Ryanair uses all the runway.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The performance department issued new figures which to their consternation showed higher
I think it was a Danair B737 at Luton that took some of the localiser area with them on take off. There was several factors:- 2/3 knot tailwind but calm used for planning, 50 metres wasted on 180 line up, (no line up allowances in those days), thrust on centre engine was slightly miscalculated and rotation rate much too slow.
Accident report PDF link
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...DRwQjVR1Npo2Cg
Last edited by LTNman; 12th Oct 2017 at 08:24.
Reminds me of the "Bristol Cowboy" in the early 1980'S? They took out the approach lights on the opposite RW. Now if someone had filmed that, it would have been a frightening watch.
It was a Boeing 727 and it was only the valley at the end of the runway that saved the aircraft as the aircraft ended up flying below the runway elevation after taking out the approach lights and the localiser.
I suspect the performance calculations on the EFB were correctly completed; that the crew assumed the Boeing OPT would provide sufficient margins; and that the rotation was slightly after Vr was called. Swiss cheese.
Using the 'optimum' setting on that programme minimises pilot input/consideration of actual physical margins to the screen height, whereas the landing calculations always provide physical distances that one can compare with the available distance to the preferred exit or runway stop end.
On a lighter note, the video reminds me of base training, where every take off was a bum clenching 'experience'.
Using the 'optimum' setting on that programme minimises pilot input/consideration of actual physical margins to the screen height, whereas the landing calculations always provide physical distances that one can compare with the available distance to the preferred exit or runway stop end.
On a lighter note, the video reminds me of base training, where every take off was a bum clenching 'experience'.
de minimus non curat lex
All this pontification could be finally put to bed if the FDM information was ever revealed.
It does seem rather "tight".
There was an even closer shave at Aldergrove in the summer which ended up being investigated by the AAIB ~ special 2/2017. See October 2017 monthly bulletin.
It does seem rather "tight".
There was an even closer shave at Aldergrove in the summer which ended up being investigated by the AAIB ~ special 2/2017. See October 2017 monthly bulletin.
The Bristol Cowboy article from Flight International is available here, taking out the approach lights was the least of his problems.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%203937.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%203937.html
BRS to the canaries/southern Spain is a fairly common route and a full 738 with 13t of fuel is pretty limited. Pretty much all Flap 25 takeoffs very close to TOPL and you’re right, there isn’t much runway available on rotation. Pulled that with a slightly late or slow rotation and it looks worse than it is.
Don’t forget that the slope on the departure end of 27 is quite significant, making for a worse visual picture than on a billiard table flat airfield.
Don’t forget that the slope on the departure end of 27 is quite significant, making for a worse visual picture than on a billiard table flat airfield.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway at BRS was extended a few years ago by diverting the A38, there is no way of extending it more because it is on the top of a hill and the ground falls off at both ends.
There was a proposal to move it to Filton but the good idea was crushed by howls of protest from local residents.
There was a proposal to move it to Filton but the good idea was crushed by howls of protest from local residents.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am looking forward to the time when 7 years old and 13 yrs old tell me if I am good to go or not.
Until then I stick with what Boeing has tested and tipple check and calculate the
worst case at the time for No Go.
There is no margin except for the built in regulatory and tested.
Something I am quite happy with.
I have taken the 737-800 to the limit may times as per SOP and Manual but never past.
It does perform, with standard margin!
And it will in the N-1 case after V1 at BRS!
Providing YOU perform!
Rather simple stuff , relay.
Lots of rudder until Vr and a rotation rate of no less then 2.5 per second and a V2 climb which gives anything from 400 to 700 feet per minute.
NOT the two engine 2500feet per minute AND acceleration towards V2 plus 15 to 25 kts you are used to!
Not saying the CVR would be something children should listen to uncensored, but it is perfectly safe.
3000 meters are arguably safer , then again we manage to mess that up on occasions , dont we!!
Intersection takeoff with massive Flex or de-rate is the standard , is it not.
Until then I stick with what Boeing has tested and tipple check and calculate the
worst case at the time for No Go.
There is no margin except for the built in regulatory and tested.
Something I am quite happy with.
I have taken the 737-800 to the limit may times as per SOP and Manual but never past.
It does perform, with standard margin!
And it will in the N-1 case after V1 at BRS!
Providing YOU perform!
Rather simple stuff , relay.
Lots of rudder until Vr and a rotation rate of no less then 2.5 per second and a V2 climb which gives anything from 400 to 700 feet per minute.
NOT the two engine 2500feet per minute AND acceleration towards V2 plus 15 to 25 kts you are used to!
Not saying the CVR would be something children should listen to uncensored, but it is perfectly safe.
