V2
If it's a balanced field length I'd suggest it's rather unlikely to get get airborne in the distance remaining if, two seconds after applying brakes - which would also be somewhere in the reverser deploy process, and speed brakes activated - you then try to reverse those actions. You would be crashing off the end of the runway at high speed
V1 stop is a maximum effort manoeuvre. Two seconds of no braking + the time recognise and use the emergency braking is likely to result in rolling off the end of the runway - but at a significantly lower speed than crashing trying to get airborne.
V1 stop is a maximum effort manoeuvre. Two seconds of no braking + the time recognise and use the emergency braking is likely to result in rolling off the end of the runway - but at a significantly lower speed than crashing trying to get airborne.
Lead Balloon,
My "you are on your own" was intended to mean ---- there is no one answer, 'tis up to you.
However, I would be doing my best to stop, including making certain that the apparent lack of stopping was not caused by failure of spoilers to auto deploy, failure to properly close thrust levers/throttles (you might be amazed what is on some flight recorders/what I have observed in the sim.) or "relying" on auto-brakes.
Megan,
If you read the definition as a anything other than the the GO speed, if the rejected takeoff has not already been commenced, you ain't reading it right.
As to what is built into the derivation of V1, there have been all sorts of changes over the years, far too many to go into here, all to try and make a real world rejected takeoff more likely to succeed, without unacceptable payload penalties, but that doe NOT, in any way, change what the pilot in command is going to do, has to do, on the day it happens for real.
I would suggest I have quite a good handle on this particular issue, including membership a some "interesting" working groups, going right back to SFAR 422B, which is probably before many of you ( and FAR 25) were born.
As I said in my first post, there are still too many FCOMs/text books/training manuals etc., that vary from misleading to just plain wrong.
Tootle pip!!
My "you are on your own" was intended to mean ---- there is no one answer, 'tis up to you.
However, I would be doing my best to stop, including making certain that the apparent lack of stopping was not caused by failure of spoilers to auto deploy, failure to properly close thrust levers/throttles (you might be amazed what is on some flight recorders/what I have observed in the sim.) or "relying" on auto-brakes.
Megan,
If you read the definition as a anything other than the the GO speed, if the rejected takeoff has not already been commenced, you ain't reading it right.
As to what is built into the derivation of V1, there have been all sorts of changes over the years, far too many to go into here, all to try and make a real world rejected takeoff more likely to succeed, without unacceptable payload penalties, but that doe NOT, in any way, change what the pilot in command is going to do, has to do, on the day it happens for real.
I would suggest I have quite a good handle on this particular issue, including membership a some "interesting" working groups, going right back to SFAR 422B, which is probably before many of you ( and FAR 25) were born.
As I said in my first post, there are still too many FCOMs/text books/training manuals etc., that vary from misleading to just plain wrong.
Tootle pip!!
If you read the definition as a anything other than the the GO speed, if the rejected takeoff has not already been commenced, you ain't reading it right.
Though I did work with a guy who did a successful reject after V1 (RAAF Herc) after a bird strike at Darwin. Distance to run markers on the runway undoubtedly aided his decision making in the circumstance, he had doubt as to the damage sustained and if it was flyable.
Perhaps he had the Electra N5533 accident in mind.
Megan,
There is no direct correlation between the approach of many military arms and civil certification of takeoff performance.
The existence of and use of runway distance markers on military airfields --- of no relevance to civil operations ---- is evidence of that.
A common military alternative (I can't speak to RAAF practice) to the civil V1 approach is to have a maximum takeoff rejection speed, which, at light weights on long runways, can be at least rotate speed, and theoretically beyond. This usually included "takeoff monitoring", which means checking acceleration on the roll by timing passing runway distance markers.
You continue to re-quote various items that go into certifying V1, but the point I want to make, yet again, is what must happen in the flight deck, the niceties of what go into the establishment of V1 are not important to the pilot in command handling a critical engine failure.
KISS is the only thing that is important --- and getting it right!!
