Runway behind you.

[michaelporteous]

I'm a PPL and have often been told that there's nothing more useless than runway behind you before takeoff. I use Marseille LFML, a lot and have noticed a particular airline habitually opting for less than the full TODA, while everyone seems to taxi out to the threshold. Is this for punctuality reasons or am I missing something ?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

This subject has been done to death on another thread on Pprune. Fact is that intersection take-offs are perfectly safe and are employed thousands of time daily at airports all over the world.

[Jimmy Do Little]

In a single engine aircraft - which with a PPL I assume is the case - what you've said is true. Runway behind you is worthless...

In two, three and four engine aircraft it's a different story, particularly if that aircraft is certified under FAR / JAR 25.

Intersection departures are perfectly safe - and many times quite cost effective - provided that you have calculated the take-off and climb performance and are able to meet any limitations, etc.

Before I get beat to death about this explanation by the masses, the above is a very simple and brief explanation directed at a PPL who is not attempting to operate a transport category aircraft. There is, in fact, a lot more that goes into it.

[Chesty Morgan]

Safety, performance calculations, expeditious departures and other limitations aside, runway behind you is still useless.

[hetfield]

Safety, performance calculations, expeditious departures and other limitations aside, runway behind you is still useless.

Yes, useless like altitude above.

So let's stay on the ground.

[Bullethead]

Now if you took off from a conveyor belt there need never be any runway behind you! :ok: :}

[michaelporteous]

If I'd been on Emirates A345 tailstrike I would be very glad to have used the whole runway. Why throw away an extra safety margin ?

[Charlie Pop]

Why fly anything with less than 4 engines then? Or take off when it's raining?

[Dont Hang Up]

The thing with these wise philosophies of caution, of which "runway behind" is one of many, is that you have to spot when they become ludicrous.

In my early PPL days our school was at Manchester and we shared the runway with the big boys. The earliest intersection from the south side to 24 (only the one runway in those days) was some 500 metres from the threshold. This left my Piper Tomahawk with a mere 2500 metres to get airborne.

I dread to think how a "Request backtrack" would have been received by ATC.

[CommandB]

michaelporteous,
As Jimmy do Little has already said - there is much more to it than meets the eye. If you obsess over every little detail - why cant we do this, why dont we do that - we would never leave our homes, let alone go flying.
The simple answer for intersection take offs are that;
It saves time, fuel aka Money.
Can help ATC when they're busy - more movements.
Performance calculated to ensure that at V1 (just prior!) you can reject and stop. Or continue and reach the minimum screen height.
There are many other performance based issues here too.
These procedures are being used world-wide everyday and are tried and tested otherwise we wouldnt be doing them.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes, useless like altitude above.

So let's stay on the ground.

Or fly as high as possible. Like using as much runway as possible.

Runway behind you IS useless because you can't use it. Simple as that.

[Charlie Pop]

You don't get any points for stating the obvious, especially when it's been pointed out ad nauseum why runway behind you is not a problem.

[Chesty Morgan]

Charlie Pop, I didn't say it was a problem did I?

[Rainboe]

I never take off full length when an intersection take-off is perfectly acceptable- I've got a schedule to keep, so runway behind me is completely useless- I don't want it anyway, thankyou. When I fly, altitude above me is useless- totally useless unless I only want it because some other mother is blocking me from climbing. Other than that, you can keep it, ta v much. Fuel still in the bowser is useless- because I've always had enough. Ain't never come near running out yet- my job is to make sure that doesn't happen.

All in all, yet another trite (alleged) saying passed from mouth to mouth by simpletons that means absolutely nothing, and is destined to waste our time ad infinitum. Is there any way we can put a stop to people spreading this daftness? Like exterminate the culprit everytime? It would die out in a generation.

[FullWings]

I'd have to agree with Rainboe... It's just another old saying. After all, in a perf. 'A' aircraft, what are you going to use the extra runway for? Stopping after V1 or Vr? We had a graphic demo. recently of how inadvisable that is...

