Late leaving the ground?

[KelvinD]

Watching departures at Heathrow yesterday, I couldn't help but notice how far down the runway the United flight to Los Angeles before gaining any height.
I took a couple of photos:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin///details.php?image_id=26556)
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin///details.php?image_id=26557)
In the first image, the aircraft was passing me (at the Esso garage) and, using Google Earth, it seems it was about 80 yards short of the 09R piano keys.
In the second, again using Google Earth, it was already 70 yards beyond the piano keys on 09R with something like 250 yards to the end of the runway. I have no idea of the altitude but what caused me to notice it was a familiarity with other departing flights seen from this viewpoint. It struck me as rather late.
Of course, I am no expert, not even an armchair one, and was wondering if people who know more than I could confirm my thoughts or put me right.
P.S. No schools were heard screaming and the word plummeting never came up once!:)

[DaveReidUK]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1015x485/ua935_20180725_68e64c203456d78b6cdcb866626328ef3702877f.jpg

[KelvinD]

Blimey Dave! It takes me back to some years ago (pre T5) when I used to take my boy to watch Concorde stagger over the fence!

[Musket90]

Nothing to be concerned about. The 09R piano keys are a displaced landing threshold of over 300m for landing 09R, so when taking off 27L the 09R piano keys are not relevant. B787's seem to initially climb quite flat presumably due to de-rated flex thrust on take-off.

[KelvinD]

Musket90: I realise the piano keys for 09R are irrelevant to a 27L departure. I was using them as an indication of how far down the runway this aircraft was getting off the ground. I have watched literally dozens of 787 departures on this runway, with more than a few this day. You get a feel for roughly where an aircraft is going to be so you can get the camera ready. The United flight took me by surprise at where he was when I took the photos. By contrast, an hour earlier the Qantas Perth bound 787 departed and that one was at approx the same height as the United but 300 yards before the piano keys, well before the end of the runway.
Not concerned, just surprised. As I said, no screaming school children & definitely no plummeting!
Cheers

[packapoo]

How would that compare to the military aircraft departing Canberra?
If you're not familiar, that description searched on YouTube will find it.

[DaveReidUK]

How would that compare to the military aircraft departing Canberra?
If you're not familiar, that description searched on YouTube will find it.

Gosh.

There are so many differences, it's hard to know where to start.

[chevvron]

Blimey Dave! It takes me back to some years ago (pre T5) when I used to take my boy to watch Concorde stagger over the fence!
I can remember the early 747s passing the old north side radar unit (where Compass House now stands) with the nosewheel still firmly glued to the ground. At that point, even Tridents were normally well airborne and even the daily Deux Ponts would be trying to rotate.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The 787s have a long take off run in comparison with the B777s and B744s, mainly I believe as they derate the take off run even more efficiently. In short, they're a lot easier to photograph, coupled with a warm day and a long-ish way to LAX, this is quite common from that spot.

[10 DME ARC]

Nothing to the Flying Tiger Polar departures, that was the SID, in the early 80's!!

[SpringHeeledJack]

If we jump over to LGW, there was that 747 in the 80/90's that just got up over the trees on the hill just west of the runway, there was an inquiry for that one though. I seem to recall Seaboard World DC-8-63's (?) using most of the runway at LHR back in the day. It's surprising that the 787 would be so affected what with modern power plants....

[spekesoftly]

If we jump over to LGW, there was that 747 in the 80/90's that just got up over the trees on the hill just west of the runway, there was an inquiry for that one though.


Probably the Continental B747 (N605PE) on 1st November 1988. Just after rotation there was a loss of thrust from engine No 4 due to a compressor surge.

[pax britanica]

10DME, were tigers using 74 classics or long DC8s on those trips, I remember the complicated readback on myscanner of the polar departures given to panam and TW 747s back in the day.-didnt they struggle out over Epsom NDB and Biggin before turning north ?

Long take off rolls-try a hot summer evening had to be a Monday though when SAA used to go non stop to Jo burg . You could hear the thunder of all 18 tyres as it rumbled down 27/28R and passed me mainwheels just lifting well past the old block 79 intersecton where the original runway used to end . In those days i would watch from the strip between the Longford river and parallel canal in Stanwell and you did really wonder will it??? That had to be the longest 74 Classic sector and as it was only once week maybe it was payload limited to a fair degree

[10 DME ARC]

pax - Mainly 74 classic's but I am sure odd DC8. Yes clearance's could take doing and turn back North could get very interesting with further 'vectoring' needed to gain a little more height! I remember SAA non stops as well! They used some runway as well!! I am sure at the time there was a story of workers on the 'new' M25 getting visits from departing freighters!!
Still couldn't beat driving down A4 or M4 westbound with Concord departing on what was then 28R on a lovely summers day.....great days!!

