Ryanair uses all the runway.

[kungfu panda]

I think that if it was BA then there would be a lot more criticism and almost certainly an investigation. In my opinion Ryanair get away with more than almost any other Airline.
If this happened in China, believe me, the CAAC would be all over it. If it were expat Pilots they would have their CAAC license revoked with immediate effect.

[Stan Woolley]

I think that if it was BA then there would be a lot more criticism and almost certainly an investigation. In my opinion Ryanair get away with more than almost any other Airline.

I totally disagree with your first assertion. In fact it's laughable.

How can you say such a thing? Oh yeah, it's 'your opinion'. Have you ever flown for them?

If this happened in China, believe me, the CAAC would be all over it. If it were expat Pilots they would have their CAAC license revoked with immediate effect.

So is that what you think should happen?
Thank goodness you're not in a position of authority, possibly you are? Assuming that something was perhaps amiss, what happened to 'proper investigation'? That's the problem, too many Quick draw McGraw's, not enough level heads these days.

[kungfu panda]

Regarding my point about China. It's absolutely not the way I would like to see things handled. I do believe that it was an error caused systemically. I would like a non punitive investigation in order to resolve the error.

I do believe that Ryanair get away with murder and I do believe that the only true oversight of Ryanair is the Media and indeed this forum. Having seen interviews with MOL, I even think that the media are astonishingly weak in front of him.

[CL300]

Well, they got airborne before TORA no ? I do not have the charts but what is TODA on this runway ? and ASDA ?

I was pushing on the 15ft and the 35 ft because very often this justification is coming into play when it gets a but "murky"

But may be there is more data then a shadow and a couple of videos ? alas ! Am I stupid this is pprune !!!!

[Stan Woolley]

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

Regarding my point about China. It's absolutely not the way I would like to see things handled. I do believe that it was an error caused systemically. I would like a non punitive investigation in order to resolve the error.

That's good to hear.

I do believe that Ryanair get away with murder and I do believe that the only true oversight of Ryanair is the Media and indeed this forum. Having seen interviews with MOL, I even think that the media are astonishingly weak in front of him.

What evidence do you have to make such an assertion? I have worked for a few airlines, including some well regarded ones, and Ryanair runs (or at least used to run) a very tight ship when it comes to flight ops.

I have experienced gash, but certainly not during my time with Ryanair.

[911slf]

How good is good enough?

There seems to be a range of opinions from "nothing to see - move along" through to "this warrants a formal investigation". How does one distinguish between "barely acceptable" and "good" flying skills - especially in airline service as distinct from in the simulator?

Are there objective measures?

What would you do about a "good" pilot who on one/two/three occasions falls far below normal standards?

Would a "barely acceptable" pilot eventually be considered for a command course so long as his/her performance never fell to "unacceptable"?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

That’s ‘my’ runway and I’ve been as hot and heavy on it as it’s possible to be in 17 years of Ops. I’ve never rotated there. If I had I would have needed new trousers for the next days report.

[fireflybob]

I have experienced gash, but certainly not during my time with Ryanair.

Stan Wooley, I would certainly second your comments here.

[Musician]

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

I have read the definition of take off distance. Now you re-read it. It refers to Engine failure at V1.

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.

I believe the aircraft started to rotate at the touchdown marker before the aiming point, that would be 480m/1600ft from the end of the runway, at a very approximate 146kt. Going back to 500' before that, i.e. to the previous touchdown marker, the plane was at approximately 141 kt. Does it seem unlikely to you that V1 and Vr differ by 5kt on a derated takeoff?

35' is basically the height where the plane enters the "takeoff flight path" that maintains 35' obstacle clearance; obviously you can't do that at a lower height. TOD is computed such that the plane can reach that height with 15% spare distance on all engines, and can reach it with one engine inoperable from V1 and Vr. Clearway is limited to half the runway length by regulation.

