Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Siófok
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I know that my theory is probably flawed, I would like to hear a few oppinions about it.
To me, accidents like this seems to be extremely rare events, and it is rare to see them happen without any "warnings". Mostly because comercial aircrafts are built with enough fault tolerance to be safe in most cases, and it is very rare to see different problems happen on same time. Incidents, serious incidents, etc. seems to be quite more frequent. Sadly when you deal with many incidents, you can't be sure that in 100% of the cases you will do the best to prevent a more serious event.
This is why I think any incident before the accident should be considered, even if we just try to take educated guesses. The limited amount of time spent with disabling the heating device for RAT probe is barelyenough for the paperwork, so it is safe to assume: Noone knows for sure what kind of malfunction(s) triggered the first warning. And noone was sure about the potential consequences.
IF we deal with an unknown electrical or computer related problem, that would mean: It is possible to have other system affected by the failure. Since people experienced with MD aircraft suggested it can be enough to affect takeoff condition warning. If I interpret what was said / what information could be found, I would also think in some cases it can affect the thrust generated, and in case of short circuits, some more serious Air Data Computer or DFGC related problems it could have other kinds of effects.
I think these problems can lead to less than expected thrust or wrong takeoff configuration, and this can lead to a stall when the plane would leave ground effect. And the rest was explained.
To me, accidents like this seems to be extremely rare events, and it is rare to see them happen without any "warnings". Mostly because comercial aircrafts are built with enough fault tolerance to be safe in most cases, and it is very rare to see different problems happen on same time. Incidents, serious incidents, etc. seems to be quite more frequent. Sadly when you deal with many incidents, you can't be sure that in 100% of the cases you will do the best to prevent a more serious event.
This is why I think any incident before the accident should be considered, even if we just try to take educated guesses. The limited amount of time spent with disabling the heating device for RAT probe is barelyenough for the paperwork, so it is safe to assume: Noone knows for sure what kind of malfunction(s) triggered the first warning. And noone was sure about the potential consequences.
IF we deal with an unknown electrical or computer related problem, that would mean: It is possible to have other system affected by the failure. Since people experienced with MD aircraft suggested it can be enough to affect takeoff condition warning. If I interpret what was said / what information could be found, I would also think in some cases it can affect the thrust generated, and in case of short circuits, some more serious Air Data Computer or DFGC related problems it could have other kinds of effects.
I think these problems can lead to less than expected thrust or wrong takeoff configuration, and this can lead to a stall when the plane would leave ground effect. And the rest was explained.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, Devon U.K.
Age: 90
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to mention a flight I remember from long ago as a First Officer on Vanguards...We arrived from somewhere at Madrid, Barajas to proceed onward to Heathrow. It was night and hot. The ground engineer was a bit hasty with refuelling and before asking, he loaded a more or less standard figure. The Captain, was pretty upset to discover that we were a Tonne overweight for take-off and insisted that he wanted some fuel taken off the aircraft.
Well as all will know here...Nobody will ever agree to do that without considerable discussion as the fuel taken off has to be re-processed and it has to be taken by a different tanker than the one that put it in etc. etc.
Captain was pretty angry at all this argument and was getting pretty heated.
I was P3 on this flight and after this had been going on for some time, I called the Tower for the latest surface temperature...It had dropped 2 degrees C since I had asked about 40 minute previously.
Problem gone...in the Vanguard, each degree C was worth 500 Kgs and we could now take-off. So away we went to London.
I have sometimes thought about this and visualised an ATC local controller peering at a dusty thermometer screwed to the window frame. I imagine him screwing up his eyes to focus on that scale of tiny degree marks on the scale and calling to me "Bealine 1207, the surface temperature is 28 degrees centigrade". Amazing and rather frightening to realise that this means we can get off the runway a whole Tonne heavier than we could 40 minutes previously!!!
Well as all will know here...Nobody will ever agree to do that without considerable discussion as the fuel taken off has to be re-processed and it has to be taken by a different tanker than the one that put it in etc. etc.
Captain was pretty angry at all this argument and was getting pretty heated.
