DC87 unsafe departure

[hoss183]

I imagine this was a bit of a brown-trouser moment
Incident: Skybus DC87 at Rionegro on Jan 21st 2018, unsafe departure (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b414b6e&opt=1)

2nd video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4M2XQeKSBw

[DaveReidUK]

Good job there weren't any windows for the passengers to see out of. :O

[RAT 5]

https://youtu.be/MWsgs3AArvc

Better view. Fast forward to 1.00. Note the piano keys/touch down markings at rotation point. Ouch. The FE might have discovered something beyond firewall. RW 11500' an 7500' elev. Wind?

[mustangsally]

Hoss83, don't think you can label this unsafe. May have been but without the data, weight, temperature, wind, QNH and power selected we don't have the ability to call it unsafe. Yes, did use just about every meter of runway, but did seem to climb out at a reasonable rate. I've seen the far end of a lot of runways. You need to know where V1 was and Vr. Now if V1 was 60 knots you may have it right, but if V1 was 140 and Vr 160 with V2 165, it just might have been at the limit of performance.

[hoss183]

Well i'm quoting the CAA "On late Jan 24th 2018 Colombia's CAA issued a statement reporting the departure by OB-2059P on Jan 21st 2018 had been unsafe" Suspended their licence and opened and investigation, so someone thinks so, even if you don't.

[Sqwak7700]

Have to disagree. Unless something failed, a normal takeoff with all power plants producing the normal thrust, should not take up so much runway.

Otherwise there would be no chance in hell that they would have succesfully gotten off the ground with one inop.

[TowerDog]

I flew the DC-8-73 Cargo and used every inch of the runway once: We hauled leather goods out of India and the locals had left the pallets outside in the monsoon rain, but did not mention it. We thought the pallets weighed what the paperwork stated.
We over-burned fuel on the trip as if we were 10 tons over weight. Brown trouser take off for sure:(

[galaxy flyer]

A normal four-engine take-off should be airborne within 87% of the TODA. Loonks like they used a bit more.

[Loose rivets]

There must be something special about these aircraft. DC8's at Stansted decades ago. Lots of concrete and most of it used on some take-offs. It was a long time ago, but IIRC there was a perimeter fence damaged on one occasion.

[pulse1]

Even Manston's long runway has seen some of these:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/douglas-dc-8-63f-ya-vic-11-august-2010

[mustangsally]

"Hoss183," so only now due to put forth that the Columbia CAA is looking into this incident and declared it unsafe. Now how about quoting the CAA report. Would certainly help clear up the situation and would change a lot of the responses.

"Sqwak7700" wrote: Have to disagree. Unless something failed, a normal takeoff with all power plants producing the normal thrust, should not take up so much runway

Let me give you a little bit of my background. I have well over twenty years of operating heavy/jumbo aircraft. Something on the order of 18,000 hours. Lockheed, Air Bus and Boeing. Have operated every model of the 747, except the SP. I've been an instructor, check airman, standard Captain and FAA designate. So, this is not my first cricket match.

And there are a good handful of times that I have seen the fair end of the runway. Everyone was supported by the performance data. In the good old days this was all charted data, very susceptible to error, it was done by at least two different crew members independently. If different data came out we got deep into the data and made sure it was good. Today, we just verify the input data is accurate by two different individuals independently.

"Galaxy Flyer" 87% is most likely a nice figure and may generally be correct. If the data was for a wide range of weight and conditions it may be accurate. But this discussion is based on operating at maximum conditions of weight, temperature, wind, elevation and atmospheric pressure.

On a rather separate subject, but still using the runway available several operators have procedure in gusty condition to increase Vr/V2, thus using most if not all of the runway.

This board is open to all and many express either very well supported data and other just want to throw a spanner into the turbine.

