UAL refusing to takeoff at Logan due to ship

[News Shooter]

UAL 823J has been holding on the runway for 30 minutes and finally shut down his engines because of a "high masted" ship anchored in the harbor at the end of 27. Everybody else is coming and going, but UAL is waiting for clarification from his dispatcher on the procedures.

Haven't heard this before. Tower told him that the ship was well right of his centerline, but he's still sitting there.

[sludge]

:ugh: Yea, they're not losing enough money as it is, they need this jerk to sit there and waste more!! Maybe he was building up his courage!:{

[stansdead]

Why not take another runway? If others were still leaving, either this guy was not on the "active" runway, or others were departing from alternate runways.

If so, in either case, why the fuss?

[DC-ATE]

Maybe he's looking at the note on the 4R ILS where it raises the minimums if there's a tall vessel in the approach area. That would include the departure area (in his mind maybe) of RWY 27. But, then again, maybe that's changed, as my 4R ILS is dated Oct 19, 1990!:8

[News Shooter]

He just reported "problem resolved" and has been cleared to the active. They offered him a couple of options, but he didn't take them. I understand the caution, but why is UAL the only one with procedures like that I wonder?

[Airbubba]

There are a lot of places where ships can affect takeoff performance. SIN is one, for a large plane the load penalty can be significant. Usually, the ATIS will have a phrase like "Ships in the channel".

[FIRESYSOK]

Yep, and there are special takeoff numbers for this very situation but I'm not that familiar with BOS.

The ACARS Takeoff Performance Report would be coded R27/SHIP or something to that effect. If he didn't have it, then good on them for not taking off. Why is the pilot a "jerk" for clarifying the situation? I'd have done the same thing. Guess I'm a jerk.

:rolleyes:

[slamer.]

Maybe everyone else got it wrong...? I'd say UA has learnt a lot of this stuff through... "the school of hard knocks".... be carefull about criticizing without knowing the full story. On the surface sounds like s/he did the prudent thing.

[AltFlaps]

From memory, one of the CPH approches had a variable decision alt/height depending on what was notamed in the 'channel'

[411A]

The old HKG airport was another where some ships made a difference (runway 13) with obstacle clearance, on departure.
Best to know YOUR procedures, and apply accordingly.
One size does not necessarily fit all.:=

[Retire2015]

Take off performance is predicated on no ships in the channel. If there is a ship, it is like a big TV antenna or mountain is temporarily parked off the end of the runway.

That obstruction invalidates your t/o perf data. If do not have takeoff data that covers existing conditions, you cannot go.

What amazes me the most is the comment "Sludge" made about the captain being a Jerk and impying that for economic reasons they should take off anyway.

It would be unsafe and illegal to take off with the ship in the channel while the Performance data is based on no ship.

This is SOP at KBOS. As a Captain, you wait and coordinate with all of the involved parties to get the performance data you need.

(BTW, I learned many years ago not to try and fly another man's airplane. It is impossible if you are in an airplane nearby, much less at a keyboard thousands of miles away, getting third-hand information from a web-board)

R

[Smilin_Ed]

Lose an engine at liftoff and you won't want to turn to avoid obstacles like ships.

[Airbubba]

The old HKG airport was another where some ships made a difference (runway 13) with obstacle clearance, on departure.

And, while you were checking the performance, don't forget to brief and properly setup that back course localizer departure.:)

On a cool day in a small 'Bus the UAL pilot was probably more worried about legality than safety in this case. Sometimes you know you can do something, like a takeoff from an intersection behind one for which you have data but you don't do it if you lack the documentation. As time goes on, I find I make fewer judgment calls and follow the path laid by the paperwork even if it does not seem optimal. Flying at large outfits like UAL is very much a CYA exercise these days IMHO.

[tocamak]

Remember being on a 31 000t tanker leaving Kwun Tong in ballast in mid 80's and BA 747 came just about over the top of us from Kai Tak. Very impressive but never gave a thought to us being a Notam!

[Nocti]

Retire 2015,

Most airline performance figures for runways in the vicinity of shipping make some allowance for shipping, both for the approach and for takeoff. For example, one airline I know use a figure of over 200' for shipping in the channel at Boston. Where the height of the shipping exceeds that figure, some other form of correction may have to be applied.

It is possible that where the airline use centralised performance determination i.e. a flight despatcher, to determine takeoff data, the pilot has no way of knowing what consideration is being given to shipping off the end of the runway.

[DC-ATE]

OK, I said in my Post #4 above that my Approach Plate (Jeppesen, dated Oct. 19, 1990) shows a higher minimum for the ILS 4R if there's a ship in the approach area. Can someone who has a current plate tell me if that restriction is still there?

[Zeffy]

Yes.

"When Control Tower reports Tall Vessels in Approach Area" DA (H) 359' (341'); RVR 60

Normal Cat I ILS minima are DA 218' (200'); RVR 18.

[DC-ATE]

OK.....thanx.

BTW...I only use my outdated plates on a Flite Sim!:8

[PantLoad]

Unless he has takeoff charts for such a situation, it's illegal for him to take off.

I'm assuming this was the case....and he was requesting take off data from their engineering department for this situation. Sometimes it takes awhile to get this.

At my old company, we had separate charts for this type of situation....
specifically in BOS, we had charts for 22R, 27, etc. for when ships were
in the channel.

Management is to blame (big surprise!) for not having such charts already onboard....thereby eliminating the delay.


Fly safe,

PantLoad

[ExSp33db1rd]

Being the Captain is less about flying the metal than being able to justify ones' actions at The Subsequent Court of Inquiry into an accident or incident that might well have caused loss of life, or injury.

If you can confidently justify breaking a rule, and there are times when that might well be the best course of action, then go ahead,otherwise ........

[Earl]

If the tall ship is not on the tailored takeoff chart( runway analysis) which it would never be then its a no go.
Ship clears the area, then takeoff chart legal!
Why the questions?

[PantLoad]

There are regulations restricting the height of the tall ships that are allowed to be there. Ostensibly, the takeoff charts, tailored for such
an occurrence, are based on this maximum allowed figure.

Thus, most carriers have two sets of charts for this....in this case, for Boston runway 22R, etc.....one set showing max takeoff weight for no ships, one set of charts for the 'tall ship'.....assuming its height is the max allowable. (If the particular ship is less than the max, so much the better.)

