Ryanair uses all the runway.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Parkfell, hysterical? It the likes of the, "It wasn't normal" who are whipping up the interest now and need to calm down. Many of us have said, that on a limiting runway, at heavy weights, you can expect to get a very good view of the runway end. As I have said already, twice, we are generally spoilt by the amount of runway available and only realise how much runway a 'hot and heavy' take off uses when we are faced with one, like Bristol, in this case or my own ten years experience with heavy B747s out of Singapore and other places, not to mention thirty previous years, worldwide, in a variety of aircraft in a variety of different countries.
It wouldn't need anyone with more than an 'A' level in physics to refute that the video shown here is acceptable as an accurate scientific record.
And parkfell,
Do see if you can resurrect your sense of humour, yes?
It wouldn't need anyone with more than an 'A' level in physics to refute that the video shown here is acceptable as an accurate scientific record.
And parkfell,
Do see if you can resurrect your sense of humour, yes?
A 'hot and heavy' takeoff does not leave this much runway remaining, and if your'e a professional and you think so that's a concern. Aviation safety isn't built on those kind of margins, with one engine out you'd expect to at least have started getting airborne earlier than this.
What are you suggesting about the video by the way, is it faked? I assure you when incidents occur the investigation authorities take such video evidence very seriously if it is available and it is a major aid in establishing the chain of events.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, everyone knows that when heavy, hot, short runway etc etc you will use a lot of runway.
Someone suggested this flight was to Bergerac. That would be about 1.30hr. It might have been a tanker sector. That would sue a total fuel load of 4.00hrs. That's about 10tonnes. However, landing wt limit would have restricted the RTOW to about 68tonnes. With 26K available and a choice of flaps that is nowhere near a runway limit takeoff; unless you make it one.
If Bergerac was there true destination.
I've read the report on the AC A320 from BFS that took out a light at the far end. Wrong temp entered in FMC and a ridiculously low N1% computed and accepted. No awareness and just dumb acceptance. What is scary is that the crew acknowledged that they thought acceleration was slow passing 120-130kts. The end must have looked very close and yet they did not increase thrust until 800'. Come on! It's too late then. They were 12% too low on thrust setting and no alarms. OK, but not to increase thrust on the roll is suicidal.
Someone suggested this flight was to Bergerac. That would be about 1.30hr. It might have been a tanker sector. That would sue a total fuel load of 4.00hrs. That's about 10tonnes. However, landing wt limit would have restricted the RTOW to about 68tonnes. With 26K available and a choice of flaps that is nowhere near a runway limit takeoff; unless you make it one.
If Bergerac was there true destination.
I've read the report on the AC A320 from BFS that took out a light at the far end. Wrong temp entered in FMC and a ridiculously low N1% computed and accepted. No awareness and just dumb acceptance. What is scary is that the crew acknowledged that they thought acceleration was slow passing 120-130kts. The end must have looked very close and yet they did not increase thrust until 800'. Come on! It's too late then. They were 12% too low on thrust setting and no alarms. OK, but not to increase thrust on the roll is suicidal.
Last edited by RAT 5; 18th Oct 2017 at 18:03.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Washington
Age: 87
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordomac - your post #184 is perhaps the best (and most entertainng) post I've ever read on PPruNe. Yours and RAT 5's are my favorites.
Back to the beginning of the thread - if the 'amazing' take off of Ryanair at BRS, as shown by a creditable video, is a result of someone's idea to use less than 100% under the existing conditions in order to save 'maintenance money' - than I think it's time for everyone to take a 'time out' and talk!
Long time lurker - first time poster
Back to the beginning of the thread - if the 'amazing' take off of Ryanair at BRS, as shown by a creditable video, is a result of someone's idea to use less than 100% under the existing conditions in order to save 'maintenance money' - than I think it's time for everyone to take a 'time out' and talk!
Long time lurker - first time poster
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently I have too much time...
I downloaded the video, used SMPlayer to split the interesting bits into single frame images, and picked those frames where runway markers were visible, judging the plane's position by the shadow of its wing. This method is somewhat inaccurate because somewhere in the chain some duplicate frames were inserted (possible to change the frame rate from 25 fps to 30 fps) and the shadow moves as the wings lift up, so when I state that the plane had 40kt at the threshold marker, 125kt at the center of the runway and 150kt over the aiming point, those values are probably fairly close to the truth (maybe +/-2kt?), but ultimately useless.
However, I then cut out images of the 8ft tall winglet in those positions where the wing was over a runway marker (two images for each set of "piano keys") and aligned them at the runway edge. This makes it easy to see where the plane rotated and lifted off: 450m (1500ft) from the end of the runway, rotating at approx. 1° per second.
Small print: 0s is at 1:57 in the video, as the back edge of the wing's shadow aligns with the back edge of the "piano keys" (this position is 0m). Pictures 3-12 have the same positional relation to each touchdown marker. The runway image was taken from Google maps and provided me with the positions of the runway markers, assuming those were painted in multiples of 5m. The first attachment is full size, 824px is half size for including in the post.