Tootle pip!!
There is no direct correlation between the approach of many military arms and civil certification of takeoff performance.
The existence of and use of runway distance markers on military airfields --- of no relevance to civil operations ---- is evidence of that.
A common military alternative (I can't speak to RAAF practice) to the civil V1 approach is to have a maximum takeoff rejection speed, which, at light weights on long runways, can be at least rotate speed, and theoretically beyond. This usually included "takeoff monitoring", which means checking acceleration on the roll by timing passing runway distance markers.
You continue to re-quote various items that go into certifying V1, but the point I want to make, yet again, is what must happen in the flight deck, the niceties of what go into the establishment of V1 are not important to the pilot in command handling a critical engine failure.
KISS is the only thing that is important --- and getting it right!!
Tootle pip!!
There is no direct correlation between the approach of many military arms and civil certification of takeoff performance.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA319982
That's specific for the bus, I'd take it. For the airplane I fly, if you were single engine above V2 +10, the crossbars would pitch up to bring you back down to V2 + 10. All other speed scenarios are the same as the bus.
Last edited by smiling monkey; 24th Dec 2016 at 17:22.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, everybody, how about we get the thread back to where it started, and attempt to give the OP some suitable and sensible answers. The last few pages have contained overly dry and technical definitions which we can safely assume would not be suitable for his target audience.
The OP quite rightly assumed that, of all the places in the world, this was the one that should have given him exactly the answers he needed, in exactly the wording appropriate for the audience. We can do far better. I believe the following is more along the lines of what he was looking for:
V1:
The OP quite rightly assumed that, of all the places in the world, this was the one that should have given him exactly the answers he needed, in exactly the wording appropriate for the audience. We can do far better. I believe the following is more along the lines of what he was looking for:
V1:
That speed attained during the takeoff roll, after which, an aborted takeoff will likely result in the aircraft coming to a stop at a point beyond the end of the runway. The pilots use this speed to dictate whether, in the event of a significant failure during the takeoff acceleration, they should abort or continue the takeoff. V1 is the first of three milestone speeds that the aircraft must achieve during every takeoff. The others, in order, are Vr and V2.
Vr:The "rotate" speed. On reaching this speed during the takeoff acceleration the pilot initiates the pitch up that causes the aircraft to leave the ground. This pitching action is known as "rotation".
V2:That speed attained during takeoff at which the aircraft has a comfortable margin above speeds such as the stalling speed, where the controllability of the aircraft is not assured. V2 is the last of the three milestone speeds that an aircraft achieves during the takeoff and occurs a few seconds after becoming airborne. The others are V1 and Vr.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozziekiwi,
Here are the explanations I obtained direct from Beechcraft and Bombardier when developing ground schools for the 1900D and DH8 (Classic and Q400). Couple years old now, but like weather, I don't think aircraft performance changes much:
Vcef is the highest speed at which the aircraft can be accelerated, experience a loss of the critical engine, and continue or stop in the computed minimum field length. Vcef must be demonstrated to be at or above Vmcg.
Because most pilots are not test pilots, most regulators require that 1 second of acceleration be added to Vcef. Vcef + 1 second = V1.
V1, therefore, is both the maximum speed at which the pilot must take the first action to stop the aircraft within the accelerate-stop distance (ASDR) and is also the minimum speed, following a failure of the critical engine at Vcef, at which the pilot may continue the take-off to achieve a height of 35' AGL by the end of the Take-Off Distance Required (TODR).
Vr is the speed at which rotation begins. Although some books define it as when the nose wheel leaves the ground, it is not. It is the speed at which rotation may begin. Performance data for first segment climb begins not at Vr but at a speed known as Vlof - Lift Off Speed.
Vr must be demonstrated during flight testing be be not less than 5% above Vmca, to result in at least the minimum Vlof demonstrated during flight testing, and must permit acceleration to V2 prior to reaching 35' above the runway. Furthermore, manufacturers must demonstrate that Vr will not result in an increase in TODR if rotation is begun 5 knots lower than published Vr during one-engine acceleration or 10 knots lower than established Vr during all-engine acceleration.
