judging takeoff run acceleration
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
judging takeoff run acceleration
the near disaster with the emirates airbus at melbourne, australia, with a much too low weight entered into the system, raises the question, how is the acceleration during the take off run measured. Is it judged by the push in the back from the pilots seat only
is there a G meter?
it seems that until the last possble minute, none of the pilots realised the take off acceleration was much too slow
also in something of an apparent panic they pulled back too far on the controls, causing a heavy tailstrike
is there a G meter?
it seems that until the last possble minute, none of the pilots realised the take off acceleration was much too slow
also in something of an apparent panic they pulled back too far on the controls, causing a heavy tailstrike
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is - there is none.
Unless - someone takes a stopwatch to time the run from brake release to a target IAS. B-52 crews did this, per my lunch mate. Of course, they had a surplus of crewmembers during TO roll.
It would be pretty easy to implement software to monitor this; the accelerometers in the IRS provide all the raw data you need.
Unless - someone takes a stopwatch to time the run from brake release to a target IAS. B-52 crews did this, per my lunch mate. Of course, they had a surplus of crewmembers during TO roll.
It would be pretty easy to implement software to monitor this; the accelerometers in the IRS provide all the raw data you need.
barit1
Actually, the BUFF had the standard 2 pilots during take-off roll. Also, just about all USAF planes do an acceleration check when doing a standing take-off, even some fighters. The C-5, typically, ran to 110 KIAS in about 38 seconds, plus or minus, on a near gross weight take-off. The engineers ran the data and the pilots monitored the take-off acceleration. On brake release, the co-pilot started the clock, if at the expiration of the calculated time, speed was not less the "line" speed minus 3 knots, nothing was said. "Abort", if you didn't have the speed. In 4,000 hours, only saw one take-off come close and it was obvious that it would be close as we passed 80 knots, I was in the right seat. We made it, but right at 3 knot tolerance.
GF
Actually, the BUFF had the standard 2 pilots during take-off roll. Also, just about all USAF planes do an acceleration check when doing a standing take-off, even some fighters. The C-5, typically, ran to 110 KIAS in about 38 seconds, plus or minus, on a near gross weight take-off. The engineers ran the data and the pilots monitored the take-off acceleration. On brake release, the co-pilot started the clock, if at the expiration of the calculated time, speed was not less the "line" speed minus 3 knots, nothing was said. "Abort", if you didn't have the speed. In 4,000 hours, only saw one take-off come close and it was obvious that it would be close as we passed 80 knots, I was in the right seat. We made it, but right at 3 knot tolerance.
GF
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates wasn't the first to mess up that way. Cases in Canada and the UK come to mind on both Boeing and Airbus. Systems like these have been proposed and made it to the prototype stage. One of the first systems was on the NASA 737 demonstrator, which invented the A320 for Airbus.
Typically called a Takeoff Performance Monitor (TOPM or TPMS). The problem with these systems is that the false warning rate, and subsequent high speed aborts, outweighs the benefits.
The real problem in Emirates and several other cases seems to be miscalculations or simple misentries. You can solve these by cross checking, uplinking performance data, and simple sanity checks on entered speeds, which both Boeing and Airbus haven't implemented. Often, TOPM still relies on aircraft GW and runway length, so you wouldn't be solving the problem.
A lesser factor is whether the engines are producing the commanded thrust, which is solved by the ACUTE system on the A380. There, percent thrust is calculated from a number of sensors and a model, and is used as your primary thrust setting measure. The landing performance monitor is somewhat easier to implement as well, which is showing up in the BTV system on the 380.
Typically called a Takeoff Performance Monitor (TOPM or TPMS). The problem with these systems is that the false warning rate, and subsequent high speed aborts, outweighs the benefits.
The real problem in Emirates and several other cases seems to be miscalculations or simple misentries. You can solve these by cross checking, uplinking performance data, and simple sanity checks on entered speeds, which both Boeing and Airbus haven't implemented. Often, TOPM still relies on aircraft GW and runway length, so you wouldn't be solving the problem.