Again, it's up to management to provide its workers with the proper tools to do their jobs.


Fly safe,


PantLoad

[TeachMe]

As SLF if on that plane, I would be happy to know I had a flight crew that would not take any chances, rather than one that was 'sure it was fine', but could not 'prove' it. Safety first, delays second.

TME

[ScrewedbyGlenn]

Retired from same now but I remember in 2002 receiving a GPWS warning while flying inbound IMC to ILS 4R cos of "stack of boxes" ship parked at IM site or close by. Next morning on dept, I noticed handling crane was well above the top of the "boxes". Cranes are there with or w/o ships. :\

ATIS and NOTAMS issues (huh?) :ooh: Who checks where these things are before going to the local and runways change next AM?

Fly safe,
SBG

[cactusbusdrvr]

Airbubba, you are so correct.

[Plastic Bug]

Folks,

It's a simple question.

"Uh, Tower, there's a ship in the departure path...is he moving?"

"Tower: Yeah, he appears to be anchored."

"Um, do you know how tall he is?"

"Tower: Uh, no.........."

Having asked the question, are YOU gonna go?

PB

[angels]

TeachMe

This SLF completely agrees with you.

Remember the pilot wants to get home as well!

[limp_leek]

A question from an unidentified aircraft about ships at 19:30z plus 15:05

Then an identified request from 823J at 19:30z plus 25:19? about ships!(different voice)

This is a set up, someone is proving a point, or being an arsehole.

The ATC tapes are available.

:)

[Avman]

The only "@rseholes" I've identified so far are Sludge and Limp Leek. The UAL crew took the correct and professional action by requesting and waiting for the appropriate figures from dispatch. End of story. Mods close this thread and let's move on.

[limp_leek]

The only "@rseholes" I've identified so far are Sludge and Limp Leek. The UAL crew took the correct and professional action by requesting and waiting for the appropriate figures from dispatch. End of story. Mods close this thread and let's move on.

Did you do any background research? Did you actually listen to the tapes?

You really should, because if the UAL Crew "did it right" then all the others did not.

One crew was (sic) "professional" and all the other crews were not!

[Avman]

One crew was (sic) "professional" and all the other crews were not!

That is not what I was implying, and you know it. Other crews may well have had the appropriate numbers and therefore could legally go. If the UAL Captain wasn't sure if he was legal then he did the right thing.

[limp_leek]

The audio is out there...

Other crews may well have had the appropriate numbers and therefore could legally go.

Other crews didn't give a **** what ships were in the harbor!

You have inspired me! I am now going to listen to another 45 mins of crap just to hear them depart!

[Avman]

What you hear on the r/t is not necessarily representative of what is being said, what is going on, and what thought process is taking place on on the F/D.

[limp_leek]

What you hear on the r/t is not necessarily representative of what is being said or what thought process is going on on the F/D.

However, if you listen close to the r/t then the crew of 823j KNEW there was a TALL ship ANCHORED before they even started their engines...

[Avman]

However, if you listen close to the r/t then the crew of 823j KNEW there was a TALL ship ANCHORED before they even started their engines...

So what! They may well have realised then that they hadn't got the numbers. Contacted dispatch for the relevant figures (which no doubt dispatch had to go searching for) and proceeded to taxy whilst awaiting the data. Unfortunately the data didn't come as quick as they had hoped, so when reaching the active they had to inform ATC they couldn't go. Perhaps dispatch were busy or couldn't find the data etc. etc., and the decision was made to shut down. I say again, YOU (nor I for that matter) haven't any idea what was going on in the F/D and between the crew and Dispatch.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Other crews didn't give a **** what ships were in the harbor!


That's hardly a reason to set TOGA is it?

[limp_leek]

I am listening to the rest of it.....


Are you?????????

18:12 into 20:00z ATC are trying to tell the crew that the ship is not in their flight path!

Listen to that tape....

[Avman]

ATC are trying to tell the crew that the ship is not in their flight path!

ATC can tell him what they want. The Captain is responsible for his ship (er, make that aeroplane/airplane to avoid confusion :} ). He decides if he's safe and legal - not ATC.

[Mismatch]

As we are in the era where information can theoretically be transmitted in realtime it is very common to have T/O data transmitted to the A/C after the doors are closed, and before entering the runway. This means one can accept any bit of payload that might still fit on board, and still depart on time. This is profitable most of the time, but more often than one would wish, the data-flow is interrupted somewhere, leading to an A/C lined up without having received their T/O data yet.
They might have known about the obstacle, but they might not have know whether dispatch would have it in their numbers until they received those.
Considering the number of stations possibly involved in communicating the problem, 30min are easily spent troubleshooting.

You might dispatch the flight assuming there is always the most restrictive condition, but this might be challenged by the beancounters. That's the cost of one delayed flight versus the (possibly) increased fuel burn / decreased engine life / payload left behind on the rest.
Or you offer both performance versions, and leave the captain to identify the actual condition upon departure. If payload is compromised by the more restrictive performance, verify the actual condition ahead of time, because offloading payload may lead to another delay.

[A Comfy Chair]

limp_leak why are you so determined to say this crew were wrong?

Take-offs are optional. If the captain has ANY doubt at all that there is an issue (ie the Company performance data may not have taken the ship into account) then he'd be an idiot to take off!

ATC can say all they want about where the ship is... they don't necessarily have access to your company engine out procedures/performance and the splays that go with it. I remember getting revised takeoff charts for a TREE that was about a mile off the centreline because it was in the splay.

I seriously hope that you aren't flight crew. If you are, please do let me know which airline you fly for because I won't be going anywhere near them with an attitude like yours.

[david.craig]

Surely this is pretty straight foward? A factor comprimised the safe operation of the aircraft, and until confirmation as to the position, movement and height of the ship was received, the pilot held position on the runway.

[limp_leek]

[QUOTE][Surely this is pretty straight foward? A factor comprimised the safe operation of the aircraft, and until confirmation as to the position, movement and height of the ship was received, the pilot held position on the runway./QUOTE]

I now see I was wrong.

Oh well,

:*

[eastern wiseguy]

Limp Leek

On a 747 LOW FLYBY thread you write I agree!

and how unusual and wrong for that aircraft type to be in that situation!

