PDA

View Full Version : Sri Lankan A340 low take-off at LHR


Doors to Automatic
18th Feb 2012, 10:19
Some interesting pictures have emerged of a very low take-off from what looks like 09R at LHR by a Sri Lankan A340.

Low flying Sri Lankan A340 causes concern at take off from Heathrow. | Demotix.com (http://www.demotix.com/news/1040035/low-flying-sri-lankan-a340-causes-concern-take-heathrow)

According to ATI the take-off is under investigation by the AAIB:

"A late take-off performed by a SriLankan Airlines Airbus A340-300 from London Heathrow's runway 09R on 5 February, followed by a low climbing trajectory, may be under scrutiny by the UK authorities.

In response to a question from Flightglobal, the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch said only that it is investigating an incident on that date.

SriLankan Airlines was not immediately available to comment."

CaptainProp
18th Feb 2012, 10:29
:eek: THAT looks pretty low!!! :eek:

Wizofoz
18th Feb 2012, 10:43
T/O Data stuff up??

NigelOnDraft
18th Feb 2012, 11:54
I'm not saying there weren't issues, but seems to meet the screen height requirements pretty easily :D

When I flew the 343, pretty sure we were as low / lower crossing end of 13 at HKG on departure - certainly felt like it :{

captjns
18th Feb 2012, 12:34
Low is when you can read the make, model and serial number of the lights at the end of the runway:}.

340peacock
18th Feb 2012, 12:42
They operate the oldest A340s with derated engines in the World, literally, I believe they have ancient SNos.
They are keen on fuel saving, I won't say anymore.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
18th Feb 2012, 14:26
I recall a 747 taking off from 10L at Heathrow and still firmly on terra firma by Block 17. The supervisor said: "Be a laugh if he lost an engine". He did.,.. and it was! The flames set fire to the grass on the other side of the peri track!

Superpilot
18th Feb 2012, 15:20
I guess those were the days when that kind of humour would get you a promotion? ;)

Bearcat
18th Feb 2012, 15:30
"MAN FLEX 84, SRS RWY UPDATE". .....wrong Flex says me.

Airbubba
18th Feb 2012, 16:00
Hard for me to tell how much of the drama in the photos is from the flattened perspective of a telephoto lens.

A long haul four engine jet is not going to climb like an ETOPS twin, especially with a full derate takeoff. Also, with a long plane you rotate slowly to avoid getting the tail, this will give you less than the textbook optimum initial climb performance but might keep you out of the chief pilot's office. Seems like some A340's have tailstrike protection in software but maybe this old one doesn't.

In years past I've seen the sim instructors coach some optimum rotation rate in the simulator at a light 'training weight' complete with fancy computer plots. 'You need to get that nose up faster to clear the obstacle.' Then, folks go out onto the line on a max gross takeoff and get a tailstrike. Like single engine taxi on the twins, this optimum rotation rate stuff goes in and out of fashion over the years.

It was claimed that United flew a 744 close to the Golden Gate Bridge in SFO, to me this looks like another telephoto lens illusion:

FAA denies United Airlines 747 put Golden Gate Bridge in jeopardy - National Airlines/Airport | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/faa-denies-united-airlines-747-put-golden-gate-bridge-jeopardy)

Once these near disaster claims get on the social media (like PPRuNe) they sometimes get momentum. Whenever the Blue Angels perform in a town with a bridge, there are always eyewitness claims that they flew under the bridge:

Rumors fly about Blue Angels and the bridge | The Post and Courier - Charleston, South Carolina (http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/apr/21/rumors-fly/)

Blue Angel flight in Charleston: Under the bridge or not? | TheDigitel Charleston (http://charleston.thedigitel.com/offbeat/blue-angel-flight-charleston-under-bridge-or-not-20642-0420)

Fleet Week: Do the Blue Angels fly under the Golden Gate Bridge during Fleet Week in San Francisco? - Quora (http://www.quora.com/Fleet-Week/Do-the-Blue-Angels-fly-under-the-Golden-Gate-Bridge-during-Fleet-Week-in-San-Francisco)

Low is when you can read the make, model and serial number of the lights at the end of the runway.

