V1 = Vr, Balanced field???
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: -
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the "land straight ahead" I did mention that it was for smaller turboprops and piston multi engine aircraft. Look in the accident statistics for these, and a great deal of these engine failures right after take-off result in an accident, especially the ones where the aircraft have been overloaded.
For JAR/FAR 25 aircraft I totally agree that I'd rather be go-minded, especiallt when the runway length and ASDA is limiting.
Has anyone here adressed the timing issue I brought up yet? I think not. So why not incorporate timing in the V speed calculations? (or was that another thread I wrote this in?)
For JAR/FAR 25 aircraft I totally agree that I'd rather be go-minded, especiallt when the runway length and ASDA is limiting.
Has anyone here adressed the timing issue I brought up yet? I think not. So why not incorporate timing in the V speed calculations? (or was that another thread I wrote this in?)
Moderator
Concur totally with the suggestion that one ought to separate the smaller Part 23 and Part 25 aircraft. One's engine failure at rotation in a light twin is a whole different ballgame to the equivalent event in a Boeing or Bus.