Oh well, boys will be boys I suppose.


But here a perfectly safe and reasonable option by the United crew.......:ugh::ugh:


You do not sound like you are involved in aviation except for listening at the fence...

[Continuous Ignition]

Here is a link to FAA's digital charts..

http://www.avn.faa.gov/digital_tpp.asp?ver=0812&eff=11-20-2008&end=12-18-2008


Please note these are domestic charts, no international. If anyone has any links to international charts, please send me a pm.

[Oilhead]

There are certainly performance issues for take off and go around at Boston with ships in the vicinity of the airport. I am required to ask of tower if ships are reported if I am departing certain runways.

I think if you were not the crew or dispatcher of that flight, you cannot make any qualified remarks about that particular flight's issues. I make sure my flights are always safe; making sure they are legal is also my job! I chose to delay take off ex DFW a few months ago due convective wx very close to departure end of runway. I watched one or two others depart with no excitement, but many also chose to wait. All in all a very subjective subject.....but sometimes there are compelling reasons for doing, or not doing something. Take offs are optional, landings are mandatory.....

OH

[DC-ATE]

Oilhead -
I chose to delay take off ex DFW a few months ago due convective wx very close to departure end of runway. I watched one or two others depart with no excitement, but many also chose to wait.

That is so comforting to read. If more pilots would do the same, we wouldn't have "weather-realted" accidents. Yes, that's what they say; "weather-related", but they're actually pilot-induced. I've gone over a hundred miles off course to avoid weather that I observed other pilots go right through. Am, or was I, chicken? You bet I was.

[SK8TRBOI]

Hi DC,

Did you know you can download (or even just view) ALL U.S. Terminal Diagrams and Approach Plates free online on the FAA website? Just Google "Digital Terminal Procedures" and you'll be up-to-date!:ok:

[FullWings]

I can confirm that we have three lots of data for no ships, medium and large ones. 27 is the shortest RW we can use at BOS and the difference between no obstacles and the tallest ones is very significant in terms of limiting weights, engine thrust settings, flap and speeds.

If your takeoff performance was worked out for a clear shipping channel you could easily end up overweight or in the wrong configuration for the appropriate clearance if a tall ship was in your takeoff path.

[captjns]

The UAL crew should be commended for following the procedures contained in their flight ops manual... especially if they had Fred T. Rukus from the FAA on the jump seat.:ok::D.. or even if he was not on the jump seat.

[ExSp33db1rd]

You really should, because if the UAL Crew "did it right" then all the others did not.

One crew was (sic) "professional" and all the other crews were not!

Limp Leek

Rubbish. Despite your clever interpretation of the 'tapes' how can you - or ATC - know what each particular aircraft needed by way of airfield and aircraft performance considerations, just because it might be OK for one aircraft to depart, doesn't mean it is either safe or legal for the next one.

This discussion is a waste of time, the guy did what he considered was in the best interests of all involved at the time - which includes protecting his own backside. QED Goodnight.

[caevans]

As I recall, New Orleans had similar considerations for WAT data. Ships in Canal...If the numbers aren't clear for take off data, the park brake is your friend.

The Arm Chair Brigade must need another hobby. How about spotting?

Sheeeeesh!!!!

[avionimc]

This week a "Swiss" A320 captain cancels a return flight from Tel Aviv when he realizes that his copilot did not have enough TKOF & landings on type (A320 - three month recency) ).

One commentator asks how the copilot got to Tel Aviv in the first place, by train?

In fact the copilot got there in the right seat of an A330 (he had enough TKOF & landings on that type).

For the sake of [real] Flight Safety, are some loosing common sense and becoming politically correct?


http://www.24heures.ch/files/imagecache/468x312/story/swiss_2.jpg

20minutes.ch - Vol de Swiss annulé: le copilote n avait pas son permis en règle - Monde (http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/monde/story/16798786)
Vol de Swiss annulé: le copilote n'avait pas son permis en règle
Les passagers du vol Swiss LX 257 de Tel Aviv à Zurich ont été contraints de quitter l'appareil. La licence du copilote n'était pas en règle.
Au lieu de voler avec un A330...
....le copilote s'est retrouvé sur un A320, pour lequel sa licence n'était pas en règle. (Photo: Keystone)Aéroport Ben Gurion, Tel Aviv, mardi matin: 5h30.
Les passagers encore mal réveillés à bord de l'Airbus 320, à destination de Zurich, attendent le décollage. Quelle ne fut pas leur surprise, lorsque, au lieu des traditionnelles informations de vol, ils entendent ce message du pilote: «Bonjour, c'est votre capitaine qui vous parle, je vais vous prier de quitter l'appareil, notre copilote n'ayant malheureusement pas le permis de vol adéquat.»
Excuses de Swiss
Comment un tel couac a-t-il pu se produire? «Lors de la vérification de pré-décollage, le capitaine s'est en effet rendu compte de l'erreur», explique le porte-parole de Swiss, Jean-Claude Donzel.
En effet, Swiss vole habituellement à destination de Tel Aviv avec des A330-200 (229 places) plutôt qu'avec des A320 (136 places).
Comme la demande est très faible en ce moment, la compagnie d'aviation s'est résolue lundi à envoyer des avions plus petits en Israël.
Le copilote en question s'était déjà envolé dimanche pour Israël avec un A330. Il possède en fait le permis adéquat, mais n'ayant pas effectué suffisamment de vols à bord de cet appareil au cours des 90 derniers jours, son permis est échu temporairement.
Jean-Claude Donzel ajoute que le cas «va être débattu à l'interne». Il ne peut pour l'instant expliquer qui est responsable du faux-pas mais formule ses excuses auprès de tous les passagers concernés.
Cas extrêmement rare
Le couac aura eu des conséquences désagréables pour les passagers. Ceux-ci ont en effet été transférés sur un vol de la compagnie israélienne El Al, mais vers Genève, et n'ont pu rejoindre Zurich que dans l'après-midi.
Jean-Claude Donzel n'a pas souvenir d'un tel cas depuis 30 ans au moins: «Ce genre de problème est extrêmement rare», estime-t-il.

[limp_leek]

I do not have anything more to contribute to this thread now the experts have explained how peformance data, etc, ad nausium, affect a departure., except!