I was P3 on this flight and after this had been going on for some time, I called the Tower for the latest surface temperature...It had dropped 2 degrees C since I had asked about 40 minute previously.
Problem gone...in the Vanguard, each degree C was worth 500 Kgs and we could now take-off. So away we went to London.
I have sometimes thought about this and visualised an ATC local controller peering at a dusty thermometer screwed to the window frame. I imagine him screwing up his eyes to focus on that scale of tiny degree marks on the scale and calling to me "Bealine 1207, the surface temperature is 28 degrees centigrade". Amazing and rather frightening to realise that this means we can get off the runway a whole Tonne heavier than we could 40 minutes previously!!!
With a takeoff distance of 4446m available, a 10% overweight aircraft using reduced takeoff thrust in a 10 kt tailwind, in a temperature 4 degrees above reported, would STILL get airborne safely, if both engines keep running. The aircraft obviously could not fly once airborne, for the reason I have already proposed, and it was only the extremely long runway that enabled it to touch down again on a paved surface.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following article found on Google - there are many more.
The issue of passenger weights will raise it's head from time to time, quickly to be squashed by the airlines as increased standard passenger weights equates to fewer passengers that can be carried on a particular flight and resultant reduced profits. The manufacturers would be compromised as well - would not be able to make the claims they do regarding passenger numbers, range and performance. A BIG NO-NO!!!
I remember being told (hearsay?!) that an aircraft crashed in Africa some years ago due to the passengers being on a charter to a convention of gold dealers/traders. The passengers carried their gold on their person and each passenger was well over the weight limit. The aircraft crashed on take-off due to being grossly over-weight - can't find it on Google, but I'm sure it's there somewhere?!
The issue of passenger weights will raise it's head from time to time, quickly to be squashed by the airlines as increased standard passenger weights equates to fewer passengers that can be carried on a particular flight and resultant reduced profits. The manufacturers would be compromised as well - would not be able to make the claims they do regarding passenger numbers, range and performance. A BIG NO-NO!!!
I remember being told (hearsay?!) that an aircraft crashed in Africa some years ago due to the passengers being on a charter to a convention of gold dealers/traders. The passengers carried their gold on their person and each passenger was well over the weight limit. The aircraft crashed on take-off due to being grossly over-weight - can't find it on Google, but I'm sure it's there somewhere?!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD82 unscheduled landing
Probably not worth a separate thread, but...
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A Spanair MD-82 jet made an unscheduled landing at an airport in southern Spain Sunday, just five days after another MD-82 operated by the airline crashed at Madrid's airport killing 154 people, Spain's airport authority said.
The plane landed safely at Malaga, a major airport on the Spanish mainland's southern coast, after the pilot radioed air traffic controllers reporting a problem in flight, the officials said.
The flight originated in Barcelona and was bound for Lanzarote on Spain's Canary Islands.
Flight JKK 2565 was carrying 141 passengers who were taken to a Malaga hotel while the plane was being examined, according to Barcelona newspaper El Periodico.
It appeared to be a charter, rather than a regularly scheduled flight, a Spanair telephone operator told CNN, referring the call to the company's charter line, which did not immediately answer
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A Spanair MD-82 jet made an unscheduled landing at an airport in southern Spain Sunday, just five days after another MD-82 operated by the airline crashed at Madrid's airport killing 154 people, Spain's airport authority said.
The plane landed safely at Malaga, a major airport on the Spanish mainland's southern coast, after the pilot radioed air traffic controllers reporting a problem in flight, the officials said.
The flight originated in Barcelona and was bound for Lanzarote on Spain's Canary Islands.
Flight JKK 2565 was carrying 141 passengers who were taken to a Malaga hotel while the plane was being examined, according to Barcelona newspaper El Periodico.
It appeared to be a charter, rather than a regularly scheduled flight, a Spanair telephone operator told CNN, referring the call to the company's charter line, which did not immediately answer
Not exactly true Desertia
AENA tells different !
Aena.es - Spanish airports and airspace - Lanzarote
Just type in the flt number JKK2565 for different version.
AENA tells different !