[galaxy flyer]

FAR 25.111 says,

a) Takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of --

(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or

(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

So, that take-off at the WAT limit should have been at 35’ above the end of the TODA. Now, if there was a clearway, it might have looked exactly like this IF the planned V1 allowed an abort at the end of the TORA. Saying TORA/TODA is 115% of the take-run distance is the same as saying TORR/TODR is 87% of the TORA/TODA.

[hoss183]

"Hoss183," so only now due to put forth that the Columbia CAA is looking into this incident and declared it unsafe. Now how about quoting the CAA report. Would certainly help clear up the situation and would change a lot of the responses.


Well it was in the link in my first post, which you seemingly didn't bother to read.

[DaveReidUK]

Now, if there was a clearway, it might have looked exactly like this IF the planned V1 allowed an abort at the end of the TORA. Saying TORA/TODA is 115% of the take-run distance is the same as saying TORR/TODR is 87% of the TORA/TODA.

Yes, there was a clearway (see the link in post #1), but at only 200m it was less than 6% of the TODA.

[DD44 Dostovei]

I am a local, I was right there when the Airplane took off.
I am a Pilot, even though I don't have significant experience on those operations.
When I saw the take off it didn't strike me as particularly unsafe, even if long for what we're used here nowadays.

I remember I had seen takeoffs like that back in the day DC-8s were daily here, when Tampa Cargo operated them. They weren't the norm or the majority, but I do remember seeing more of those at least a couple of times.

I couldn't really say if it was 35 feet airborne where it should have, as I was looking at the situation from the opposite threshold, but what I can say is that the colombian CAA issued the initial report saying, to paraphrase, that according to the photos, videos, and audios they had (who knows if they have anything we haven't seen in the internet) they suspect the Airplane was not dispatched by Tampa Cargo, but by the Airplane's crew themselves, and thus warranted being suspended while it's all cleared, according to them.

In my opinion, unless it's demonstrated that it was unsafe (again, I do not know, I was just a witness), it's just a knee-jerk reaction. Not only that, but it would be a first to suspend a whole company while a company is under investigation. Avianca had a similar situation with an A330 a couple of years ago out of Bogota and they were never suspended, nor was Aerosucre suspended when the 727 sadly crashed a year ago, just to name two examples.

I guess since the social media was so strong (we locals were really excited about the DC-8, so there's videos and photos everywhere) they needed to be seen as "doing something" since they have been criticised in the past just for giving the opposite impression, and the aforementioned Aerosucre 727 accident is still fresh.

[JanetFlight]

Cargo planes have a nice memorial at this airport :rolleyes:

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8UPEfO1Oo

[His dudeness]

Was in Kinshasa / FZAA a few years back and was invited to have a look at the DC-8 there. Had a nice chat with the crew and asked the guys wether they had something really serious to deal with whilst flying this clearly under-maintained aircraft.... the captain said no, not really, quite reliable aircraft.... well once an engine fell off, but that wasn´t really that much trouble...

The day I realized what a :mad: I am.

[TowerDog]

. Cargo planes have a nice memorial at this airport

I remember that crash quite well. I swapped lines with the Captain so I could sail the Bahamas for 3 weeks on my cutter rigged sloop.
Got a message on the SSB about the crash and they requested I return to civilization as my services were needed after all.
Ended up flying an empty 747 down there to pick up usable parts, pieces and engines from the wreck. :sad:

[Mostly Harmless]

I honestly can't tell if the mains left the ground before, or just after the end of the pavement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sPvSE5MUyM

[India Four Two]

MH,

Thanks. The famous "Vodka Burner" takeoff, at Canberra, I believe.

"You're going to have to go faster than that, Captain!"

Video taken from the Tower. Someone's hand must have been hovering over the crash alarm.

[ATC Watcher]

Back to the thread and this DC87 take off ::
Someone posted this on AvHerald :

It looks like they entered 01 via Alpha so no intersection departure.
The runway slopes up.
Charlie is 7220 feet forward of the threshold.
From Charlie to Delta, they averaged a speed of 150 kts.
The nose comes up just prior to crossing Delta.
They likely had less than 1000 feet of runway once the main gear lifted off the ground.
As they cast shadow on the localizer, they seem to be about 70 feet AGL.

