multi engine t/o safety brief- your views
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a good takeoff brief is one which is easy to comit to memory.After haveing to use it not long ago in a 402 ,I was queite surprised after parking the A/C that I didnt remember doing anything but when iI look around the A/C I found all the switches and levers in the right spot after the shut down.I think it came naturally from learning a simple but precise take off brief.
Happy Days
Happy Days
Spotlight
Not sure if I am reading your post correctly.
Has your engine failed by this point? (you don't actually state where it fails). If not, then there is NO POINT accelerating to blue line for reasons you correctly attribute later
.
As has been discussed in many other threads, accelerate to and maintain your ME BROC for the day (will vary with Dalt) then if one fails, let the speed wash off to your Vyse for the day. To do anything else turns your precious energy into parasite drag, not height!
CS
Once airborne, positive rate of climb and insufficient runway to land ahead raise the gear and accelerate to blue line.
There is nothing to be gained by excess speed at this stage
As has been discussed in many other threads, accelerate to and maintain your ME BROC for the day (will vary with Dalt) then if one fails, let the speed wash off to your Vyse for the day. To do anything else turns your precious energy into parasite drag, not height!
CS
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eeerm: OR which side of the radio tower/building or whether you can get under HT powerlines/bridge span etc. etc. etc. and where are the least worst spaces within several kms down the extended TO centerline.
Lets see maybe net 120fpm at say 50 ft AGL @ 100KIAS/ 90KTS GS = 1.5nm/min
500ft-50ft/120 fpm = 3.75minutes x 1.5nm = 5.625nm = say 10 kms before you can even think about turning and maybe maintaining ht.
Q; what is the maximum bank angle you could tolerate and maintain height with a net 120fpm climb rate available to you.?
Lets see maybe net 120fpm at say 50 ft AGL @ 100KIAS/ 90KTS GS = 1.5nm/min
500ft-50ft/120 fpm = 3.75minutes x 1.5nm = 5.625nm = say 10 kms before you can even think about turning and maybe maintaining ht.
Q; what is the maximum bank angle you could tolerate and maintain height with a net 120fpm climb rate available to you.?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotlight - I was probably not clear enough in what I was trying to say - let me elaborate.
What I should have written (if the tribesmen kept quiet outside the cave) was that in my experience in type converting qualified twin drivers is that MANY use the decision to go when wheels are up regardless of airspeed ie gear up=go. As agreed, if not already at blue line, accelerating in climb, or in level flight in a light twin can be impossible under most conditions.
That's a pretty basic error that is either the result of a misunderstanding of the first principles of flight with asymmetric power, or having been taught incorrectly in the first place, and that misconception is carried forward into their career as a 'rote' procedure. Hence the reference to 'voodoo' just like the many myths involved in leaning etc etc (but that's another 3000 page topic!)
I'm not so sure that it will be possible to fly in ground effect to a suitable point without collision with some kind of obstacle (tree, tower, fence, tall native etc) but am interested to hear of something that might help (!)
Another point to add to Takeoff safety briefing is the inclusion of a IAS factor above blue line to allow for pilot recognition and reaction time. It doesn't take much time to lose 5 or 10 kts in a climb with a windmilling prop, so I believe that a reasonable factor could be (for inexperienced or new ME pilots) Vyse +10, and for more experienced ME pilots maybe Vyse +5 or something along those lines.
Now, I qualify all that I have said with the following point. Whilst it is of the utmost importance to have a plan of action in the case of an emergency, the pilot must retain the FLEXIBILITY to assess the actual event and circumstance and be prepared to act decisively to change that plan (if required) to suit what will be a dynamically changing environment to ensure the best possible outcome.
What I should have written (if the tribesmen kept quiet outside the cave) was that in my experience in type converting qualified twin drivers is that MANY use the decision to go when wheels are up regardless of airspeed ie gear up=go. As agreed, if not already at blue line, accelerating in climb, or in level flight in a light twin can be impossible under most conditions.
That's a pretty basic error that is either the result of a misunderstanding of the first principles of flight with asymmetric power, or having been taught incorrectly in the first place, and that misconception is carried forward into their career as a 'rote' procedure. Hence the reference to 'voodoo' just like the many myths involved in leaning etc etc (but that's another 3000 page topic!)