Best bit is that if you are using assumed temperature data (most airlines do) on an average length runway, you'll have pretty much the same margins over the hedge using an intersection as if you'd gone for full length. :rolleyes:

[18-Wheeler]

Well that A340 at Melbourne a few months back was very sure that they were going to make it off on the runway available safely, but simply didn't.
It was a rare mistake, that's for sure, but if there's no time pressure I can't see why you wouldn't use that bit of extra runway.
That being said, if all the calcuations are right it's a perfectly acceptable option to use less than the full length.

[Will Fraser]

So now let's move on to fuel unused at TO. (Flex). It's only unsafe when it is. As Emirates demonstrates, both int. TO and flex demand no bonehead mistakes.

There will always be bonehead mistakes. Against that certainty, eliminating a fix for Mr. Bonehead's play, is worth how much? Someone must know.

Will

[C-N]

LFML RWY is NOT intersecting, both are in parallel with each other. I'm almost 15years in aviation with nearly 06 years of flying and haven't had heard this quote "RWY behind you".

[POL.777]

Do you want to die young *****? I want full lenght.

[kijangnim]

Greetings,

In the A340 Australia incident, takeoff weight error, the runway lenght would not have solved the issue, low speed is low speed even if the runway was 10 nm long.
So talking about it doesnot prove that the runway left behind...:=

[Jimmy Do Little]

Educated and / or common sense reply's. Excellent, where were all you guys when we were debating enroute alternates? :D

[Wizofoz]

Excellent, where were all you guys when we were debating enroute alternates?

Which I've noticed you've stopped doing since you were shown you didn't know what you were talking about:=

[Rainboe]

Don't talk about thrust! When some of these people discover we never use full power on take-off, it will unleash the hounds out of hell!

[Pugilistic Animus]

firstly all the writings about FAR 25 and performance A is not relevant to this poster's query as everyone here knows just how completely diffrent the certification criteria are.

I don't know about there in the UK, but here in the US under the FARs the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the sole authority as to those sorts of decisions...but if you make that decision,...may have other consequences, for example, to wait forever and burn lots of fuel etc. perhaps upset a few folks, get laughed at, derisive comments --all to be ignored once you've made your decision but the decision shouldn't be made in an ignorant manner...e.g.


but in a SE or far 23 twin you have to evaluate the two options if the surrounding terrain is unfriendly,... it may be worth the wait,...if however you have a 10000' RWY at a busy class B terminal then perhaps the wait is not worth it:\

PA

[Jimmy Do Little]

Runway behind you IS useless because you can't use it. Simple as that.

V1 is V1. A longer runway will effect your performance calculations, but regardless, once you've hit V1 (just prior), your going flying (or should be)!

Another way of looking at it is this....

Specific Runway is 10,000 feet long. If your aircraft was quite light (Ferry flight for example) you''ll be airborne in less than 4000 feet. Once you've hit your computed V1, you fly. Now the runway ahead of you in useless, since chopping the power (Most Boeing, Airbus and Douglas) and landing straight ahead is not an option.

Granted, during an RTO at heavier weights, that intersection departure may leave you wishing that you'd gone the full length. However - had you - you could have possibly computed a higher V1 speed anyways, so in the end, it's all pretty much the same.

[Jimmy Do Little]

Which I've noticed you've stopped doing since you were shown you didn't know what you were talking about

Some of us actually work for a living.

I might suggest that you have a look at the "Tech Log" forum rules... (Some examples follow)...

Tech Log is not ...
(a) an academic ivory tower with information being rigorously correct and subject to strict peer review.

(b) an idealistic think tank.

(c) available for, or of use only for, experienced Industry people. We want all PPRuNe people to use this forum and know that they are welcome and welcomed here. You will find here Industry beginners right through the whole range to the most experienced of Aviation, related Industry and academic personnel.