Do not know if correct but seen worse data with some flex take off.Also the rate of climb afterwards does not suggest important overweight if any..

[Odins Raven]

Are we sure the crew were not just following Royal Air Maroc’s ‘special’ technique?

[RAT 5]

All these photos cause me to open up, again, the query as to why all take off & landings are not video recorded. In the event of an incident/crash, including all the entertaining x-wind landings on other threads, a video would surely be positive & productive help to the investigators. ATC radio, RVR measurement, radar plots, etc. are archived; why not a simple inexpensive video? What we've seen on many threads is good quality plane spotters hand help camera, or from the tower. More than good enough.

[hoss183]

Seems sensible. It only needs a wide angle cam on the tower covering the whole runway(s), feed into existing security recording. I also dont know why thats not more common / mandated.

[treadigraph]

Shoreham Airport have one at the 02 end of their hard runway.

[parabellum]

That take off looked about what I would expect for an improved climb take off with a heavy aircraft.

[RAT 5]

Is it not that an improved climb gives a steeper than normal climb gradient? This looked quite flat; but then again I've not seen too many departures at 7000' altitude.

[Feathers McGraw]

Am I right in thinking that no DC-8s had or have any leading edge devices? Is this relevant to the lower than expected climb angle?

[TowerDog]

They have slots rather than slats.

[DD44 Dostovei]

Having had seen it myself, I can confirm it was a full runway length takeoff.

At MDE intersection takeoffs are not that common, Avianca used to make them a lot (from Bravo) when they had the Fokker 50s, but now they're seldom seen (still happen from time to time though).

What is more common is a runway 19 takeoff rather than the usual 01, Tampa Cargo does it a lot since runway 19 threshold is right by the cargo terminal so they save the taxi fuel, and from runway 19 there's a slight down slope, helping performance (perhaps something the DC-8 crew could have done). Iberia likes runway 19 as well.

[tonytales]

Years back I was riding jumpseat on an Eastern Air Lines DC8-61 out of the old Stapleton Field in Denver. It was a White House Press Charter and we were returning to Andrews AFB in DCA. Unbeknownst to us the press reporters had bought a lot of Coors Beer which at that time was unobtainable back east. I do mean a lot of beer cases. The DC8-61 was not a sparkling performer in high and hot conditions which applied that day. We were also tankering extra fuel for the Andrews AFB to JFK ferry which of course had been planned for. But not all that Coors.
It took 68 seconds from brake release to the mains coming off in the vicinity of the runway numbers on the far end. The climb out was not sparkling either.

[krismiler]

Around the 1:10 area the acceleration rate seems rather slow, and the lift off and climb out seem to be at a lower than normal speed.

Messing up your weight calculations, resulting in using speeds and power settings for a much lower weight often results in take offs like this.

[fdr]

The regs requirements are pretty explicit in all states. The 4 engine aircraft comes closest to the end of the runway under all normal operations due to the factoring used. Having said that, it is pretty much self evident but usually glossed over, that the aircraft needs to be able to meet at least the engine out case screening height to have been anywhere near meeting the certification requirements. So... getting to OEI screen height at the end of the smooth stuff, before the ruff is probably a nice thing to achieve. Does the plane do that? As an industry and as professionals, we have for years come back from a takeoff where everything went right, and we barely have made the OEI screen heights, if indeed they were made. This isn't just the old wet takeoff cases which were always entertaining. Have a look at a certain B744 pax aircraft taking off out of SFO many years back, where coincidentally the flight crew were berated for the engine out path they flew. Given that the aircraft wasn't near its marks anyway, it seems somewhat callous to beef about the crew barely missing the hill. There was the B742F out of Brussels National which also beat up the crew for their abort. The data of course shows that the point where the aircraft was supposed to get to V1 was so far down the runway that they were not likely to go flying that day, barely with all 4 engines going. Cathays B742F photo taking off out of Kai Tak is interesting, they are below the OEI screen height, but on 4 engines (look at the rudder and aileron... no input, no yaw/roll... ergo, no failure). The A340 is in a league of it's own, it has been seen disappearing over the roadway on the north side of CLK off runway right with no more than the gear height clearance from the top of busses on the causeway. The latest images of the A340-600 takeoff out of SAM is entertaining, crew clothes change sort of territory.