I'm not so sure that it will be possible to fly in ground effect to a suitable point without collision with some kind of obstacle (tree, tower, fence, tall native etc) but am interested to hear of something that might help (!)
Another point to add to Takeoff safety briefing is the inclusion of a IAS factor above blue line to allow for pilot recognition and reaction time. It doesn't take much time to lose 5 or 10 kts in a climb with a windmilling prop, so I believe that a reasonable factor could be (for inexperienced or new ME pilots) Vyse +10, and for more experienced ME pilots maybe Vyse +5 or something along those lines.
Now, I qualify all that I have said with the following point. Whilst it is of the utmost importance to have a plan of action in the case of an emergency, the pilot must retain the FLEXIBILITY to assess the actual event and circumstance and be prepared to act decisively to change that plan (if required) to suit what will be a dynamically changing environment to ensure the best possible outcome.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I grant that it is difficult to generalise about speeds, being that different types have different numbers. The reason I advocate the blue-line speed is that it is marked on every ASI and the best single engine speed will be somewhere close to it. Calculating & flying the the best twin engine rate of climb speed brings up some interesting points. In piston twin fleets it is unusual to have TOLD cards, airspeed bugs or tabulated data. All conducive to the pilot doing this on a multi-sector day in a Queenair in the bush with loads coming off and going on
In some cases it may not even be needed. The C404 for example has the best twin engine rate of climb speed 1 & 2 knots slower than the best single engine rate of climb speed through the whole range from 91 to 109kts.
Col Kurtz, I agree with all you say, it is all valid and thought provoking. And I do agree that Blue-line + 10 is a good safety factor.
In some cases it may not even be needed. The C404 for example has the best twin engine rate of climb speed 1 & 2 knots slower than the best single engine rate of climb speed through the whole range from 91 to 109kts.
Col Kurtz, I agree with all you say, it is all valid and thought provoking. And I do agree that Blue-line + 10 is a good safety factor.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ibex.
No it wasnt a typo, the point I was making is that at that weight the rotate speed is quite low. 78 kts to be precise. Whilst the flap and gear are coming up the short strip is rapidly disappearing and you are in an unenviable situation until the speed builds up.
No it wasnt a typo, the point I was making is that at that weight the rotate speed is quite low. 78 kts to be precise. Whilst the flap and gear are coming up the short strip is rapidly disappearing and you are in an unenviable situation until the speed builds up.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: auckland
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah bro it goes soemthing like this
"Engine failure before V1/Vr....... Cool don't have to explain to the cops about the dope in my house"
"Engine failure above V1/Vr..... ****, panic...... did I hide the dope before I came to work....(Mental note if I survive.... hide it).....otherwise...... car kitty ano"
"Engine failure above V1/Vr and OCH..... phew.. might survive... fuel thing forward..... blue poggo stick forward and the red pill forward"
If the fan thingies on the wing are still going then I'll shout the boys a bong tonight.
Apart from that what else do you need to know?
"Engine failure before V1/Vr....... Cool don't have to explain to the cops about the dope in my house"
"Engine failure above V1/Vr..... ****, panic...... did I hide the dope before I came to work....(Mental note if I survive.... hide it).....otherwise...... car kitty ano"
"Engine failure above V1/Vr and OCH..... phew.. might survive... fuel thing forward..... blue poggo stick forward and the red pill forward"
If the fan thingies on the wing are still going then I'll shout the boys a bong tonight.
Apart from that what else do you need to know?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am concerned by the naievity and optimism displayed by many here over light twin and pilot performance in the critical takeoff phase between liftoff and reaching blueline and about 100 feet altitude....
FAA Part 23 airplanes are not required to have any engine out takeoff performance. You will find the POH single engine climb gradient was demonstrated by an expecting, test pilot in new polished machine in calm air with the gear and flaps already up, prop already feathered, etc, etc...If you are unlucky to lose an engine in this critical phase without decreasing or very flat barren terrain, and you are not yet at 100 feet with the gear up, you are probably going to crash. Its all too easy to stall out or lose control attempting something that is unlikely.