(a) abuse of another poster will not be tolerated at all ... play the ball hard by all means if the subject matter is controversial .. but NEVER the player. In using the term "abuse", we include anything of a nasty nature... including overt sarcasm, vilification, etc., etc. .. Please remember that a poster may be very new to the Industry and not have as much knowledge as more experienced people .. the aim is to spread the knowledge base amongst all who might have an interest in learning. This is not to suggest that friendly banter is not welcome .. I am sure that we all understand what is being suggested here ...

(b) it is an Industry truism that, if you ask 10 pilots (engineers/ATC-ers/FAs etc., etc.) a complex question, you will probably get 20 different answers. Sometimes a slightly different approach to an answer will make just that little bit of difference to your understanding the subject material ... we all learn and understand in slightly differing ways ..

(e) if you are posting an answer, please qualify your comments where appropriate, e.g., "on the such-and-such aircraft", "in my airline", "under British rules", etc. Sometimes, useful and detailed comments are rendered unusable if the reader doesn't know the context.

Maybe a moderator could elaborate further.





firstly all the writings about FAR 25 and performance A is not relevant to this poster's query as everyone here knows just how completely diffrent the certification criteria are.
I'll agree with that. Where I previously wrote FAR/JAR 25..., insert "Transport Catagory Aircraft with certified engine-out climb performance." Also agree - as previously stated - that it's not relevent to a typical PPL.

[john_tullamarine]

Which I've noticed you've stopped doing since you were shown you didn't know what you were talking about

We're all big people and have broad shoulders. Hence a bit of latitude is reasonable... however the above comment is about as far as we would like it to go in Tech Log.

If we were to be excessively PC, then we would not get very far in our discussions ...

[VC9]

What really irritates is when a "Airmanship" is used as an excuse for ignorance. Unfortunately I have experienced this often in my forty something years as a military/airline pilot.:ugh:

[Cacophonix]

I am just a humble light twin PPL and am interested to see the points of view outlined here.

One understands why a commercial set up would like to expedite departure (fuel saving, time savings, slot availabillity) and with all the thrust available to modern jets it is clear that this the sensible approach.

One earlier poster mentioned Manchester and the light stuff being in synch with the big commercial traffic. I used to fly out of Cardiff and would accept an intermediate hold point and departure if the numbers clearly indicated that I had more than enough margin to get up and away safely within the regs (never a problem there).

However I still feel better if I know that I have enough runway to land straight ahead and preferably still come to a stop if something goes bang on take off. The margin between climbing on one engine and descending in what I fly is often very small and without the luxury of all that additional thrust, runway ahead is not to be sneered at.

[poina]

3 things will get you in this business
1. runway behind you
2. fuel in the truck
3. flight attendant with a chipped tooth

[Ocampo]

Another way of looking at it is this....

Specific Runway is 10,000 feet long. If your aircraft was quite light (Ferry flight for example) you''ll be airborne in less than 4000 feet. Once you've hit your computed V1, you fly. Now the runway ahead of you in useless, since chopping the power (Most Boeing, Airbus and Douglas) and landing straight ahead is not an option.

Me thinks "Who cares?", since you are already up, even in the most precarious situation from a performance point of view (i.e. engine-out), you are expected at least not to descend any further; and that "old saying" is pretty much of the single-engine pilots, because for them those little meters you just left behind could prove to be of life and death.

Just my 2 cents. Not to offend you, nor anybody else. :)

[TheChitterneFlyer]

NamibFox,

You're quite right, it would be great to know if we could land straight-ahead; however, like most twin-engined aeroplanes, a failure of one engine will most likely mean that we'll be committed to an unscheduled landing into a suitable vacant space within the countryside... that's a fact! Unless of course that you're flying for fun and that you're not carrying an appreciable payload; otherwise, we might fly the curvature of the earth and find a suitable route back to where we defied the original effects of gravity!

Ho-hum,

TCF

[Jimmy Do Little]

Me thinks "Who cares?", since you are already up, even in the most precarious situation from a performance point of view (i.e. engine-out), you are expected at least not to descend any further; and that "old saying" is pretty much of the single-engine pilots, because for them those little meters you just left behind could prove to be of life and death.