Are these from being overweight? A simple check is whether the aircraft after a takeoff performance failure gets to planned destination, if they dont they may well have been heavier than planned. IF they do, then perhaps the environmental conditions are not quite as advertised. At high temps, the performance drop off becomes pretty impressive with just minor temperature changes. The reported temperature is not that temp that the aircraft engines and airframe are immersed in on the runway, yet there is no correction for that, it is assumed to not alter the outcome. The original testing should have mitigated that change, where the testing was done in similar conditions to what the real world experiences, but, if that was the case, then you would not get the wild rides that occur where there is no change in wind on the roll.

2 engine planes are much nicer, if you get a wild takeoff on a normal takeoff, then be assured you probably didn't want to meet a bird on that roll. The 4 engine case is just more obvious to the pilots, but we as a group have failed to stand up for the punters and get the performance right. Many of the takeoffs that end with some excitement involve errors by the crews, such as the Halifax B742F, which was unusual, there was a latent risk factor in the process. The IL76 CBR departure was just wrong all round.

But..

hotshots,

When you roll your quadrapuffs down the runway, some simple figures should come to mind. Simple stuff, but beyond the Ken of many management pilots, regulators and some safety boards...

An engine out aircraft has a minimum screen height of 35' using dry values. Yes, 15' is applied if you use a reduced V1, as the reject case is protected at the cost of the go case screen height case, but energy is energy, if you get to normal dry V1 and can only achieve 15' screen height, don't think that things were rosy.

The minimum distance for all engines is limited in part to being 115% of the OEI case... that is not limiting for the 2 or 3 engine aircraft but sure as heck makes the 4 engine normal case interesting. Restating that case, you can argue directly that a 4 engine aircraft should achieve a minimum of the 35' case at 1/1.15= 87% of the TODA. That means that 13% of the TODA distance as a bare minimum has to be available logically to climb higher than the 35' height. This is pretty basic, disregarding the fact that the screen height of 35' is required to be achieved on 3 engines, with a continued acceleration from a minimum speed of V1-1 second, though to Vr, and then targeting V2 for the screen height point. Big planes have big speeds; a rotate is over 160Kts, say, 170+, which is... 85msec approx. Once you get to rotate, it takes a finite period of time for the attitude to change, and then you get enough CL to get the V'2*ro to give enouff lift on the total S you have to make magic happen. How long? look at the FCTM, FCOM, or time it in a sim some day, or look out at other planes, or read your QAR data before it is needed from a DFDR. Plan on 6 seconds to break ground from the first movement of the elevators. You have target rates, but that is an "S" bend to achieve, it takes some time, and that is some distance, 6 seconds +/- x speed. Speed then is Vr+ a bit, you are pulling towards holding V2, which is usually a few knots higher, say +8-10 on Vr. For smaller aircraft, there are minimum fractions that will come into play but then you tend to avoid the end fence by more on most takeoffs. Once the wheels are off the pavement, for the normal case, you will develop a rate of climb which will stabilise as the aircraft stabilises on the target speed. That is pretty simple to determine. Call that 1800FPM for stamps, which is 30ft/sec ROC. So, from 35' at 87% of the way down the runway, the plane will continue to climb at about 30FPS for the additional time it has to cross the end of the TODA, which is 13% of the total TODA. Your speed for that climb is V2-V2+10 for big toys, a bit more for smaller jets. For the big guys, that gives you... about... 180+kts (less your HWC of course, but 0WC is the limiting case) or just on 92msec.

