PIA Manchester Scare.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF 747
Awesome !! Photographed at St Martin I believe, which is a mecca for rich aviation photographers. Notice the lack of sunbathers directly under the flightpath, sensible precaution I think ! Has the guy in the picture had his shorts blown off ?
Anyway back to the PIA photo, I stand corrected, not having noticed the centreline reflection on the belly. You are all in the wrong jobs you should be detectives.
The photo is one of a sequence I took, the next one in the sequence, taken a split second later, has no centreline reflection, so if not over the grass was still very close. Still a good shot regardless.
Cheers
Anyway back to the PIA photo, I stand corrected, not having noticed the centreline reflection on the belly. You are all in the wrong jobs you should be detectives.
The photo is one of a sequence I took, the next one in the sequence, taken a split second later, has no centreline reflection, so if not over the grass was still very close. Still a good shot regardless.
Cheers
Good spot gordinho.
Looking closer at the forward fuselage you can see a reflection of the runway itself, dark grey about the centreline and a bit of green at the edges.
Now for a bit of optics: The angle of reflection from a "flat" surface is equal on both sides -- say about 1 degree above horizontal to a fuselage inclined at 10 degrees; so about 11 degrees to and from the fuselage. To complete the optic triangle, lets postulate a downslope of 1 degree from the camera to the runway threshold which gives a triangle of 2 degrees at the camera (180 - 2 x 11) = 158 and finally 20 degrees at the runway
The triangle from the runway reflection straight down would yield a right triangle with an angle of about 70 degrees at the a/c. With a height of say 50 feet, the runway markings would be 50 x tan 70 = 50 x 2.74 ~= 135 behind the reflection. The wheels would be approx 100 feet closer to the runway and lower. This yields the wheels approx. 30 feet past the part of the runway shown in the reflection.
Note that the end of the runway does not show in the reflection.
Looking closer at the forward fuselage you can see a reflection of the runway itself, dark grey about the centreline and a bit of green at the edges.
Now for a bit of optics: The angle of reflection from a "flat" surface is equal on both sides -- say about 1 degree above horizontal to a fuselage inclined at 10 degrees; so about 11 degrees to and from the fuselage. To complete the optic triangle, lets postulate a downslope of 1 degree from the camera to the runway threshold which gives a triangle of 2 degrees at the camera (180 - 2 x 11) = 158 and finally 20 degrees at the runway
The triangle from the runway reflection straight down would yield a right triangle with an angle of about 70 degrees at the a/c. With a height of say 50 feet, the runway markings would be 50 x tan 70 = 50 x 2.74 ~= 135 behind the reflection. The wheels would be approx 100 feet closer to the runway and lower. This yields the wheels approx. 30 feet past the part of the runway shown in the reflection.
Note that the end of the runway does not show in the reflection.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lumbaland,
PIA have written off 2 A300's, one in Dubai and an earlier CFIT in 1992 near Kathmandu. They also came close to loosing another A300 in 2001 with a bulkhead failure at FL280.
PIA have written off 2 A300's, one in Dubai and an earlier CFIT in 1992 near Kathmandu. They also came close to loosing another A300 in 2001 with a bulkhead failure at FL280.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIA
Rather be flying
Very impressive, you obviously took notice of your physics teacher while I was busy making paper planes !
Thats what I love about this forum, you can always guarantee that someone will have an answer.
Very impressive, you obviously took notice of your physics teacher while I was busy making paper planes !
Thats what I love about this forum, you can always guarantee that someone will have an answer.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll probably be called stupid/misinformed (or worse) but if it came to a straight choice between PIA and a carrier such as BA on a particular flight, I know which one I would choose, and which one I woul feel safer (misplaced or not) travelling on.
Anti Skid On:
The AF 747 at St Maarten/St Martin is indeed pretty much on the glideslope. The runway is not overlong and the tarmac begins just the other side of the road.
Because of the bloody great hill in the middle of the island, it was usually more advantageous to take-off away from it with a tailwind and I have crossed the very same beach on take-off at a very similar height.
On one occasion two young ladies chose to ignore the warning signs and were walking right across the centreline as I rotated. I have often wondered if their bikini tops survived!
The AF 747 at St Maarten/St Martin is indeed pretty much on the glideslope. The runway is not overlong and the tarmac begins just the other side of the road.
Because of the bloody great hill in the middle of the island, it was usually more advantageous to take-off away from it with a tailwind and I have crossed the very same beach on take-off at a very similar height.
On one occasion two young ladies chose to ignore the warning signs and were walking right across the centreline as I rotated. I have often wondered if their bikini tops survived!