The POINT of this thread was that the crew of the aircraft in question did all the fancy math for the flight, loaded fuel, passengers in the back, baggage, freight, food, flight plan, and the other complicated stuff.

Then they pushed back and started the engines......

Then asked "Any tall ships?"

Then they stopped and shut down and re-did all the fancy math.

The tall ships question should have come before the loading pax, freight, fuel, etc.

That is MY point.

:ugh:

[angels]

limp - don't you think you're flogging a dead horse here?

You seem to use the words 'experts' in a disparaging manner. These are the people that do the business at the pointy end. They're highly skilled. Listen to them.

Fullwings wrote -

If your takeoff performance was worked out for a clear shipping channel you could easily end up overweight or in the wrong configuration for the appropriate clearance if a tall ship was in your takeoff path.

There is one explanation for what happened (remember that ships move. It may not have been there when the pilot did the original math).

But at the end of the day this is all speculation. The important thing is that the plane arrived at its destination and the pax and crew got home safely.

Result. :ok:

[limp_leek]

Sometimes the experts get it not quite right.

Sometimes the experts have a hidden agenda.

Sometimes the experts do not have enough time on type.

[Locked door]

I think it should be pointed out to limp that the take off obstacle clearance cone used to calculate the minimum climb gradient required expands at approximately 10 degrees either side of the take off roll start position AND ASSUMES THE CLIMB RATE ACHIEVED AT T/O WEIGHT ON ONE ENGINE AT 75% OF MAX THRUST. Therefore an object that is way off the centerline and looks low can infringe said cone.

But you knew that didn't you.

Until the safe performance of the aircraft was confirmed the crew did exactly the right thing by not taking off.

The fact that they pushed on time in the hope of resolving the issue before reaching the runway makes good commercial sense.

Leave it to the professionals.

[forget]

Part of my ticket price goes towards paying guys/gals who, for whatever reason, decide not to go. Spot on!

[limp_leek]

I think it should be pointed out to limp that the take off obstacle clearance cone used to calculate the minimum climb gradient required expands at approximately 10 degrees either side of the take off roll start position AND ASSUMES THE CLIMB RATE ACHIEVED AT T/O WEIGHT ON ONE ENGINE AT 75% OF MAX THRUST. Therefore an object that is way off the centerline and looks low can infringe said cone.

But you knew that didn't you.

Until the safe performance of the aircraft was confirmed the crew did exactly the right thing by not taking off.

The fact that they pushed on time in the hope of resolving the issue before reaching the runway makes good commercial sense.

Leave it to the professionals.

What is it with you professionals?

Despite what you think I understand what you say Locked door,

Just read what you posted!

The "ship" did not suddenly sail into the "cone"

[ppvvmm]

Limp, you really do deserve a medal for persistant failure to learn.

Experts spend their valuable time educating you in real world operations the hope of explaining why your assertions are wrong.

Even the obvious, like that ships can move, seems to go over your head.

Thank God you are not in a position of responsibility for peoples lives.

ppvvmm

[Dani]

Be it as it is - I don't know the facts. I'm on Limp's side. I realize that there are a few stubborn aviators on both side of the big pond. Their thinking is like civil servants and they behave like it. In aviation there is no garantee for nothing, and while they become older (and get into bigger aircraft), they loose the ability of common sense. Kind of senility.

If ATC tells you that the ship isn't in your way, then it most probably isn't. ATC is not your adversary, it's your friend... - and he sits on a higher position than you. I'm also gettin terrible restless at times when I watch such grey-haired aviators. Accident debriefs show that they very early loose the plot, get angry about nothing and finally do the wrong thing.

Terribly generalizing I am, I know...

Dani

[mutt]

ASSUMES THE CLIMB RATE ACHIEVED AT T/O WEIGHT ON ONE ENGINE AT 75% OF MAX THRUST

WHAT??????? 75% OF MAX THRUST

Where did you get that idea?

Limp, we have different performance data for a couple of airports with ships or no ships... For whatever reason, if this crew didnt have the performance to clear the ship, then they were right to wait until they obtained the information.

BTW, do you know how much they clearance they should have had over that ship?

Mutt

[DC-ATE]

Where do these people come from?! How do they get on our airplanes?! I say from now on, all pilots stay at home and let the passengers fly these machines and see how well they do.

[Just wondering]

<<most probably >>

With a big jet I don't do "most probably" - "definitely" is the order of the day. Oh, and you know what.... I'll decide when I'm happy it's definitely OK because I'm the guy that will be blamed for any incident/accident. It is my responsibility to be sure. ............ "why didn't he make sure", you can hear it now !

Some might call the above attitude. So be it but I would say to some posting here, "walk a mile in another man's shoes"

[Locked door]

Mutt,

The A320 (which I believe this was) is certified for an engine failure at the critical point (v1) at max flex, which by definition is climb power, which by definition (on the 320) is 75% TOGA, without increasing thrust on the good engine. Therefore all single engine performance at max derate (which BOS 27 probably is) is calculated at 75% TOGA.

Can't be arsed digging the reference out, do it yourself and learn something

LD

[DingerX]

Alright, I have a stack of paperwork to go through, so I put the cans on just for giggles.

First, there are numerous demonstrably wrong things that were said:


A question from an unidentified aircraft about ships at 19:30z plus 15:05

Then an identified request from 823J at 19:30z plus 25:19? about ships!(different voice)

This is a set up, someone is proving a point, or being an arsehole.

The ATC tapes are available.

The only thing correct here is that 823J did ask about Tall-Masted Ships.

For the rest:
The ATC tapes are not available. You are listening to the feed from LiveATC, which is a scanner. Since it is a scanner, and since tower is on more than one frequency, you are not getting "the full story". For example, at times, the first part of transmissions will be clipped: in this case, the "unidentified aircraft" is unidentified only because of the scanner. In any case, 823J was on ground at that time.

So there is no relation between the two transmissions, outside of the fact that there was a tall-masted ship in the harbor.

At other times, you'll miss whole transmissions.

Also false is this statement:
They offered him a couple of options, but he didn't take them.
The facts: they taxied to 22R, then called with their concerns three minutes after being instructed to monitor tower freq.
UA823J asked for 27, and TOWER replied unable.
From there, everyone sorted it out. After about a half hour, Tower offered that the ship was really more in line with 22L than R, and passed the number of the cab supervisor. At that point, UA was already in contact with company, and resolving the issue. There was no hysteria, no accusations, and no irritation, outside of sitting around for an hour.

