Negative, you simply cannot.

More reasonable...and respected safety dictates a full runway length departure.
Anything else is...baloney.

Period.

presumably 411A "tops off" the tanks before each departure too, ..."fuel in the bowser"........"runway behind you"......"sky above you".....all very approprate axioms in modern airline operations....NOT!;)

Absolutely, you need it all.
IF this crew under discussion had actually bothered to taxi to the runway end, prior to departure...this discussion would most likely not have been relevant...because...there would have been NO incident.
Ergo...the BA crew was out to lunch...safety-wise.:rolleyes:
Fuel in tanks, etc has no bearing on the outcome.
None.

411A,

Do you do reduced power takeoffs?

OK, so we have 7700 feet full length or 6600 feet from the best intersection.
By your logic we should backtrack a Twotter which typically operates out of ISC with only 1870 feet or even the Maule which gets off the ground in around 200 feet from my local 750 foot farmstrip.

Yea right.
:ugh:

With the use of optimised speeds and corresponding thrust reduction, it does not necessarily follow that a full length take-off results in more runway remaining at Vr compared to an intersection take-off.

Would you rather have an engine failure in your Maule after take-off on your 750 foot strip or on a 7,500 foot runway?

Don't be silly.

Your options on the 7,500 foot runway are much, much better and you bloody know it!

Spurious BS.

The intersection is immaterial!!! The perf A calculation showed the calculated runway was more than sufficient for the operation. That is not the argument!

It is simply that the wrong one was used.

PPrune has many threads on the use or non use of intersections. If 411's company policy is not to use them then all well and good. Continue to follow your SOP. BA's do not state that intersections should be avoided as long as performance figures exist for the intersection and the calculations show a take off can safely be made.

IF the correct intersection is used there is no problem. This situation was brought about by both pilots losing their SA for a multitude of reasons. If the policy in SKB was for full length TO's and they did not comply then that would have been gross negligence. That was not the case. A lightly loaded 777 with probably 10t of fuel has considerably more performance than necessary to cope with an intersection take off in SKB. I know, I have done it. No split max derate.

As WhatsaLizad says, and I mentioned in a previous post the logic of never using intersections follows that you never reduce thrust! Is that a sensible way to operate an airliner?

Quoted from post #114 as to some reasons why a full length might not have been a good idea:

"At many of the Caribbean Airports that we operate to, a full length departure means a backtrack (or Back-taxi if your American). Whils't that is not a big deal for a shorthaul/narrowbody aircraft, it is a big deal for a 777 which cannot turn 180deg in a standard rwy width (45m). There are turning circles at the end of most rwys, but a 180deg turn in a 777 is a convoluted affair (BA/Boeing SOPs) with a 15deg offset required, a full stop, hard tiller over and then turn into turning circle using outboard thrust. Apart from being slow and inconvenient, it tends to wear the rear tyres quite badly, especially if the rear wheel steering is U/S."

Yes, using the assumed temperature method, as approved by the regulatory authority, and the specific aircraft/engine manufacturer.

And, oh by the way, bringing B737 aircraft into the discussion has absolutely NO relevance to the subject, because...a B737 was NOT involved in this incident.

No significance to the present discussion, IE: not the same category, as is the above mentioned B737.
NONE.

British Airways policy, by condoning the use of intersection departures with the B777, set themselves up, hook, line and sinker...for trouble.
And, they found it.

Adequate width runway turning bays existed at the airfield under discussion, therefore, the above quoted 'explanation' is totally without merit.

A full stop? Shurely shomething wrong there? :confused:
Missed that on 114. Just can't understand full tiller on a stopped aircraft then apply (a lot of) power.

Absolutely.

However, BA is not prescriptive about this issue. It allows its commanders, indeed empowers its commanders to make there own decision on the day, based on the prevailing conditions on the day.

You cannot operate out of LHR as your main base and insist on "no intersection departures." LHR has enough problems without the major player demanding the full length for every departure. Just crazy. And that is the key here. A small operator based in Riyadh (say) it is an OK SOP. But for BA based at the most slot constrained airport in the world, it is just a non starter.

