Polar Cargo B748 at Tokyo 15 Jul, overran runway on takeoff
 

Fatigue? 16R data entered?


Incident: Polar Cargo B748 at Tokyo on Jul 15th 2017, overran runway on takeoff

I guess they must have been pretty close to the farm (about 100m from the end)!

Is that the one they were trying to buy?

One of them. There are others I believe. You can see them on google earth.

Quite likely, so I'll lay it out for them as I understand it. In WW2, many service pilots were from rural areas. The family farm was where they grew up. A great many family farms were mortgaged and it was difficult work to pay off those mortgages on what could be made during The Great Depression. If a serviceman was killed in battle, their family would receive a significant payout from what we call today their Serviceman's Group Life Insurance policy. A death benefit that would be enough in most cases to pay off the mortgage on the family farm. "Yeah, ol' Shakey and his whole crew bought the farm yesterday. Two ships reported that they augured in near Heidelberg after gettin' hit by a 109 on the bomb run. No 'chutes seen."

Another MK Airlines Halifax avoided due to no obstructions in the departure path. Possible wrong ZFW used ?

This youngster (67) never heard that expression and since the Narita authorities HAVE been trying to buy that farm for years, the pun went right over my head! ;)

Firstly, the quote here is misleading (due to translation issues perhaps)? The aircraft lifted off 85m from the runway end, still on the paved surface (not beyond it, in the grass as the original quote seems to indicate). Yes that is still ~200m beyond where it should've lifted off, but the tires were not dragged through the grass. If we can wait a few weeks I'm sure information about the cause will be made available.

In any case, the farms are further down. If you don't unstick from 16L, you'll end up in the Toho Shrine. The farms are a little further down.

With the first comments I thought that if they dragged the tires on the grass they should have destroyed some of the approach lights. Lucky this was not the case.

Was that lift off at the correct speed and rotation rate, just a bit further down the runway than it should have been or was it dragged into the air close to VMU when they realised they were running out of pavement ?

that is what I have heard as well. translation issues, but in reality, on DEP all engine you dont have to be over the runway end by very much. A bit harrowing to watch...especially a 748

that PA 748 has had a tough time..

http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/u...KLAX_title.png

Anyone knows if Polar uses derate AND flex combined? We use it on the b744, kinda confusing at first and initially feels like looking 4 trouble. Still amazing to see how much thrust is added when switching from TO thrust to CLB(using derate and flex for TO)

Yes, they do. I wouldn't call it confusing as much as it is strange to reduce TO power to less than climb. On a different airframe with a F/E crunching out the numbers we never reduced takeoff EPR below climb.

Where is that near crash picture from?

This incident:

2016-04-15 Polar Air Cargo 747-800F pod strike at LAX » JACDEC

Atlas and Polar need to get their act together on safety. I'm not well informed and I can think of at least 5 serious events off the top of my head which they've had in the last 12 years. If they were African they'd be banned from flight into Europe or the U.S.

It seems unwise and unnecessary to set takeoff power to less than climb. How do pilots justify this? Is it a case of blindly following formulas without putting thought in to what you're doing?

I'll put some thought to it. I think that you are not a pilot. The majority of airliner flights in history in history has set a climb power which is less thrust than takeoff power. In fact it is pretty much mandatory as takeoff power is limited to 5 minutes.

Granted, with derates it can be set up with climb thrust being an increase in thrust.

arw,

You need to get out more! My personal definition of a category REAL Transport Aircraft is that it can carry its own weight in fuel and payload. e.g. B747

B748 Basic Wt about 418,000 lb; MTOW 985,000 lb
Rated TO Thrust 4 x 67,400 lb = 269,600 lb
D-TO2 (-20%), asm 57 deg (-25%) = 40,440 lb x 4 = 161,760 lb
At light weight, the thrust reduction is both wise and sensible.
I don't have a figure for CLB 2 thrust, but I think its around 45,000 lb.