Just my 2 cents. Not to offend you, nor anybody else

No offence taken. For the SE guys (Or even some smaller ME), you're entirely correct. Point is, that in larger ME aircraft, performance is calculated, and provided that you calaculate correctly (EK Tailstrike comes to mind), it doesn't much matter where on the runway you start from so long as you've calculated from that point - generally speaking of course.

[postman23]

A person once told me there are 4 things useless to a pilot;

- runway behind,
- fuel in the truck,
- altitude above and
- a birthcontrol pill in your pregnant wife's hand.

Respecting all philosophies and practices on fuel saving, balanced field T/O etc. etc. the statement on the uselessness of these things when present remains valid.
Does that mean all procedures are wrong and need to be changed? No.
Does it hurt to depart full length when available? No.

Maximising profit and time available does not take place during intersection take-offs or departing minimum fuel when indexes are similar. It takes place during the organisation of a controlled turnaround and the execution of it. For scheduled operations that is. There is a difference between what is wise and what is permissible. A clear example of that is work and rest regulations. Don't hear many folks that suffer from the "hurry-up-time-is-money" syndrom advocate that though :hmm: .

The same applies for speed control on final but that is off topic.

Cheers.

[Mercenary Pilot]

I'll be more than happy to take-off with max thrust, max fuel and use full length, when the passengers are happy to pay the full cost in fares to cover the substantial increase in operating costs.

:ok:

[Ocampo]

Don't hear many folks that suffer from the "hurry-up-time-is-money" syndrom advocate that though .


Actually, it's not a syndrom, I'd say it's more like a culture that you learn when you are up in an airliner. Couple of examples that comes to my mind is doing rolling takeoffs; that stopping and further acceleration of the engines is worth a few pounds of fuel (specially in older jet engines). You accept or request any "direct-to" that suits your needs, you try your best not to enter a holding pattern unless it is that necessary, for whatever reason it is, and if you do enter the holding pattern, then you descend as much as you can within permissible limits to not waste a whole lotta time, time equals fuel, fuel equals money for your company.

I'll be more than happy to take-off with max thrust, max fuel and use full length, when the passengers are happy to pay the full cost in fares to cover the substantial increase in operating costs.

I second that!

[SNS3Guppy]

One must consider the aircraft, the circumstances, the load, the runway conditions, the predicted performance, and the type of operation. In many operations, it's very wise to use all the runway. In others, especially operations in which one will have no difficulty remaining aloft following an engine failure, then runway behind isn't particularly relevant if adequate runway to stop or go lies ahead.

One must certainly differentiate between transport category aircraft, and everything else, but one must also look at other circumstances. Can the aircraft depart safely, using predicted and calculated performance, from the current intersection? If I need nine thousand feet to stop or go and there are fourteen thousand remaining, then I've certaily got more than enough. Taxiing the fulll length may create unnecessary ground handling problems or delays, may increase tire temperatures unnecessarily, and may mean an extended wait due to traffic which isn't warranted when the takeoff can safely be done from the intersection.

That said, all else being equal, I'll take full length whenever I can get it.

[postman23]

Well spoken Guppy, although I do not have the tire temp issue on my dinky little jet.

The preceeding 2 replies indicate to me that more people prefer full length when available. The point I was trying to make is that there is always going to be some beancounter who thinks some modification of an existing practice will generate additional revenue, whether that will be through fuel or taxi time or duty regulations optimisation.
In the end that extra cash will not land in your lap, if it is actually generated in the first place. Traditionally it is used to downsize the budget for the following year, which in return requires alteration of yet another practice. Scrapping crew meals for example. In my previous operation, it became close to mandatory to accept intersection take-offs for 'traffic reasons'. Nobody bothered to think about the fact that we (medium category) now needed 3 mins after a heavy departure from the full length.
Long story short: most of the time we ended up idling at the intersection for an additional some mins to accomodate other traffic. Where is the logic in that?

Pilots are go-minded people with ridiculous levels of flexibility. Under the header of "Yes it can be done" this industry has seen erosion of sensible practices for no truly valid reasons. With all respect; if an airline's survival depends on whether they depart from an intersection or taxi out an extra 30 seconds, I think their financial pressure is beyond healthy.