A lesser factor is whether the engines are producing the commanded thrust, which is solved by the ACUTE system on the A380. There, percent thrust is calculated from a number of sensors and a model, and is used as your primary thrust setting measure. The landing performance monitor is somewhat easier to implement as well, which is showing up in the BTV system on the 380.
Actually, Capt, 100 knots at 3000 feet works rather well for accelerating or slowing. Look at a take-off on a runway with distance remaining markers to check it out.
GF
GF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typically called a Takeoff Performance Monitor (TOPM or TPMS). The problem with these systems is that the false warning rate, and subsequent high speed aborts, outweighs the benefits.
However, the objective should be to identify substandard performance EARLY in the roll, to avoid high speed rejects.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pre-dep area
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey GF,
My bad, I wasn't specific enough. Yup, that's what I mean, the last 1,000' foot marker on the TDZ, which is actually the 3,000' marker. Thanks for the clarification.
My bad, I wasn't specific enough. Yup, that's what I mean, the last 1,000' foot marker on the TDZ, which is actually the 3,000' marker. Thanks for the clarification.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the objective should be to identify substandard performance EARLY in the roll, to avoid high speed rejects.
The best method early in the roll is engine parameters, which is what you do today. And then couple the engine parameters to a model in order to detect problems.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normal acceleration
As a pilot and as a passenger, I have always counted the seconds to reach VR as a passenger, or as a pilot by a stop watch (if the machine had a capable system).
There are various ways to keep track of your acceleration,
Tmb
There are various ways to keep track of your acceleration,
Tmb
Originally Posted by catiamonkey
That's going to create a ton of low speed rejects. Let's say you're going at 40 kts and a 10 kt headwind comes along. Now, according to the model, airspeed is 25% off. The plane shows 55% more drag than I expect. Is it because of a dragging brake? Wing problem? Wind? Not to mention the dynamic change in engine performance. The NASA system commanded a reject at 15% discrepancy, so you'd be stopped by now.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A headwind would generate an increase in airspeed, so if the system used airspeed it would show an increase in performance. But these are technical issues that can be solved by proper design, not reasons to not bother designing it at all.
This was an area of active development 20 years ago, and you can search for the literature if you don't believe me. There's even a SAE AS on how well it's supposed to work. Once in a while a safety board complains about it, but you simply can't have a good model until you're close to the high speed regime. It's different measuring time to rotation or time to 110 knots, not 50.
Draw another analogy, take a car and floor it. From the time it takes to get from 0 to 30, estimate its top speed. To 15%. With a fat guy in the back, speed bumps, rain and wind.
To mathematically prove it's not going to work, take a state-space model of an accelerating airplane and calculate the observability grammian at low speeds. It's basically the calculation I showed you. It's not that nobody's tried, it's that people have tried and realized it doesn't work until high speeds, and as everybody agrees then one false alarm is going to cause a big problem.
The C-5 Performance Manual states that the check speed, which was variable between 80KIAS and 120 KIAS, would be as as close as possible to V1-10 knots. I think worded that right. Made for accurate checks, but was a set up for a high-speed abort for sub-standard acceleration. Other planes just used 100 knots, which seems reasonable, esp. Airbus.
GF
GF
On EFIS aircraft, you have the trend vector on the speed tape.
I believe Boeing test pilots need a 30kt trend at 80kts or they RTO, and I've been using that as a personal check since the MEL incident.
I believe Boeing test pilots need a 30kt trend at 80kts or they RTO, and I've been using that as a personal check since the MEL incident.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This raises a question:
speed trend vectors are purely inertial ("GS knots to be gained in 10 sec") or it is converted to "IAS knots to be gained in 10 sec"?
I think incidents like those can be detected before lining up, if the computer rejects Vr or V2 speeds non consistent with GW and thrust.
Any reference for 320s used by Airbus test pilots like that of the 737s?
speed trend vectors are purely inertial ("GS knots to be gained in 10 sec") or it is converted to "IAS knots to be gained in 10 sec"?
I think incidents like those can be detected before lining up, if the computer rejects Vr or V2 speeds non consistent with GW and thrust.
Any reference for 320s used by Airbus test pilots like that of the 737s?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoylake
Age: 50
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this case, mostly generated by the crew, I'd imagine.
- GY