Why the acceleration height is minimum 400 ft, not lower?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thailand
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the acceleration height is minimum 400 ft, not lower?
I just wonder. When one engine fails after V1 and go, we have to reach 400 feet minnimun before we can accelerate. The problem is, why it can't be lower than 400 feet? 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The experts probably deemed it safer to gain height above the runway first, giving you some kind of safety margin if there was windshear.
You should have already attained enough speed to handle the loss of an engine in the first hundred feet or so, so the priority switches to maintaining terrain clearance.
You should have already attained enough speed to handle the loss of an engine in the first hundred feet or so, so the priority switches to maintaining terrain clearance.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll find that many companies don't accelerate @ 400, even if no obstacles are present. Most use 400 ft. as the limit to initiate recall items and only accelerate when you've had a reasonable time to execute these, say, at 1000 ft AAL or higher.
Moderator
Keep in mind that the 400 feet third segment is gross while terrain calculations are based on net.
If you play with the geometry, 400 feet gross, for a simple case, gives you something in the vicinity of 280 feet net for a twin (according to my back of a fag packet calculation). If you start pushing down the 400 feet gross, you end up with a need for very little in the way of terrain to make the thing work.
At the end of the day, it's just a line in the sand sort of number.
If you play with the geometry, 400 feet gross, for a simple case, gives you something in the vicinity of 280 feet net for a twin (according to my back of a fag packet calculation). If you start pushing down the 400 feet gross, you end up with a need for very little in the way of terrain to make the thing work.
At the end of the day, it's just a line in the sand sort of number.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some carriers would to start the acceleration at 600’. Presumably, the aircraft would be above 700’ by the time the nose has been lowered, which is above the “DON’T SINK’ alert feature.
Mode 3 of the GPWS provides an alert if a decent is made during initial climb or go around to 700’ AGL. The aural alert is a voice message "DON'T SINK", and is repeated until the condition is corrected. It is effective between 50 and 700 feet radio altitude and generates the alert when accumulated barometric loss equals approximately 10% of the existing radio altitude. Mode 3 does not arm during decent until below 200 ft radio altitude.
Mode 3 of the GPWS provides an alert if a decent is made during initial climb or go around to 700’ AGL. The aural alert is a voice message "DON'T SINK", and is repeated until the condition is corrected. It is effective between 50 and 700 feet radio altitude and generates the alert when accumulated barometric loss equals approximately 10% of the existing radio altitude. Mode 3 does not arm during decent until below 200 ft radio altitude.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very simple.
Long before there was a JAA/EASA/FAR....there was CAR4B, which established 400 agl as the end of the second segment.
Carryover from the old days...and a good one at that.
However, with piston transport aircraft, 50 feet was the screen height, yet 35 feet was established as the screen height for jet transport aircraft, by CAR4B
Why, you ask?
That question is a bit more complicated, however...the basic facts are that the performance of the early jet transports was many times so poor, and the runways available so short....that it was impossible for the 50 foot screen height to be achieved, at the max weights anticipated.
I flew one of these early poor performers for quite awhile, the B707-320, and at its max weight (317,000 pounds), up close and personal with the far end of the runway whilst becoming airbourne, was a daily occurance...with all 4 turning, let alone with one engine unserviceable.
Long before there was a JAA/EASA/FAR....there was CAR4B, which established 400 agl as the end of the second segment.
Carryover from the old days...and a good one at that.
However, with piston transport aircraft, 50 feet was the screen height, yet 35 feet was established as the screen height for jet transport aircraft, by CAR4B
Why, you ask?
That question is a bit more complicated, however...the basic facts are that the performance of the early jet transports was many times so poor, and the runways available so short....that it was impossible for the 50 foot screen height to be achieved, at the max weights anticipated.
I flew one of these early poor performers for quite awhile, the B707-320, and at its max weight (317,000 pounds), up close and personal with the far end of the runway whilst becoming airbourne, was a daily occurance...with all 4 turning, let alone with one engine unserviceable.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: FL370
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with captjns
will we don't use here 400 feet as SE ACC ALT however it is the minimum Alt to start actions,where it is guarantee a stabilized and safe trajectory and it is an appropriate compromise between stabilizing the aircraft and delaying actions. (reference)A318/A319/A320 FLIGHT CREW TRAINING MANUAL _OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY 01.040 PAGE 5 OF 10.
will we don't use here 400 feet as SE ACC ALT however it is the minimum Alt to start actions,where it is guarantee a stabilized and safe trajectory and it is an appropriate compromise between stabilizing the aircraft and delaying actions. (reference)A318/A319/A320 FLIGHT CREW TRAINING MANUAL _OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY 01.040 PAGE 5 OF 10.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIM Chapter 5 Section 2
Obstacle clearance is based upon an aircraft climbing at least 200 ft/nm crossing the end of the runway by at least 35ft agl, then climbing to 400ft above the airport elevation before turning unless otherwise specified in the departure procedure.
FAA Part 25
At V2 with 1 engine out, you are guaranteed 2.4% gross, 1.6% net climb gradient. 400ft is the start of the third segment of the climb profile certification.
Cheers
KW
Obstacle clearance is based upon an aircraft climbing at least 200 ft/nm crossing the end of the runway by at least 35ft agl, then climbing to 400ft above the airport elevation before turning unless otherwise specified in the departure procedure.
FAA Part 25
At V2 with 1 engine out, you are guaranteed 2.4% gross, 1.6% net climb gradient. 400ft is the start of the third segment of the climb profile certification.