My 2cts anyway.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Sheesh I'm doing terrible these days or is this thread a repeat?

I don't seem to be reading

I guess it best to continue my silence these days:\
sorry everyone--it's been a contentious time to say the least--- and I'm not in my best mind set--for aviation:ugh:
PA

Edit: although when this period passes I'll surely be the the one better off and maybe I can even buy an Eclipse jet or something cute like that:E,...but in the mean while:oh:

then I can once again talk sensibly on Pprune

CAVU everyone


If the offending parties even read Pprune, though I doubt it, [comment here deleted for bad form by PA] but these folks ain't no pilots for sure,...anyways

Lester:E

[Pugilistic Animus]

I forgot to mention this---- but it is advisable for the more limited aircraft [far23] departing VFR to request, if available of course, a Right or Left downwind departure so as to be in a good position to get back to the runway if needed in a pinch

PA

[alf5071h]

Some views cite the need for airmanship and the judgment within that when considering an intersection departure. This will involve assessing risk in the options.
Nothing is risk free; a takeoff on a dry runway using the minimum required distance is of ‘low’ risk and thus is acceptable (to the industry via regulation) for normal operations. A similar takeoff on a wet runway has more risk – reduced height over the end with an engine failure, or greater probability of an overrun during an RTO, but this increased risk is also accepted by industry (regulation), perhaps partly balanced by the likely lower exposure to a combination of critical conditions (wet and engine failure).

There may be additional risk due to the poor condition of the runway – how much rubber/paint is there on the stop end, is the runway grooved, what’s the width, what’s the overrun like.
This is where airmanship can provide a balancing view of the overall risk, but this depends on the way in which humans think about risk. There is also risk in other human activity - errors, your own or from other sources.

Unfortunately, many pilots don’t think about these aspects; not because they can’t, but due to a lack of knowledge about the risk adjusting factors or the size of the risk. This shortfall could be due to not seeing (perceiving) the factors, or even not looking for any.
In addition to basic knowledge, there is need for specialist knowledge; how to judge the risk in these factors; some may not apply on a wet runway, others involve risk at all times.

We are creatures of the present, more often failing to look ahead. We tend to rush, take short cuts, allow bias of what other people think/do effect our judgment, or we just forget – being unable to recall what might be important in a ‘routine’ situation.
IMHO those who believe in the fallibility of the human, and likelihood of personal error, would choose to have the additional the margin of a full length runway … but then again we tend to choose the option with most to gain – save time, save fuel.
I wonder if management would agree if they balance an intersection departure against the cost of an ‘avoidable’ serious incident. Instead of waiting for the hindsight which comes with an incident, use foresight to provide guidance or procedural ruling (company or personal SOP), e.g. no flex with wet intersection departure – balance the risk as well as balance the runway length.

For ATC’ers; what is the additional risk in intersection departures? Runway incursion more likely, differing points of focus for departing aircraft, additional calls (or chat) for ground movements. Everywhere there is change, there is opportunity for error.
And does any of this influence the pilot;- to rush, forget checks, or fail to look out?

IMHO, whether you are a PPL or a commercial pilot, the question is not about looking for the reasons for conducting intersection departures, it is about the justification for your decision – should you be making an intersection departure in these circumstances – even after considering the context of the current situation at some future point.

[Jesper]

I get irritated reading this! The emirates a345 would still have tailstriked if they would have taken the whole runway, they had misscalculated the loadsheet, hadnt they?
And of course, runway behind you is useless, but runway u wont use in front of u is just as useless. I will always be able to stop before V1 and to continue the takeoff after V1, no matter how much runway i have left behind.

[MU3001A]

V1 is a speed not a distance.

You should be able to stop before V1 as long as you have calculated V1 correctly for the weight and similarly you should be able to continue the takeoff after V1, if you can accelerate to Vr in the runway remaining.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<For ATC’ers; what is the additional risk in intersection departures? >>

I never saw any problems and I did it for 22 years at Heathrow where we used intersection departures a great deal.. I expect they still do. Properly trained controllers and pilots know what they are at..