Aena.es - Spanish airports and airspace - Lanzarote
Just type in the flt number JKK2565 for different version.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston/TX - USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To FlyingOfficerKite!
This has been tested several times and unless you have a problem with our EPR system for this particular engine, the engines provide the thrust they are indicating to you.
For the most they do, with minor cruise performance differences.
Why wouldn't they unless you make a grave mistake such as not including cargo, pax weight etc. in your calculations?
Here in the US, and I would assume in most other nations, the FAA conducts routine audits of these figures and they are pretty accurate.
As I indicated in my previous post, the current weigh job procedures, provided they are done accurately, are well within the margins of safety for aircraft performance.
Dag
Who knows if jet engines always provide optimum power?
Who knows if ALL the fleet will achieve comparable performance?
Who knows if the performance figures calculated by the airline will be achieved in practice under all conditions in all aircraft?
It would be interesting to take the actual weights of the passengers and compare them to the calculated standard weights to see if there is a significant variation
As I indicated in my previous post, the current weigh job procedures, provided they are done accurately, are well within the margins of safety for aircraft performance.
Dag
Last edited by DJohnsen; 24th Aug 2008 at 13:54.
On at least 3 occasions in my flying career I have had all passengers, cabin baggage, and hold baggage actually weighed. In every case the actual total weight was less than would have been calculated using assumed weights.
On the type I fly (typical) an extra 500 kgs changes take off speeds by 1 (ONE) knot, although of course extra weight would affect performance. As has been stated previously Gross Performance is downgraded to Net and wind components (head and tail) are factored.
On the type I fly (typical) an extra 500 kgs changes take off speeds by 1 (ONE) knot, although of course extra weight would affect performance. As has been stated previously Gross Performance is downgraded to Net and wind components (head and tail) are factored.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
timing V1 was discussed for quite awhile, but was generally dismissed in civil operations in the USA. I do understand that some military operations did at one time , time v1.
our airline has us start the V1 call 5 knots prior to V1 in order to insure that the words are complete at V1 and not started at V1 (of course for 30 years before that, we started the call at V1)
About engine performance and the like. After the Air Florida crash in DCA (washington, dc, potomac river) I would like to think we all learned to take a good look at N1 as well As EPR...not just EPR. In this type, I can't see any takeoff power setting below about 97percent n1 give or take.
IF there was a stall (aerodynamic) on takeoff, I can understand the wings rocking or dipping as the plane was about to leave ground effect (teal effect for real old guys)
(as an aside, I have told my favorite people f/a's and pax alike that they should time the takeoff and that most jets rotate about 30 seconds after application of takeoff power...longer for high, hot,heavy, shorter for cold and light...if you are sitting in back, what do you have to measure the takeoff?)
I have these questions for investigators:
what was the position of the flap/slat handle?
what was the position of the flaps/slats (though * see below)
what was the position of the throttles
what was the position of the pilot seats.
*It might be a ''no brainer'' that if the flaps/slats were extended, there was no configuration problem, but part of stall recovery at this part of flight is to make sure the slats/flaps are extended
our airline has us start the V1 call 5 knots prior to V1 in order to insure that the words are complete at V1 and not started at V1 (of course for 30 years before that, we started the call at V1)
About engine performance and the like. After the Air Florida crash in DCA (washington, dc, potomac river) I would like to think we all learned to take a good look at N1 as well As EPR...not just EPR. In this type, I can't see any takeoff power setting below about 97percent n1 give or take.
IF there was a stall (aerodynamic) on takeoff, I can understand the wings rocking or dipping as the plane was about to leave ground effect (teal effect for real old guys)
(as an aside, I have told my favorite people f/a's and pax alike that they should time the takeoff and that most jets rotate about 30 seconds after application of takeoff power...longer for high, hot,heavy, shorter for cold and light...if you are sitting in back, what do you have to measure the takeoff?)
I have these questions for investigators:
what was the position of the flap/slat handle?
what was the position of the flaps/slats (though * see below)
what was the position of the throttles
what was the position of the pilot seats.
