Ryanair uses all the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to tell, but that looks textbook to me!
In general any delay at Vr and or slightly slow rotation rate on the -800 , and you end up with V2 plus 15 to 25 kts.
In the N-1 case after V1 but before Vr obviously this RWY is tight, and a prompt rotation at Vr and a steady V2 climb is essential.
I was out of there with a full aircraft , over 4 hrs flight and flaps 25 the other day. No margin except for bleeds off next. Worked like a charm!
The Old Lady will perform! Just make sure You do not let her down if Murphy pulls a trick around V1 and the next few seconds,,,,,
Happy Take Offs and Landings
In general any delay at Vr and or slightly slow rotation rate on the -800 , and you end up with V2 plus 15 to 25 kts.
In the N-1 case after V1 but before Vr obviously this RWY is tight, and a prompt rotation at Vr and a steady V2 climb is essential.
I was out of there with a full aircraft , over 4 hrs flight and flaps 25 the other day. No margin except for bleeds off next. Worked like a charm!
The Old Lady will perform! Just make sure You do not let her down if Murphy pulls a trick around V1 and the next few seconds,,,,,
Happy Take Offs and Landings
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what that clip demonstrates is that we have been spoilt, much of the time the runways are more than long enough but sometimes they are only just long enough, Bristol as a fair example.
I'm sorry but that does NOT look like a normal take-off. Normally one would expect rotation to occur at the latest inside the markings at the far end, but be firmly in the air by the 1000ft to go point. I have rarely witnessed anything tighter than that in the developed world! That was certainly not the case here.
I would suspect their brief would be: "........ call rotate when at Vr, or approaching the end of the RW, whichever is the sooner"
Last edited by Dan_Brown; 11th Oct 2017 at 23:42.
Generally on a balanced field takeoff you should be able to achieve 35 feet at the end of the runway with a failure at V1. They clearly would not have made that. The question is did they get bad data, load the wrong data or rotate very slow. I have seen bad data more than I care to admit. A bit of cargo gets omitted or a incorrect temp is imputed ect.. Does Ryanair use a central load planning or does the crew do the weights?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
close.Freeze frame it at 2.30 and at the beginning of the Piano keys the main gear is still on the ground.
I was overloaded out of Dhaka a few years ago and decided to do according to the windshear procedure, rotate prior to Vr, 2000' before the runway end. I thought that that was close. Now I see that 50% of posters think that this take off was normal. I realise that I shouldn't have concerned myself.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different event but seems to prove a systemic safety failure because it was still to close based on a balanced field with both engines operating.
You don't need any basic knowledge of performance, loading, ambient conditions, etc. It's obvious
.
You don't need any basic knowledge of performance, loading, ambient conditions, etc. It's obvious
.
Freeze frame it at 2.30 and at the beginning of the Piano keys the main gear is still on the ground
Depends on what you call 'tight'.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is clear the aircraft is rotating at the 1000ft markers and certainly airborne at the 500ft mark.
On 2 engines I would have thought it would be normal to be airborne, wheels off, by 1000' on this short runway NOT just starting the process of aviating. If this was a normal profile then I wonder if either a V1 Stop or V1 cut & go would had been successful. If the numbers were correct this late unstick may have been caused by a late/too slow/too nose heavy trim. The 2 guys up front will be able to enlighten us, but..............
What about some B738 pilots who are BRS based chirping up. What do the everyday guys think?
On 2 engines I would have thought it would be normal to be airborne, wheels off, by 1000' on this short runway NOT just starting the process of aviating. If this was a normal profile then I wonder if either a V1 Stop or V1 cut & go would had been successful. If the numbers were correct this late unstick may have been caused by a late/too slow/too nose heavy trim. The 2 guys up front will be able to enlighten us, but..............
What about some B738 pilots who are BRS based chirping up. What do the everyday guys think?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were times B732 from LTN RW26 when we were glad of the valley if an engine failed; or so we joked in the bar. But a TFS from RW26 B732 was a trust & faith takeoff sometimes. What it was not was anything less than full chat, and a very careful 180 on the turning circle.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly you haven't had a chance to see the memo O'Leary sent out to crews.
'We've realised that we're paying for the whole runway, so use the f*cking thing'
(PS Daily mail this is a joke)
'We've realised that we're paying for the whole runway, so use the f*cking thing'
(PS Daily mail this is a joke)
Reminds me of a colleague who used to fly Cambrian BAC 111s out of Leeds who told me the story that it always looked tight as they rotated there so they queried the figures with the performance department.
The performance department issued new figures which to their consternation showed higher regulated take off weights as apparently some stopway or clearway had not previously been taken account of!
There's much about performance we could mention. It would be interesting to know what the wind conditions were for this take off. Whilst headwinds are factored by 50% and tailwinds by 150%, "calm" is not factored so if you've planned for calm and have a small tailwind the effect will be significant especially when field length limited.
I think it was a Danair B727 at Luton that took some of the localiser area with them on take off. There was several factors:- 2/3 knot component tailwind but calm used for planning, some distance wasted on 180 line up, (no line up allowances in those days), thrust on centre engine was slightly miscalculated and rotation rate much too slow.
When I was doing the B737-200 course at Boeing in 1980 they showed us a very interesting video on the effect of incorrect rotation (rate/speed) on screen height. After the video had shown the instructor asked what we though of it. To a man we all answered "rotate early!". The effects of rotating a few knots early were insignificant but the effects of rotating a bit late were startling.
Also I think someone in this thread mentioned "prompt rotation". I'm not sure what the meaning of this phrase was but from memory on the B737-800 I recall the recommended rate of rotation by Boeing is 2.5 degrees per second.
The performance department issued new figures which to their consternation showed higher regulated take off weights as apparently some stopway or clearway had not previously been taken account of!
There's much about performance we could mention. It would be interesting to know what the wind conditions were for this take off. Whilst headwinds are factored by 50% and tailwinds by 150%, "calm" is not factored so if you've planned for calm and have a small tailwind the effect will be significant especially when field length limited.
I think it was a Danair B727 at Luton that took some of the localiser area with them on take off. There was several factors:- 2/3 knot component tailwind but calm used for planning, some distance wasted on 180 line up, (no line up allowances in those days), thrust on centre engine was slightly miscalculated and rotation rate much too slow.
When I was doing the B737-200 course at Boeing in 1980 they showed us a very interesting video on the effect of incorrect rotation (rate/speed) on screen height. After the video had shown the instructor asked what we though of it. To a man we all answered "rotate early!". The effects of rotating a few knots early were insignificant but the effects of rotating a bit late were startling.
Also I think someone in this thread mentioned "prompt rotation". I'm not sure what the meaning of this phrase was but from memory on the B737-800 I recall the recommended rate of rotation by Boeing is 2.5 degrees per second.
Last edited by fireflybob; 12th Oct 2017 at 08:28.