Lincoln From United States, joined Nov 2004, 3207 posts, RR: 8 Posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2933 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
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 10817 posts, RR: 58 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2931 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.
IAHFLYR From United States, joined Jun 2005, 2925 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2909 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!
IAHFLYR From United States, joined Jun 2005, 2925 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2700 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.
BlueShamu330s From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 1747 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2628 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... :-(
Themightydude From United States, joined Jul 2008, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2626 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.
AirframeAS From United States, joined Feb 2004, 7253 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2545 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.
DukeofDashes From United States, joined Aug 2008, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2428 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?
"I always keep a bottle of whiskey handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy!" - W.C. Fields
VTBDflyer From Thailand, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2372 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.
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!
LAX25R From United States, joined May 2008, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2325 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?
VTBDflyer From Thailand, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2107 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.
LAX25R From United States, joined May 2008, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2036 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.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 25771 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1987 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.
ARFFdude From United States, joined Aug 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1716 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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 2004, 3207 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 1747 posts, 
From Thailand, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 25771 posts,