Armchair Captains? Doesn't LiveATC have forums full of people who listen to scanners all day and can decipher it?

[mutt]

Can't be arsed digging the reference out, do it yourself and learn something.... Thanks for the offer, but i am fully aware of how flex/assumed temperatures and obstacle cones are calculated, but what i cant understand is how you decided that this takeoff was using full FLEX?

And if i really wanted to get pedantic about it, i would point out that unless you are using LPC, the flex temperature used in the takeoff calculation could be a lot less than 75%!

Mutt.

[411A]

And if i really wanted to get pedantic about it, i would point out that unless you are using LPC, the flex temperature used in the takeoff calculation could be a lot less than 75%!


Better listen and learn from mutt, as he is a performance engineer, and has no doubt forgotten more than most pilots will ever know about specific airplane performance.:ok:

Yeah, even the 'ole L1011.
Mutt would be the first I would contact regarding aircraft performance.

Ha!
All the rest are just speculating...:rolleyes:

[A Comfy Chair]

Dani - Who cares what the tower says!

As a professional aviator, it is YOUR decision to make a judgement if a ship affects take off performance. Can you do that visually? NO.

It doesn't matter if ATC say the ship is actually off the end of the other runway... he doesn't have your company performance data, and he doesn't know if the aircraft is in your E/O splay.

Old aviatiors have made it to be old aviators because they've learned how to protect themselves and their aircraft. The number of times in my relatively short airline career I've been set up by ATC/Groundstaff is staggering. The key to being a fine aviator is to take advice from others, but make the decision for yourself.

Take offs are optional. If you aren't entirely sure, then you don't go. Who cares if later its proven that you were wrong and the ship was out of the way? You have not taken any unnecessary risk, and THAT is the mark of a fine aviator.

As mutt would know, most people are very surprised by just how large the E/O area actually is, and how small an obstacle can still cause havoc!

[FullWings]

It doesn't matter if ATC say the ship is actually off the end of the other runway... he doesn't have your company performance data, and he doesn't know if the aircraft is in your E/O splay.
A very good point. Why should they know about detailed aircraft performance? This becomes obvious when Emergency Turns (ETs) come into the equation because there is such variation between aircraft types and airlines. We have ETs on some of the runways at BOS (pretty obvious why when you're looking out of the windscreen at the downtown skyscrapers a few miles away...) and I'd bet a fair amount of money that ATC would have no idea what we were up to until we told them.

An obstacle may look insignificant but supposing a particular ET said "turn 30deg left at end of runway" and that was where a ship was parked?

As mutt would know, most people are very surprised by just how large the E/O area actually is, and how small an obstacle can still cause havoc!
Absolutely. Close-in ones can seem quite innocuous but be more of a real issue than the mountain 20 miles away.

[backseatjock]

Dani - I'm with the majority of respondents to this thread, decisions based on 'most probably' are just not how it should be, no matter how many pax you may or may not have on board.

Some tragic examples of 'most probably' decisions leading to disaster and we should all learn from those.

[Dani]

Bring it on, guys. I can handle it.

I just tell you: Your E/O path is calculated for IFR conditions. If you see that there is an obstacle, if you know that it's not in your way and if you know that you can do a turn of 1 or 2 degrees even single engine (well at least I can do it, I'm not sure about the grey-haired ones), then you certainly can assume that you can make it.

That's what I mean with common sense.

Reflect yourself. Even you (when you still where young) could do such "calculation". And you remember that your pilot's everyday life consists constantly of such assumptions. If you couldn't do that, you couldn't fly anymore. Or are you also one of such guys who declines a visual approach (there could be an obstacle somewhere!!) or don't allow your collegues to make a visual separation 5NM behind you through your level (he could suddenly stop in the air!!!!)? I'm so glad that I don't have to share my cockpit with you :D

Dani

[eastern wiseguy]

and I'd bet a fair amount of money that ATC would have no idea what we were up to until we told them.

Quite right......thats not my job. I keep you separated. When it hits the fan I give you ALL the assistance I can......multiple runways ..options for turns in ANY direction and keep the other traffic out of the mix...oh and if needs be hit the crash button. Ultimately YOU are the ones in control,limp leek is busy analysing where we all went wrong:hmm:

[FullWings]

I just tell you: Your E/O path is calculated for IFR conditions. If you see that there is an obstacle, if you know that it's not in your way and if you know that you can do a turn of 1 or 2 degrees even single engine (well at least I can do it, I'm not sure about the grey-haired ones), then you certainly can assume that you can make it.
I can see what you're getting at but the danger here is second guessing why your performance tables/computer produces certain configurations, limiting weights and EO instructions for a given runway and conditions. The 'obvious' obstacle may not be the only one or indeed the most restrictive.

I think I'd class an engine failure on/soon after takeoff as more of a 'heads down' manoeuvre than usual? Trying to visually avoid obstructions at low level while dealing with the effects of a power loss seems to me like a good start towards 'losing it', assuming you can even see the problem under the nose at takeoff body angle...

The probability of losing an engine in the first couple of hundred feet and being compromised in terms of obstacle clearance is very low (and getting lower). However, this rare event is what all of our performance calculations are based on.

...remember that your pilot's everyday life consists constantly of such assumptions. If you couldn't do that, you couldn't fly anymore. Or are you also one of such guys who declines a visual approach (there could be an obstacle somewhere!!)...
A very different kind of situation. For a visual approach, you have an aeroplane with plenty of energy (potential, kinetic plus whatever you need from the engines), descending (good field of view) towards a landing area. Why would you fly into something you can see?

For an EO departure, you are in a low height, high drag state trying to accelerate and climb using your remaining power source. You may have marked asymmetry to deal with plus cockpit warnings and a possible ET. Depending on when the failure occurred, your calculated clearance of the first obstacle may only be 35 feet! There is also very little you can do to improve the situation and you have to carry on as per the book and hope the engineers got their sums right. There is no go-around available: you're stuck with what you have. I would suggest that there is very little latitude for creativity here.