Vlof, on the other hand, must be at least 5% above the one-engine inoperative minimum unstick speed (Vmu-oei) and 10% above the all-engine operative minimum unstick speed (Vmu-aeo). The minimum unstick speed is literally the minimum speed at which the aircraft will first become airborne - those cool pics of tails being dragged down a runway and the aircraft becoming airborne at stupid low speeds.
V2, while defined as the "take-off safety speed" is actually a factor of the stall speed, specifically it is:
- 1.2 x Vs for two and three engine aircraft.
- 1.15 x Vs for four engine aircraft.
So while V2 is does ensure the aircraft can be controlled, it is more closely linked to achieving a speed as close to the maximum lift/drag coefficient to enable maximum first segment climb performance, thus ensuring close-in obstacle clearance.
Let me explain why V2 is not specifically linked to aircraft control - All "V" speeds must be demonstrated to be at or above Vmcg/Vmca (where applicable). Where they are shown to be below Vmcg or Vmca, the applicable speed is arbitrarily raised to the next highest speed (normally). So while all V-speeds do ensure the aircraft can be controlled, only Vmcg/Vmca specifically deal with it. All the others deal with other performance factors.
Hope this helps to generate some technical discussion!
Here are the explanations I obtained direct from Beechcraft and Bombardier when developing ground schools for the 1900D and DH8 (Classic and Q400). Couple years old now, but like weather, I don't think aircraft performance changes much:
Vcef is the highest speed at which the aircraft can be accelerated, experience a loss of the critical engine, and continue or stop in the computed minimum field length. Vcef must be demonstrated to be at or above Vmcg.
Because most pilots are not test pilots, most regulators require that 1 second of acceleration be added to Vcef. Vcef + 1 second = V1.
V1, therefore, is both the maximum speed at which the pilot must take the first action to stop the aircraft within the accelerate-stop distance (ASDR) and is also the minimum speed, following a failure of the critical engine at Vcef, at which the pilot may continue the take-off to achieve a height of 35' AGL by the end of the Take-Off Distance Required (TODR).
Vr is the speed at which rotation begins. Although some books define it as when the nose wheel leaves the ground, it is not. It is the speed at which rotation may begin. Performance data for first segment climb begins not at Vr but at a speed known as Vlof - Lift Off Speed.
Vr must be demonstrated during flight testing be be not less than 5% above Vmca, to result in at least the minimum Vlof demonstrated during flight testing, and must permit acceleration to V2 prior to reaching 35' above the runway. Furthermore, manufacturers must demonstrate that Vr will not result in an increase in TODR if rotation is begun 5 knots lower than published Vr during one-engine acceleration or 10 knots lower than established Vr during all-engine acceleration.
Vlof, on the other hand, must be at least 5% above the one-engine inoperative minimum unstick speed (Vmu-oei) and 10% above the all-engine operative minimum unstick speed (Vmu-aeo). The minimum unstick speed is literally the minimum speed at which the aircraft will first become airborne - those cool pics of tails being dragged down a runway and the aircraft becoming airborne at stupid low speeds.
V2, while defined as the "take-off safety speed" is actually a factor of the stall speed, specifically it is:
- 1.2 x Vs for two and three engine aircraft.
- 1.15 x Vs for four engine aircraft.
So while V2 is does ensure the aircraft can be controlled, it is more closely linked to achieving a speed as close to the maximum lift/drag coefficient to enable maximum first segment climb performance, thus ensuring close-in obstacle clearance.
Let me explain why V2 is not specifically linked to aircraft control - All "V" speeds must be demonstrated to be at or above Vmcg/Vmca (where applicable). Where they are shown to be below Vmcg or Vmca, the applicable speed is arbitrarily raised to the next highest speed (normally). So while all V-speeds do ensure the aircraft can be controlled, only Vmcg/Vmca specifically deal with it. All the others deal with other performance factors.
