Embraer to introduce 'automatic take-off' for E2s
 

"FARNBOROUGH—Embraer is introducing an automatic takeoff function onto its E2 family of passenger jets, leading to much-enhanced range capabilities from short runways. The function, called Embraer Enhanced Takeoff System (E2ET), will be available from the fourth quarter of 2025 and will also be available for retrofit on aircraft that have already been delivered, the OEM revealed July 23 at the Farnborough Airshow."

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/fa...offs-e2-family

"Range/Payload improvements from challenging airports
Embraer also unveiled its E2 Enhanced Take Off System for the first time. This automatic take off system produces a more precise and efficient rotation moment and flight trajectory, reducing the required field length and pilot workload; meaning more payload and more range from challenging airports. This gives the E2 best in class performance from airports like London City, Florence, and Santos Dumont. Adding 350NM in range from LCY for example."

https://embraer.com/global/en/news?s...al-e-jet-range

Interesting one... are human pilots so inefficient ? Or more to the point do they need bigger safety margins than robots ?

I used to employ automatic takeoff in the Boeings I flew. It was even voice activated!!

All I had to say was “your leg” and sit back and enjoy the ride :ok:

What about the "Voice Activated Auto Throttle".

Did anyone else see the graph by them?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...883041cb53ec&=

And it probably won't sell one more of those in the US, which is their biggest problem since they didn't consider scope clauses when updating the E-Jets...

What can go wrong, can go.........

Take off is primarily an an energy management exercise and an engine failure at V1 is the critcal take off weight determing factor for a given runway.

I'm guessing the software is optimised to reach screen height at exactly at V2, where the speed there is usually a bit higher, and saves some distance in that way.

but i'm guessing that if one of the engines fails within the critical window it won't be the automation that has to save the day???

And then ATC says “Stop climb 5000’”. That’ll be some bunt.

Gosh.. imagine if this existed in the real world. Like for example the F/A-18. What a disaster that has been. YouTube is available for the doubters.

Christ on a bike… are you even vaguely aware of what modern airliners do? The ignorance on here astounds me on a daily basis.

The A319/20/21/30/40/350/80 will climb away single engine with or without auto yaw compensation and achieve all required gradients.

Similarly the 777/787 will also automatically provide yaw assistance.

Read a f@&king book

Ah yes, the totally unexpected stop at 5,000ft. What a bunt. Do you fly fast jets? Must be great fun!

It must be a blast for engineers and developers to play with aircraft these days. Less so for those who went the more analogue way and became "pilots"... If this is to come true, I pressume the automatic take off will be mandated or else it will invalidate your take off performance figures. Better fire those test pilots as well who consistently failed to optimize their rotation!!

350nm at 5kg per mile. It must increase the RTOW by 1750kg. I know an extra 1750kg would have helped me at times!

FFS half roll and pull the nose down to level will ya!! Hate the bunting that goes on these days. :}

The slide @ #5 suggests that the performance improvement comes from a reduced distance in achieving the screen height (35 ft).

Assuming that the physical aircraft / engines are unchanged, then this difference is between manual and automatic flight.
A further assumption is that the idealised flightpath was achieved in testing, validating theory; thus the published performance (manual flight) would involve a certification margin over the ideal - for consistency in manual fight - for 'all' pilots and circumstance.

What is, where does this margin appear in certification requirements?
What is the basis for performance benefit from automatic flight. (N.B. autoland distances are longer than for manual flight)

The sales-speak refers to difficult airports. If the performance limit is due to near obstacles vice screen height, then again how can automation claim a benefit over manual flight - height over obstacle etc.

There is performance benefit for automatic approaches, reduced obstacle free zones, e.g. all weather ops, or en-route navigation, but none AFAIR for takeoff (excepting claims for autobrake performance - reaction time and consistency).

The F15 Ababil demonstrated this at Fairford and Farnborough this week. It was quite impressive. I don't know if it complied with Noise Abatement criteria though.

The A340 and A380 will do that single engine ? Blimey !

I know they are good.....I didn't realise they were that good !

