ERJ Single-Engine Taxi . . .

Save on gas for those long flights were you might need it that should be done on a 737.

:)
 
No . . . whadidi miss? Let me double check . . . .

No, I didn't. Were you about to call me an #########?:D
 
I've never worked on an ERJ. What's the noise, a hydraulic pump that kicks on because of low pressure on the non-operating engine's system?
 
Berkut said:
I've never worked on an ERJ. What's the noise, a hydraulic pump that kicks on because of low pressure on the non-operating engine's system?
Click to expand...

Exactly! Once the pressure on either side's hydraulic system goes below a certain level, an electric pump automatically comes on. Now, you can't even really hear it up front. But, in the back? It's awful.
 
I fly the ERJ and single engine taxi fairly regularly. Yes, the noise comes from the electric hydraulic pump on the shut off engine side being on.

THe noise is worse if you're taxiing on engine #2 because then the #1 electric pump is powering the steering and tends to whine a bit more. If you taxi on #1 the sound is annoying but not as bad.

I taxi on #1 to save gas especially if I'm leaving EWR where I'll probably have at least a 30 minute taxi, or going back to EWR where I'll probably taxi out and then sit and wait to get released. Going back to EWR I like to have every drop of fuel available, since holding is so common even on nice days.

Throwing EWR into the mix changes alot of things, you'll see too when CLE gets sloppy in the winter.
 
mtsu_av8er said:
My God, why subject the PAX to such painful, annoying noise?
Click to expand...

I've been in the back while the electric hydraulic pump is running, and yes, it is quite annoying. However, with our taxi times, often a single-engine taxi is advantageous. In fact, there are very few times where I will NOT taxi single-engine both on departure and arrival.

If we expect to have a taxi-time that will last longer than 10 minutes, I will start Eng #1 on pushback, since it reduces the noise from the electric pump (already alluded to earlier by baronman). However, if we have a short taxi, I'll just start Eng #2 on the pushback. This way, we can disconnect and send the ramp on their way immediately, so we can taxi away from the gate faster. This saves about two minutes, which often can get us in front of another departure or two, which saves us time at the end of the runway. When you are flying four legs a day, with 30 minute turns, that time can add up... Saving two minutes on pushback, so you get in front of two departures, can save up to ten minutes total. That ten minutes can add up to over 30 minutes of delay by the last leg.

Coming into the gate, shutting down Eng #1 both saves fuel and allows the ramp to start immediately unloading the valet-checked items after we set our brakes. The faster our customers get those bags, they can go on their way, and we can board the next flight. If we are late, small things like that mean we can pull off a 15 minute turn, which can easily get us back on time.

Most importantly, saving 50-100 lbs of fuel by doing a single-engine taxi (or up to 200-300 lbs for a longer taxi) can add up over the course of a month. Since on our "branded" side we pay for our own fuel, I do everything possible to save fuel, while considering safety first. That directly affects our profit sharing.

So... I apologize to our passengers for the three or four minutes of whiny noise, but it is for a good reason... to get them to their destination on-time or early, and to continuously provide a good product.
 
I've been to IAH, and it's a complete waste of gas to taxi on both engines a lot of times. I can only imagine being based there. Lucky for in MEM, we'd barely have enough time to get the second engine going before we were next in line at the runway. With the runway construction in MSP, however, single engine taxis were the norm. ESPECIALLY, if there was bad WX. I'd personally rather have that fuel in the air than burn it on the ground. What's worse? A slight noisy cabin or not making it to the destination?

On the CRJ, we don't have this issue (at least, not that I've noticed). We taxi with the #2 engine running, so we've got hydrualics a plenty. Most of the stuff the #1 hydraulics do is related to redudancy and flight controls, so we don't really need it on the ground. The #3 system is always on (electric driven), and the #2 EDP runs the outboard brakes, so we kinda need that.
 
Haha ...Piedmont allows single-engine taxi in the Dash-8-300s. It's not allowed in the 100s though (I think they used to).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top