Polar Cargo B748 at Tokyo 15 Jul, overran runway on takeoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar Cargo B748 at Tokyo 15 Jul, overran runway on takeoff
A Polar Air Cargo Boeing 747-8F, registration N852GT performing freight flight PO-213 from Tokyo Narita (Japan) to Shanghai Pudong (China), departed Narita's runway 16L (length 2500 meters/8200 feet), however, the main gear did not become airborne until about 85 meters/280 feet past the runway end already on soft ground. The aircraft climbed out to safety and continued to Shanghai without further incident.
Incident: Polar Cargo B748 at Tokyo on Jul 15th 2017, overran runway on takeoff
Agreed, I guess some youngsters may not know the expression!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the one they were trying to buy?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, the quote here is misleading (due to translation issues perhaps)? The aircraft lifted off 85m from the runway end, still on the paved surface (not beyond it, in the grass as the original quote seems to indicate). Yes that is still ~200m beyond where it should've lifted off, but the tires were not dragged through the grass. If we can wait a few weeks I'm sure information about the cause will be made available.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any case, the farms are further down. If you don't unstick from 16L, you'll end up in the Toho Shrine. The farms are a little further down.
Was that lift off at the correct speed and rotation rate, just a bit further down the runway than it should have been or was it dragged into the air close to VMU when they realised they were running out of pavement ?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, the quote here is misleading (due to translation issues perhaps)? The aircraft lifted off 85m from the runway end, still on the paved surface (not beyond it, in the grass as the original quote seems to indicate)
that PA 748 has had a tough time..
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone knows if Polar uses derate AND flex combined? We use it on the b744, kinda confusing at first and initially feels like looking 4 trouble. Still amazing to see how much thrust is added when switching from TO thrust to CLB(using derate and flex for TO)
Yes, they do. I wouldn't call it confusing as much as it is strange to reduce TO power to less than climb. On a different airframe with a F/E crunching out the numbers we never reduced takeoff EPR below climb.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atlas and Polar need to get their act together on safety. I'm not well informed and I can think of at least 5 serious events off the top of my head which they've had in the last 12 years. If they were African they'd be banned from flight into Europe or the U.S.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems unwise and unnecessary to set takeoff power to less than climb. How do pilots justify this? Is it a case of blindly following formulas without putting thought in to what you're doing?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll put some thought to it. I think that you are not a pilot. The majority of airliner flights in history in history has set a climb power which is less thrust than takeoff power. In fact it is pretty much mandatory as takeoff power is limited to 5 minutes.
Granted, with derates it can be set up with climb thrust being an increase in thrust.
Granted, with derates it can be set up with climb thrust being an increase in thrust.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arw,
You need to get out more! My personal definition of a category REAL Transport Aircraft is that it can carry its own weight in fuel and payload. e.g. B747
B748 Basic Wt about 418,000 lb; MTOW 985,000 lb
Rated TO Thrust 4 x 67,400 lb = 269,600 lb
D-TO2 (-20%), asm 57 deg (-25%) = 40,440 lb x 4 = 161,760 lb
At light weight, the thrust reduction is both wise and sensible.
I don't have a figure for CLB 2 thrust, but I think its around 45,000 lb.
You need to get out more! My personal definition of a category REAL Transport Aircraft is that it can carry its own weight in fuel and payload. e.g. B747
B748 Basic Wt about 418,000 lb; MTOW 985,000 lb
Rated TO Thrust 4 x 67,400 lb = 269,600 lb
D-TO2 (-20%), asm 57 deg (-25%) = 40,440 lb x 4 = 161,760 lb
At light weight, the thrust reduction is both wise and sensible.
I don't have a figure for CLB 2 thrust, but I think its around 45,000 lb.