FAA Part 23 airplanes are not required to have any engine out takeoff performance. You will find the POH single engine climb gradient was demonstrated by an expecting, test pilot in new polished machine in calm air with the gear and flaps already up, prop already feathered, etc, etc...If you are unlucky to lose an engine in this critical phase without decreasing or very flat barren terrain, and you are not yet at 100 feet with the gear up, you are probably going to crash. Its all too easy to stall out or lose control attempting something that is unlikely.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Winstun! Im impressed when I saw your post I though it was going to be Winstun's TOTAL TRIPE POST No. 191. But it sounds as though youve been reading. What you say is correct. Also to add to this in Australia anyway these aircraft are required to maintain an altitude of 5000ft on one engine. Now I still cant understand where this comes from or where. I have to do somemore reading.
To add to what Winstun has outline. The only reall Training any Pilot Gets in assymetric at MTOW, are the airline guy in Flight Simulators. All the training weve had is at light weights and sometimes choice or non choice conditions. High Temperatures and density altitudes.
Flying a Twin Otter at Max weight on a Hot day 40c youll probabaly manage around 500FPM climb out . What on earth on a one donk..................You and me ask?
Some Twotter Captains out there can tell what happens, I havent experienced it myself yet touch wood say.
Thats why monitoring your performance in an emergency situation as assymetric is paramount. Gravity allways wins!
You just have to make it livable until touch down. You cant go out with a preconcieved idea that you will perform. You must keep thinking outside the box, keep replanning as you go. If Negative performance is all you have left.
PERFORMANCE AND GETTING IT IS YOUR ONLY AIM IN ASSYMETRIC FAILURE. When all else fails and youve got none, then your plan changes.
It has been said that some people in these situations perservere mindlessly and then lose control.
Somtimes this can be too late. So planning and thinking ahead, drilling yourself and. identlifying problems or obstacles that may hamper recovery is important. Try to allways put yourself ahead of the game. Being complacent and not using all the runway, as much fuel as practicable, and crusie as high as practicable, will all give some potential to turn a horrible situation into maybe something catastrophic.
Food for thought
Sheepy
To add to what Winstun has outline. The only reall Training any Pilot Gets in assymetric at MTOW, are the airline guy in Flight Simulators. All the training weve had is at light weights and sometimes choice or non choice conditions. High Temperatures and density altitudes.
Flying a Twin Otter at Max weight on a Hot day 40c youll probabaly manage around 500FPM climb out . What on earth on a one donk..................You and me ask?
Some Twotter Captains out there can tell what happens, I havent experienced it myself yet touch wood say.
Thats why monitoring your performance in an emergency situation as assymetric is paramount. Gravity allways wins!
You just have to make it livable until touch down. You cant go out with a preconcieved idea that you will perform. You must keep thinking outside the box, keep replanning as you go. If Negative performance is all you have left.
PERFORMANCE AND GETTING IT IS YOUR ONLY AIM IN ASSYMETRIC FAILURE. When all else fails and youve got none, then your plan changes.
It has been said that some people in these situations perservere mindlessly and then lose control.
Somtimes this can be too late. So planning and thinking ahead, drilling yourself and. identlifying problems or obstacles that may hamper recovery is important. Try to allways put yourself ahead of the game. Being complacent and not using all the runway, as much fuel as practicable, and crusie as high as practicable, will all give some potential to turn a horrible situation into maybe something catastrophic.
Food for thought
Sheepy
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's take this around the corner a little bit...
Someone earlier had remarked that 'all aircraft have a coffin corner' or words to that effect. In the bugsmasher,the one that relates to this discussion is the point after rotation until Vyse is achieved.
What kind of segments do ME pilots use after rotation in order to minimise the risk of EFATO and at low level??
My belief is that after rotation, the aircraft should be cleaned up and accelerated through Vyse as soon as possible, runway remaining or not! If you ever end up with enough runway to land back down on (ever really considered how much runway is ACTUALLY needed to liftoff to 50' then descend to land???? Try plotting TORR chart to 50' then a LDR from 50' chart and see!) In reality, how many seconds does it really take for undercarriage to deploy in a light twin? Not sure? Time it next time you're out flying (but keep an eye on things!!!)
Next phase is to climb at Max rate (or max angle if obstacles are a problem) to get altitude asap that may be needed to trade for time or performance in the event of an engine failure. Height buys time and opens up your options.