*It might be a ''no brainer'' that if the flaps/slats were extended, there was no configuration problem, but part of stall recovery at this part of flight is to make sure the slats/flaps are extended
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the picture he was trying to link to. I don't know who is the author, but got it from the blog that he is referring to.
EDIT: Sorry, obviously somebody posted the picture while I was still typing. The circle seems to be the area where the first loose debri was found and I'm guessing the red line shows the presumed path of the plane after coming back (or potentialling falling) to the ground.
Don't know if this has been posted already but here is a computer simulation from El Mundo:
Gráficos | elmundo.es
Let it load and click on the photo....
Gráficos | elmundo.es
Let it load and click on the photo....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desertia,
I saw El Periodico on Thursday and it contained a number of inaccuracies in relation to Wednesday's crash. It does not seem to be the kind of newspaper which contains "quality" journalism as far as its reporting of civil aviation stories is concerned.
I saw El Periodico on Thursday and it contained a number of inaccuracies in relation to Wednesday's crash. It does not seem to be the kind of newspaper which contains "quality" journalism as far as its reporting of civil aviation stories is concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to judge anyone, but the press has been displaying graphics and even 3D animations without any foundation on reality (I still get nervous when I watch the ones showing an engine explosion).
Regarless, graphics today seem to show a fairly good representation of the strip and path, give or take a few 10's of meters.
From someone's description of the remaining airplane parts on the ground after rescue efforts finished: almost entire tail, both bare engines but in (quite) separate places (w/o capots), a broken boogie, bunch of metal threads of what used to be the wheels (rubber fully burnt out). Some remains of galleys, a toilet, some food carts, some catering (cans of dring, etc), some partially burnt content of luggage (shoes, etc). Not a whole lot. No doubts whatsoever, the impact speed must have been quite high and, of course, the fire took care of whatever little was left.
Regarless, graphics today seem to show a fairly good representation of the strip and path, give or take a few 10's of meters.
From someone's description of the remaining airplane parts on the ground after rescue efforts finished: almost entire tail, both bare engines but in (quite) separate places (w/o capots), a broken boogie, bunch of metal threads of what used to be the wheels (rubber fully burnt out). Some remains of galleys, a toilet, some food carts, some catering (cans of dring, etc), some partially burnt content of luggage (shoes, etc). Not a whole lot. No doubts whatsoever, the impact speed must have been quite high and, of course, the fire took care of whatever little was left.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJohnsen
Thank you for your comments which, bearing in mind your published qualifications, are worthy of note.
Setting aside the aircraft issues for a moment, it still does not resolve the issue of passenger weights and no one will convince me that passenger weights are generally less than those calculated by the flight crew. The load sheet states the mix of passengers - M/F/C/I. How many people did you see on your last flight as a passenger who were over the limits of Male - 85kg, Female - 70kg, Children under 14 years - 35kg?
Aircraft are often loaded close to MTOM and a significant increase in actual passenger weight would make the aircraft overweight. Not legally, but practically. Irrespective of whether this is unsafe or not, it is eroding safety margins and detracting from flight safety.
My partner, her daughter and myself on a recent flight to Spain, although not excessively overweight overall, I calculate, with hand baggage, we were 50kg over the standard allowance. Multiply that by the 150 or so passengers, most of whom appeared heavier than ourselves, then the additional weight could have been in the order of 2,500kg.
You may say that the figure is exaggerated, but ask yourself how many of you weigh LESS than 12 stone, 9 stone and 5 stone for men, women and children respectively. Or with clothes, clutter, hand bags and hand luggage less than 85kg, 70kg and 15kg - the standard weights?
One website in the USA states the average weight of an adult male is 189.8 lbs = 13.55 stone = 86 kg. Add to that the weight of clothing and hand baggage and the average weight is some 10 kg greater than the 'standard weight'. If women the same applied to women and children, then with everyone being 10kg overweight, a typical flight with 150 passengers could be 1,500kg over-weight. Not as much as my estimate, but still on the wrong side.
This does not take into account the demographics of the populations travelling - no substantitation whatsoever, but it is the more affluent populations who travel by air. It may be that the average weight of an 'air-traveller' is higher than that of the general population (well-fed, relatively 'fat cats'). Who knows. But it would make an interesting thesis for a PhD in Air Transport Management!!!