[Old Smokey]

I don't know how other operators do it, but for Singapore 02L and 02C, which have a "ship crossing" problem, we carry several RTOW pages for each of these runways for a range of ship heights.

ATC are very good at advising conflict times and the height of the ship, thus enabling (even at a late stage) crews to revise Takeoff data. Most Takeoffs are at Derated and/or reduced thrust, thus the shipping conflict is quickly resolved by using higher thrust.

The problem is when the aircraft is already at maximum "non-ship" RTOW, and no performance enhancement is possible, then the only solution is to wait whilst the ship chug, chug, chugs out of the way.

Top marks for UAL, they just rose a few points higher on my "will fly with" list.:ok:

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Rainboe]

Pprune is a funny place sometimes. How can a 'bizarre' contributor like limp leek, a passenger, come in on a thread like this and get 1 1/2 pages of this 4 page thread devoted to him not understanding what it is about? How can he possibly dare make criticism of the pilots knowing nothing of procedures and the industry, apart from being a self appointed 'expert' loudmouth? Extraordinary. All he can come up with is expletives and 'LMAO'. Where is a Mod when you need him? Sometimes, aren't some posts here are so weird there is a time to quietly remove them? What an peculiar character! You can see the warning signs. When the profile says 'up your nose', you know you are dealing with someone with personality issues!

The 'ignore' strikes again!

[News Shooter]

Folks
As the OP I want to say that it was never my intention to start a contentious row about this. I heard the exchange in real time and having never heard something quite like that before I posted here to get input.

I was never an airline pilot, but I was a private/commercial pilot for over 30 years before losing my medical. I listen to ATC because I miss aviation very much.

In any event, I am sorry for turning this into a slugfest.

[barit1]

Not being actively engaged in performance today, but with a goodly recollection of past projects -

and given the massive computer power on a $1K laptop today -

Why can't the KBOS dispatch desk issue three TO clearances routinely (Tall, short, or no ship) so the front office can choose the appropriate one? This situation must occur often enough at KBOS to warrant this "overkill".

[DC-ATE]

News Shooter -
.....I am sorry for turning this into a slugfest.

Don't be sorry. You merely posted something you wanted an answer for. It's just unfortunate that some of the replies you got were from those that don't know a thing about flying airplanes. And, you also got a few responses from those that THINK they know about airplanes. You even got some replies form those that claim to be airline pilots, but can somehow avoid the ops specs laid down by those who do know what's going on.

[rogervisual]

We used to get some tall masted yachts try to anchor at western end at Gibraltar. We had a speaker system(known as the voice of neptune) that we would use to tell them to anchor elsewhere and if that did not work a Police boat would go and move them. The best bit was watching it through the bino's wondering where the voice was coming from.

[Shunter]

Comfy Chair; I'd go for know-it-all spotter.

I don't fly for a living, but I do have jet experience and own an (albeit modest) aircraft. I've got myself into situations in the past which were, in retrospect, avoidable. I learnt from them. Such caution as displayed by the Captain in question is not without merit.

[llondel]

In any event, I am sorry for turning this into a slugfest.

Don't be, I learned something from it. It's one of those things that's obvious when I thought it through, but isn't something I would have thought of without the prompt.

[Romeo India Xray]

Why can't the KBOS dispatch desk issue three TO clearances routinely (Tall, short, or no ship) so the front office can choose the appropriate one?

Nice idea although other than "no ship" it would surely become an issue regarding quantification of tall and short. How does one measure the height of a mast to put it into quantifiable terms? I'm sure there must be a way, but would it really be robust enough to incorporate for EO planning purposes?

RIX

[bubbers44]

Performance data can not be ignored. SEA has takeoff performance from 2 parallel runways the same length but climb data to the north is different for each runway. We refused a takeoff from one runway because we were not legal even though it was the same length. Tower questioned our refusal and we just told them we were legal from one but not the other. We are just following the rules.

[VONKLUFFEN]

...Bring it on, guys. I can handle it.

I just tell you: Your E/O path is calculated for IFR conditions. If you see that there is an obstacle, if you know that it's not in your way and if you know that you can do a turn of 1 or 2 degrees even single engine (well at least I can do it, I'm not sure about the grey-haired ones), then you certainly can assume that you can make it.

That's what I mean with common sense.

Reflect yourself. Even you (when you still where young) could do such "calculation". And you remember that your pilot's everyday life consists constantly of such assumptions. If you couldn't do that, you couldn't fly anymore. Or are you also one of such guys who declines a visual approach (there could be an obstacle somewhere!!) or don't allow your collegues to make a visual separation 5NM behind you through your level (he could suddenly stop in the air!!!!)? I'm so glad that I don't have to share my cockpit with you

Dani...

My dear Dani:
I have the impression you are a young man. There is nothing you can do to avoid it. However, you should listen to the universe.
Assumptions do not count in the court of law, nor when life of people are in your hands.
Common sense is the last sense you should trust, if at all.
To the content of your second paragraph much can be said or with good CRM discuss. (One thing I need to mention though,I would be glad to share a flight with you, I really would.)
Last but not least, nothing is constant in life, only change is.
Your hair will become gray some day into the future...
And dont forget grave yards are full of brave and smart pilots.

Respectfully submitted,
The old bold man. ( Luckily no gray hair...)

[VONKLUFFEN]

... and for the UA pilot. Congrats for crying wolf. You DID the RIGHT thing.
It is WHAT is wright not WHO is wright.
Think this case is closed. Lets move on.

[mutt]

Dani,

How wide is your takeoff cone? What allowances are you making for wind? What is the climb gradient of your aircraft on 1 engine? Are these questions that you answer before every takeoff?

Mutt

[ExSp33db1rd]

limp leek is clearly an expert.

X is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

[angels]

DingerX - Thanks for the gen.

Nice to know that the majority of people surmised it was a job well done by all.

Bet that hour is factored into the timetable anyway!

[A Comfy Chair]

Barit - They may well do it.
Like Old Smokey, we have our normal performance chart, and a table of corrections for Mast below xxx, Mast between xxx and yyy, and Mast upto zzz.

Again as he points out, this is all good and well as long as you aren't performance limited anyway and can't take off with the penalties. That is when you need to know the exact height of the ship. Singapore does it extremely well, and NOTAM the height of the ship as well as the crossing times. ATC also tell you when it is passing through.

