Good sarcasm...
Can't argue with an early pre-V1 reject speed if a blown tire, but they state I have to get that actual number from my airplane manufacturer...do you know what it is in a Ferrari jet.?..would I have to dial up the underworld to talk to the designer long dead gone for 50 years?
WHICH Ferrarijet? I've heard that term being used from the 732A to the 752 to the 345, down to the Lears and some of the Citations.
Assumptions that regardless if you saved lives and equipment, might still not have been a good decision, or that tire blowouts might not be felt, are assumptions from someone driving a desk.
The guys driving the desk are the guys paying your salary. They employ risk managers to convert operational risk to terms they understand, numbers. The guys fondling the yoke and throttles while trundling down the runway are the ones who make the business run, and the guys carrying the wrenches and test pens make sure the business keeps running, and the guys receiving the phone calls make sure those who want to pay to use the business actually gets on the plane and sits behind the guys fondling the yoke and throttles so that the desk drivers can get the money and pay the risk managers, the guys with the wrenches and test pens and, yes, the guys fondling the yokes and throttles again. It's all a chain and an appreciation of safety and risk management is needed for the business to run sustainably. Your (or your former self) previous posts reflect that you see it in boxes, you do what you do, and no one else understands what you do.
If the tire blow out isn't felt, no directional issues, and not keeping you from getting to VR, then it's a non issue at that point...it's not affecting performance...
But you say it does and did not mention it before. You put a blanket statement that a derated take off is less safe. It's not the case at least MOST of the time, and it's safe enough for most of the remaining time.
flies in the face of the Goma crash, were there was actualy a pilot to talk to who said 'after the tire blew, the plane wouldn't accelerate'
Goma? Hewa Bora DC9? Or another crash.
Anyway, this topic is about derates right? Any evidence that derate was used in that crash? The events of the crash is not that clear anyways, one source says the aircraft suffered an engine fire after 300m of take off run leading to an uncontained engine failure? Surely, at an airport of about 5000ft elevation, you think a DC-9-51 would have passed V1? I think NOT. The reversers were indicated to be deployed at the time of impact... now, did someone not do their PERF figures right that day? Or did they just decided to flaunt the Vspeeds and decide stop/go at a time they picked out of the blue?
Another source said the aircraft went through a puddle and resulted in loss of thrust in one engine. Another said tireburst. Air Safety Week mentioned BOTH tireburst AND engine failure.
It's a 6500ft-ish long runway but there are information that only 5250ft or 5900ft of it was usable.
Given the above and the poor state of the runway/airport, do you think they'd derate? If they did then I'm not surprised the airline is banned from going into the EU.
Or perhaps, since someone was adamant about aborting after V1... here's another danger...
They elected to take off to the South when the runway was wet, with standing water, while other aircraft were waiting for the runway to dry out. Nothing wrong with the TOW. They had about 50-80 pax, depending on who you listen to, and were apparently 4,000 lbs below performance limit.
The captain briefed, reducing V1 to 100 kts, with VR around 125, but didn’t change the speed card.
At 100 kts the F/O called “V1”
At about 125 kts, at the point of rotation No. 2 engine failed. (Or possibly barked with a compressor stall)
It was then that the captain elected to abort the take off.
They had so much speed that the airplane actually became airborne. When it slammed back onto the runway they took the nose gear off and subsequent braking with the main gear bouncing off the runway took some tires out.
They shot off the end of the runway at high speed, down the embankment into the residential and market complex. The airplane caught fire and came to rest by the mosque.
All of the crew, including all of the flight attendants managed to escape injury and the fire while most of the pax and people at the market were burned to death.
- Standing water on the runway MAY have caused the engine to stall or fail
- The Captain's decision to abort the takeoff at Vr instead of taking-off
No accident investigation report, so, no official information. Moot example. NEXT...
The issue here is not just reject speeds but if the plane isn't accelerating when you do say..ok..this isn't working I can't get to VR.
If that's the case, there's only 1 solution... STOP! STOP! STOP! PRAY!
Perhaps you don't have it in your manual...
"Aborting past V1 should only be considered if airborne flight is unattainable or that safe flight is practically impossible."
After V1, can't accelerate to Vr, is speed increasing? No? in most cases then, Abort. There is decision, and there is judgement. I'm sure you learnt ADP vs conventional in school...
So are you going to apply big jet SOPS to that that Cessna Twin or light jet you just bought?
The point is everyone on this forum doesn't drive a heavy...SOPS are different for each operation..
The point is to everyone in this forum, is, you love your lights and scream out loud the policies of the heavies are unsafe, and when proven what is not safe with your lights is safe with the heavies, you say they're two different things.
The rules and SOP I adhere to are in accordance to what I operate. Going on a C402, a burst tire and loosing control means I stop. If the burst tyre happen at a speed where the wing of the burst tyre can be lifted , I go. Lost the left tire once on t/o but wasn't me doing the take off, and we could lift the left wing up. If I get an engine failure, I know beforehand how much climb rate I'm gonna make. Still past V1, I go, unless I brief or have been briefed otherwise (depending on the circumstances of the airport... yes, bushflying keeps you on your toes just like the flying heavies). If I get engine failure and burst tyre at anytime prior to lift off, it's a stop. Took off from a gravel runway once and the props were getting hit and the leading edge was getting hit. We went... but if a tireburst and an engine failure happened between V1stop and Vr, we'd stop. We agreed beforehand that the tyreburst meant V1=Vr, but engine failure decision was v1stop.
Going on a twin airliner, as you said so yourself, different game. BUT, don't argue about being on a light saying the heavy is wrong and when shown it's safe on the heavy you run back and use the "but I was talking about lights" as an excuse. It's disgusting.
GF,
It is the fuel savings that launching in cold power, the thrust isn't needed, reduces stress on engines (just like derate, reduced power on airliners) and, esp, in older reheated fan engines, increased stall margins down the stroke. Ever see the video of an F-14 losing an engine just off the bow? It ain't pretty, level at best.
Never saw the F14 stumper... saw the single on the E4 stumper, and other types. I might have seen the Vigilante one... None of them were pretty! At least a tireburst on a sling, you can't do much except for have people watch sparks coming out of the contact.