Once at a safe height, then another climb segment can be initiated either BROC or a CRZ climb as desired and you're on your way, until your engine fails in flight(!) Less critical unless you're in the worng (LSALT) place on the wrong day. Luckily, Australia doesn't have a huge amount of high LSALT's like the US and Europe.
Winstuns points are very valid (and I don't just say that cause I'm one of his fans!). An instructor of mine had told me to consider the Light piston twin as an aircraft fitted with one V8 engine - split into two parts.
Sheeps guts mentioned the fact that there is a requirememnt to maintain 5000'. That comes from CAO 20.7.4.
The ME aircraft in private ops needs to be able to maintain 5000' in the ISA. IFR ME aircraft are required to be able to CLIMB at 1% to 5000' in the ISA. That usually means a reduction in TOW in order to achieve that.
Now, how many people REALLY comply with that??
One of the most important things to consider and to forever keep in the fore of your mind flying this category of aircraft is that the twin can provide an extra margin of safety with the POSSIBILITY of continued flight on one engine - it's not a certainty- but the conditions have to be right and the pilot has to do EVERYTHING right!! When an engine failure occurs, the pilot is faced with more considerations and decisions to make than to simply pick a field and land as you would in a single (even though this could be the best decision to make under some circumstances in a twin).
It can often be a losing battle to keep the plane flying, and as Winnie & Sheep Guts mentioned, perservering into keeping the plane in the air at all costs will usually result in a Vmca induced loss of control event - hence the saying that the good engine usually gets the plane to the scene of the accident.
Still, all things considered, in my opinion the twin is a safer machine than the single - but it's got to be flown by a current and competent pilot who is well aware of the limitations of these machines and operates it accordingly.
Now putting on my old flak jacket......
What kind of segments do ME pilots use after rotation in order to minimise the risk of EFATO and at low level??
My belief is that after rotation, the aircraft should be cleaned up and accelerated through Vyse as soon as possible, runway remaining or not! If you ever end up with enough runway to land back down on (ever really considered how much runway is ACTUALLY needed to liftoff to 50' then descend to land???? Try plotting TORR chart to 50' then a LDR from 50' chart and see!) In reality, how many seconds does it really take for undercarriage to deploy in a light twin? Not sure? Time it next time you're out flying (but keep an eye on things!!!)
Next phase is to climb at Max rate (or max angle if obstacles are a problem) to get altitude asap that may be needed to trade for time or performance in the event of an engine failure. Height buys time and opens up your options.
Once at a safe height, then another climb segment can be initiated either BROC or a CRZ climb as desired and you're on your way, until your engine fails in flight(!) Less critical unless you're in the worng (LSALT) place on the wrong day. Luckily, Australia doesn't have a huge amount of high LSALT's like the US and Europe.
Winstuns points are very valid (and I don't just say that cause I'm one of his fans!). An instructor of mine had told me to consider the Light piston twin as an aircraft fitted with one V8 engine - split into two parts.
Sheeps guts mentioned the fact that there is a requirememnt to maintain 5000'. That comes from CAO 20.7.4.
The ME aircraft in private ops needs to be able to maintain 5000' in the ISA. IFR ME aircraft are required to be able to CLIMB at 1% to 5000' in the ISA. That usually means a reduction in TOW in order to achieve that.
Now, how many people REALLY comply with that??
One of the most important things to consider and to forever keep in the fore of your mind flying this category of aircraft is that the twin can provide an extra margin of safety with the POSSIBILITY of continued flight on one engine - it's not a certainty- but the conditions have to be right and the pilot has to do EVERYTHING right!! When an engine failure occurs, the pilot is faced with more considerations and decisions to make than to simply pick a field and land as you would in a single (even though this could be the best decision to make under some circumstances in a twin).
It can often be a losing battle to keep the plane flying, and as Winnie & Sheep Guts mentioned, perservering into keeping the plane in the air at all costs will usually result in a Vmca induced loss of control event - hence the saying that the good engine usually gets the plane to the scene of the accident.
Still, all things considered, in my opinion the twin is a safer machine than the single - but it's got to be flown by a current and competent pilot who is well aware of the limitations of these machines and operates it accordingly.
Now putting on my old flak jacket......
Look - a mulberry bush!