3000 meters are arguably safer , then again we manage to mess that up on occasions , dont we!!
Intersection takeoff with massive Flex or de-rate is the standard , is it not.
OK, as one of the children with a phone, am I hearing here that takeoff configuration is commonly setup to use every inch of available runway ? That takeoff looks like it allowed for less than 1% margin. I confess that I find that surprising. Wouldn't a soft tyre, an ingested sparrow or even an unexpected squall of wind up the chuff have a bigger effect on take-off distance than that? Or is there time and information to allow you to detect that you are not precisely on the expected speed-distance trajectory and give it a bit more wellie ?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making fun of the I-phone passengers is rather foolish. The video shows that when the runway end flashes by the aircraft has just finished rotating and is barely airborne. Whatever the reason this is way to late/low.
It is very strange to see the apparently professionals attacking the slf's and claiming that all was ok. It wasn't.
It is very strange to see the apparently professionals attacking the slf's and claiming that all was ok. It wasn't.
I hate seeing colleagues (albeit in another company) being strung up by virtue of mobile phone evidence...
captain F
Agreed, indeed probably before then..hard to tell because of the image quaity but if you use the leading edge wing route/runway edge sightline as datum it looks to me as if rotation has started by at least 1500' to go i.e. looks like there's evidence of pitching as they cross the TDZ marker 500' in/downwind from the main TDZ marking at the upwind end of the runway.
Whether the rotation was slow or not is up to the 737 guys to judge but I'm not sure we can judge off that video. As for height over the runway end.. we all know about possible lenses and forshortening etc, surely that has to be a don't know?.......
I've seen enough legit heavy (i.e. right up at RTOW) takeoffs out of hot and high places on a heavy twin to know how close it can look...mostly at night so thankfully I've yet to make youthingy or similar.
captain F
it is clear the aircraft is rotating at the 1000ft markers and certainly airborne at the 500ft mark.
Whether the rotation was slow or not is up to the 737 guys to judge but I'm not sure we can judge off that video. As for height over the runway end.. we all know about possible lenses and forshortening etc, surely that has to be a don't know?.......
I've seen enough legit heavy (i.e. right up at RTOW) takeoffs out of hot and high places on a heavy twin to know how close it can look...mostly at night so thankfully I've yet to make youthingy or similar.
AAIB bulletin (page 3) with the first report being a 738 21 July 2017 taking out the lights at Belfast due a thrust setting which was significantly below that required for the conditions of the day.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...in_10-2017.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...in_10-2017.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also very interesting, 00:30
yes gear lever, seen that here before when it happened, no flaps
Back on topic:
To me this looks like an uncomfortable take off...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OPT does provide detailed margins in the Acc-Stop scenario, i.e. how many meters remaining if you must stop. The Acc-Go scenario is a bit more complicated, but IIRC it'll tell you the limiting factor (field length or obstacle normally). How many inches will fit under your boots is a guess only.
Apologies to those who do use these numbers as a reference, but my experience says those numbers are never looked at, let alone acted upon, in this particular airline. Whatever the computer says, goes.
I understand it wouldn't change things in this particular take-off as full thrust was likely already selected, but it's worth thinking about.
Apologies to those who do use these numbers as a reference, but my experience says those numbers are never looked at, let alone acted upon, in this particular airline. Whatever the computer says, goes.
I understand it wouldn't change things in this particular take-off as full thrust was likely already selected, but it's worth thinking about.
We don’t know the ATOW.
We don’t know the derate(s).
We don’t know V1 & Vr.
We don’t know if they were using increased V2. (Bit short for that but...)
We don’t know whether this was “tight” for some reason or whether it was completely normal and expected.
In other words, complete speculation.
What we do know is that in normal airline ops, performance software optimises as much as it can and on this length of runway it normally ends up as a balanced field. Also remember that TODA can include clearway, which is beyond the end of the paved surface, so your 35’ will not necessarily be achieved at that point OEI (but it will by the end of the clearway).
We don’t know the derate(s).
We don’t know V1 & Vr.
We don’t know if they were using increased V2. (Bit short for that but...)
We don’t know whether this was “tight” for some reason or whether it was completely normal and expected.
In other words, complete speculation.
What we do know is that in normal airline ops, performance software optimises as much as it can and on this length of runway it normally ends up as a balanced field. Also remember that TODA can include clearway, which is beyond the end of the paved surface, so your 35’ will not necessarily be achieved at that point OEI (but it will by the end of the clearway).
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the Boeing training manual states that with both engines operating and a normal take off performed the aircraft should be at a minimum height of 150' above the runway end. Check "Go/Stop decision near V1".