View Full Version : Normal/Reduced or Derated ATM Take-off thrust in LVO's
Autobrake RTO
22nd Feb 2018, 14:27
Hi Guys and Gals...
Just wondering what your thoughts are when considering whether to use Normal / Reduced or Derated ATM (or a combination of...) Take-off thrust in LVO's?
Does your Company stipulate or give you any guidance on what they expect you to use for take-off?
Shanwick Shanwick
22nd Feb 2018, 15:47
As much de-rate as possible subject to runway conditions
Sidestick_n_Rudder
22nd Feb 2018, 18:19
My previous mob requred TOGA t/o on LVO. Wouldn’t want to get an engine failure on that...
Where I fly now it’s just normal FLEX/ATM
AmarokGTI
22nd Feb 2018, 23:18
My employer (AUS regional turboprop) requires rated power with vis 1000m or less.
I understand everyone’s points above regarding control following a failure.
misd-agin
22nd Feb 2018, 23:18
Along with increased vertigo threat due to higher acceleration, pitch attitude, and subsequent larger thrust reduction when changing to CLB power.
Both methods have pluses and minuses.
Peter G-W
23rd Feb 2018, 10:26
Just remind me of the benefit of taking off at full power please.
Autobrake RTO
23rd Feb 2018, 13:53
Interesting replies....thanks!
One possible benefit would be a shorter take-off run and less time exposed to LVO conditions?
Peter G-W
23rd Feb 2018, 14:03
Why is the take off run less safe if it takes 5 seconds longer? You could apply that logic to all take off runs.
CloudHound
24th Feb 2018, 17:20
What then if you throw in a contaminated runway?
Citation2
25th Feb 2018, 19:20
TOGA, FLAPS 2, that will do it in LVO.
Escape Path
27th Feb 2018, 17:36
It's TOGA at our outfit, but I agree that I'd prefer flex for the engine out reasons stated above. Then again TA says, there could be some scenarios for which TOGA would be preferred...
aerobatic_dude
27th Feb 2018, 18:02
What then if you throw in a contaminated runway?
De-Rate OK but not allowed use temperature assumed for my company on contaminated rwy ( 737-800 )