[RVF750]

Agreed.

I used to love the Block 16 departures from B12..you get a prize for guessing the reg of our little green Jumbalino that did that quite often.....how the CC got the cabin ready so quickly was beyond me.

Nothing wrong with an expeditious intersection departure, but to be fair, choosing it if a full length is nearly as quick is marginal..though I did that this morning to be fair.

Ho hum.

[bookworm]

For ATC’ers; what is the additional risk in intersection departures?

The hazard was exemplified by the Shorts 330 collision at CDG in May 2000 (http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-ed000525a/pdf/f-ed000525a.pdf). But not every hazard brings an unacceptable risk.

There's a considerable difference in risk management strategy between aircraft designed and operated to be robust to an engine failure at any moment of the flight, and the less capable aircraft that the OP is likely to be flying. Ironically perhaps, there's a greater potential benefit in taking the whole of a 3500 m runway in a Piper Cherokee than in a Boeing 737, as the likelihood of using the last 100 m of it in an emergency is greater.

[poina]

Jesper,
What I find irritating is someone saying they can ALWAYS stop before V1 and ALWAYS continue after V1. If you fly large aircraft, have your next sim instructor give you an engine in reverse at V1, or complete airspeed loss, or a host of other problems. I'd be glad to make you eat those words and introduce you to a little humility!

[alf5071h]

Jesper, an irritated mind might fail to use an opportunity to think about the issues. What is the link between a tail scrape (for what ever reason) and full length / intersection departure?

Heathrow Director, LHR may be special (IMHO exceptional - plaudits), but as you well realize the absence problems is not absence of risk. LHR risk management may have been able to ensure the highest standard of controllers and assistants, but not necessarily ensure the same for all of the visiting pilots.

Dash&thump, I also assume that you realize that an intersection departure on a non limiting runway is not the same issue as for one in limiting conditions. An intersection London HR might be OK, but even in your ‘Jumbalino’, an intersection departure at London CY might not be so sensible.

The point of post #41 was to encourage pilots/controllers to think about the decision to accept / reject an intersection departure and state (openly or to themselves) their justification. Many posts in this forum focus on the conclusions of thinking, whereas stating the justification could help others understand a point of view.

[FullWings]

I think you have to be careful not to get too fixated on extremely improbable events, such as being unable to fly at V1. If that scenario is a big worry, then ETOPS is unthinkable! As others have pointed out, if you're happy to go from a wet/contaminated runway with the reduced margins involved (a reasonably well-used procedure), why should the far, far lower risk of needing a lot more runway than calculated be an issue?

For me, if an intersection departure saves time or taxi distance then I'll do it. As a consequence, I'm putting less energy into the brakes and tyres which is a safety plus. There are also many reasons why I'll take full length, such as contamination, MEL items, possible windshear, etc. I always have the option of not going if I don't like what I see, too.

IMHO, if you're worried about needing extra concrete post-V1, then you should spend a bit longer assessing the prevailing conditions, the serviceability of your aircraft and be *really* careful when you do your performance calculations. This is probably far better insurance than anything else.

[Ocampo]

I will always be able to stop before V1 and to continue the takeoff after V1, no matter how much runway i have left behind.

Oooh, no, sir, very wrong. MU3001A has got it more...err, "correctly worded" you should. Emphasize "should".

You wouldn't be so sure of that statement if you ever flied a full pax MD-83 (that's 152 in BC config), with around 15K pounds of fuel, plus some cargo, out of a 8360ft AMSL runway that is around 13000ft long.

V1 is OVER 140KTS, by the time you are rotating you are already in the last 3000ft of runway; plus if there's anything bad about the MD-80 series is their brake efficiency. RTO 1 knot below V1, you "will always be able to stop before V1", you say? Me thinks you'll be using the cow ranch (or the street and then the buildings) further down the runway as means of stopping.

