Essendon Runway 17 overrun area risks

[Centaurus]

The Australian newspaper 22 February 2019. Aviation section. Byron Bailey makes a good point about the lack of over-run at the end of Essendon Runway 17. He writes:

"In the US, airfields have Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for aircraft overruns in the runway safety area (RSA). Military aircraft have pop-up barrier systems to stop any fighter from a high speed abort. The thought of an overrun off runway 17, to 50 metres into a major highway - with an explosion of tonnes of jet fuel - does not bear thinking about."

Certainly not a pleasant thought. I don't know about other people, and heinous though it may be to the purists, but this scribe would seriously think of continuing a take off from 15 knots below VI rather than chance my arm at a high speed abort on that runway; particularly if it's wet. What say you?

[Trevor the lover]

I remember in a bizjet sim we took performance manual numbers and ran a high speed abort based on Esssendon runway 17. We picked the weights and temps that would have us right on a balanced field length. With the knowledge of what was coming, we aborted fractionally before V1 and we pulled up right at the end. Jut as the book predicted. But of course we knew it was coming and were all prepared. If it takes you by surprise, well one has to hope training overtakes and you react accordingly, otherwise you're parking in Niddrie and retiring to a small farm on the NSW coast.

[machtuk]

Every time I launch off 17 I become religious!:)

[Trevor the lover]

Allahu Akbar!

[Tankengine]

A balaced V1 is the max speed to have started the reject. To continue 15kts below V1 puts you in test pilot territory as to whether you climb away! I would rather go through the fence on the ground at ten knots than just about getting airborne at whatever speed that is for your aircraft!

[machtuk]

A balaced V1 is the max speed to have started the reject. To reject 15kts below V1 puts you in test pilot territory as to whether you climb away! I would rather go through the fence on the ground at ten knots than just about getting airborne at whatever speed that is for your aircraft!

No one is going to climb away anywhere after rejecting 15 kts Blw V1. That would be a good outcome!:-)

[Tankengine]

No one is going to climb away anywhere after rejecting 15 kts Blw V1. That would be a good outcome!:-)
You are correct, but are you going to climb away after continuing at V1-15?

thanks for the correction. :)

[harrryw]

If you are not doing a reduced thrust takeoff would V1 come at an earlier distance leaving more stopping distance Or is saving fuel better than safety?

[Trevor the lover]

Sure Harry, but that's what the airlines do. Always hated doing a flex takeoff in the 320 on 27 Melbourne and watching the end of the runway coming up as we accelerated slowly at reduced power. Yep, a full power takeoff is safer but costly. Hard to argue against though, because the figures show that at reduced thrust, and all the extra distance needed, an abort or a continue will both work.

[Tankengine]

If you are not doing a reduced thrust takeoff would V1 come at an earlier distance leaving more stopping distance Or is saving fuel better than safety?
Correct, full thrust will give you a V1 earlier on the runway with more room to stop - but- you now have a greater chance of engine failure, statistically. Airlines use that (small) chance and engine cost savings to refine their policies. The Captain still has final say.

[Centaurus]

Another save just announced.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=222341