Sri Lankan A340 low take-off at LHR
 

Some interesting pictures have emerged of a very low take-off from what looks like 09R at LHR by a Sri Lankan A340.

Low flying Sri Lankan A340 causes concern at take off from Heathrow. | Demotix.com

According to ATI the take-off is under investigation by the AAIB:

"A late take-off performed by a SriLankan Airlines Airbus A340-300 from London Heathrow's runway 09R on 5 February, followed by a low climbing trajectory, may be under scrutiny by the UK authorities.

In response to a question from Flightglobal, the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch said only that it is investigating an incident on that date.

SriLankan Airlines was not immediately available to comment."

:eek: THAT looks pretty low!!! :eek:

T/O Data stuff up??

I'm not saying there weren't issues, but seems to meet the screen height requirements pretty easily :D

When I flew the 343, pretty sure we were as low / lower crossing end of 13 at HKG on departure - certainly felt like it :{

Low is when you can read the make, model and serial number of the lights at the end of the runway:}.

They operate the oldest A340s with derated engines in the World, literally, I believe they have ancient SNos.
They are keen on fuel saving, I won't say anymore.

I recall a 747 taking off from 10L at Heathrow and still firmly on terra firma by Block 17. The supervisor said: "Be a laugh if he lost an engine". He did.,.. and it was! The flames set fire to the grass on the other side of the peri track!

I guess those were the days when that kind of humour would get you a promotion? ;)

"MAN FLEX 84, SRS RWY UPDATE". .....wrong Flex says me.

Hard for me to tell how much of the drama in the photos is from the flattened perspective of a telephoto lens.

A long haul four engine jet is not going to climb like an ETOPS twin, especially with a full derate takeoff. Also, with a long plane you rotate slowly to avoid getting the tail, this will give you less than the textbook optimum initial climb performance but might keep you out of the chief pilot's office. Seems like some A340's have tailstrike protection in software but maybe this old one doesn't.

In years past I've seen the sim instructors coach some optimum rotation rate in the simulator at a light 'training weight' complete with fancy computer plots. 'You need to get that nose up faster to clear the obstacle.' Then, folks go out onto the line on a max gross takeoff and get a tailstrike. Like single engine taxi on the twins, this optimum rotation rate stuff goes in and out of fashion over the years.

It was claimed that United flew a 744 close to the Golden Gate Bridge in SFO, to me this looks like another telephoto lens illusion:

FAA denies United Airlines 747 put Golden Gate Bridge in jeopardy - National Airlines/Airport | Examiner.com

Once these near disaster claims get on the social media (like PPRuNe) they sometimes get momentum. Whenever the Blue Angels perform in a town with a bridge, there are always eyewitness claims that they flew under the bridge:

Rumors fly about Blue Angels and the bridge | The Post and Courier - Charleston, South Carolina

Blue Angel flight in Charleston: Under the bridge or not? | TheDigitel Charleston

Fleet Week: Do the Blue Angels fly under the Golden Gate Bridge during Fleet Week in San Francisco? - Quora

I can remember years ago out of MIA on the 727 taking off to the east with Caribbean hand luggage. Whatever was carried onboard didn't count on the weight and balance and the pax would bring TV's, microwaves and huge duffels of clothes. Staff also looked the other way on the overweight checked bags, it was a different era.

You could read license plates on Le Jeune Road as you struggled to gain altitude.

View climb out here :
WebTrak: Heathrow

Select 5th February and 1115am

I take it that that was a gentle climb. At Croydon it was at about 3500 feet. The following aircraft was at 6000 at the same point. Unless I've got it ravelled round my neck I think I see what you mean.

real close, yeah.
Just as close as these two:
http://richardwiseman.files.wordpres...ller.jpg?w=500

From the data on webtrack it met the the height restrictions on the departure to be 3000 or above 29 west of Detling and 5000 20 west of Detling, therefore it is a non issue, unless it hit anything at the end of the runway :rolleyes:

This is low:

Looks like the parallel approach at SFO, a very common occurrence, can't remember how far apart the appoaches/runways are but it is far enough!


http://richardwiseman.files.wordpres...ller.jpg?w=500

750 ft plus the magic of the telephoto lens.

Yet another PPRuNe Hysteria Thread. The we're-all-gonna-die posts by amateurs are really getting tiresome.

Hi,

BTW .. good photos .. very "atmospheric" of this immaculate A340 :ok:

Photographic illusion.

My understanding is that flex takeoffs use more fuel than rated takeoffs.