Col Secreted in your cambodian jungle hidout you've got it pretty much right.
1. Get airborne at the manufacturer's recomended speed (which varies at diff weights etc). Wheels up as soon as safe, flaps thereafter, irrespective of runway length.
2. Accelerate to Vy (or Vx - rare)
3. Once at circuit height in day VMC or LSALT IMC/night, cruise climb speeds.
As I said earlier, to do anything else wastes energy.
Even if you DID comply, it ain't much help on a 40 degree humid day if you can climb at 15degreesC.
AND 1% at say Vyse at 106 knots is about 107fpm.
Refer what Gaunty says above.
CS
Hey Gaunty - struggling with the maths at the moment after a few to many Boags last night, but getting there. Got a feeling around 9 degrees, but just trying to force some equations together. Need a bigger hammer methinks!
1. Get airborne at the manufacturer's recomended speed (which varies at diff weights etc). Wheels up as soon as safe, flaps thereafter, irrespective of runway length.
2. Accelerate to Vy (or Vx - rare)
3. Once at circuit height in day VMC or LSALT IMC/night, cruise climb speeds.
As I said earlier, to do anything else wastes energy.
IFR ME aircraft are required to be able to CLIMB at 1% to 5000' in the ISA. That usually means a reduction in TOW in order to achieve that. Now, how many people REALLY comply with that??
AND 1% at say Vyse at 106 knots is about 107fpm.
Refer what Gaunty says above.CS
Hey Gaunty - struggling with the maths at the moment after a few to many Boags last night, but getting there. Got a feeling around 9 degrees, but just trying to force some equations together. Need a bigger hammer methinks!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only caveat I would add to the above is that off a super long runway delaying gear retraction momentarily can give another option in one of those situations (more common than not I think) where there is some confusion as to whats wrong. A door going or a locker, with the possibility of luggage striking the prop or airframe, not getting full power on one or not happy with an indication. A fire bell going off!
Or possibly at MTOW one stops at 50' and you really don't fancy your luck that day.
As the Col mentions you are certainly going to eat up runway on the abort, therefore having the wheels down, all that is required is a quick chop of the throttles and full flap.
Alice springs to mind. As a matter of fact I saw it done there although it did take a hammer and chisel to deweld the brakes.
Or possibly at MTOW one stops at 50' and you really don't fancy your luck that day.
As the Col mentions you are certainly going to eat up runway on the abort, therefore having the wheels down, all that is required is a quick chop of the throttles and full flap.
Alice springs to mind. As a matter of fact I saw it done there although it did take a hammer and chisel to deweld the brakes.
Last edited by Spotlight; 9th Sep 2003 at 12:28.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True GUYS
But when your going down your going down so planning your take off with as much clearway or less obstacles should allways be your choice. At Darwin for instancet everyone does an intersection departure at Bravo ( half length). What would the CASA investigator or Insurance underwriter have to say about that after a late abort?
Sheep
But when your going down your going down so planning your take off with as much clearway or less obstacles should allways be your choice. At Darwin for instancet everyone does an intersection departure at Bravo ( half length). What would the CASA investigator or Insurance underwriter have to say about that after a late abort?
Sheep
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheep Guts
Spot on.
I don't subscribe to the "on a long runway leave the gear down for a landing back on" theory, because it is just that.
There is no data for that eventuality and you are way out there on your own in the same manner as Sheep suggests, with the lawyers and investigators.
Use all the available runway, normal TO technique and as Sheep says, if it all goes pear shaped you have more "clearway and less obstacles" in which to get your act together, if indeed that is possible.
Make a clear decision about your go/no go decision speed on the ground, trying to work it out in the air will have truly inevitable consequences.
Intersection take offs are available and safe for transport category aircraft because the EFATO case has been taken care of in the calculations. An engine failure after V1 is simply noted and the TO continued according to the calculated speeds and you will eventually get around.
The best you can do in a non transport cat twin is use the POH to calculate an accelerate go/stop distance using the "Engine Faulure" speed provided therein. In most cases except at international or very long airports the "go case" to 50 ft obstacle is rarely available.
Darwin for most twins will be 3800m or more, with a gradient thereafter of maybe 1.8%.
So have a think about your next "intersection departure request or offer", it's OK for the big kids aircraft, but not cool unless you are actually in one.
