hoss183

I imagine this was a bit of a brown-trouser moment
Incident: Skybus DC87 at Rionegro on Jan 21st 2018, unsafe departure

2nd video

DaveReidUK

Good job there weren't any windows for the passengers to see out of.

RAT 5

Better view. Fast forward to 1.00. Note the piano keys/touch down markings at rotation point. Ouch. The FE might have discovered something beyond firewall. RW 11500' an 7500' elev. Wind?

mustangsally

Hoss83, don't think you can label this unsafe. May have been but without the data, weight, temperature, wind, QNH and power selected we don't have the ability to call it unsafe. Yes, did use just about every meter of runway, but did seem to climb out at a reasonable rate. I've seen the far end of a lot of runways. You need to know where V1 was and Vr. Now if V1 was 60 knots you may have it right, but if V1 was 140 and Vr 160 with V2 165, it just might have been at the limit of performance.

hoss183

Well i'm quoting the CAA "On late Jan 24th 2018 Colombia's CAA issued a statement reporting the departure by OB-2059P on Jan 21st 2018 had been unsafe" Suspended their licence and opened and investigation, so someone thinks so, even if you don't.

Sqwak7700

Have to disagree. Unless something failed, a normal takeoff with all power plants producing the normal thrust, should not take up so much runway.

Otherwise there would be no chance in hell that they would have succesfully gotten off the ground with one inop.

TowerDog

I flew the DC-8-73 Cargo and used every inch of the runway once: We hauled leather goods out of India and the locals had left the pallets outside in the monsoon rain, but did not mention it. We thought the pallets weighed what the paperwork stated.
We over-burned fuel on the trip as if we were 10 tons over weight. Brown trouser take off for sure

galaxy flyer

A normal four-engine take-off should be airborne within 87% of the TODA. Loonks like they used a bit more.

Loose rivets

There must be something special about these aircraft. DC8's at Stansted decades ago. Lots of concrete and most of it used on some take-offs. It was a long time ago, but IIRC there was a perimeter fence damaged on one occasion.

pulse1

Even Manston's long runway has seen some of these:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/doug...11-august-2010

mustangsally

"Hoss183," so only now due to put forth that the Columbia CAA is looking into this incident and declared it unsafe. Now how about quoting the CAA report. Would certainly help clear up the situation and would change a lot of the responses.

"Sqwak7700" wrote: Have to disagree. Unless something failed, a normal takeoff with all power plants producing the normal thrust, should not take up so much runway

Let me give you a little bit of my background. I have well over twenty years of operating heavy/jumbo aircraft. Something on the order of 18,000 hours. Lockheed, Air Bus and Boeing. Have operated every model of the 747, except the SP. I've been an instructor, check airman, standard Captain and FAA designate. So, this is not my first cricket match.

And there are a good handful of times that I have seen the fair end of the runway. Everyone was supported by the performance data. In the good old days this was all charted data, very susceptible to error, it was done by at least two different crew members independently. If different data came out we got deep into the data and made sure it was good. Today, we just verify the input data is accurate by two different individuals independently.

"Galaxy Flyer" 87% is most likely a nice figure and may generally be correct. If the data was for a wide range of weight and conditions it may be accurate. But this discussion is based on operating at maximum conditions of weight, temperature, wind, elevation and atmospheric pressure.

On a rather separate subject, but still using the runway available several operators have procedure in gusty condition to increase Vr/V2, thus using most if not all of the runway.

This board is open to all and many express either very well supported data and other just want to throw a spanner into the turbine.

galaxy flyer

FAR 25.111 says,

a) Takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of --

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

(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

So, that take-off at the WAT limit should have been at 35’ above the end of the TODA. Now, if there was a clearway, it might have looked exactly like this IF the planned V1 allowed an abort at the end of the TORA. Saying TORA/TODA is 115% of the take-run distance is the same as saying TORR/TODR is 87% of the TORA/TODA.

hoss183

Well it was in the link in my first post, which you seemingly didn't bother to read.

DaveReidUK

Yes, there was a clearway (see the link in post #1), but at only 200m it was less than 6% of the TODA.

DD44 Dostovei

I am a local, I was right there when the Airplane took off.
I am a Pilot, even though I don't have significant experience on those operations.
When I saw the take off it didn't strike me as particularly unsafe, even if long for what we're used here nowadays.

I remember I had seen takeoffs like that back in the day DC-8s were daily here, when Tampa Cargo operated them. They weren't the norm or the majority, but I do remember seeing more of those at least a couple of times.

I couldn't really say if it was 35 feet airborne where it should have, as I was looking at the situation from the opposite threshold, but what I can say is that the colombian CAA issued the initial report saying, to paraphrase, that according to the photos, videos, and audios they had (who knows if they have anything we haven't seen in the internet) they suspect the Airplane was not dispatched by Tampa Cargo, but by the Airplane's crew themselves, and thus warranted being suspended while it's all cleared, according to them.

In my opinion, unless it's demonstrated that it was unsafe (again, I do not know, I was just a witness), it's just a knee-jerk reaction. Not only that, but it would be a first to suspend a whole company while a company is under investigation. Avianca had a similar situation with an A330 a couple of years ago out of Bogota and they were never suspended, nor was Aerosucre suspended when the 727 sadly crashed a year ago, just to name two examples.

I guess since the social media was so strong (we locals were really excited about the DC-8, so there's videos and photos everywhere) they needed to be seen as "doing something" since they have been criticised in the past just for giving the opposite impression, and the aforementioned Aerosucre 727 accident is still fresh.

JanetFlight

Cargo planes have a nice memorial at this airport

His dudeness

Was in Kinshasa / FZAA a few years back and was invited to have a look at the DC-8 there. Had a nice chat with the crew and asked the guys wether they had something really serious to deal with whilst flying this clearly under-maintained aircraft.... the captain said no, not really, quite reliable aircraft.... well once an engine fell off, but that wasn´t really that much trouble...

The day I realized what a I am.

TowerDog

I remember that crash quite well. I swapped lines with the Captain so I could sail the Bahamas for 3 weeks on my cutter rigged sloop.
Got a message on the SSB about the crash and they requested I return to civilization as my services were needed after all.
Ended up flying an empty 747 down there to pick up usable parts, pieces and engines from the wreck.

Mostly Harmless

I honestly can't tell if the mains left the ground before, or just after the end of the pavement.

India Four Two

MH,

Thanks. The famous "Vodka Burner" takeoff, at Canberra, I believe.

"You're going to have to go faster than that, Captain!"

Video taken from the Tower. Someone's hand must have been hovering over the crash alarm.