Standard Takeoff Minimum?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Takeoff Minimum?
Hell All:
I am interested in "Standard Takeoff Minimum",Any ony can tall me why two engs aircraft is required to have higher Takeoff Minimum than three or four engs aircraft?for example 2=eng aircraft req 1 mile(or RVR1500 meters)while 3 or 4 eng aircraft req only 1/2 mile (or RVR 750 meters).
thanks.
I am interested in "Standard Takeoff Minimum",Any ony can tall me why two engs aircraft is required to have higher Takeoff Minimum than three or four engs aircraft?for example 2=eng aircraft req 1 mile(or RVR1500 meters)while 3 or 4 eng aircraft req only 1/2 mile (or RVR 750 meters).
thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: vancouver oldebloke
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada the Standard Takeoff 'VIS' is 1/2 mile..
Most Carriers have 'operational Specifications'(Due to training)of Takeoff visabilities of 1200'(or 600' depending on the runway facilities-centre line lighting etc)..The main difference between 2/engine aircraft and 3/4 engine types is that the Takeoff diversion Alternate Airport is 'closer'(one hour engine out cruise)..This in itself is only a Carrier'requirement,and these days this requirement is questionable with the Engine out Category3 capabilities of the fleets....EG:should the field requirements(lighting etc)operate one could return with an engineout autoland....
Most Carriers have 'operational Specifications'(Due to training)of Takeoff visabilities of 1200'(or 600' depending on the runway facilities-centre line lighting etc)..The main difference between 2/engine aircraft and 3/4 engine types is that the Takeoff diversion Alternate Airport is 'closer'(one hour engine out cruise)..This in itself is only a Carrier'requirement,and these days this requirement is questionable with the Engine out Category3 capabilities of the fleets....EG:should the field requirements(lighting etc)operate one could return with an engineout autoland....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: beyond PNR .. as always
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T/O minima
In my SOP,
Category C a/c :
RVR 250m No center line guidance
RVR 200m with center line guidance
RVR 200m (beginning RW) additional RVR 175 with lighted center line
additional requirements :
- there must be suitable airport within one hour flght with one eng. inop. ( 2 eng. a/c)
- CAT I weather or better ( precision app. available)
- if non precision app. to be used, visibility must be 400m better than approach syst. minima to be use
Category C a/c :
RVR 250m No center line guidance
RVR 200m with center line guidance
RVR 200m (beginning RW) additional RVR 175 with lighted center line
additional requirements :
- there must be suitable airport within one hour flght with one eng. inop. ( 2 eng. a/c)
- CAT I weather or better ( precision app. available)
- if non precision app. to be used, visibility must be 400m better than approach syst. minima to be use
Only half a speed-brake
JAR OPS - 400 m standard. Anything below (down to 125 m or maybe less) is Low Visibility Take Off requiring special procedures and training. Although many crews are trained to the LVTO standard anyway and their manual may be written so that you cannot see a real difference between normal na LV take-off.
FD (the un-real)
FD (the un-real)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now just imagine, the original question was what is the STANDARD minima.
And now, after much pontificating about the LOW it can be, the answer has been provided...400 metres.
Been this way for quite a long time, I believe.
I can remember it printed on the back of the Jeppesen chart for most European airports, for ages.
Congrats, FD, you are apparently the only one who actually RTFQ.
And now, after much pontificating about the LOW it can be, the answer has been provided...400 metres.
Been this way for quite a long time, I believe.
I can remember it printed on the back of the Jeppesen chart for most European airports, for ages.
Congrats, FD, you are apparently the only one who actually RTFQ.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Are you sure?
The FQ asks why takeoff minimums(in the U.S. I assume as it is shown on those charts)are different for aircraft with different numbers of engines. Have wondered that for a long time. Anybody know?
The FQ asks why takeoff minimums(in the U.S. I assume as it is shown on those charts)are different for aircraft with different numbers of engines. Have wondered that for a long time. Anybody know?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the reason is quite simple, and indeed was mentioned by someone before.
Twins have a different takeoff diversion distance/time than 3/4 engine aircraft.
Been this way for all the years I can remember.
As twins might have to return to the departure airport, whereas three/four engined types can have/do have greater flexibility in this regard, it stands to reason that they have slightly higher takeoff minima.
Twins have a different takeoff diversion distance/time than 3/4 engine aircraft.
Been this way for all the years I can remember.
As twins might have to return to the departure airport, whereas three/four engined types can have/do have greater flexibility in this regard, it stands to reason that they have slightly higher takeoff minima.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 411A
Yes, the reason is quite simple, and indeed was mentioned by someone before.
Twins have a different takeoff diversion distance/time than 3/4 engine aircraft.
Been this way for all the years I can remember.
As twins might have to return to the departure airport, whereas three/four engined types can have/do have greater flexibility in this regard, it stands to reason that they have slightly higher takeoff minima.
Twins have a different takeoff diversion distance/time than 3/4 engine aircraft.
Been this way for all the years I can remember.
As twins might have to return to the departure airport, whereas three/four engined types can have/do have greater flexibility in this regard, it stands to reason that they have slightly higher takeoff minima.
Anyone?
PP
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could be right, Pete, however I believe these minima were in existance well before the large widebody twins were a gleam on the designers board.
And as for controllability issues, the much older 4 engine Boeing design (speaking 707), were a real handful with an outboard engine failure approaching rotation.
I suspect the large twins today are much more benign.
And as for controllability issues, the much older 4 engine Boeing design (speaking 707), were a real handful with an outboard engine failure approaching rotation.
I suspect the large twins today are much more benign.