For a 12000' runway, you have about 5.14 seconds from 87% of the TODA at 35' to climb higher... which is another 154'. Be kind, drop that a little, and call it 150'. Add the 35' and you have 185' That is around about a large fraction of the length of the aircraft above the ground when you get to the end of the TODA and out over the rough. It is a lot more than 35'. A heck of a lot more. It is not "exciting", "sporty", "thrilling" or any other adjective indicating a near run thing.

If you barely got airborne on 4 engines, it is fairly certain you don't want to try it again on 3 from V1-1second in the same conditions. To that end, and given the amount of interest that the regulators, safety bureaus and manufacturers have in sorting out performance, one should be careful in having wind that is not as advertised, temps that exceed the targets, or wasting runway on lineups etc. Yes, JAR/EU ops does a better job of runway allowance, but when seat 1A looks out the window from a parked position prior to roll that is down range of the 1000' markers, on a limit takeoff, then frugality is in order. If you consider that the "margins" are there for your protection, sit down and do the maths form the last limit case takeoff that you did and see what you come up with.

While you are at it, consider the statement that exists in the AFM on thrust setting, next time you consider margins. The OEM's AFM approved by the state of manufacture states what a a static, standing and rolling takeoff is. It then states that the difference between standing and rolling is negligible, (great). What it doesn't state is what the difference is between static and standing, yet it does state that the takeoff performance is predicated on static method. Oddly, not all engines can do a static thrust setting, you get surges. Remember that the original figures used for the charts (bless them all) are based on measured performance from a point where power is set, and then calculated for the earlier bit to give a total solution. (That was a procedure, it may have been changed, data is better recorded today). Be careful out there. A pretty good group of operators sorted out performance on one jet a number of years ago, it appears no one is around anymore that really cares that much about the continuing issues. The great news is that engine failures at V1 don't happen every day, and when they do, they don't happen on limiting cases too often. That is a wonderful thing, but then there was the available data of the Brussels B742 where the aircraft was already in peril before the engine quit. Blame the pilot, everyone else does. Chuck Yeager wasn't going to get that plane off the ground in one piece, but who cares at the end of the day. Unless it is your aircraft that you are in.

When you watch the next heavy jet departures off a limiting day of operations, stand in line with the TODA (OK, fence) and watch the height above ground. Have a look and determine what you have for your own confidence. If you have the time, say, survey 8 to 10 takeoffs out of one location in limit cases, and determine if they all are well above the OEI screen height, as above. If not, then you may have some further digging to do. If all of them fail to get to 35'. you might want to do something courageous, like do your job as it is entrusted to you. If some of them barely get off the concrete, then some thought should be applied to the inherent risk of the operation. Oddly, most companies and regulators have takeoff performance failure as a mandatory reporting event. For you 4 holer drivers, how often have you had a failure to get above 35' (without an engine failure) and not reported it?

Performance failures occur for benign reasons, they also can occur because there are issues. The data sorts out which is which.

[ThreeThreeMike]

fdr, thanks for an informative and well thought out post.

[DaveReidUK]

Indeed so. Though I will admit to being thrown by references to "just on 92msec" until I realised that the poster wasn't talking about milliseconds. :O

[ErwinS]

Heard that after arrival at MIA the cargo on board was 10 tons more then the documents said.....

[CargoMatatu]

ErwinS

I had read that somewhere, too.

[JammedStab]

Have a look at a certain B744 pax aircraft taking off out of SFO many years back, where coincidentally the flight crew were berated for the engine out path they flew. Given that the aircraft wasn't near its marks anyway, it seems somewhat callous to beef about the crew barely missing the hill.

I remember the UAL 747 out of SFO that had an engine failure and apparently came quite close to San Bruno Mountain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_863

I have never seen an official report on the incident. According to the linked Wikipedia article, UAL made a video to show its pilots what happened.