Airbus had a new A330 crash at TLS out of a demo climb too steep.
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/cras...louse-7-killed

Wouldn't steep performance climbs eat into safety margins? Trading safety for performance as the new way to go? How about systems, electrical or software hiccups and suddenly having to hand fly these things?

It wasn't that it was too steep, they stuffed up the modes and having one of the engines pulled back to idle after takeoff (test flight) didn't help. It was a crew ballsup that caused that one.

I was thinking about that automated yaw assistance enthusiastically mentioned before.

Designing your aircraft capabilities down to what a particular customer wants is disastrous for an aircraft manufacturer.

Always remember the HS Trident which was designed down to the limited imagination and scope of the Chairman of BEA and therefore had limited sales prospects to other customers.

And why is Boeing in such trouble today? Because they kept warming-over their 1960s design to suit one customer, instead of building a good aircraft for the 21st century.

So still a long way to go.... Wouldn't be surprised that certification of this 'first', slides the planning well into 2026.

Less Hair, Capn Bloggs #19, 20

Both posts Irrelevant and Incorrect; Disrespectful.

Take off performance is limited by the engine failure case.

A point for discussion is how automation - auto rotate, will improve the certificated performance.

Mishandled Rotation is discussed by D.P Davies @ https://www.pprune.org/accidents-clo...l#post11698267 #55

eeek! :E

Interesting comment but being physically attached to a centerline for a two-second event with no rejected takeoff options in an aircraft where high risk operations are considered as acceptable is a slightly different scenario.

It's not assistance on take-off the E2 needs, it's help getting the damn thing back on the ground.

They come down eventually, given enough time.

Depends what they mean by "operational". It's quite conceivable that they have an operational test aircraft in 2025 but we don't see it certified for decades.

MD-11 needed more pitch up to fly V2+10 than Douglas though acceptable for passenger comfort. The FD pitch command was limited, I think, to command no more than 23 degrees. The presentation slides for this auto takeoff mode show pitch attitude closer to 45 degrees. Ok, I assume that is some marketing and artist "freedom" in the presentation material but what pitch limit, if any, would this system actually use?

Obviously. :cool:

This not some wonder feature that will suddenly make the aeroplane go like a Saturn 5. If the 350nm is correct, then, as I said before, that equates to around 1750kg extra RTOW. For a ~50 tonne aeroplane, it's not much in relation to how the jet will perform during the takeoff. It appears to be nothing more than a reduction in/elimination of the pilot-induced delays/handling foibles, so allowing a bit more TO weight.

That’s the benefit of reading those f**%^ books you see…

This is a load more electronics/ circuitry and diodes and chips between you and the aircraft.
These manufacturers can't wait to get us out of the cockpit for their customer's company accountants.
How many times does it have to go wrong?
Human Factors? - how about Aircraft Factors?

Broadly speaking the reason we have human factors is cos it’s what’s left after (largely) fixing the aircraft factors.

They actually did, but thought they could get away with busting the weight limit as long as they stayed within the seat limit. They, however, underestimated the resolve of US pilot unions. And thus died the 170/175.

That is undeniably true. After over a decade of using this case to underpin a few Vmca slides, I was somewhat surprised to learn the PIC routine for that doomed day.

2x 4 hrs SIM session with pilots and then a VVIP event for customers. Finish that, and off to perform the flight test.

Things we have done before … but haven't
 

Also, Bloggs, et al, re #20 #24 - inaccurate views of the accident.

Whereas:-
Human mistakes, identified via unexpected aircraft motion; human intervention.
Flight test in limiting conditions, modified software in SRS (speed related), AP mode and unexpected reversion hidden by declutter function (the electronics/ circuitry and diodes and chips between you and the aircraft.)

the facts - specialist safety briefing to the manufacturing industry.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1omlh...hpqs1pkr6&dl=0

I flew in a 175 last Friday, American Airlines. (Technically, their 'regional jet' subordinate airline: Operated by Envoy Air as American Eagle).

Not now. But in 20 years or so I will feel more comfortable getting in a pilotless aircraft than one with pilots.

Automated aircraft will still have accidents. However that will be much less than pilot error.

There will be no statistics to support that claim until there have been millions of pilot-less flights made. As the reliability of current two-man crews is less that one hull loss per million flights.