Ryanair uses all the runway.
Could you clarify which one you think is unwarranted, please ?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a thread where that question was debated at length.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/59299...5ft-where.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/59299...5ft-where.html
As the runway slopes downwards at Bristol, I think it is more accurate to say that Bristol took the runway away from the airplane, and not vice-versa.
Similar to this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne9JvLeLA7A
.
Similar to this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne9JvLeLA7A
.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Isn't this all getting a bit silly? I think we can take it that the aircraft has passed V1, therefore the stop scenario doesn't apply. It's probably past Vr as well, and still accelerating, so in the case of an engine failure has kinetic energy beyond that required at Vr. Yes, it was a late and slow rotate, for whatever reason, but not dangerous, and certainly not warranting the analysis going on here. Then, what do I know? I'm just a retired airframe driver. Ask the crew.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Writing solely as a passenger: I am not an airline pilot)
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.
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: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to their license, TODA at Bristol is at 3016m, a full 1005m past the end of runway 27-you'll easily make 35' with an angle of ascent of only 0.6°. 10 seconds at 200kt with a vertical speed of 250 ft/min will also do it.
The plane is passing over an approach light at 2 seconds (60 frames) after it passes the runway end.
I used a similar procedure. Where did you find your runway map? I had trouble getting the 2011m to match; my scale may have been off, but I concluded that it was the length of the whole tarmac, minus *one* of the small bits on the end (beyond the taxiway). (This source has the runway at 2027m.) But that may have been a measuring error -- though the taxiway entrance distances seemed to match up with the given TORAs. I was also assuming the markings are metric, in multiples of 5m, which may not be true.
Stepping through the downloaded video frame by frame still has some timing error as some frames are duplicated; and you need to estimate fractional frames if you want to be really accurate about speed determinations. The shadow method's accuracy suffers from the fact that the wing ends seem to oscillate up and down by about half a foot.
P.S.: The LDA for rwy 27 is 1881m. Counting my pixels, the distance from the white stripe marking the displaced threshold to the end of the tarmac is 1882m, so I think my scale is correct. But the 1938m LDA for rwy 09 would be excluding the piano keys at the start and excluding the stub of tarmac beyond taxiway A.
The plane is passing over an approach light at 2 seconds (60 frames) after it passes the runway end.
As far as the distances are concerned: I used a runway map, compared it to photographs of the airport to verify that it was true, downloaded it to my computer, brought it up in paint, and examined it at the pixel level.
Then I used the 2011 meters and the runway end markers to establish the exact scale. All other measurements were based on that.
Then I used the 2011 meters and the runway end markers to establish the exact scale. All other measurements were based on that.
Stepping through the downloaded video frame by frame still has some timing error as some frames are duplicated; and you need to estimate fractional frames if you want to be really accurate about speed determinations. The shadow method's accuracy suffers from the fact that the wing ends seem to oscillate up and down by about half a foot.
P.S.: The LDA for rwy 27 is 1881m. Counting my pixels, the distance from the white stripe marking the displaced threshold to the end of the tarmac is 1882m, so I think my scale is correct. But the 1938m LDA for rwy 09 would be excluding the piano keys at the start and excluding the stub of tarmac beyond taxiway A.
Last edited by Musician; 21st Oct 2017 at 00:26. Reason: postscript
I'm not convinced yet. I need to see more calculations and video analysis to prove that aircraft made it to its destination. Any videos of the arrival? 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Midlands
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone actually verified the date of the video?
If it was windy and the crew applied Boeing’s winshear technique they can delay rotation to calculated Vr+20, or Vr equivalent to RTOW whichever is lower. This is to account for wind shear encounters on rotation.
The “latest 2000’ before runway end” applies to wind shear encountered during the takeoff roll.
How do we know this isn’t what the crew were doing on this day? BTW I’m not a RYR apologist before someone mentions that.
If it was windy and the crew applied Boeing’s winshear technique they can delay rotation to calculated Vr+20, or Vr equivalent to RTOW whichever is lower. This is to account for wind shear encounters on rotation.
The “latest 2000’ before runway end” applies to wind shear encountered during the takeoff roll.
How do we know this isn’t what the crew were doing on this day? BTW I’m not a RYR apologist before someone mentions that.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: 2 miles south of EGGD flight path. Lovely view of RWY 09 i/c aircraft.
