feel like I need to, and I've never had a captain say anything to me. As long as they're stowed by 60 knots I don't see a problem with it even on dry runways over 6000'.