Departing Saudia Cargo 747 'departs' runway
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, could well be true, probably similarly (or more) challenging, have no idea and wasn't out for a contest.
Was a bit annoyed by the armchair pilots criticizing a crew without having any idea and thinking that just cutting the power is enough to keep it on the runway
Was a bit annoyed by the armchair pilots criticizing a crew without having any idea and thinking that just cutting the power is enough to keep it on the runway
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That could be a possible complexifier...
Thrust levers back and up to the reverse idle detent is one way to ensure the autothrottles are disengaged during a low-speed reject. HOWEVER, if all 4 throttles are brought to full reverse, they can take you off the runway almost as quickly! Been there, done that in the sim...
Our training center has enforced several different routines over the past 20 years. Currently, they want to see thumb squarely on the autothrottle disconnect lever until the "80 knots, thrust set" call. Personally, that takes my other fingers higher up on the thrust levers, with an increased probability of my pinkie slipping off #4. That could be a REAL problem when #1 fails...
Thrust levers back and up to the reverse idle detent is one way to ensure the autothrottles are disengaged during a low-speed reject. HOWEVER, if all 4 throttles are brought to full reverse, they can take you off the runway almost as quickly! Been there, done that in the sim...
Our training center has enforced several different routines over the past 20 years. Currently, they want to see thumb squarely on the autothrottle disconnect lever until the "80 knots, thrust set" call. Personally, that takes my other fingers higher up on the thrust levers, with an increased probability of my pinkie slipping off #4. That could be a REAL problem when #1 fails...
Thread Starter
Everybody thanks for your interesting contributions.
Based on two images on the AvHerald page Incident: MyCargo B744 at Maastricht on Nov 11th 2017, runway excursion on takeoff for this incident, one by Jan Severijns with a shallow peaked-roof hangar in the background and beyond it a very conspicuous antenna tower, and the image by Jeroen Stroes on that same page with the very dark brown ‘Koninklijke Marechaussee - Brigade Limburg Zuid’ office building visible under the side view of the tailplane (with the elevator hinge line pointing to the office complex), as well as an earlier nighttime photo in which the GS antenna for runway 21 is visible in the foreground https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOY2K42W4AAJU03.jpg, my (plumb bob) finding on Google Earth is that the a/c heading is almost exactly 45 degrees veered to the right of the runway heading. And it looks as if the tail and the LH wingtip are still just over or just clear of the runway shoulder.
My resulting plot differs considerably (closer to the beginning of the runway) from Simon’s on AvHerald, but he came first, with a position, so he left the heading for me).
Been flying and seen flying close to runway edges more than once :-)
Based on two images on the AvHerald page Incident: MyCargo B744 at Maastricht on Nov 11th 2017, runway excursion on takeoff for this incident, one by Jan Severijns with a shallow peaked-roof hangar in the background and beyond it a very conspicuous antenna tower, and the image by Jeroen Stroes on that same page with the very dark brown ‘Koninklijke Marechaussee - Brigade Limburg Zuid’ office building visible under the side view of the tailplane (with the elevator hinge line pointing to the office complex), as well as an earlier nighttime photo in which the GS antenna for runway 21 is visible in the foreground https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOY2K42W4AAJU03.jpg, my (plumb bob) finding on Google Earth is that the a/c heading is almost exactly 45 degrees veered to the right of the runway heading. And it looks as if the tail and the LH wingtip are still just over or just clear of the runway shoulder.
My resulting plot differs considerably (closer to the beginning of the runway) from Simon’s on AvHerald, but he came first, with a position, so he left the heading for me).
Been flying and seen flying close to runway edges more than once :-)
I've flown both the 747 and the 380, and the low speed failure of an outboard engine will have you on the grass in seconds. Not an easy failure by any means.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
Back in my 747-200 Days we practiced numerous low speed engine failures as part of the 3 engine ferry simulator training. With 2 out on the same side things got interesting really fast when slow.
To Hell in a hand basket as the Yanks would say..
That Saudia 743 with its nose in the drain was not during take-off or landing. It was being taxied out of a engine run pen and IIRC they did not have hydraulics fully on line, hence no steering or brakes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to add, except what an FE told me as a new hire FO on the 747, 13 years ago: The nose wheel is basically there for decoration. All the weight is borne by the main gear, so they act like a pivot during low speed engine failure.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my 747 classic course in a previous century I was taught that the typical weight on the 747 nosewheels was between 5 and 12 tonnes. When the 747-400 came out they had considered moving it to have a bit more weight on it but that would have made it a new aircraft design and certification would have taken for ever.
So here's a question for you. if the designers wanted more weight on the nosewheel would they move it backwards or forwards? A lot of people think the answer is forwards....
So here's a question for you. if the designers wanted more weight on the nosewheel would they move it backwards or forwards? A lot of people think the answer is forwards....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider a simple [1] child's seesaw.
The balance point is the main gear axle, the nosewheel is balanced by the weight of the tail. Moving the nosewheel forward will give it more leverage and therefore lighter.
[1] The seesaw not the child.
The balance point is the main gear axle, the nosewheel is balanced by the weight of the tail. Moving the nosewheel forward will give it more leverage and therefore lighter.
[1] The seesaw not the child.
That Saudia 743 with its nose in the drain was not during take-off or landing. It was being taxied out of a engine run pen and IIRC they did not have hydraulics fully on line, hence no steering or brakes.
Yep, maintenance guy taxied it out of the gate with unqualified helper in FE seat.
Declined help of tech crew sitting in the upper deck.
Taxied at warp speed - without Hyd for brakes/steering.
Sad end to a great aircraft just out of overhaul AIO
Yep, maintenance guy taxied it out of the gate with unqualified helper in FE seat.
Declined help of tech crew sitting in the upper deck.
Taxied at warp speed - without Hyd for brakes/steering.
Sad end to a great aircraft just out of overhaul AIO
Now if you did move the nose-leg rearward you would indeed get a greater vertical load going through it, but at the same time you are increasing the sideways load from the assymetric engine thrust and so it would be more likely to skid sideways allowing the aircraft to yaw!
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Neither - either move the main undercarriage or redistribute the weight / CofG so that more weight is loaded onto the nosewheel.
Lots of current cars have stability control systems that automatically apply differential braking to prevent excessive "yaw." It doesn't seem like it would be technically difficult to install a version of that on an aircraft, perhaps set to be active only if there's an uncommanded thrust reduction on an outboard engine below 80 knots (or something like that). But I guess it's late in the 747 lifecycle.