Hope this helps to generate some technical discussion!
Last edited by +TSRA; 26th Dec 2016 at 04:11. Reason: grammar: "is is" changed to "it is"
Fdg135. Not quibbling with your words but your average Jo(e) will probably skip reading a definition paragraph that long. Technical accuracy is not the agenda here. I'm guessing that if the non pilot reader remembers that v1 is a stop / go speed, vr is a pull the nose up speed and V2 is an after takeoff speed then the author's job is done.
Compressor stall,
Put another way, you are saying we should perpetuate misinformation for the sake of ????
Why not? It is just as easy to get it right (technically accurate) as to get it wrong. Or are you dedicated to that new phenomena, "truthiness", which is something that sound like it could right (like a CFMEU robophone campaign) but isn't.
+TRSA,
Once again, homegrown interpretations, and the "1 second" you mention is both wrong and nothing to do with "test pilots" ---- when the "technically accurate" definition is simple and straightforward ----- but doesn't fit the per-conceived prejudices/ learned errors that ------ as is so clear in this thread, abound, despite years of trying to get the correct definition across.
Tootle pip!!
Put another way, you are saying we should perpetuate misinformation for the sake of ????
Technical accuracy is not the agenda here.
+TRSA,
Once again, homegrown interpretations, and the "1 second" you mention is both wrong and nothing to do with "test pilots" ---- when the "technically accurate" definition is simple and straightforward ----- but doesn't fit the per-conceived prejudices/ learned errors that ------ as is so clear in this thread, abound, despite years of trying to get the correct definition across.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with compressor stall, a person in the industry will have a good idea of the definitions (as we can see they vary!) the general public with some interest need only a basic definition - direct them to any FAA, Boeing or other definition web page but keep it simple.
V1 - the maximum speed during a take-off event that a take-off should be aborted, in the event of a malfunction or unforseen event. To continue a take-off after this speed would bring the aircraft to a stop beyond the end of the runway.
Vr - is the speed pitch input is given to become airborne.
V2 - the minimum target speed for controlled flight during a take-off event.
** Who at a speed 5 knots above V1 and then hitting a flock of birds that completely and instantly removes all vision on all windows except co-pilot side window will continue on to Vr and V2 speeds if there is 5 km clearing after runway finishes?
Me, I will apply brakes even after rotation(Vr) if 5km of flat cleared dirt lays in front of me.
V1 - the maximum speed during a take-off event that a take-off should be aborted, in the event of a malfunction or unforseen event. To continue a take-off after this speed would bring the aircraft to a stop beyond the end of the runway.
Vr - is the speed pitch input is given to become airborne.
V2 - the minimum target speed for controlled flight during a take-off event.
** Who at a speed 5 knots above V1 and then hitting a flock of birds that completely and instantly removes all vision on all windows except co-pilot side window will continue on to Vr and V2 speeds if there is 5 km clearing after runway finishes?
Me, I will apply brakes even after rotation(Vr) if 5km of flat cleared dirt lays in front of me.
Leadsled. Good science and technical communicators know how to tailor information to their audience, otherwise the audience will zone out through lack of interest or technical ability to comprehend.
Having a thorough technical understanding and grasp of the minutiae is fantastic, but one doesn't need to tell anyone that to get simple points across. In fact repeatedly doing so sometimes leads some to wonder the psychological motivations for such repeated pontification.
Notice professors who have weekly radio slots are good communicators as they can generalise highly technical concepts in bite sized chunks. They are not out to spread misinformation, they are selling a concept with deliberate simplifications. If I am explaining gravity to my younger kids, technical accuracy is NOT my agenda. The agenda it is their understanding and being able to understand it again the next day. So I talk Newtonian, not general relativity. Is this truthiness (whatever the #%^€ that is) or perpetuating misinformation?