If you want to see performance limiting takeoffs in a classic you would enjoy EAL s departures out of bournemouth.Fully loaded bound for Barbados,how DO they get airborne off a runway less than 2000 m long
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully loaded bound for Barbados,how DO they get airborne off a runway less than 2000 m long
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIA Photo
The reason that the centreline markings are not reflected on the underside of the fuselage is because the reflection on the fuse' is the grass.The TDZ markings are in the background- the two large white blocks either side of the centreline.
The reason that the centreline markings are not reflected on the underside of the fuselage is because the reflection on the fuse' is the grass.The TDZ markings are in the background- the two large white blocks either side of the centreline.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes,Gordie,if it is the centreline.
It's just that the reflection of the "centreline" travels the length along the longtitudinal axis of the aircraft as though the aircraft was alligned perfectly with it,whereas the aircrafts true orientation (a la photograph) puts it 15-20 degrees right of actual centreline.
The reflection shows perfect centreline tracking. The photo shows the aircraft 'weathercocking' if you like, characteristic of a crosswind take off, with the fuselage axis diverging from the runway centreline axis. Not an uncommon phenomenon at MAN.
But those touchdown zone markings DO look a long way behind the point where the aircraft "looks to have rotated"
If he rotated AT the TDZ markings at a Vr of about 160kts, he'll be travelling at about 180mph....that's 3 miles per minute...(cogs whirring away merrilly)....a mile every 20 secs....1500 metres per mile....TDZ markings...300m from threshold...by my "TLAR" calcs. He would have about 4-5 secs from hearing the "Rotate" call to getting airborne. That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data.
I would like to see the end of the runway, the markings and know exactly how close the upslope, in the foreground, is to the end of the runway, because it's obscuring the ALS for starters. Does anybody know for sure if it's 24L?
I'm operating into MAN three times this month so I'd like to know where I should be looking.
Cheers!
It's just that the reflection of the "centreline" travels the length along the longtitudinal axis of the aircraft as though the aircraft was alligned perfectly with it,whereas the aircrafts true orientation (a la photograph) puts it 15-20 degrees right of actual centreline.
The reflection shows perfect centreline tracking. The photo shows the aircraft 'weathercocking' if you like, characteristic of a crosswind take off, with the fuselage axis diverging from the runway centreline axis. Not an uncommon phenomenon at MAN.
But those touchdown zone markings DO look a long way behind the point where the aircraft "looks to have rotated"
If he rotated AT the TDZ markings at a Vr of about 160kts, he'll be travelling at about 180mph....that's 3 miles per minute...(cogs whirring away merrilly)....a mile every 20 secs....1500 metres per mile....TDZ markings...300m from threshold...by my "TLAR" calcs. He would have about 4-5 secs from hearing the "Rotate" call to getting airborne. That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data.
I would like to see the end of the runway, the markings and know exactly how close the upslope, in the foreground, is to the end of the runway, because it's obscuring the ALS for starters. Does anybody know for sure if it's 24L?
I'm operating into MAN three times this month so I'd like to know where I should be looking.
Cheers!
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's most certainly 24L. The mounds of earth (that are soon to be become the new viewing park supposedly) are clearly visible on the right hand side of the frame as is the R2 fire station.
Of course, there is also no sign of any crossing taxiways, the aircraft at the rear of the shot is holding at T1. Also, the "bump" on 24R/06L is much much more pronounced.
Of course, there is also no sign of any crossing taxiways, the aircraft at the rear of the shot is holding at T1. Also, the "bump" on 24R/06L is much much more pronounced.
Last edited by bagpuss lives; 9th Sep 2003 at 12:12.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious...
<<That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data>>
Do you, or have you, regularly operated 4 Engine Transports right on field length limiting conditions?
Unless you have, the picture may surprise you. If you have, it will not...
As an aside, I have, for a UK operator. The proximity of the "end" at "V1", "Rotate" and actually getting airborne never ceased to amaze me. So I find the picture pretty undramatic, once allowance is made for some missing ground from the picture (TDZ -> Threshold) and the effect of a telephoto lens.
NoD
<<That's pretty close,I wonder if the CAA ever check PIA's perf. data>>
Do you, or have you, regularly operated 4 Engine Transports right on field length limiting conditions?
Unless you have, the picture may surprise you. If you have, it will not...
As an aside, I have, for a UK operator. The proximity of the "end" at "V1", "Rotate" and actually getting airborne never ceased to amaze me. So I find the picture pretty undramatic, once allowance is made for some missing ground from the picture (TDZ -> Threshold) and the effect of a telephoto lens.
NoD
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently in that picture the crew were debating whether to abort the take off run or not.
After a few seconds the PF remembered where he was and thought "Phúcket : let's go!!"
After a few seconds the PF remembered where he was and thought "Phúcket : let's go!!"
