PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Limiting Factors For Takeoff
View Single Post
Old 26th May 2010, 22:49
  #44 (permalink)  
aterpster
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mutt:

I didn't account for anything. I just did what they told me to do. But, I was on the union safety commitee and we got thinking about takeoff performance when they decided to operate our underpowered 727-200s into Reno.

They had their own performance and engineering department, which supposedly was "one of the best." We had no special OEI procedures anywhere. "Just climb straight ahead" was the party line. So, we put the union chairman's influence on the VP of operations, who agreed to give us the per mile performance data for the 727-200 (231 actually) for then Runway 25 at KLAS. We used runway-specific disposable takeoff charts, which each station stocked. Runway 25 was stated as being brake energy limited.

We selected a day where the temperature would just support MGTOW of 172,000 pounds. With an engine failure at V1 +1 knot it took 31 miles to reach 1,500 feet, afe. The airplane crashed into the first low ridge of mountains west of Runway 25.

Because of that, at Reno they changed the plan to use the slightly more robust 727-100 (131) and depart straight south on Runway 16 in the event of OEI. They did clear the ridge into the Washoe Valley and then planned a climb-in-hold at then WASHOE fix. Trouble is, they were 1,800 below the MRA for the crossing radial that formed the fix. They had failed to account for that.

So, I became a bit jaded about performance and engineering.

Many a day I made 727-231 takeoffs on Runway 8 at KABQ. In the days when we suppose to climb out straight-ahead in the event of OEI most of us were smart enough to know we had to turn right (some would have turn left because that is were the radar vectors went). I doubt we would have made it whether we turned right or left. In other words, circumstances seemed to indicate that they cooked the books, so to speak.

I realize today there is a nice advisory circular (120-91) but it is just that, advisory. And, as a TERPs sort of guy, my view is that it is a whole lot better than the monkey business TWA did, but it is stuck in the pre-RNAV/RNP closing years of the last century.

As to clearways and that stuff, I was never as worried about not stopping as I was about not making it past those mountains at places like ABQ, TUS, LAS, etc.

As to the equipment I flew it varied from awesome performance to inbetween that and poor:

707-100 and 300.
DC-9-10
727-100 and low-powered -200.
767-200
L-1011 and L-1011-100.
aterpster is offline