Having a thorough technical understanding and grasp of the minutiae is fantastic, but one doesn't need to tell anyone that to get simple points across. In fact repeatedly doing so sometimes leads some to wonder the psychological motivations for such repeated pontification.
Notice professors who have weekly radio slots are good communicators as they can generalise highly technical concepts in bite sized chunks. They are not out to spread misinformation, they are selling a concept with deliberate simplifications. If I am explaining gravity to my younger kids, technical accuracy is NOT my agenda. The agenda it is their understanding and being able to understand it again the next day. So I talk Newtonian, not general relativity. Is this truthiness (whatever the #%^€ that is) or perpetuating misinformation?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
What else I agree there are more simple definitions out here, let me reiterate that those are not my definitions but those direct from aircraft manufacturers.
Perhaps I should rephrase that the data is adjusted for "normal pilot reaction time" which is defined by these manufacturers/regulators to be "1 second." Other manufacturers may be different and these ones may even have changed their definition, both of which I alluded to at the beginning of my post.
Also, I fear that in reducing a definition to its lowest level for the sake of the lowest common denominator is assuming a reader doesn't want to know the intricacies and does them a disservice.
I am a firm believer that there are two types of aviation books - technical and stories, and never should the two mix or dilute one another.
What else I agree there are more simple definitions out here, let me reiterate that those are not my definitions but those direct from aircraft manufacturers.
Perhaps I should rephrase that the data is adjusted for "normal pilot reaction time" which is defined by these manufacturers/regulators to be "1 second." Other manufacturers may be different and these ones may even have changed their definition, both of which I alluded to at the beginning of my post.
Also, I fear that in reducing a definition to its lowest level for the sake of the lowest common denominator is assuming a reader doesn't want to know the intricacies and does them a disservice.
I am a firm believer that there are two types of aviation books - technical and stories, and never should the two mix or dilute one another.
a person in the industry will have a good idea of the definitions (as we can see they vary!)
I have lived through (quite literally) the whole development of performance standards certification from SFAR 422B on, and it is a pity that efforts over the years to eliminate flawed understandings has been obviously so unsuccessful.
Part of the history: In the '70s and early '80s, there were a series of rejected takeoff accidents, some with seriously fatal consequences to passengers, crew, and in several very sad cases, people on the ground.
Among other things, this resulted in a major study by the ATA, which also included a number of non-US airlines, of which Qantas was one.
The study was to find out what pilots really knew about aircraft performance, what they had learned, where and how they had learned, been examined etc.
A core finding was a fundamental misunderstanding of V1, its derivation, and what it means in the flight deck.
As we see here, in this thread, there is wide deviance from the actual definitions. Some of you have talked about manufacturer information, used to derive manual information. What you really mean is somebody employed by a manufacturer, with an imperfect knowledge of the subject, has passed along, in good faith, a flawed explanation, which has been "interpreted" by the airline person, and something has wound up on a manual, and treated as gospel by probably generations of crews. But it was wrong.
There were several good examples of that in Qantas manuals back in the 60s, it was only when a pilot who had professional qualifications and experience in aircraft certification, arrived on the scene, the errors were corrected.
Specifically, in one case, the "Qantas" explanation of "geometry limited" on takeoff was completely wrong. There were other, they all had one thing in common, the information was not derived from source, but were misconceptions built on misunderstandings by pilots whose executive positions did not qualify them as performance engineers.
In the early days of the B707-338C in Qantas, the instructions for trimming were quite wrong. That one I remember very very well.
And, up to and including the B767 program, sometimes even the performance engineers get it wrong.
At about the same time, in parallel, but not directly related, an AFAP tec. team was looking at the whole issue, including military approaches, because at the time there was much interest in performance monitoring and "wet runway" operations ---- is the aircraft really accelerating "by the book", but that is a whole other subject.
Back to V1, the disturbing outcomes of the flawed knowledge clearly illustrated why a mindset on the flightdeck contributed to disastrous rejected takeoffs.
