super vc10
 

full length

Man on the ground - thanks for that. So it wouldn't have mattered in this accident. I'd be interested to see others opinions on the question in general. Always use the full length of the runway or not? If not, why not?

Intersection departures are perfectly valid and acceptable...as long as you are not trying to fly half way around the world, ...... and you have the figures available.

I don't have the charts but, from memory, I can see little difference in using the full length of 27 at MEL or departing from the 27/16 intersection on 16. :8

I don't think I would be very popular with the local residents. :E

....so, noise abatement is more important to you than the safety of your 150 or so pax?...is that what you're saying? Or have I misread you? :confused:

I think you have misread me.

Noise abatement is just one (low importance) consideration.

I was merely stating that just because you have 2000 feet or so of concrete/tarmac behind you on r/w 16 it does not make it any less safe than r/w 27 as there is still 8000 feet or so in front of you.

If I was trying to fly an aircraft at anywhere near MTOW, I would of course prefer the longest r/w available.

Thread drift in the prevaling wind.......;)

p.s. Have you never requested/done a takeoff with a slight tailwind in preference to a 3 mile taxi for a slight headwind ? All perfectly safe.

I read on the Melbourne Age Newspaper web site that the have resigned.

This was already reported just six posts above yours, with the additional comment that their source is PpruNe.

:ugh:

The facts ! Both operating pilots were forced to resign following a flight operations debriefing in DXB this week. The management had decided to effectively SACK both guys before the publication of any official reports were published. Following the meeting both pilots were taken into the SVP fleets office where two 'pre prepared' letters were awaiting their signiture ! Both a resignation letter and a confidentiality statement. Both guys were told that failure to agree to resign and sign the letters would lead to legal action against them and were told " thing would get very ugly " for them .Both guys have therefore resigned and have been given approx 3 weeks to pack up their lives and get out of town.

dofus wrote:
And yet the briefest of glances at this airlines internal roster system shows that both crew members are in fact still available for duties for the entire month of April. Nevertheless dofus does seem pretty sure of himself. My gut feeling is that the people who really know wouldn't be posting here.

Seems that some unsubstantiated posts have been made on this board which have been picked up on by the press. Trigger another poster coming along using the press reports (based on PPRuNe postings) as conclusive evidence of what has happened. Kieran Daly and the Melbourne Age as two examples.

Intersection Takeoffs
 

Several things do you no good:

The fuel not taken on

Airspeed already bled off

The altitude above you

The runway behind you.

They used the full length.

Love it.....any more gems, Ed?

Brokenenglish
"The Age" quotes Emirates as the source of the info that the crew resigned. Several posters have confirmed the rumour. What more do you want from a rumour forum?
I put it to you that the absence of any denial by the company, those involved, or any of their colleagues etc.etc. trumps the appearance of their names in the rostering system.

ferris

They may have resigned, but the airlines internal reference system shows not.

The Age credits its photos to PPRuNe and with the continued absence of any official statement within the company I suspect this is where the 'spokesman' they refer to got his information from too.

Bravo Sierra
 

A vortex of flying crap as they and we fight for space up each other.

Weight, V1 etc etc. Maybe the FO got distracted sending a text message? Hard to do whilst driving a car (especially with an Iphone) imagine how dangerous it is while rotating.

Smilin_Ed "Intersection Takeoffs
Several things do you no good:
The runway behind you. "

That's all well and good Ed when you are operating for yourself.

In airlines that I am familiar with, once you hit V1 you go! ie You take off regardless of how much runway is left.

If you acted the hero, and aborted after V1 because you new you had lots of runway left, and if you damaged the aircraft or if anyone was injured, the airline would have your balls and probably your job!

Many operators prefer intersection departures because it saves heaps of time and money.:ugh:

Reduced power take-offs are preferred as they save money as well, and as far as the pen pushers are concerned, providing the minimum amount of overrun is available, that is all that is needed. Why spend more money on the take-off roll than you need to?:ugh:

As pilots, we are between a rock and a hard place. Pilots want maximum performance to use minimum runway to get off the ground earlier to minimise any potential threat, to improve the safety of all. On the other hand, airlines want us to use minimum power, to use the maximum amount of runway, to have the minimum theoretical safety margin, to save money. :{
Of course the decision to use max power is always up to the PIC, however any pilot who chooses to go against the company SOP (as shown up in the quick access flight data recorder) can expect a "please explain" from the relevant manager and possible job loss.

Unfortunately the decision to use reduced power or not (or an intersection departure (that was not the case here)) is not as simple as it should be. The decision not to abort after V1 can also be questioned.

Upon reaching V1, the pilots of EK407 would have been expecting everything to continue as normal. At VR (I assume they got to that too) they would have pulled back and expected to lift off as it has always done. When lift-off did not occur, the PIC and EFFO would have faced a very unusual situation as to "what to do now"? Correctly, and this should be applauded, they decided to continue and apply TOGA thrust (apparently, from other posts) and avoided a disaster that could have cost many lives and the future of EK as an airline.

Sure, these pilots may have made a mistake with their data input, but their company SOP's should have prevented this error. There were 4 pilots on deck at the time so if there was any gross error someone should have seen it.

Unless this is a case of gross negligence, which I doubt, and if it is found that the EK SOP's were part of the cause, I hope the pilots are re-instated and are shown as true hero's for carrying out a successful recovery and preventing injury to all passengers and crew, after a "faulty" take-off.:ok:

In fact, the point is not so much fuel saving. By reducing T/O power, you will not only extend your roll, but also reduce the climb rate until selection of climb power. So you will remain at lower altitudes for a little longer, where the engines tend to use more fuel than they have to.

The thing that makes a reduced power T/O save money is the reduced wear on the engine. By reducing power, you will also reduce RPM and most importantly the exhaus gas temperature that the turbine has to digest. Consequent use of reduced power thus has the ability to extend engine lifetime and therefore saves rather on maintenance costs than on fuel.

Tu.114

Broken English you are persisting on this forum and others with your roster argument re: the fate of the operating crew. My roster says I will do many things before the end of the month yet I know it will change, so too for the 407 crew. If you resign you are not automatically taken off the roster and I would suggest that this is why you still see duties for this crew, but they will not be doing them. I assure you that what Dofus says is true and request that you give it a rest.