However, I then cut out images of the 8ft tall winglet in those positions where the wing was over a runway marker (two images for each set of "piano keys") and aligned them at the runway edge. This makes it easy to see where the plane rotated and lifted off: 450m (1500ft) from the end of the runway, rotating at approx. 1° per second.
Small print: 0s is at 1:57 in the video, as the back edge of the wing's shadow aligns with the back edge of the "piano keys" (this position is 0m). Pictures 3-12 have the same positional relation to each touchdown marker. The runway image was taken from Google maps and provided me with the positions of the runway markers, assuming those were painted in multiples of 5m. The first attachment is full size, 824px is half size for including in the post.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even worse, perhaps. In previous years there was a maintenance requirement to execute full power take every few weeks/months? In late 90's I joined an airline whose network never required a full power takeoff. So I asked the question from engineering to be told it was no longer a requirement. They could tell from 'data' if the engine was operating to spec. I wonder if that was another 'cost saving' decision. There will be those who know better,
FR24 is of limited use because of its sparse coverage of the aircraft on the runway, although it does confirm that the aircraft was sending ground (rather than airborne) position transmissions as it passed the 09 aiming point, meaning that it had weight on wheels at the time, 1100' from the runway end.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KBOS has a chart note that calls for higher minimums when large ships are in the channel on the approach to 04L and 04R. I think we have a performance penalty for departing the 22s as well. The ATIS will designate "ships in the channel".
Agreed, a decent ADS-B/EHS capture log would go a long way to answering some basic what/where/when questions.
WOW is implied by the transmission type, and a full ADS-B capture would have 0.5 second granularity, enough to provide a pretty good picture of what happened.
But we don't have one, so it's all a bit academic, apart from that one known data point.
But we don't have one, so it's all a bit academic, apart from that one known data point.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The horizon is not up yet on the video as the plane passes the last touchdown marker (@150m/500ft), but the cameraperson is sitting in the back, so may be rotated down slightly?
[pax] March 2016 so any ideas why this has surfaced only now? Still, can't have been that hot in Bristol if the date is right: nice weather though. Incidentally is analysis of #191 consistent with #132?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In #29, megan posted one uploaded March 26th 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACX1DvwhpM
On the 2016 video, the plane does everything ~150m/500ft sooner, I'm attaching screenshots over the last 3 markers. Note that the plane has liftoff on the aiming point, you can see the mist trail from where the wheels were still on the ground; and also note it is at approximate winglet height over the last marker.
I'm not sure which analysis you're referring to, #132 shows a screenshot from the video and no text? Observations re: the rotation and liftoff were made by Capt Fathom (#36), wiggy (#54, #92), roy747 (#65), and RightWayUp (#82), the screenshots pretty much confirm those, but I like to think my efforts are more precise. (I wouldn't have had a hope of observing as much as these guys just from watching the video, though.)
Last edited by Musician; 21st Oct 2017 at 17:20.
Most short haul 2 engine jets that I've flown get to Vr at about the 30 secs mark . So TLAR [ that looks about right ] . Seem to remember the rotation rate that I was taught was about 2 1/2 degrees per sec [ 6 secs to 15 degrees pitch ] .Therefore lift off is a few seconds later that rotate .
Longhaul , 2 or 4 eng ; Vr at about 45-50 secs . Very longhaul or hot 'n high , Vr at about 60 secs or more !
Longhaul , 2 or 4 eng ; Vr at about 45-50 secs . Very longhaul or hot 'n high , Vr at about 60 secs or more !
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most short haul 2 engine jets that I've flown get to Vr at about the 30 secs mark . So TLAR [ that looks about right ] . Seem to remember the rotation rate that I was taught was about 2 1/2 degrees per sec [ 6 secs to 15 degrees pitch ] .Therefore lift off is a few seconds later that rotate .
Longhaul , 2 or 4 eng ; Vr at about 45-50 secs . Very longhaul or hot 'n high , Vr at about 60 secs or more !
rgds condor .
Longhaul , 2 or 4 eng ; Vr at about 45-50 secs . Very longhaul or hot 'n high , Vr at about 60 secs or more !
rgds condor .
If you've ever been on a 747 taking off from Johannesburg to Europe, a 60+ second take-off roll was standard. But then it's at 5,500' altitude and flying distance to London is 5,600 miles/9,000km. Runway 03L in JHB is 4,400 metres/14,000 ft long.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that's why there are safety margins built into everything - if rotation was late or slow, that counts as a failure and has used the safety margin as visibly seen.
It has also removed the likely margin for a second failure (human or technical) so there is a question as to whether the margins are sufficient, or are they only designed for a single "failure" event and a double failure is deemed unlikely enough to happen.
In some ways the system has worked in that an apparent failure has not caused a catastrophe, but in other ways it reveals the flaws, but where do you stop...
It has also removed the likely margin for a second failure (human or technical) so there is a question as to whether the margins are sufficient, or are they only designed for a single "failure" event and a double failure is deemed unlikely enough to happen.
In some ways the system has worked in that an apparent failure has not caused a catastrophe, but in other ways it reveals the flaws, but where do you stop...