Cheers
KW
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specifically, FAR 25.111 states that:
This gives me the chance to promulgate my pet theory about the change from a 50 foot screen height to a 35 foot screen height. I have never been able to find a true reason for this, but consider that, a) Boeing had bet more than the net worth of the company on the 707 project, b) the 707 in its original form couldn't make a 50 foot screen when operating from many of the existing runways in the U.S. (that had been designed for piston transports), and c) Boeing was the prime contractor for some very significant defense projects at the time (B-52, Bomarc, etc.)
At the risk of opening the Pandora's box of government subsidization and the like, I have often wondered whether it simply came down to making sure the 707 worked so that Boeing stayed solvent in the middle of the Cold War. I have absolutely no grounds for this theory, but it used to be a fun story to use when teaching performance to turboprop (50 foot screen height) pilots back in the eighties.
The airplane must reach V 2before it is 35 feet above the takeoff surface and must continue at a speed as close as practical to, but not less than V 2, until it is 400 feet above the takeoff surface;
andThe airplane configuration may not be changed, except for gear retraction and automatic propeller feathering, and no change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be made until the airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface;
The 400 foot idea seems to have been introduced in SR 422, which was the 1957 change to certification in anticipation of turbine powered transports. I don't see it referred to in CAR 4b as it was in 1953.This gives me the chance to promulgate my pet theory about the change from a 50 foot screen height to a 35 foot screen height. I have never been able to find a true reason for this, but consider that, a) Boeing had bet more than the net worth of the company on the 707 project, b) the 707 in its original form couldn't make a 50 foot screen when operating from many of the existing runways in the U.S. (that had been designed for piston transports), and c) Boeing was the prime contractor for some very significant defense projects at the time (B-52, Bomarc, etc.)
At the risk of opening the Pandora's box of government subsidization and the like, I have often wondered whether it simply came down to making sure the 707 worked so that Boeing stayed solvent in the middle of the Cold War. I have absolutely no grounds for this theory, but it used to be a fun story to use when teaching performance to turboprop (50 foot screen height) pilots back in the eighties.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our minimum level-off with an engine-out is 800', but may potentially be higher with an airport analysis. We don't normally touch flaps until 3,000'.
In some of my light airplane flying, the airplane is accelerated in ground effect while flaps are retracted, and then a turn on course made often before the end of the runway.
In some of my light airplane flying, the airplane is accelerated in ground effect while flaps are retracted, and then a turn on course made often before the end of the runway.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another consideration in this discussion is that the third segment is defined as being flown with takeoff power still set. The time limit on takeoff power becomes a limiting factor if obstacle clearance requires a higher acceleration height. If, for example, the manufacturer specifies a five minute limit on takeoff power, then the second segment time to acceleration height is limited based on the time required for the third segment acceleration and cleanup.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: varies..a lot
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question
1st segment = 35ft screen to gear up
2nd segment = gear up to anything from 400ft-1000ft? is that correct
3rd segment = end of 2nd segment to flap retraction altitude.
Bit confused on the 2nd segment....
1st segment = 35ft screen to gear up
2nd segment = gear up to anything from 400ft-1000ft? is that correct
3rd segment = end of 2nd segment to flap retraction altitude.
Bit confused on the 2nd segment....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400' level off
The 400' level off was to allow the old water injected jets get up to speed before the water ran out. Without water the airplane would not be able to accelerate, and would come back down to earth again. (I always wondered about this myself, finally got the answer from someone a lot more experienced than me).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and would come back down to earth again.
The water flow in the Boeing airplane lasted for approximately 2.5 minutes, and it was allowed to do so until the water tanks were empty.
Been there, done that...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM,
1st segment - 35 feet screen to gear up (turbojet only; 50 feet otherwise)
2nd segment - gear up to acceleration height (min 400 feet), flown at takeoff power and V2 to V2+15
3rd segment - acceleration height to clean configuration, flown at takeoff power and minimum climb rate
4th segment - clean configuration to 1500 feet, flown at maximum continuous power and clean min maneuvering speed
At least, that's as far as I understand it based on the Boeing AFM...but if I've learned anything in this business, it is that there is always a exception.
1st segment - 35 feet screen to gear up (turbojet only; 50 feet otherwise)
2nd segment - gear up to acceleration height (min 400 feet), flown at takeoff power and V2 to V2+15
3rd segment - acceleration height to clean configuration, flown at takeoff power and minimum climb rate
4th segment - clean configuration to 1500 feet, flown at maximum continuous power and clean min maneuvering speed
At least, that's as far as I understand it based on the Boeing AFM...but if I've learned anything in this business, it is that there is always a exception.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intersting discussion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the screen height for a wet runway is 35' and 50' feet for a dry runway. This is why you can see a max allowable T.O. weight higher on a wet runway than a dry one when using the Boeing Lap Top Tool or the IPT fuction on the B777 EFB.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intersting discussion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the screen height for a wet runway is 35' and 50' feet for a dry runway. This is why you can see a max allowable T.O. weight higher on a wet runway than a dry one when using the Boeing Lap Top Tool or the IPT fuction on the B777 EFB.
§ 25.113 Takeoff distance and takeoff run.
(a) Takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of—
(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or
(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.
(b) Takeoff distance on a wet runway is the greater of—
(1) The takeoff distance on a dry runway determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a wet runway.
(a) Takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of—
(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or
(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.
(b) Takeoff distance on a wet runway is the greater of—
(1) The takeoff distance on a dry runway determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a wet runway.