A large number of people would regard these comments as scare-mongering - but it's worth considering as no one knows how much an aircraft weighs, absolutely, at any stage of flight.
fireflybob:
Interesting comment. I wonder if anyone else has actual data to refer to in this manner?
Thank you for your comments which, bearing in mind your published qualifications, are worthy of note.
Setting aside the aircraft issues for a moment, it still does not resolve the issue of passenger weights and no one will convince me that passenger weights are generally less than those calculated by the flight crew. The load sheet states the mix of passengers - M/F/C/I. How many people did you see on your last flight as a passenger who were over the limits of Male - 85kg, Female - 70kg, Children under 14 years - 35kg?
Aircraft are often loaded close to MTOM and a significant increase in actual passenger weight would make the aircraft overweight. Not legally, but practically. Irrespective of whether this is unsafe or not, it is eroding safety margins and detracting from flight safety.
My partner, her daughter and myself on a recent flight to Spain, although not excessively overweight overall, I calculate, with hand baggage, we were 50kg over the standard allowance. Multiply that by the 150 or so passengers, most of whom appeared heavier than ourselves, then the additional weight could have been in the order of 2,500kg.
You may say that the figure is exaggerated, but ask yourself how many of you weigh LESS than 12 stone, 9 stone and 5 stone for men, women and children respectively. Or with clothes, clutter, hand bags and hand luggage less than 85kg, 70kg and 15kg - the standard weights?
One website in the USA states the average weight of an adult male is 189.8 lbs = 13.55 stone = 86 kg. Add to that the weight of clothing and hand baggage and the average weight is some 10 kg greater than the 'standard weight'. If women the same applied to women and children, then with everyone being 10kg overweight, a typical flight with 150 passengers could be 1,500kg over-weight. Not as much as my estimate, but still on the wrong side.
This does not take into account the demographics of the populations travelling - no substantitation whatsoever, but it is the more affluent populations who travel by air. It may be that the average weight of an 'air-traveller' is higher than that of the general population (well-fed, relatively 'fat cats'). Who knows. But it would make an interesting thesis for a PhD in Air Transport Management!!!
A large number of people would regard these comments as scare-mongering - but it's worth considering as no one knows how much an aircraft weighs, absolutely, at any stage of flight.
fireflybob:
Interesting comment. I wonder if anyone else has actual data to refer to in this manner?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD80 Takeoff field length charts give (if I understand them right 
);
Required available field length of about 9300 feet (2800m)
Gross weight of 69T,
Temp 30C,
Elev 2000'
Flap 15+Slat,
7 kt tailwind,
slight uphill,
Thats about 64% of the available runway at Madrid.
XPM
);Required available field length of about 9300 feet (2800m)
Gross weight of 69T,
Temp 30C,
Elev 2000'
Flap 15+Slat,
7 kt tailwind,
slight uphill,
Thats about 64% of the available runway at Madrid.
XPM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, please keep in mind that the airplane is said to have "bounced around" a few times (after touching ground), the extend of those "bounces" not clearly stated. So perhaps the airplane had all wheels off the ground more than once. There seems to be skid marks both, on the runaway and off of it and first sign of potentially broken airplane parts some 140m off the strip.
A wing is said to have hit the ground briefly at some point, but it's totally unclear if it was after some "bouncing" or as it first "fell" or at what point during the accident. It was stated that the airplane "continued" after the wing (believed to be "mild") impact. The wing hitting the ground could be the reason of the first loose parts found (pure speculation on my side).
Obviously many other broken parts or pieces could've come off the airplane soon after hitting the ground presumably "hard" with all that weight (fuel for the 2.5h flight+full PAX).
A better transcript of the Spanair explanation of the return-to-gate situation has been reported. It's 100% clear now that the automatic switch of the probe heater was disconnected (i.e. not the probe itself). Four key quoted literally-translated sentences:
-Malfunction of the heater of the ouside air temperature ...
-Its function to avoid formation of ice during flight ...
-The mechanism that activates the heater was disconnected ...
