Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Essendon Runway 17 overrun area risks

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Essendon Runway 17 overrun area risks

Old 24th Feb 2019, 14:07
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Essendon Runway 17 overrun area risks

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?
Centaurus is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 17:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 340
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2019, 09:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Every time I launch off 17 I become religious!
machtuk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 01:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 340
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Allahu Akbar!
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 06:10
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!

Last edited by Tankengine; 27th Feb 2019 at 07:28. Reason: machtuk saw my error!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 06:53
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tankengine
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!:-)
machtuk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 07:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by machtuk
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.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 09:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
harrryw is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 00:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 340
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 05:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 12:21
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Another save just announced.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=222341
Centaurus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.