I can remember years ago out of MIA on the 727 taking off to the east with Caribbean hand luggage. Whatever was carried onboard didn't count on the weight and balance and the pax would bring TV's, microwaves and huge duffels of clothes. Staff also looked the other way on the overweight checked bags, it was a different era.

You could read license plates on Le Jeune Road as you struggled to gain altitude.

holyflyer
18th Feb 2012, 16:27
View climb out here :
WebTrak: Heathrow (http://webtrak.bksv.com/lhr)

Select 5th February and 1115am

Flapping_Madly
18th Feb 2012, 19:36
I take it that that was a gentle climb. At Croydon it was at about 3500 feet. The following aircraft was at 6000 at the same point. Unless I've got it ravelled round my neck I think I see what you mean.

golfyankeesierra
18th Feb 2012, 19:37
real close, yeah.
Just as close as these two:
http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/planeparallelsmaller.jpg?w=500

BAe 146-100
18th Feb 2012, 20:13
From the data on webtrack it met the the height restrictions on the departure to be 3000 or above 29 west of Detling and 5000 20 west of Detling, therefore it is a non issue, unless it hit anything at the end of the runway :rolleyes:

BobnSpike
18th Feb 2012, 20:20
This is low:

Close call! - YouTube

parabellum
18th Feb 2012, 20:45
Looks like the parallel approach at SFO, a very common occurrence, can't remember how far apart the appoaches/runways are but it is far enough!


http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/planeparallelsmaller.jpg?w=500

dmwalker
18th Feb 2012, 21:02
750 ft plus the magic of the telephoto lens.

stepwilk
18th Feb 2012, 22:31
Yet another PPRuNe Hysteria Thread. The we're-all-gonna-die posts by amateurs are really getting tiresome.

jcjeant
18th Feb 2012, 23:31
Hi,

BTW .. good photos .. very "atmospheric" of this immaculate A340 :ok:

Capn Bloggs
19th Feb 2012, 00:24
Photographic illusion.

They are keen on fuel saving, I won't say anymore.
My understanding is that flex takeoffs use more fuel than rated takeoffs.

Uncle Fred
19th Feb 2012, 03:09
The Web track link is not working or else shows access denied? Is there another link to this?

BOAC
19th Feb 2012, 08:16
Yet another PPRuNe Hysteria Thread. The we're-all-gonna-die posts by amateurs are really getting tiresome. In response to a question from Flightglobal, the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch said only that it is investigating an incident on that date. - can I assume you are possibly wisely including AAIB in the 'PPRuNe Hysteria'?

Doors to Automatic
19th Feb 2012, 10:40
Yes agreed BOAC - I only started the thread because of the AAIB involvement, which would suggest that the incident is worthy of discussion :ok:

Will Hung
19th Feb 2012, 11:24
Well you know what the option is then don't you. T*%t

Probably best to await the AAIB, but hell, this is a chat room full of amateurs. Maybe they were just having a bit of fun flying over their Sri Lankan friends in the BP garage.

I once saw the same type and carrier depart LHR 27L and head for Laleham before reaching the M25.

Have a nice day.

fmgc
19th Feb 2012, 12:36
I don't understand, in the picture of the Lufty and the United 757, why the 757 is so nose down.

Should it not really be about 3 to 4 degs nose up at that stage of the approach? I can understand optical illusions making them look closer than they really are but not effect the look of the pitch angle of the 757.

I suspect that it might be a fake?

fmgc
19th Feb 2012, 12:39
You should seem some of the take offs from Jo'berg in the middle of a hot day. Some of the 747s really do scrape the trees at the end of the runway!

golfyankeesierra
19th Feb 2012, 12:43
Parabellum,
that was exactly the meaning of my post.

Flyingstig
19th Feb 2012, 13:31
A heavy 707 freighter off 08 at LGW would have the porters on the station platform ducking!!:ok:

A30yoyo
19th Feb 2012, 20:21
The 747/757 photo is not a fake, it's by Ben Wang on airliners.net, but it was shot from some distance away...if you read the info the 747 had engine problems and was flying somewhat skewed
Photos: Boeing 757-222 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-757-222/0652327/)

Duchess_Driver
19th Feb 2012, 22:34
Yet another PPRuNe Hysteria Thread. The we're-all-gonna-die posts by amateurs are really getting tiresome.


Clue is in the Forum Name....