Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ATC: "Stop Your Engines At The Appropriate Point"?  
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

I was listening to LAX ATC this afternoon and I heard the following (slightly paraphrased) exchange... I missed the callsign, but it was essentially

ATC: [callsign] Stop your engines at the appropriate point
[callsign] (with foreign accent) You want us to stop our engines?
ATC: [callsign] I was given the message to tell you to stop your engines at the appropriate point. I don't know what that means, I'm just passing along the message.

...

When I first heard it I assumed it was some kind of emergency or the like, but based on the fact that the crew didn't seem to have any idea what ATC was talking about that seems extraordinarially unlikely.

So does anyone what was going on and where would ATC have gotten this message from?


CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21420 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5085 times:

Possibly telling a foreign crew to stop short of the alleyway and shut down their engines so that they can be towed into the gate. That message could have been passed along from the ramp controller.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5062 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Possibly telling a foreign crew to stop short of the alleyway and shut down their engines so that they can be towed into the gate. That message could have been passed along from the ramp controller.

I can't imagine anything other than what Mir suggests......not even close to a normal transmission from ground control, but might be sort of fun to try in the air!

Just kidding Wow!  covereyes 



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21420 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5051 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 2):
might be sort of fun to try in the air!

I believe NASA does this.  Smile

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5020 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
I believe NASA does this.

And knowing some of those guys I totally understand why!!!!!!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4950 times:

Thanks for the quick replies!

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 2):
but might be sort of fun to try in the air!

You didn't hear about [insert airline name here]'s new fuel conservation procedures?

They found if they killed the engines about 5 miles out their fuel burn dropped dramatically

 Wow!  Big grin



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4925 times:

I don't see why you can't just shut down your engines and get towed to the gate right after landing. That would save a lot of fuel.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4853 times:



Quoting 413X3 (Reply 6):
I don't see why you can't just shut down your engines and get towed to the gate right after landing.

Where would you shut the motors off? Stopping on any taxiway will create quite mess at a moderately busy airport, let alone stopping and connecting a tug to the aircraft.

And how many tugs would it take to perform the suggested engine shut down at say ATL, DFW, IAH, MIA, DEN, LAX, SFO, and the list goes on and on and on???

Fuel savings sure while you create large increases in other costs such as airport efficiencies, equipment, and connection times when you have to reduce the flow rates to the airports to name a few.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2836 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4781 times:



Quoting 413X3 (Reply 6):
I don't see why you can't just shut down your engines and get towed to the gate right after landing.

Because you would effectively be passing control of the aircraft to the tug driver (no disrespect to anyone).

Busy airport, complex taxi instructions, loads of conditional instructions from ATC. Who would take the calls and who would respond? Where's the best place to cope with that? A noisy tug cab with a handheld transceiver (which you can guarantee will fail at the most inopportune time) or a quiet flightdeck? Where would inbounds stop to get hitched to the towbar? With 3 mile seperation on final, you get a landing aircraft every 80 seconds approx. It takes alot longer to stop an aircraft, shut down engines, connect the towbar and advise ready for tow and to get out of the way of the queue forming behind you at the runway exit. ATC would also lose all flexibility, as every aircraft would have to leave the runway via a designated exit - otherwise your tug could be at completely the wrong place on the manouevering area.

The list goes on...!



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineThemightydude From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

You wouldn't have to have a tug.

I know one thing that a few airlines have looked at, is having a small electric engine installed on say the nose gear that would allow the plane to taxi to the runway and to the gate under electrical power instead of engine power.



themightydude
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2836 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

...and lets's not mention LVPs and fog  Wow!


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4698 times:



Quoting Themightydude (Reply 9):
I know one thing that a few airlines have looked at, is having a small electric engine installed on say the nose gear that would allow the plane to taxi to the runway and to the gate under electrical power instead of engine power.

That would take a heck of a lot of horsepower to do. Is this even feasible? What about the extra added weight to the 'engine'? I don't see any savings there at all.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDukeofDashes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4581 times:



Quoting Themightydude (Reply 9):
I know one thing that a few airlines have looked at, is having a small electric engine installed on say the nose gear that would allow the plane to taxi to the runway and to the gate under electrical power instead of engine power.

I would wager a guess that the energy savings would be equivalent to that of single engine taxi ins (BTW, can a 4 engine bird do single engine taxis or do they require 2?). Of course if that battery fails at the same rate an APU does, well, would it be worth it?


User currently offlineVTBDflyer From Thailand, joined Aug 2006, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4525 times:

I too heard this exchange this afternoon. I'm not quite sure what it was referring to, but the few things I could think up:

Occasionally, when LAX is at a slow hour, the TBIT airlines will taxi to the gate with tower, explaining tower passing along the message to shut down going into TBIT. (just for reference, LiveATC only has LAX north and south towers, last time I checked)

It's either that, or they where placed in a hold for flow to somewhere.

VTBD



Fly Thai
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5394 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4507 times:



Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):
The list goes on

Well, yes, but there are fairly simple answers to all of those questions you asked. Aircraft get towed from one side of busy airports to the other, every day, and without incident, so it can be done quite safely on an individual level.

Hey, I'm not suggesting we do anything of the sort - just commenting that with changes in procedures, etc. etc., it COULD be done, I'm sure. Heck, tugs at every runway exit, quick-attach towbars, etc.

It might not be at all practical - but it's possible.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineLAX25R From United States of America, joined May 2008, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4478 times:

Speaking of the TBIT, on gate 101, it has a sign on it that says "Aircraft report on blocks" or something like that. How tight is the clearance on this gate for a 744 for the taxiway behind it to require this sign?

