V1 and Vr

[Speedbird744]

On the takeoff roll, if V1 is say 148 kts and Vr is also 148 kts, at this critical stage when would you annouce Vr to the flying pilot if the two v-speeds were the same?

[Fokker-Jock]

Easy!

Right after you say V1.

Even though this take-off may not be balanced, in our company we always call v1 before rotate no matter how close they are. The v1 call is mandatory even if it's the same speed as Vr, so our call is then at v1/vr= 148 ex.: "V1 rotate".

Pretty simple!

[Speedbird744]

Ah ok
Thanks for that!!

[towser]

In theory yes but if this was the case then at V1 you would already be airborne and therefore not interested in stopping on the runway which of course is what V1 is all about. Hence no point in V1 being greater than Vr so usual call is' V1 rotate'.

[john_tullamarine]

I flew for many years with an operator whose practice in this circumstance was merely to call "rotate". That worked fine.

Really, it doesn't matter all that much ... PF should be monitoring his/her own ASI with PNF's calls being only a backup ... mind you, it is often interesting in sim exercises to get PNF NOT to call .. and then see the extent to which PF is asleep on the job ...

[mustafagander]

To omit the call V1 would be bad training and possibly introduce some confusion if a problem arises right then.

To me, and I believe many of us, V1 triggers a lot of mental responses.

[Denti]

In our company it's SOP to call out "Rotate" if V1 and Vr within 3 kts (which is the case in 99.9%). If i call out V1 at V1 (which is in most cases identical to Vr) then i would rotate at least 10 kts late. We're flying B733s only, until mid of august all of them are equipped with the 22k engines, don't know about the ex-SABENA-aircrafts though.

[Fokker-Jock]

The value of V1 can never be lower than Vmcg or higher than Vr, so the V1 call must come before the Vr call nomatter what, unless some companies SOP's choose to ommit the V1 call when V1 and Vr are close.

I totally agree with Mustafagander that the call "V1" does infact trigger alot of mental responses. At V1 the PIC or CMD takes his hands away from the throttle levers, so that if something happends after V1, the automatic reaction of pulling back the throttle is limited.

Bodstrup: Aborting the take-off reaching V1 when airborne ??
Come on, where have you taken your pilot's license ? Perhaps in a twin-otter without PAX on a long RWY. But this is then a PIC choice and evaluation at the time, but can never be the case stated in some SOP's. And should never be the case when flying with PAX.

Edited:
Oh Sorry Bodstrup, didn't catch the last line in your post there.

[Techman]

Denti

The 'Vee One' call should be completed just when reaching V1 and not begun at V1. Otherwise you would be above V1 when you have completed your call.

Bodstrup

Check your messages.

[Denti]

Techman, i know that. But even if you manage to complete the "vee one" call at V1 than you have to call out "Vr" next. Given a normal reaction time you will end at least 10-20kts above Vr if V1 equals Vr. In my opinion it makes sense to replace "vee one" by "rotate" if both values are very close or identical. The actions and decisions normally triggered by "vee one" will then be started by "rotate", but thats it.

[Fokker-Jock]

At what time should an engine failiure necessitate a straight ahead landing ?

The certification requirement of any twin engine aircraft is to documentate a single engine climb performance of at least 1,2 % up to 1500 feet or end of 2. segment climb.

However I may be reffering to FAR1.25 A/C's here. So if I'm wrong, please have me excused.

If this has been demonstratet and documented, and the aircraft has been certified according to FAR then the PIC has not done his take-off calculations right if it is necessary to perform a straight ahead landing after failiure of the critical engine because of poor climb performance.

[john_tullamarine]

.... other than for a minor typo .... may I concur with BIK's final paragraph's message .... ?