Age: 67
Posts: 8
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the YouTube post the flight appears to be 25th July at approx 8:15. From the data I can find, conditions appears to be: -
8:20 AM
Temp 17.0 °C
Dew point 14.0 °C
RH 82%
Pressure 1018 hPa
Visibility 10.0 km
Wind dir Variable
Speed 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s
Gust speed -
Precip N/A
Events Unknown
Conditions Clear
8:20 AM
Temp 17.0 °C
Dew point 14.0 °C
RH 82%
Pressure 1018 hPa
Visibility 10.0 km
Wind dir Variable
Speed 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s
Gust speed -
Precip N/A
Events Unknown
Conditions Clear
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this all getting a bit silly? I think we can take it that the aircraft has passed V1, therefore the stop scenario doesn't apply. It's probably past Vr as well, and still accelerating, so in the case of an engine failure has kinetic energy beyond that required at Vr. Yes, it was a late and slow rotate, for whatever reason, but not dangerous, and certainly not warranting the analysis going on here. Then, what do I know? I'm just a retired airframe driver. Ask the crew.
I-FORD: We all know that! The point that you seem to have avoided is that the performance on a normal take-off should vastly exceed the minimum requirements!
This would appear not to be the case with this video. What needs to be asked is "why was the rotation so late and/or so slow?"
This would appear not to be the case with this video. What needs to be asked is "why was the rotation so late and/or so slow?"
I-FORD:"Late or slow rotation doesn't mean unsafe when you have 1000mt of clearway in front of you"
I think you might find that statement would be disputed by the aircraft manufactures. In fact thay all go out of their way to describe the correct techniques required to realise the required performance profile. What if the take-off is obstacle limited? Still no problem?
Every incident report that I have read where aircraft have been shown to have had "near misses" with respect to performance on take-off have proved to have errors in performance calculations, data entry errors or handling errors. You seem to have a handle on this being a normal take-off and therefore nothing need be investigated?
I think you might find that statement would be disputed by the aircraft manufactures. In fact thay all go out of their way to describe the correct techniques required to realise the required performance profile. What if the take-off is obstacle limited? Still no problem?
Every incident report that I have read where aircraft have been shown to have had "near misses" with respect to performance on take-off have proved to have errors in performance calculations, data entry errors or handling errors. You seem to have a handle on this being a normal take-off and therefore nothing need be investigated?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is about the third or fourth time going through this.
Firstly: 35' at the end of the clearway is only relevant to an engine failure scenario. You should be much higher than that with two engines operating.
Secondly: If they'd had an engine failure at or just prior to V1 it looks unlikely they could have stopped. If they'd had an Engine failure approaching the threshold, it looks unlikely that they could have made a safe takeoff.
Thirdly: Boeing say in the Training manual that an aircraft on a normal takeoff should easily achieve a height 150' at the opposite end of the runway. On this basis alone, this was not a normal takeoff according to the aircraft manufacturer.
Firstly: 35' at the end of the clearway is only relevant to an engine failure scenario. You should be much higher than that with two engines operating.
Secondly: If they'd had an engine failure at or just prior to V1 it looks unlikely they could have stopped. If they'd had an Engine failure approaching the threshold, it looks unlikely that they could have made a safe takeoff.
Thirdly: Boeing say in the Training manual that an aircraft on a normal takeoff should easily achieve a height 150' at the opposite end of the runway. On this basis alone, this was not a normal takeoff according to the aircraft manufacturer.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One factor that, if taken into account, renders a lot of the above arguments pointless.
I bet you that both the people in the driving seats had plans to get home safe and sound, no doubt with plans for dinner with the family etc.
Incidentally, last nights' HIGNFY had the following comment re storm Ophelia: "It was so windy, A Ryanair flight became airborne"!
I bet you that both the people in the driving seats had plans to get home safe and sound, no doubt with plans for dinner with the family etc.
Incidentally, last nights' HIGNFY had the following comment re storm Ophelia: "It was so windy, A Ryanair flight became airborne"!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that we don't know the position on the runaway that they achieved V1 and agree that looking at the video, it's speculation that stopping would not have been possible from minimum V1. However on a dry runway V1 normally approximates Vr.If they rotated at Vr. They certainly could not have stopped from any point within the previous 500' of where they started the rotation.
Boeing clearly says that during a normal takeoff 150' is easily achieved by the opposite end of the runway. It has been referenced in previous posts on this thread. It's in the Boeing training manual.
My opinion is that sadly there is a serious lack of professionalism by some who suggest that this was a normal take off.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary - it's become a fascinating insight into different pilots' understanding of performance rules that one would have hoped had been written sufficiently unambiguously as to not be subject to interpretation.
If we all had our flights minutely investigated by the peanut gallery I'm sure that we would find that every one of us had done something that appeared questionable. If the video had been of a BA aeroplane, do you think the vultures would have been circling the same way?