A major retraining program, originally designed by Delta, was taken up by all members of ATA, and most members of IATA, and was carried out through briefings and changes to simulator renewal or cyclic training programs, and I well remember the Qantas program, and the resistance of quite a few pilots (and not necessarily the older pilots) to having their fondly held misconceptions about V1 disturbed.
Bottom line: The certification definition is as I have said, the meaning on the flight deck is as I have said, and a proper first principles understanding of that part of certification allows no other definition.
Tootle pip!!
PS 1: A Boeing have always been happy to admit, their aeroplanes go better than they stop.
PS 2: Most pilots are most paranoid about runway length, and accelerate/stop distances, but the record show that a very significant number of rejected takeoffs result in loss of directional control, and leaving the side of the runway.
PS 3: There were some quite fundamental errors in the RR book "The Jet Engine", I don't know if they have been corrected in later editions. D.P Davies, in "Handling the Big Jets", even misinterprets his own ARB certification requirements, and largely ignores (except where he criticizes) the US certification of the B707. In my opinion (having flown both extensively) the ARB modifications to a B707 for a British C.of A were dangerous.
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Dec 2016 at 01:33.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok we need to disagree 3 pages with many examples most meaning the same in less words.
I call that varied, but the longest cut and past explanation is probably the most accurate description - but I can not be sure I only read about half of it. Surprisingly not finishing reading it didn't kill me.
If this OP is going to write his 40 odd years in the airliner industry in such detail, the pre-flight will take 20 pages.
What's the difference between a pre-flight and a Daily? In case the reader needs to know if its possible to do one and not the other or both need to be done we should define them.
I call that varied, but the longest cut and past explanation is probably the most accurate description - but I can not be sure I only read about half of it. Surprisingly not finishing reading it didn't kill me.
If this OP is going to write his 40 odd years in the airliner industry in such detail, the pre-flight will take 20 pages.
What's the difference between a pre-flight and a Daily? In case the reader needs to know if its possible to do one and not the other or both need to be done we should define them.
What's the difference between a pre-flight and a Daily?
I trust those who need to know, actually do! In a court/AAT, the difference is not trivial --- as people I know have found out to their great cost.
Indeed, the difference is a favorite of CASA counsel setting out to prove a defendant or witness is incompetent, and any other testimony should be considered in light of an incompetent answer to the above question.
As to the rest of the thread, I guess we will just have to accept that years of attempted education has failed, that fact just bounces off devout beliefs (obviously not limited to aviation) and there will undoubtedly continue to be avoidable accidents, as a result.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Dec 2016 at 04:40. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to "they do not vary" and I know wiki can be wrong. I don't think their statement is. "V1 is defined differently in different jurisdictions:"
V1 definitions[edit]
V1 is the critical engine failure recognition speed or takeoff decision speed. It is the speed above which the takeoff will continue even if an engine fails or another problem occurs, such as a blown tire.[9] The speed will vary among aircraft types and varies according to factors such as aircraft weight, runway length, wing flap setting, engine thrust used and runway surface contamination, thus it must be determined by the pilot before takeoff. Aborting a takeoff after V1 is strongly discouraged because the aircraft will by definition not be able to stop before the end of the runway, thus suffering a "runway overrun".[33]
V1 is defined differently in different jurisdictions:
V1 definitions[edit]
V1 is the critical engine failure recognition speed or takeoff decision speed. It is the speed above which the takeoff will continue even if an engine fails or another problem occurs, such as a blown tire.[9] The speed will vary among aircraft types and varies according to factors such as aircraft weight, runway length, wing flap setting, engine thrust used and runway surface contamination, thus it must be determined by the pilot before takeoff. Aborting a takeoff after V1 is strongly discouraged because the aircraft will by definition not be able to stop before the end of the runway, thus suffering a "runway overrun".[33]
V1 is defined differently in different jurisdictions:
- The US Federal Aviation Administration defines it as: "the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance."[7]
- Transport Canada defines it as: "Critical engine failure recognition speed" and adds: "This definition is not restrictive. An operator may adopt any other definition outlined in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) of TC type-approved aircraft as long as such definition does not compromise operational safety of the aircraft."[8]
Given that a simple definition would be fine (with a disclaimer). And correctly a difference between pre flight and daily would do the reader no harm.