Spot on.
I don't subscribe to the "on a long runway leave the gear down for a landing back on" theory, because it is just that.
There is no data for that eventuality and you are way out there on your own in the same manner as Sheep suggests, with the lawyers and investigators.
Use all the available runway, normal TO technique and as Sheep says, if it all goes pear shaped you have more "clearway and less obstacles" in which to get your act together, if indeed that is possible.
Make a clear decision about your go/no go decision speed on the ground, trying to work it out in the air will have truly inevitable consequences.
Intersection take offs are available and safe for transport category aircraft because the EFATO case has been taken care of in the calculations. An engine failure after V1 is simply noted and the TO continued according to the calculated speeds and you will eventually get around.
The best you can do in a non transport cat twin is use the POH to calculate an accelerate go/stop distance using the "Engine Faulure" speed provided therein. In most cases except at international or very long airports the "go case" to 50 ft obstacle is rarely available.
Darwin for most twins will be 3800m or more, with a gradient thereafter of maybe 1.8%.
So have a think about your next "intersection departure request or offer", it's OK for the big kids aircraft, but not cool unless you are actually in one.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, with all due respect I think I will keep my own counsel about the gear.
From Mr Cessna's 404 Flight Manual:
'On long runways, the landing gear should be retracted at the point over the runway where a wheels down forced landing on that runway would become impracticable'. Perhaps the lawyers will not spot this in your mans case.
The 404 at gross weight on a 30deg day at Alice Springs has a take-off run to 50ft of 954m. On the same day at gross weight it has a landing distance over a 50' obstacle of 695m (Ground Roll 381m).
Total 1649m. Alice Rwy 12 is 2438m. The difference is 789m..
Note that this is predicated on nil wind. (decrease T/o Dist 7% for each 10kts of headwind & decrease landing dist 3% for each 4kts of headwind.
Neither does it take into account the stopway.
Darwin I gather has an even longer runway and is sea level.
Now this is a reasonably heavy aircraft in piston terms. I would hazard a guess that a 310, Baron etc would provide an even greater margin.
Would anyone like to run the figures on a Seminole out of Adelaide in winter with 2 pob, 2hrs fuel and a 20kt headwind component.
From Mr Cessna's 404 Flight Manual:
'On long runways, the landing gear should be retracted at the point over the runway where a wheels down forced landing on that runway would become impracticable'. Perhaps the lawyers will not spot this in your mans case.
The 404 at gross weight on a 30deg day at Alice Springs has a take-off run to 50ft of 954m. On the same day at gross weight it has a landing distance over a 50' obstacle of 695m (Ground Roll 381m).
Total 1649m. Alice Rwy 12 is 2438m. The difference is 789m..
Note that this is predicated on nil wind. (decrease T/o Dist 7% for each 10kts of headwind & decrease landing dist 3% for each 4kts of headwind.
Neither does it take into account the stopway.
Darwin I gather has an even longer runway and is sea level.
Now this is a reasonably heavy aircraft in piston terms. I would hazard a guess that a 310, Baron etc would provide an even greater margin.
Would anyone like to run the figures on a Seminole out of Adelaide in winter with 2 pob, 2hrs fuel and a 20kt headwind component.
Last edited by Spotlight; 10th Sep 2003 at 18:19.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ibex
When writing the example you quote I was thinking of a particular situation. You will note I said 'dirt strip'. The connotations of that being; soft, no clearway, tree's at the end, stinking hot day etc, hence the book rotate figure. Then nowhere to go until the aircraft is cleaned up.
At 3800kg off a thousand metres, even at isa the 404 will not go anywhere near to meeting Accelerate Stop or Accelerate Go Distances.
At 2800kg, yeah you can do it.
When writing the example you quote I was thinking of a particular situation. You will note I said 'dirt strip'. The connotations of that being; soft, no clearway, tree's at the end, stinking hot day etc, hence the book rotate figure. Then nowhere to go until the aircraft is cleaned up.
At 3800kg off a thousand metres, even at isa the 404 will not go anywhere near to meeting Accelerate Stop or Accelerate Go Distances.
At 2800kg, yeah you can do it.
Last edited by Spotlight; 10th Sep 2003 at 23:09.