The more interesting definition is for TOR: FAR 121.189 or 135.379 prescribe that "(3) The takeoff run must not be greater than the length of the runway." With FAR 25.113,

If the takeoff distance includes a clearway—

(1) The takeoff run on a dry runway is the greater of—

(i) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or

(ii) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

"VLOF is the calibrated airspeed at which the airplane first becomes airborne." So basically, the aircraft must achieve 35' within the same distance past the runway end that it achieved liftoff prior to the runway end. If that distance is 600ft, as this departure probably exceeded, a 5% / 3.5° angle of ascent would suffice. So that seems within margins as well.


P.S.: There is a safety consideration, though. I found an article in an old BOING AERO issue with a nice infographic down the page that shows that a 737 usually lifts off at 7°-9° attitude, and that this should be reached 3 seconds after Vr. If you rotate more slowly, a higher liftoff speed could result, and that might lead to a tire overspeed event.

P.P.S.: Pilot Guide to Takeoff Safety (2007):

• "Roughly 15% of the RTO accidents of the past were the result of improper preflight planning."
• "The use of clearway to increase takeoff weight “unbalances the runway” and results in a lower V1 speed."

P.P.P.S.: I should probably amend my above calculations to account for the 15% margin for all-engine operation; this effectively shortens the allowable runway use by 13%, that's 260m in case of Bristol. Since the aircraft was not at 35' at the actual runway end, liftoff needed to be at least 520m (1730') prior to the runway end for the end of the takeoff run, to allow for the 15% extension and not exceed the actual runway length (TORA). I believe that this was not the case here, since I have previously figured that liftoff did not occur before the plane reached the aiming point.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by KelvinD

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.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that their desire for survival is reason to conclude everything was hunky dory? If so, what about every other plane crash? Wouldn't the same apply?

[KelvinD]

I had thought of that. But then it occurred to me that possibly prior to take off when relevant figures etc were being input into computers etc, if 1 pilot mad a mistake, the other would have have spotted it and pointed it out. Then, providing all was well, during the take off run, if pilot monitoring noticed that pilot flying was not doing a good job of it, he would have either pointed it out or taken direct action. I can only assume from what i have read, all went well, the aircraft departed without hitting anything; no approach lights or localiser antennae were damaged etc

[Musician]

Mistakes do happen. A web search finds many incidents and accidents, for example:
* https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...hrust_Computed
* http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/wp-content/up...s-Oct-2011.pdf

[Meikleour]

I-FORD: You have only cited the all engines case regulation. The engine inop. case must also be considered - why do you not cite that also?

[DaveReidUK]

Not true.

See post #238, where the OP cited both the N and N-1 cases.

[Musician]

It is considered: "determined under paragraph 25.111" refers to the engine inop case.

[Prober]

We do not know where V1 was. Almost certainly it had passed some way back and thus there would have been no question of stopping at that rather late point on the runway. It would seem as if there was then a rather dozy rotation which, though looking rather alarming, was, in act, no big deal.

[Herod]

Prober. Agreed. That's about what I've been trying to say since about page one.

[Musician]

Was the "rather dozy rotation" a safety issue? That is the open question.

There may have been no danger of damage or injury, but the plane did use some of the safety margins designed into the take-off procedure. Is this an "occurrence" or is it business as usual?

EU regulation on mandatory occurrence reporting, Annex I "Occurrences related to the Operation of the Aircraft", 1. Air Operations, 1.3 "Take-off and landing", (5) "Inability to achieve required or expected performance during take-off, go-around or landing", or (6) "Actual or attempted take-off, approach or landing with incorrect configuration setting": did we see that here or not? Or can we not determine this from the video?

I think this is the reason (well, not the regulation, but the thought behind the regulation) why we have been discussing take-off performance and screen height for the past few days.

[biggles61]

Flap 1 improved climb

[RAT 5]

Not from 2000m with options of up to F25 & 26K and a 1.30hr flight. Doubt it. I vote for, as was speculated about on page one, by many, it was a gentlemanly rotation so as not to scare the children on board and give the plane spotters some close up pics.