[pax britanica]

19DME
thanks- I imagine those heavy polar departures were only possible because there was no LCY and Stanstead was a sleepy little field in Essex .

You are right about Concorde-in my minds eye i can still recall one take off on 27L one summers day . driving north on the Stanwell New Road which is the B road running inside the M25 tclose to the airport boundary, to see the great machine hurtle into view towing two enormous wingtip vortices that were themselves sucking up dust and dirt like desert sandstorm. Might have been economically useless but it was great to watch (and hear). It was a sad day twenty years on when I watched the last LHR inbound pass over Camberley bound for Ockham and the LHR 'celebrations'
PO

[Musket90]

Skipness One Foxtrot - Spot on !

[chevvron]

19DME
thanks- I imagine those heavy polar departures were only possible because there was no LCY and Stanstead was a sleepy little field in Essex .

You are right about Concorde-in my minds eye i can still recall one take off on 27L one summers day . driving north on the Stanwell New Road which is the B road running inside the M25 tclose to the airport boundary, to see the great machine hurtle into view towing two enormous wingtip vortices that were themselves sucking up dust and dirt like desert sandstorm. Might have been economically useless but it was great to watch (and hear). It was a sad day twenty years on when I watched the last LHR inbound pass over Camberley bound for Ockham and the LHR 'celebrations'
PO
In a coach on the M4 eastbound one day (slow moving of course due traffic) I was able to watch a Concorde departing from 09R; it was barely airborne when it started its right turn to head west.

[pax britanica]

I havent heard a 78 close up but I imagine with those monster fans, fancy cowlings and much improved attenuation technology they are pretty quiet on take off and do not need to climb out as steeply as possible for noise abatement. if thats the way of the world its abit of a shame because watching a nice light BA757 off to CDG was an impressive sight as they seemed to be trying to make the 6000 ft initial SID level by the end of the runway. Good point about the photo opportunities though.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

"Bromley, Hornchurch and Brookmans Park...." One Clipper didn't read it back so I asked him to do so: "Errr Brookpark Church Hill......" I never stopped laughing.

[chevvron]

"Bromley, Hornchurch and Brookmans Park...." One Clipper didn't read it back so I asked him to do so: "Errr Brookpark Church Hill......" I never stopped laughing.
Don't forget 'Saint Rumble'.



(= Strumble VOR.)

[Espada III]

I havent heard a 78 close up but I imagine with those monster fans, fancy cowlings and much improved attenuation technology they are pretty quiet on take off and do not need to climb out as steeply as possible for noise abatement. if thats the way of the world its abit of a shame because watching a nice light BA757 off to CDG was an impressive sight as they seemed to be trying to make the 6000 ft initial SID level by the end of the runway. Good point about the photo opportunities though.

I was once the only passenger on a late evening BA AIrbus 319 from MAN - LHR just after they had bought BMI. We taxied out behind two heavies going to the Middle East, but when they turned left for the beginning of the runway, we went straight on, turned right onto the runway about half-way down and were airborne within about five seconds. Phenomenal rate of climb as well.

[Groundloop]

Watched Concorde taking off from 27R once and as it the sound of it slowly (or very slowly!) faded into the distance the sound of about 60 car alarms going off in the Long Stay Car Park could be heard!

[Daysleeper]

Musket90: I realise the piano keys for 09R are irrelevant to a 27L departure. I was using them as an indication of how far down the runway this aircraft was getting off the ground. I have watched literally dozens of 787 departures on this runway, with more than a few this day. You get a feel for roughly where an aircraft is going to be so you can get the camera ready. The United flight took me by surprise at where he was when I took the photos. By contrast, an hour earlier the Qantas Perth bound 787 departed and that one was at approx the same height as the United but 300 yards before the piano keys, well before the end of the runway.
Not concerned, just surprised. As I said, no screaming school children & definitely no plummeting!
Cheers

You can always contact the CAA or AAIB. I understand a few departure performance mistakes / mis-loads have only been uncovered by concerns from the ground being followed up by relevant authorities.

That said a 787 mate of mine reckon an engine failure on 07L departure would pass over the M25 and reservoirs at a height both entirely legal and completely terrifying.