User currently offlineVTBDflyer From Thailand, joined Aug 2006, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4260 times:



Quoting LAX25R (Reply 15):
Speaking of the TBIT, on gate 101, it has a sign on it that says "Aircraft report on blocks" or something like that. How tight is the clearance on this gate for a 744 for the taxiway behind it to require this sign?

If I'm thinking of the right gate, I believe that no aircraft can taxi on that nearest taxiway when a 767? or larger aircraft is gated there. Just taking a quick look on google earth shows a Korean Air 747-400 parked in TBIT gate 101. Certainly doesn't look like anything bigger than a MD-80 could taxi past there with enough clearance.



Fly Thai
User currently offlineLemmy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

It might have something to do with the tight fit at TBIT. But you'd think the controller would have known about that.

More on that here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/217042/



I am a patient boy ...
User currently offlineLAX25R From United States of America, joined May 2008, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 4189 times:

Gate 101 is the southern-most gate of the TBIT. Although it's tight, I'm pretty sure that at least 777 can pass by. The only restriction that I"m aware of I find on airnav.com:

- WESTBOUND B747-400 ACFT ON TWY C PROHIBITED FROM SOUTHBOUND TURNS ONTO TWY P

Though they've made some additions to the remarks that weren't there a few months ago.

CTC LAX AIRFIELD OPERATIONS FOR B-747-400/B-777-300 AND 300ER/A340-600 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS RESTRICTIONS.

Anyone know what restrictions are in place?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4140 times:



Quoting 413X3 (Reply 6):
I don't see why you can't just shut down your engines and get towed to the gate right after landing. That would save a lot of fuel.

The confusion & crowding of the Pushback trucks/equipment/manpower & delay in acquiring needed clearences....its not worth it.

Its a fact that ATC will permit Taxiing aircraft preference over towed one due time saved.Ask any Mx person requiring to do the ground run with both options available. Smile


regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineARFFdude From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 151 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3869 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):

Its a fact that ATC will permit Taxiing aircraft preference over towed one due time saved.Ask any Mx person requiring to do the ground run with both options available.

From my time doing ATL ramp control, priorities goes Lifeguard flight > Live flight > MX movement


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3845 times:



Quoting DukeofDashes (Reply 12):
BTW, can a 4 engine bird do single engine taxis or do they require 2?).

If you are light enough, one is theoretically possible, but far from practical. 2 is possible if you are relatively light. 3 is the minimum if you need to maneuver in tight quarters and have any significant weight on board.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3810 times:



Quoting ARFFdude (Reply 20):
From my time doing ATL ramp control, priorities goes Lifeguard flight > Live flight > MX movement

its the same here.....Priority is given to emergency followed by faster means.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSilverComet From Mauritius, joined Apr 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3805 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 21):

On the A340 we routinely practise 2 engine taxi after landing very often at significant weights (170-180 tons). 90 degree turns are also not a problem but require proper anticipation and management of your momentum or you end up having to inject 40-50% N1 for the turn, which effectively kills all the fuel savings you intended to achieve in the first place.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3799 times:



Quoting SilverComet (Reply 23):
On the A340

My experience with 4 engines is limited to the 74 classic. After landing 3 engines is the normal practice for us. We can maneuver at significant weights on 2 engines, but the thrust levels get so high as to be destructive in cluttered or confined areas, as cargo areas seem frequently be. It works out well if you don't have to stop, but once you do, the thrust required to get moving again can do a lot of damage. You are right about managing your momentum. As with so many maneuvers, energy management is key.



Proud OOTSK member
25 RJ111 : Airbus are looking at that for their future A320s. It would require a lot of HP but electric motors are very weight and size efficient.
26 Valkyrie01 : I have been on test flights on 757 where they do inflight restart. At around 35000 ft they shut down one engine restart it then shut down the other o
27 HAWK21M : The N3 Indicator would have a prompt if its an RB211-535.not sure about P&W 2000 series. Also the Yaw is quite noticable.Apart from the ROC check plo
28 Valkyrie01 : The P&W does the same with N2 indicator not much difference.You got your bug set where to light offf the engine etc similar to starting on the ground
29 HAWK21M : In fact Three seperate Airspeeds at various Altitudes from your present altitude,give=ing more options. regds MEL
30 Valkyrie01 : Yeah i know that at that point years ago i was new to working on 757. I was working on 777 prior did two heavy checks then it was on to 757 talk abou
31 HAWK21M : Similiarly out here,as Unlike Flt ops,Mx persons can be qualified on Multiple types at the same time & work on all qualified types anytime in a day.N
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic ATC: "Stop Your Engines At The Appropriate Point"?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
738: "things" At The Bottom Of Vertical Stabilizer posted Sun Oct 14 2007 09:02:44 by F.pier
"The Box" At LAX posted Sun Feb 18 2001 20:25:56 by Modesto2
Where Did The Word "roger" Come From? posted Tue Apr 29 2008 16:07:15 by PILOTALLEN
Looking For "The Link" posted Sun Dec 9 2007 09:46:30 by Ilikeyyc
Exhaust Mixers On JT4s: The First "Hushkits"? posted Tue Sep 11 2007 20:04:39 by Happy-flier
The Ultimative "Why Do Aircraft Fly?" Question... posted Wed Aug 8 2007 22:26:45 by Superstring
Pilots....Mechanics.......The Movie "Airport" 1970 posted Wed Aug 1 2007 15:35:47 by William
What Is Causing The 5th "Contrail" posted Fri Jun 15 2007 19:28:39 by CruzinAltitude
The Avro Arrow Used In "The Arrow" Mini-series posted Mon Jan 8 2007 00:42:49 by Starglider
"descend On The Ils" Question posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:42:28 by JulianUK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format