News Shooter - Its a perfectly reasonable question for which I hope you've managed to descern a reasonable answer. Unfortuantely despite this being a Professional Pilots website, many of the more vocal people here don't have a clue what they are talking about, having never been a professional pilot (or qualified person... some of the replies may have been from someone who isn't a pilot but is a highly qualified performance engineer) yet claiming they know it all! You will find different pilots with different opinions and that is fine too... but you'll also hear some complete garbage!

One common theme though. All the professionals have said that for WHATEVER reason, the UAL captain wasn't certain, and so delayed his takeoff until he was completely sure that he was legal and safe. Sure, he may have misunderstood the situation, and maybe the delay could have been avoided with better communication. But he wasn't sure and so he took the PROFESSIONAL (and only correct) decision to wait until he was certain and the issue resolved.

[Airbus Girl]

I used to enjoy this board when it was a Professional Pilots Forum.
Now its turned into a reggie spotter-Microsoft pilot expert - I have a controversial opinion even though I don't know what I am talking about board.

The guy made a decision based on his companys procedures and the facts that only he knew at the time. That is why he is Captain of his aircraft. The professionals here know that we don't do "probably" or "should be ok".

All the professional pilots here know that.

Now - if anyone has a knowledgeable/ sensible/ useful comment to make AND they are a professional pilot then please go ahead. Everyone else, feel free to read, but please don't bother posting. This will save those of us for whom this board was set up a lot of time. Thanks.

[Dani]

As I said, I don't know any of the facts. I just mentioned a certain behaviour I often observe in certain situation. It happens more often in traditional bigger airlines that - at the same time - have a higher cost base at statistically no significantly better safety margin. You all know that I'm not refering to hair colours but to state of minds.

Mutt, take off cones, wind considerations, obstacle limitations etc. - all applies for an IFR departure. Except if it's a visual departure. I seriously doubt that his runway table was the later. Higher margins apply for uncertainty of navigation in clouds.

I agree that you shouldn't (always) follow the herd but if all great aviators that day took off except him, I'm not sure... He was correct and everybody else was endangering their flight? Pretty heavy allegation to all these pilots that day!

Dani
age: 44
experience: 10 000 airline hours
7000 as airline CMD
type ratings similar to the UA pilots
some grey hairs at the temples :)

[barit1]

Where was it I heard -

Landings are mandatory; Takeoffs are optional.

[DC-ATE]

Dani -
As I said, I don't know any of the facts.

That kinda says it all then, doesn't it?

[ZQA297/30]

The ship was reportedly at anchor. One of the characteristics of ships is that they are mobile. What if it decided to move. Under whose control are they?
If you put a moveable obstruction at various points in the net takeoff flight path you have a large number of scenarios to think of.
If you just kick the tyres and light the fires and blast off, if anything goes wrong, the FAA, victims lawyers, and last but not least Pprune spotters, will all have the benefit of hindsight as they drag your decision over the coals.

[FullWings]

Mutt, take off cones, wind considerations, obstacle limitations etc. - all applies for an IFR departure. Except if it's a visual departure.
I think I'd better let the man himself reply...;)

I seriously doubt that his runway table was the later. Higher margins apply for uncertainty of navigation in clouds.
Funny old thing, there doesn't seem to be an input for met. visibility on my computer... The aeroplane appears to perform the same in 75m RVR as it does in CAVOK.

How does being visual allow you to improve your OEI climb gradient in the first couple of segments?

I agree that you shouldn't (always) follow the herd but if all great aviators that day took off except him, I'm not sure... He was correct and everybody else was endangering their flight? Pretty heavy allegation to all these pilots that day!
In all my 10K+ hours, I've never had a real engine failure on takeoff or an RTO>100kts. Looking back, I could have overloaded the aircraft on every departure so that it wouldn't have even been able climb after losing one and I'd have got away with it. For decades. Doesn't make it right and/or legal.

Personally, I wouldn't assume anything about the performance capability of an aircraft other than the one I was sitting in, even if it were the same type. I'd presume that they'd done their sums and were either happy or not. Their decision...

[Dani]

FullWing, full of brandy?
So you want to tell me that you don't know that a visual departure is not the same as an IFR departure (performancewise)? Are you serious??? God bless us, and you have 10 000 hours?

Dani

[Ex Cargo Clown]

FullWing, full of brandy?
So you want to tell me that you don't know that a visual departure is not the same as an IFR departure (performancewise)? Are you serious??? God bless us, and you have 10 000 hours?


:ugh::ugh:

Can you please define a visual departure in an IFR environment ??

What on Earth are you on about ?

[Dani]

I guess I know why this UA captain couldn't take off - he had the same lack of knowledge like you guys :eek:

[DC-ATE]

You've already admitted to not knowing anything about this "incident" so why don't you just drop it and move on.

Dani -

Quote:
As I said, I don't know any of the facts.

[FullWings]

So you want to tell me that you don't know that a visual departure is not the same as an IFR departure (performancewise)?
Errm, yes? (Initially.) What does being able to see the trees at the end of the runway have to do with hitting them or not? If you haven't got the energy to clear them, you're going in, visual or not. WAT limits, anyone?

What do you do when you're flying - "it's a nice day, let's put on another 30T over RTOW"? I'm sure you don't. How is looking outside the cockpit going to help you during the 1st & 2nd segment climb? As asked before, how is being 'visual' improving terrain clearance when you're still inside the airfield boundary?

OK, if you are well clear of the ground in clear vis. you can manoeuvre to avoid obstacles and make your way back into the circuit. Bear in mind that 'terrain constrained' airfields often require quite precise navigation and speed control to avoid the cumulo-granitus. Places like Bogota and San Jose come to mind. If you set off down an unknown valley after an engine failure because it looks good, don't blame the performance engineers when you can't get out of the other end. :uhoh:

As soon as you take matters into your own hands and deviate from laid-down performance criteria, you are on your own. I agree in the obvious cases like completely flat terrain or taking off with a thousand miles of sea between you and the nearest obstruction that you can make some of it up as you go along. Anywhere else I would exercise extreme caution as the difference between an AEO and OEI departure can be like night and day - bearing in mind that most, if not all our experience has been AEO...