My understanding was that rudder was not used properly(or at all to control the aircraft correctly) and aileron only was instead used and therefore, the aircraft came within 100 feet of the mountain. As there is no official report available that I know of, it is interesting what you have possibly attempted to convey with the statement about the incident. Do you have any further detailed information of what happened that could perhaps clear up some possible misinformation out there?

Thanks.

[kristofera]

Heard that after arrival at MIA the cargo on board was 10 tons more then the documents said.....

What kind of additional cargo would anyone bring from MDE to MIA?

[Willit Run]

Mustang Sally is spot on. If you have been around this business for as long as he, and I, that was pretty normal. Airplanes back then did not have excessive power like they do today. They were first generation jets. The 70 series DC-8 had more extra thrust than the 50's and 60 series. i won't even talk about the -20 and -40's. The -100 series 747's with a 750,000 lb.TO weight would make you pucker up. The -400's, piece of cake at max weight. Now, you throw in backwoods places like Rio Negro, Guatemala City ........et,al; You have mis weighed cargo weights, out and out lying on the weights, kilo's to pound errors, pregnant cows, wet leather, excessively wet produce or flowers coming out of south america. If you don't want to see the red lights at the liftoff end of the runway; don't fly cargo.

[chimbu warrior]

What kind of additional cargo would anyone bring from MDE to MIA?

Maybe the kind of "stuff" that you don't want to mention on the cargo manifest :rolleyes:

[Klauss]

The way I remember things, with a 747-200, you knew where the runway end was:
that row of red lights that´s coming closer....
Never saw that with a 747-400 or -8.
Performance calculations changed over time, I suppose.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Been flying to MDE for my US Carrier for many years.
Typically at max performance with deciding factors on getting off the ground in terms of 10's of pounds, single passengers and single degrees.

I don't think we were ever that close to the trees, but I surely was never impressed with the distance as we clawed overhead in a 737-800.

Throw in a cargo outfit with the risk of questionable computations and this video doesn't surprise me.

Years ago a DC-8 ploughed into an office park out of MIA because of a tragic load mistake.

[parabellum]

Never saw that with a 747-400 or -8.
Don't know about the -800 but departing Singapore for London on a warm, humid night in a -400, with a full load, you will see the end reds, rotation was within the last 1000'. Edited to add PW4056 engines.

[Hotel Tango]

Years ago a DC-8 ploughed into an office park out of MIA because of a tragic load mistake.

Was that not a load shift issue though?

[DaveReidUK]

No, a W&B error caused by confusing the load plans for the originally-scheduled aircraft and one that was substituted.

[Hotel Tango]

Ah yes, that was it. Thanks.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Was the DC8 series under CAR4B or 14CFR 25?

[FIRESYSOK]

Was that not a load shift issue though?

Good friend of mine was PF. Yes, it was a load shift. Utterly tragic; a great man

[DaveReidUK]

Have you told the NTSB that they got it wrong ?

[fdr]

Re the N rego 742F at BRU, Nope. but read the report, and have a look at the data that is provided. The maths is pretty straightforward. The point of engine failure is very well defined, and the position down the runway is ugly, up to that point the plane was on 4 engines at full throated roar, per the FDR. It was nasty before any engine failure, but the crew were beaten up for their decision.

[fdr]

Don't know about the -800 but departing Singapore for London on a warm, humid night in a -400, with a full load, you will see the end reds, rotation was within the last 1000'. Edited to add PW4056 engines.

On the runways that we are driving -400's heavy off, the centerline lights commence white/red alternating configuration at 3000' from the end of the runway. The runway edge lights change at 2000' to run. Out of say, LAX, SIN, BKK/VTBS, LHR, etc, then on a normal takeoff on 4 blowers, you would expect to be rotating about 3 seconds before reaching the coaming cutoff of the change in center line lighting configuration. 2 holer aircraft are much further back, so long as they are running on both blenders. Thats for the commencement of rotate, which takes some time and distance to transition to getting wheels to come off the ground. The FCTM gives good guidance on what should occur, and what happens with various abused conditions.

