As indicated in my earlier posts, I'm certainly a fan of Ch9. It remains one of the diminishing number of reasons that I continue to fly UA almost exclusively. I also understand that pilots may turn off Ch9 occasionally when they feel it is a "security risk" and that those may include reasons that they cannot disclose here.
My question is (and if it has been answered in this long thread already...I apologize) if some pilots think Ch9 is always a security risk (since it seems that most pilots have either an "always on or always off" policy), then are the many pilots that allow Ch9 not as security conscious? For that matter, if it is such a security risk, why hasn't ALPA petitioned UAL to discontinue Ch9 forthwith?
If it is a labor action, of course I don't agree, but I get it. If captains are turning off Ch9 for our protection....GREAT!....But what does that say about the pilots that typically leave it on? Just wonderin'.
Well, suffice it to say that if it was a security reason why CH 9 was off, then we wouldn't really talk about that here...ie security. That said, I'd say a pilot who has it off for security reasons could mean different things, it could be National security (ie YOUR security, maybe we have received a threat briefing that day or there has been an incident somewhere on another jet, so he doesn't want any potential threat to know where we are as we fly) or it could mean job security (ie HIS security, he/she doesn't like CH 9 and feels it's not worth the risk to his ticket), so you won't really know why the reason.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Well if its not safe or if you dont feel safe w/ the procedure at a specific airport or situation then ya don't do it, but that $100 your scoffing at while seemingly insignificant becomes quite a chunk of change when you look at the big picture. From .bomb they have "over 3300" flights a day on United, Ted and UX (not sure if UA pays for fuel on UX or not) so that becomes:
3300*100*365 = $120,450,000
Outside of the US Congress $120M is a lot of money.
Not really. You are assuming every jet can SE taxi, and 777 and 747's don't. Second, your assuming that every day every jet were to SE taxi, which wouldn't happen. United put out that they saved $10 Million I believe it was in fuel costs doing SE taxi. We wasted a lot more than that spending money on other things like an idiotic Business Education Training Seminar that cost the company $20 million dollars, and was so bad that they had to cancel the training after 4 months. Hard to tell the pilots to risk their tickets and their passengers lives to save a couple cents while the company wastes dollars at the same time. SE taxi pays off if you are in a long conga line for 30 min or more, but even then you could shut down an engine after you are in line and not risk any aircraft movement incidents.
ALPA, the leader in safety and innovation has come out publicly against SE taxi operations due to the risks and low monetary returns.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Yea, how many planes can do SE taxi? How much fuel is wasted on the taxiway waiting for the other engine to start? What if the other engine doesn't start? Where do you taxi to waiting for the other engine to start? Can you start an engine in close proximity to other planes? Can you be moving when you start it?
You really want to save fuel, how about cruising in a 747 with only one engine. (There is a rumor that a pilot for Flying Tigers did this, but I can't find it now.)
I believe all the planes other than the 747 and 777 can do SE taxi, but not in certain locations which are crowded, or slick taxiways, snow, etc...
Not much fuel is wasted waiting for the other engine to start since you are usually using the APU to start the engine. If you are doing a crossbleed start from the operating engine, you do use a little more fuel there. You taxi along with everyone else, and start the engine when you are ready. That is the area that concern pilots, you are taxing along with all the other traffic and across runways and one of the pilots if out of the loop, heads down doing flows and starting an engine. It is not the safest way to operate at times. You can be close to other aircraft unless you are cross-starting, and you can be moving as well.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Well, suffice it to say that if it was a security reason why CH 9 was off, then we wouldn't really talk about that here...ie security. That said, I'd say a pilot who has it off for security reasons could mean different things, it could be National security (ie YOUR security, maybe we have received a threat briefing that day or there has been an incident somewhere on another jet, so he doesn't want any potential threat to know where we are as we fly) or it could mean job security (ie HIS security, he/she doesn't like CH 9 and feels it's not worth the risk to his ticket), so you won't really know why the reason.
Thanks for your reply aluminumdriver but you may have misunderstood my question. If Ch9 occasionally needs to be turned off for any one of many possible security/safety reasons, I certainly understand. But the original Ch9 thread indicates that some pilots ALWAYS have it off for those reasons, i.e. the mumbled "for security reasons" when some pilots are asked why it isn't on. If those guys have it off for security/safety reasons then why don't all pilots have it turned off? Alternatively, if they have it off because they just don't want pax to overhear them doing their job...well at least that's an honest reason...though not the one I'd want to hear.
Thanks for your reply aluminumdriver but you may have misunderstood my question. If Ch9 occasionally needs to be turned off for any one of many possible security/safety reasons, I certainly understand. But the original Ch9 thread indicates that some pilots ALWAYS have it off for those reasons, i.e. the mumbled "for security reasons" when some pilots are asked why it isn't on. If those guys have it off for security/safety reasons then why don't all pilots have it turned off? Alternatively, if they have it off because they just don't want pax to overhear them doing their job...well at least that's an honest reason...though not the one I'd want to hear.
