ASAPsafetyGUY

Honest question. So you're suggesting the APU get started approaching the gate, and then shutting it right back down when ENG 1 comes down too when power is hooked up? What was the point of the APU then?

elmetal

Shut it down when you get plugged in.

For the 5 minutes it takes the rampers to plug in (time it. Parking brake on starttimer) you're burning APU only at 300pph instead of an engine at 1000pph.

Go time it. Every minute that you burn the engine at 1000pph instead of just the apu at 300ppb you waste 12 pounds of gas. Every single minute.


The APU is meant to be used as an in between. In between disconnecting the jetbridge and starting the engines, and again on arrival.


Burning a loud ass engine for 5+ minutes at 1000pph isn't saving any fuel. At all.


Mind you I'm not pushing this idea because it saves fuel. I'm doing it because it's the logical way to operate the airplane. It's safer, quieter, saves fuel and isn't moronic.

ASAPsafetyGUY

Ahhh I see. Yes, common sense seems to have left the chat. Makes perfect sense to me now.

symbian simian

And even if they manage to get ground power connected in 2 minutes or less 90% of the time, the one time it takes 10 minutes and a second power cart.....
APU on approaching the gate, 100% of the time.
Power & air connected: bleed off, check temperature, if okay, APU off.

BeechedJet

I love reading these threads because they're always about problems I never hear about on the line.

ASAPsafetyGUY

Well then lets capitalize on this statement. Can you start a new thread titled Pilot Issues no one Talks About? lol. Maybe that would be a bad idea. But it could be interesting. I cant because I'm too new.

RemoveB4flght

I always get a chuckle when you have taxied in for 15-20 minutes, and then turning onto the gate 20 feet from the jet bridge:

“You can go ahead and shut down 2...”

Omniscient

It could be expanded to say “you can shut down 2....so we eliminate the risk associated with 2 engines running vs 1; for the ground crew”

King Julian

This right her'

RemoveB4flght

In theory that isn’t the worst idea/motivation. However given the distance remaining, human reaction time, the SOP of turning on the hydraulic pump and confirming the correct engine, and spool down time, it still presents some hazard. So from a safety standpoint, this command should be made early enough to render the engine static.

Back to the anecdotal, the last guy who made this suggestion also vetoed the APU start at three aircraft lengths, then waited several minutes for ground power to shut down 1.

A point of the thread drift discussion is whether this practice increases risk to ground crew and equipment.

In both cases (slightly early shutdown of engine 2 and prolonged shutdown of engine 1) either you believe that since the beacon is on, and safety zone is clear of people and equipment and all engines should be treated as hazardous, or you believe that risk should be mitigated by shutting down 2 as early as possible and starting the APU at a point that would allow engine 1 to shut down immediately once the aircraft is stopped.

Valid arguments can be made for both, but mixing the two seems counterintuitive.