[DaveReidUK]

One giveaway indicating that a departure is being investigated for a height infringement is that its details have been suppressed on Heathrow's WebTrak system.

That's what happened with the infamous Jet Airways B77W departure in August 2016. It was initially shown on WebTrak, but subsequently it disappeared from the public system and failed to reappear within the 1-year window.

As of today, UA935 is still visible.

[KelvinD]

On the subject of late leaving the ground, this one caught my eye:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=26631)
It caught my eye for 2 reasons:
1. The line painted below the airline logo: "Viaje de Esperanza". I am not a Spanish speaker but doesn't this mean "Journey of Hope"?
If so, reason 2 might explain that.
2. The flight should have left the previous evening at around 22:40. The photo was taken at 14:06 the next day, making it 16 hours late leaving the ground!

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, but as the old saying goes "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive". :O

[DaveReidUK]

One giveaway indicating that a departure is being investigated for a height infringement is that its details have been suppressed on Heathrow's WebTrak system.

That's what happened with the infamous Jet Airways B77W departure in August 2016. It was initially shown on WebTrak, but subsequently it disappeared from the public system and failed to reappear within the 1-year window.

Final report on the Jet Airways incident just published: http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-JEK.pdf.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/615x311/vt_jek_37bdc52cf1d417c45216aa5a77d763636edd888a.jpg


Scary stuff.

[rog747]

our BMA midland baby dc-9's would depart from the runway 28R intersection opposite T1 A7 gate and could be at 3-4000' by the end of the runway
ATC loved us....fond memories

going to my car after Late's in the northside car park often would see in the late 70's/early 80's the late departures of SQ SAA and QF classic 747's all rather heavy and loaded using almost full length to the end -
these a/c were -200B PW variants so iirc could just do the longer hauls going East or South...not sure if SIN was non stop then or went via DXB and again not sure if BKK/SIN was non-stop then for QF deps

BA still had the early PW -100's and most of their departures going East or South were 'stoppers'
Their -236 RR Rollers came along soon though

[treadigraph]

BA still had the early PW -100's and most of their departures going East or South were 'stoppers'

Flew on a BOAC 747 to Nairobi in '71, pretty sure we stopped at Frankfurt for some reason.

[Dan Winterland]

Watched Concorde taking off from 27R once and as it the sound of it slowly (or very slowly!) faded into the distance the sound of about 60 car alarms going off in the Long Stay Car Park could be heard!

Concorde departures set off car alarms in the staff car park at the end of 27R on every departure. The car park staff used to have a nice little side-line in jump starting flat car batteries at a tenner a time. Mine went flat after a ten day trip. I purchased one of those solar plug in chargers after that.

[Dan Winterland]

One think to remember is that performance calculations take into account the loss of power on one engine at decision speed (V1). In a twin, you loose half the power whereas in a four jet, you only lose a quarter. For this reason, four jets can be less powerful and will consequently have flatter initial climbs on all engines. A good example of this is the A330/340-300. Essentially the same airframe except that the the 330 has 2 x 70,000lbs of thrust whereas the 340 has 4 x 30,000lbs of thrust. Despite having 20,000lbs less thrust, the 340 can lift about 35 tonnes more than the 330. Also, the point at which VR (rotate speed) will be reached is further down the runway.

However, it doesn't explain the OPs concern. Here's a link to a performance related incident. Incident: Jet Airways B773 at London on Aug 30th 2016, unsafe departure (http://avherald.com/h?article=49efab9c)

[DaveReidUK]

Here's a link to a performance related incident. Incident: Jet Airways B773 at London on Aug 30th 2016, unsafe departure (http://avherald.com/h?article=49efab9c)

Doh, see posts #25 and #28.

[Airbanda]

[QUOTE=rog747;10220726]

going to my car after Late's in the northside car park often would see in the late 70's/early 80's the late departures of SQ SAA and QF classic 747's all rather heavy and loaded using almost full length to the end -
these a/c were -200B PW variants so iirc could just do the longer hauls going East or South...not sure if SIN was non stop then or went via DXB and again not sure if BKK/SIN was non-stop then for QF deps/QUOTE]

IIRC long hauls from east in early eighties tended to show 'last stop Bombay' on the T3 arrivals board, but perhaps beyond the 100 series by then.

[rog747]

my PIA 747-200 flight home from a work stint in KHI for BMA was all stations stopper -

0730LT off KHI stopping at DXB FCO FRA AMS CDG (or ORY?) LHR a rather long day lol

on the way out it was DXB only