I can't answer for all pilots, but I'd say that the mumbled "for security" answer is just a captain who doesn't like it on, so he uses that reason. Maybe he feels that will keep a mongo CH9er from "getting up in his grill" (my son said that last night ) over CH 9. Personally, I wish they'd just say I don't like it, so it's off instead of saying security since we may actually have to have it off sometime for security. Since you don't fly with the same captain on all your flights, it is hard to say that a captain who says it's off for security reasons on your particular flight says that on ALL OF HIS FLIGHTS.
Really, the reason doesn't matter, if it's off, it's off. It could be because of a fear of UFO's, and it wouldn't matter.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
aluminumdriver, can you explain to the less-experienced of us why SE taxi is considered more dangerous?
Well, I thought I did in another post. It has to do with taking one of the pilots out of the loop in monitoring the jet and traffic as you taxi. When you SE taxi, you basically cannot do any of your after engine start checklists. So for the initial taxi out, both pilots are outside and looking for traffic, making sure you know where you are on the airport, listening to radios, stuff like that. As you move along and start getting closer to the runway, the Captain asks the FO to start the other engine. For the next several minutes, the FO is heads down, monitoring the engine start and doing his after engine start flows. He has to either pay full attention to the start and not to his surroundings, or pay attention to the surroundings and he's then not fully engaged on the engine start. You can see the downside there. \
Once the engine is started, he now does his after start flows, reconfigures the aircraft, and only then can the crew start their checklists. Now both pilots are having to split their time both inside and outside as they try to hurry and complete a checklist and then take the runway to takeoff. It is very busy for the FO and the chances of making a mistake are higher, as well as making the Captain basically single pilot for a while as he taxi's.
We had a couple runway incurrsions last year and SE taxi pre-occupation was a major factor in those incidents. Most captains won't do them anymore just due to the high risk, low reward situation. I personally don't SE taxi, I start both, taxi out safely, then once I'm safely in line for takeoff, I'll shut down one engine if it will be a lengthy delay (great than 10 min).
Hope that helps shed some light on that.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Feb 19, 08 at 2:42 pm.
Sorry, you're 100% wrong and your post is example numero uno of why fewer and fewer pilots will be turning it on. Great job
to the continual drumbeat from some pilots that amounts to, "don't say anything bad about us or we'll turn off channel 9."
I continue to believe that the overwhelming majority of UA pilots are neither so lacking in customer focus or so petty as to snap the switch just because some customers actually say things other than "you're great!"
__________________
Brian/\/\ You really should not come to Denver. Cold here. And snowy. And cold. Really, just stay away.
to the continual drumbeat from some pilots that amounts to, "don't say anything bad about us or we'll turn off channel 9."
I continue to believe that the overwhelming majority of UA pilots are neither so lacking in customer focus or so petty as to snap the switch just because some customers actually say things other than "you're great!"
I see you're staying in character with your posts. I won't bother to reply to this one as well.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Thanks for your reply aluminumdriver but you may have misunderstood my question. If Ch9 occasionally needs to be turned off for any one of many possible security/safety reasons, I certainly understand. But the original Ch9 thread indicates that some pilots ALWAYS have it off for those reasons, i.e. the mumbled "for security reasons" when some pilots are asked why it isn't on. If those guys have it off for security/safety reasons then why don't all pilots have it turned off? Alternatively, if they have it off because they just don't want pax to overhear them doing their job...well at least that's an honest reason...though not the one I'd want to hear.
This really belongs in the Ch 9 thread - aluminumdriver and others have posted there already. It'd be a shame if this thread detiorates due to not keeping to topic within existing threads.
Programs: UA CO US SPG MR PWP Kommandant, Department of Redundancy Department
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingAway
This really belongs in the Ch 9 thread - aluminumdriver and others have posted there already. It'd be a shame if this thread detiorates due to not keeping to topic within existing threads.
Agreed.
This and the FA threads are among my favorites. The thread title says Pilot Q&A not Pilot Debate. Thanks to the resident pilots for taking so much time to answer all of our questions.
This really belongs in the Ch 9 thread - aluminumdriver and others have posted there already. It'd be a shame if this thread detiorates due to not keeping to topic within existing threads.
I also agree, but the Mod moved these posts over here!
) over CH 9. Personally, I wish they'd just say I don't like it, so it's off instead of saying security since we may actually have to have it off sometime for security. Since you don't fly with the same captain on all your flights, it is hard to say that a captain who says it's off for security reasons on your particular flight says that on ALL OF HIS FLIGHTS. 
Agreed. 