-Not fully repaired inmediately because there was no risk of ice formation during the flight...
A detail of the timeline:
-13,05 Plane leaves finger.
-13,42 Plane comes back to finger.
-Tecnician works with pilot on malfunction for 33minutes.
-14,15 Plane leaves finger for second attempt to take-off.
-14,24 Ground control clears plane for take-off.
Technician is confirmed 41yo, 20 years experience (9 for Spanair), with current valid license by Dirección General de Aviación Civil for MD82, and airbuses 319, 320 and 321. Companies in charge of maintenance of the airplane: Spanair, with Iberia y Lufthansa Technik in charge of major maintenance and Volvo, ITR México and Aerothrust for the engines.
As you know, Spanair is wholly owned by Scandinavian Airways SAS headquartered in Sweden. Maintenance standards in Spain are relatively high, and this is the first accident with victims in Madrid in 25 years (and I believe may be the worst in number of victims also). The airplane involved was 15yo, about 5 for Korean Airlines and about 10 for Spanair, with 31.961 hours of flytime. Major 5-year revision passed Jan 24th, minor (120 days) revision May 23rd, annual flyability license permit about to expire in 9 days (administrative requirement involving only flying an inspector with access to the cabin during a regular routine flight with PAX).
A wing is said to have hit the ground briefly at some point, but it's totally unclear if it was after some "bouncing" or as it first "fell" or at what point during the accident. It was stated that the airplane "continued" after the wing (believed to be "mild") impact. The wing hitting the ground could be the reason of the first loose parts found (pure speculation on my side).
Obviously many other broken parts or pieces could've come off the airplane soon after hitting the ground presumably "hard" with all that weight (fuel for the 2.5h flight+full PAX).
A better transcript of the Spanair explanation of the return-to-gate situation has been reported. It's 100% clear now that the automatic switch of the probe heater was disconnected (i.e. not the probe itself). Four key quoted literally-translated sentences:
-Malfunction of the heater of the ouside air temperature ...
-Its function to avoid formation of ice during flight ...
-The mechanism that activates the heater was disconnected ...
-Not fully repaired inmediately because there was no risk of ice formation during the flight...
A detail of the timeline:
-13,05 Plane leaves finger.
-13,42 Plane comes back to finger.
-Tecnician works with pilot on malfunction for 33minutes.
-14,15 Plane leaves finger for second attempt to take-off.
-14,24 Ground control clears plane for take-off.
Technician is confirmed 41yo, 20 years experience (9 for Spanair), with current valid license by Dirección General de Aviación Civil for MD82, and airbuses 319, 320 and 321. Companies in charge of maintenance of the airplane: Spanair, with Iberia y Lufthansa Technik in charge of major maintenance and Volvo, ITR México and Aerothrust for the engines.
As you know, Spanair is wholly owned by Scandinavian Airways SAS headquartered in Sweden. Maintenance standards in Spain are relatively high, and this is the first accident with victims in Madrid in 25 years (and I believe may be the worst in number of victims also). The airplane involved was 15yo, about 5 for Korean Airlines and about 10 for Spanair, with 31.961 hours of flytime. Major 5-year revision passed Jan 24th, minor (120 days) revision May 23rd, annual flyability license permit about to expire in 9 days (administrative requirement involving only flying an inspector with access to the cabin during a regular routine flight with PAX).
Last edited by justme69; 24th Aug 2008 at 16:28.
Harry Mann:
I flew 4-engined and 3-engined Performance A aircraft (military and civil) from 1962 until 2006 and I never ever timed one single take-off nor was I required to.
I have however heard of the V-Force doing this but then they did not operate to Performance A standards.
I flew 4-engined and 3-engined Performance A aircraft (military and civil) from 1962 until 2006 and I never ever timed one single take-off nor was I required to.
I have however heard of the V-Force doing this but then they did not operate to Performance A standards.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justme
Can I refer to this post
http://www.pprune.org/4341496-post376.html
If correct it never returned to a finger
-13,42 Plane comes back to finger.
http://www.pprune.org/4341496-post376.html
It was being authorized to go to remote parking area 12 where it stays not much time.