V1 is the critical engine failure recognition speed or takeoff decision speed.
The above is quite simply wrong, a very dangerous "definition", as the accident record so clearly shows, and inconsistent with the further definitions you have posted.
You have even chosen to ignore the history I posted, as it does not correspond with your learned errors.
I am quite simply wasting my time with any further attempts to correct your misconceptions, I just hope you are not, and never likely to be, the Captain of a HICAP RPT aircraft, or any aircraft where a V1 is likely to be critical to the risk management of flight operations.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Leady,
I think it was you that made the blunt statement along the lines, there is NO different interpretations and or definitions of these terms.
So I simply cut and pasted others in my last post (no me but from Wikipedia).
So you appear wrong - yes it appears FAA has a definition of V1, Transport Canada have a different definition, a Flight manual might have a different one and who ever wrote that other definition in Wikipedia has their definition (rightly or wrongly - they maybe from Canada with a older flight manual and thus it is correct).
Band a Lot " a person in the industry will have a good idea of the definitions (as we can see they vary!).
LeadSled "No "they" don't vary, what varies is the degree of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and so forth."
Simple question asked simple.
Do FAA and Transport Canada have the same definition for V1?
or
Does the definition of V1 vary between FAA and Transport Canada?
I think it was you that made the blunt statement along the lines, there is NO different interpretations and or definitions of these terms.
So I simply cut and pasted others in my last post (no me but from Wikipedia).
So you appear wrong - yes it appears FAA has a definition of V1, Transport Canada have a different definition, a Flight manual might have a different one and who ever wrote that other definition in Wikipedia has their definition (rightly or wrongly - they maybe from Canada with a older flight manual and thus it is correct).
Band a Lot " a person in the industry will have a good idea of the definitions (as we can see they vary!).
LeadSled "No "they" don't vary, what varies is the degree of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and so forth."
Simple question asked simple.
Do FAA and Transport Canada have the same definition for V1?
or
Does the definition of V1 vary between FAA and Transport Canada?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever heard sayings
More than one way to skin a cat,
When in Rome do as the Romans do?
* The first is very true if you ask a few cat skinners, most have their own way (I don't like cats so more dead the better)
* The second is often a legal requirement, $999.99 says you don't chew gum in Singapore!
So in a big plane with "too" pilots and too islels (wide body) in Canada, you as Captain will argue to the death of all - "your definition" is the only one and that is final- I am Captain and I am right. seems like a captain of a RJ in a recent - oh you play soccer?
""I just hope you are not, and never likely to be, the Captain of a HICAP RPT aircraft, or any aircraft where a V1 is likely to be critical to the risk management of flight operations.""
Mutual, but sadly I expect not. Mate check many words on many different things on many dictionaries or regulators sites.
Things vary, only a fool till death will not accept that and die killing all with a Lead balloon!!
Enjoy your NY.
More than one way to skin a cat,
When in Rome do as the Romans do?
* The first is very true if you ask a few cat skinners, most have their own way (I don't like cats so more dead the better)
* The second is often a legal requirement, $999.99 says you don't chew gum in Singapore!
So in a big plane with "too" pilots and too islels (wide body) in Canada, you as Captain will argue to the death of all - "your definition" is the only one and that is final- I am Captain and I am right. seems like a captain of a RJ in a recent - oh you play soccer?
""I just hope you are not, and never likely to be, the Captain of a HICAP RPT aircraft, or any aircraft where a V1 is likely to be critical to the risk management of flight operations.""
Mutual, but sadly I expect not. Mate check many words on many different things on many dictionaries or regulators sites.
Things vary, only a fool till death will not accept that and die killing all with a Lead balloon!!
Enjoy your NY.