Planes can be heavy, acceptable GW error margins are dependent on regulator, with at least the Euros caring somewhat, but then we see a lot of nasty end of runway events with euro avions, not all being 'A170-Babes". Occasionally, stuff happens, but it should be for a cause, such as weight, temp, wind, or other operational oops. It is neither safe or legal to have aircraft that are exciting on all takeoffs in limit cases, without a cause. The airworthiness basis of an aircraft is that it is safe, and that it complies to the TC, which then indicates certification basis (revision level of CS/FAR 25 etc). If the plane doesn't meet either of those factors, then the definition of airworthy becomes a topic. Cruise level-normal) data is not certified by the regulator, TO and LDG data is.

Deregulation forces competition, which puts stress on efficiency. We don't lose many engines every year, and most are not within the region where it will be exciting, on limit cases. If it does, you have a bad day, or interesting photo ops. I fly an aircraft today that is permitted to be exciting, but we don't have passengers, only tactical crew who are prepared to accept the risk and see the funny side.

Characteristics of runway centreline lights
9.9.5 – Runway centreline lights are to be inset, fixed lights showing white from the threshold to a point 900m from the runway end. From 900m to 300m from the runway end, the light pattern is to be two red lights followed by two white lights. For the last 300m before the runway end, the lights are to show red.

Characteristics of high intensity runway edge lights
9.2.16 – High intensity runway edge lights are to be fixed unidirectional lights with the main beam directed towards the threshold.
9.2.17 – High intensity runway edge light beam coverage are to be toed in towards the runway as follows:
(a) 3.5° in the case of a 30-45m wide runway;
(b) 4.5° in the case of a 60m wide runway.
9.2.18 – High intensity runway edge lights are to show variable white except for those located within 600m from the runway end which are to show yellow.

[tdracer]

It's a sad but open secret that a small number of freight operators sometimes abuse MTOW limits (at least I hope it's a small number).
Many years ago, at a 747 operators conference, I was eating lunch with representatives from a now defunct Asian freight operator. I was talking about a proposed 747 derivative that would have a million pound MTOW - one of the reps commented along the line of 'so what, we've been doing that for years'.:eek:

[mnttech]

Was the DC8 series under CAR4B or 14CFR 25?

CAR 4B, I had to go look.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Thanks for that

[VinRouge]

For you 4 holer drivers, how often have you had a failure to get above 35' (without an engine failure) and not reported it?

One could argue it should also be the company and manufacturer doing this through an established Flight Data Monitoring programme. Ive never really had the capacity to assess 35 feet whilst getting the dangly bits up or focussing on capturing pitch attitude.

[nkaiser]

Heard that after arrival at MIA the cargo on board was 10 tons more then the documents said.....

I'm just interested in following aviation. Anything I say is my own version of reality.


I used to be involved in air freight. Domestic U.S. and International. Passenger aircraft and Cargo only. Military and civilian.

I had a dock worker erroneously place tracking numbers on a 30 pound tote and a 3500 pound pallet. The tote was intended to go to Shanghai via LAS-LAX on passenger aircraft. The pallet was intended to stay on the dock for 8 months of storage. The driver then barely missed the cutoff for the airline so another shift took the 3500 pound pallet to the airline and they gladly accepted it with typewriter printed ICAO bills for 30 pounds converted to kg.

8 months later, looking for said pallet, I personally called the airline and they confirmed not only the weight of 30 pounds (kg) but the description of 1 green tote. They were adamant they successfully transported it and it was signed for. I had it on my desk.

The error was clearly my office's, but the airline did not update the computer or bills. If the organization I was with can make an honest, albeit approx $100,000 cargo claim, error in under reported weight, how often and by how much are the weights off?

In other words, the Swiss cheese starts before the aviation industry is even involved. The cargo weights you have should not be trusted.

I would acknowledge it is impractical, but I think every time freight is loaded on an aircraft it should be weighed. At least on segments approaching limitations.