[paweas]

Hmmm...i'm quite sure all the experienced pilots know what they're on about doing this day in day out..however no matter how you justify it cost and so on regardless of your calculations you can't factor in all possible scenarios or acts of nature,surely it's preferable to give your self all available options in the 1/10,000 remote possibility of a serious problem.
Intersection takeof,.wet rny, xwind near limits, humid conditions, aircraft near mtow and just for kicks a shed load of geese in your engines right at v1 ......fr in rome springs to mind...

Personally i would opt for a straight ahead landing AND FAST....many aircraft have been lost following the ole chestnut "take it into the air sort out the problem and land " boL*o*ks to that.......you hardly have time to assess what the problem is ..bet you wished you had another 3000 ahead...................

It's amazing how company ops will choose to erode god given safety margins to increase profit,intersection takeoffs,reduced thrust noise abatement procedures at near mtow etc.etc...:ugh:

Obviously talk is cheap and like it or not these procedures are here to stay but personally i like to think given the option most pilots would choose to have all options open.i know i would:)

[FullWings]

...many aircraft have been lost following the ole chestnut "take it into the air sort out the problem and land"...
Any notable examples of the above, references and/or links? I say this because I know of many accidents caused by post-V1 rejects but very few where the outcome would have been improved by an attempted stop. The statistics appear to be very much against you in this scenario.

Taking the recent accident at MEL, I don't think things would have been radically improved if they'd aborted when they realised something was wrong (about 600m from the end of the runway). The report on the AMS overrun reveals that the P1 *briefed* about a >V1 reject, then performed one on an aircraft that was perfectly capable of flight, destroying it in the process.

...I like to think given the option most pilots would choose to have all options open.
Oh yes. We like options. However, experience has shown that exercising this particular option almost always results in a poor outcome. There's nothing to stop Captain X making this decision if he thinks that it's the safer option than continuing with the takeoff. All I can say is he'll need to hire a bloody good legal team if it goes wrong... :ooh:

[Rainboe]

paweas,
Personally i would opt for a straight ahead landing AND FAST
You're a student atpl. You might think you know everything at this stage, but this is a professional pilot forum, and you, who actually have no experience, are here peddling stupid information and advice without making clear your inexperience? I suggest you remove that utterly daft posting!

[Overheat]

Hey guys. Just to add a little humor.

For a pilot 3 things are never too much:

-Fuel
-Rwy leght available
-Women

Speed and altitude is life ;)

Enjoy your flying.
Cheers

[dwshimoda]

For a pilot 3 things are never too much:

-Fuel



Unless you are on fire.

Back to the topic, it chills me to the bone that people like paweas peddle this nonsense. I have just over 500 hours on the B757 and know that I still know very little. How does a student ATPL feel able to post stuff like this?

[john_tullamarine]

I suggest you remove that utterly daft posting!

How does a student ATPL feel able to post stuff like this?

A couple of thoughts -

(a) doesn't matter what the field of activity, the oft-observed progress sequence is along the lines of

- apprehension
- overconfidence even to the point of gross overconfidence
- self doubt (after frightening oneself with the umpteenth near death experience)
- caution and adherence to SOP
- (for some) back (towards) overconfidence
- (for others) continued reflection and caution

- the second point usually arrives for the new pilot either during his initial training or shortly thereafter.
- the latter two points constitutes the old-bold problem.

(b) one of the values of Tech Log is that the brashness of youth (or new chum ignorance) can be challenged by the wisdom of age (and experience) and, perhaps on occasion, the new chum might just learn a little along the way to his/her own enlightened development.

From my own experience, I started off knowing it all (like many) and progressively have had that view knocked out of me by a great many folk who did, indeed, know far more than I.

In fact, I reckon that, by the time I get around to dying ... I'll probably have come to realise that I know just about naught about anything at all ?

[Pugilistic Animus]

In my own words; ALL pilots [myself definitely NOT excepted] occasionally talk lots of Horse Hooey. that's why we come here to learn from one another. the reason I even have my few post is because I read A good deal JT your Techlog makes me Fat and blind

PA