Landing gear raising question
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching 747's taking off out of MIA have noticed a lot of takeoffs when the gear is left down for a long time so assumed it was a brake cooling thing. Usually they are departing runway 9. Seems like SOP for a lot of airlines. Makes sense to me.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty stupid, but it seems to me that a rejected takeoff will require more engery than a takeoff with a return to landing. If you know you're coming back to land, you can leave the gear out or put it out early, right? And a rejected takeoff will start MUCH FARTHER down the runway than a normal landing. But I guess I'm just too plain stupid to know the difference.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember...
Not to mention any names (to protect the innocent 
), but I remember several years back, one of the low-cost carriers (who bragged about short turn-arounds), ran off the end of the runway after a rejected takeoff. This was with one of the old 737-200s, as I remember.
During the latter stages of the takeoff roll, just before V1, they hit a flock of birds. One engine coughed, the other quit. The crew performed the rejected takeoff maneuver flawlessly (as per FAA and NTSB conclusion), but the aircraft ran off the end of the runway at a relatively slow speed, anyway.
Seems the brakes were hot at the start of the takeoff roll. (NTSB analysis) Nobody ever (at this outfit) seemed to give a ^%& about landing, standing on the brakes to make the first turnoff (ostensibly to save time), doing a quick turn, then blasting off again...only to repeat the above at the next stop...maybe an hour away. Leg after leg after leg...as the day wore on, the brakes became hotter and hotter. (No significant cooling occurs with the wheels in the well, as we all know.)
So, many of the comments to this thread are quite appropriate. It could have been an MEL (e.g. brake deactivated), or it could have been a captain exercising his command authority to follow good judgement and operating practice.
PantLoad
), but I remember several years back, one of the low-cost carriers (who bragged about short turn-arounds), ran off the end of the runway after a rejected takeoff. This was with one of the old 737-200s, as I remember.During the latter stages of the takeoff roll, just before V1, they hit a flock of birds. One engine coughed, the other quit. The crew performed the rejected takeoff maneuver flawlessly (as per FAA and NTSB conclusion), but the aircraft ran off the end of the runway at a relatively slow speed, anyway.
Seems the brakes were hot at the start of the takeoff roll. (NTSB analysis) Nobody ever (at this outfit) seemed to give a ^%& about landing, standing on the brakes to make the first turnoff (ostensibly to save time), doing a quick turn, then blasting off again...only to repeat the above at the next stop...maybe an hour away. Leg after leg after leg...as the day wore on, the brakes became hotter and hotter. (No significant cooling occurs with the wheels in the well, as we all know.)
So, many of the comments to this thread are quite appropriate. It could have been an MEL (e.g. brake deactivated), or it could have been a captain exercising his command authority to follow good judgement and operating practice.
PantLoad
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: on the beach
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are planning to depart with the gear down, then your takeoff performance (data card) should be based on GEAR DOWN (resulting in a significant performance loss) - otherwise you invalidate your data card (so why bother to calculate it at all!!)
Otherwise, remain on the ground complying with your applicable Ops Manual / Performance Manual.
SURVIVAL is the key!
Otherwise, remain on the ground complying with your applicable Ops Manual / Performance Manual.
SURVIVAL is the key!