[Pugilistic Animus]

limpleak

you should really consider shutting up

this is primarily a site for industry professionals who know what they're talking about; or NON-professionals who want to learn about aviation

You look a a complete fool; you don't know what you are talking about, and I personally find you presence on this thread insulting---this is not the ground where you can just make up nonsense in your head and believe yourself---Get off of that MSFS---you'll go blind!!!

lately on Pprune it seems we've been enduring the 'Bewitching Hour':*

Lester:E

[Pugilistic Animus]

BTW, do you know how much they clearance they should have had over that ship?

Mutt


He know that No person may takeoff a large turbine transport aircraft registered in the united states after July 1???1958 at a weight greater than that which allow that aircraft to clear all obstacles with a critical power plant assumed failed at a speed Vef.
a. within the airport boundaries by at least 35 feet vertically or at least 200' horizontally
b. After passing the airport boundaries by at least 300' horizontally...:\

that's what I can think of off the top of my head

perhaps I'll let the passengers expain to you

How much of a reduction is permissible to the OEI gross flight path and what reductions are made therein for 4,3 and 2 engined jet airliners, respectively, in the determination of the NTOFP,...and how it is constructed and matched to the specific obstacles,...?



Then the flite simmer ,..will teach you how using the clearway [of couse he knows what is the %age of Max TORA is allowed in determining the TODA using declared clearway] can increase Max RWY weight in an unbalanced scenario, if the operator so wishes...hey why not ? I wanna know what happens to BF when the stopway to the ASD to creat the EMD and is that EMD predicated on VMBE?

Then the interested spotter can explain to you reduced thrust calculations::}

Because Mutt I know you of all folks here need a steep performance tutorial:\ before you can debate the experts:*

Lester:E


Mutt,

Re: 75% I think he was attempting to explian in a simple and congenial way how severe the thrust loss can be OEI and that tough requirements have to be met and guesses aren't allowed.;)...but the passenger was just too smart for him:}


PA

[phlying4fun]

"The POINT of this thread was that the crew of the aircraft in question did all the fancy math for the flight, loaded fuel, passengers in the back, baggage, freight, food, flight plan, and the other complicated stuff.""

Then they pushed back and started the engines......

Then asked "Any tall ships?"

Then they stopped and shut down and re-did all the fancy math.

The tall ships question should have come before the loading pax, freight, fuel, etc.

That is MY point."

UAL crews do not do the fancy math as you stated. On the Airbus all data for cargo compartments, pax on board, and CG come from central load planning which is sent by ACARS to aircraft. Then just add ZFW to current fuel load to get TOGW.

On taxi out, we usually ask if there are any ships in the channel off the departure end.

Take off data is based on NO ships in the channel. Otherwise, another set of data is required and sometimes BOS-SFO flights would be too heavy with a ship in the channel to be legal to depart.

[mutt]

Pugilistic Animus.... welcome back........:ok:

Dani, I'm curious, when did you last do a VFR departure for obstacle clearance followed by a normal IFR flight in a passenger airliner? If you have done one, kindly advise me of the airline company so i can make sure my loved ones never fly on them!

We operate under FAR121 and utilize the complete width of the ICAO takeoff splay for all weather conditions, we also go a step further and factor in winds, the splay therefore becomes extremely large and even more so in a turn. We never permit lower standards in order to obtain a higher takeoff weight and we would never expect a pilot to "turn visually to avoid the obstacle", because quite frankly he is wasting his time!.

Now as far as UAL goes, i believe that the information given to your about ACARS should really close the subject....

Mutt

[Earl]

I agree Mutt.
Some are really lost here.
Surprised this one carried on so long.
Visually turn to avoid the obstacle, where is this written, or a better question which airline is promoting this crap if any at all ?

[A Comfy Chair]

I agree that you shouldn't (always) follow the herd but if all great aviators that day took off except him, I'm not sure... He was correct and everybody else was endangering their flight? Pretty heavy allegation to all these pilots that day!

Not a SINGLE person has said that. Everyone is saying that if the PIC wasn't happy that HIS performance met the requirements, then HE wasn't willing to take off. Everyone else may have had the NOTAMS and known more about the ship than the UAL crew did.

[Dani]

Mutt, I just did 2 today! BTW every US Major does them everyday here in ZRH/LSZH. I'm pretty sure that you also have some of them in the States but you're too sure about yourself that you cannot recall!

The fact that the UAL pilot performed his take off in the end (without the ship left its harbour i presume) is a proof that it was ok/legal/operational wise/not dangerous/a victory of common sense (tick if applicable). Since it was one of the above, he was missing some important information before his final decision. Maybe that you could avoid the obstacle visually?

I'm not sure if you still know how you calculate TO performance, but before you just clicked on PC programs, you had runway tables with obstacle lists. The list consists of all limiting obstacles with the related distance. If you have that knowledge you can very easily determine if and what obstacle is limiting. (I had a look at a satelite picture of Logan airport and I assume that the boat anchored in the harbour opposite the parallel runways about half a mile away from the runway end.)

Be it as it is, yes, DC-ATE, I don't know anything about the actual case. I'm merely stating that I'm sooo glad I don't have to share the cockpit with one of you guys! :E

Dani

[Pugilistic Animus]

Dani

do you mean an [obstacle] departure or a [visual climb over airport]VCOA? those procedures are for AEO only and generally apply to 'low close in obstacles' and they are common in the US but you OEI profile is still carefully engineered:

also, to me it does not really matter if the data is electronic or tabular/graphical etc...I just want the numbers so I can go fly--same answers--[usually]


PA

[Pugilistic Animus]

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0903/NE2TO.PDF

as one sees a description of the obstacle is included for avoidance

[Pugilistic Animus]

Mutt, thanks for the welcome, sorry I did not mean to be rude:O

Was I really gone that long-- I was off practicing Steeps turns:}

PA

[mutt]

but you're too sure about yourself that you cannot recall

OK, I bow to your superior airmanship, now please tell me which of the 16 obstacles on ZRH RWY10 is the most limiting and how you plan your VFR departure flight path to a distance of 4kms.

Mutt

[Overdrive]

Whatever else it has been, is, or may become to the chagrin of some pro' fliers here, this thread is very interesting and informative to a private flier like me; great stuff :ok:

Just waiting for the answer to mutt's last question now...