For me as a BA 747-400 Captain, I will always use full length if at all possible. Always. However, sometimes I just have to compromise, and for a whole host of multiple reasons I will accept an intersection departure. I do it reluctantly, but accept that sometimes, on balance, it is the best decision. And BA trust me to make that decision. Not only that, they pay me a shed load of money to make that decision.

For a blanket.. never use intersections edict, it is forcing the operation into unnecessary crutches.

And I will go from an intersection, using the exact same criteria.

And, I will go from the correct intersection.

...... but.

There but for the grace of God go I.

As I recall the last one was a 747C rollover into the dirt after
TO Stansted. Capt A/H failed and the FO just let his boss kill
him. This wasnt long after Guam I think.

Its a while since then and yep there well overdue for a fatal
prang.

I approve.
However, this discussion is not about the B747-400, nor about departing from LHR.
No B747 involved.
Not LHR.
Please do try to stick to the relevant facts.
Yes, I know it's difficult, but do try.:rolleyes:

It's entirely relevant. We're running a scheduled airline, not an adhoc charter outfit in the third world. If you can accept an intersection - the correct intersection - and you have ample performance then it's perfectly sensible, both from an airmanship and a commercial perspective, to take it. Avoiding all intersections is no more sensible than avoiding derate take offs in case you screw up the derate.

You are being perverse.

The 777 is heavy. The 747 is heavy. More than that, I was pointing out BA company policy regarding Captains area of responsibility with regard to intersection departures. One of the reasons that BA does not wish to be prescriptive is because our main base is LHR, and de facto that extends to outstations.

Tells me, yet again, more about you than it does about me.

Oh yes it has, it's the generalisation we're talking about not the specifics.

My present Microlight (LSA) needs less than 100 m. of the 1,100m runway I have available, I'll USUALLY take the whole length, but should I CHOOSE not to then I do it in the full knowledge of the possible consequences.

Successfully handling the hardware is a very small point of being The Captain, every action should be prefaced with .....At The Subsequent Court of Inquiry ....... can I defend the decision I took ? If so go ahead, if not think again.

411A,

While it might be true that BA is just saving a buck/pound/euro with the intersection departure, what we don't know is if BA Engineering has any problems with the turning circle at SKB relating to tire wear as stated by another poster or even tearing up the asphalt surface during the turn.
After seeing that runway a fair amount, I wouldn't doubt a hard scrubbing might have an effect on the low grade asphalt. to act as if we know all the issues is arrogant and stupid. Powering up a Trent vacumm cleaner over the gravel, grass and weeds of the typical Caribbean airport in order to barely make max rate turn wouldn't exactly rank in the pinnacle of airmanship. (although I agree what they did rank far lower). I'm sure you considered that.

If it's a just a financial issue with the intersection takeoff, they are doing the same thing as you are with engineered. approved procedures for reduced power takeoffs. Both methods take advantage of excess performance and runway/climb margins. One would be a fool to act as if there was a difference.

I brought the 737 into the discussion because it highlighted the performance differences and if I departed where BA did, I'd be a smoking heap on the beach. You claim intersection departures are foolish,yet with a straight face, you practice reduced power takeoffs which is basically the same thing, an aircraft farther down the runway than if it started max power at the start of the pavement.

I already posted my experience with confusing the runway entrance at SKB. How both the BA crew and myself found ourselves in that predicament is more an issue than approved preformance issues with intersection takeoffs. It wouldn't been a safety issue for me. My "pig" has to get a running start from the beginning of the runway, and besides that, I'm paid by the hour. :E

By God you're a pompous ar$e...you give us TriStar drivers a bad name. You're not a 777 skipper, you don't work for BA and I doubt you have as much information as some of those posting on here in terms of company SOPs or the incident itself.

Perhaps your comments are the irrelevant ones?

FWIW I have conducted numerous intersection departures on the TriStar, and I seem to be sitting here in the comfort of my armchair writing about them. Perhaps your understanding of Perf A (or whatever you colonials call it) isn't quite up to scratch? Let's not start on -22B thrust eh...