Balanced Field Length
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, first you have to make sure that you're using the correct definition of balanced field.
I say this because when I first encountered the term, it was described as when the distance required to stop, beginning at the decision to reject, was the same as the distance to accelerate to flying speed. (in the context of a light twin) Didn't make any sense to me at the time, and no wonder, because it's complete gibberish. I have encountered this "definition" a number of times since, so it wasn't just me not understanding what was being described.
So, to make sure that we're on the same page, the actual definition of balanced field is when, for a transport category aircraft*, the runway distance required to accelerate to V1, lose an engine and continue the takeoff, is the same as the distance required to accelerate to v1 lose and engine and reject the takeoff, stopping in the remaining runway.
We on the same page as far as the definition? OK
The *significance* of this is the balanced field length for a given set of conditions (gross weight, field elevation, temperature, etc) is the minimum runway length for which there is, at all points during the takeoff run, a safe course of action in the event of an engine failure which will result in the airplane not crashing. IOW, with a runway length less than balanced field length, there is a window of time when if an engine fails, you don't have enough runway to stop, and you don't hae enough runway to continue the takeoff.
I think that "balanced field" is not a good term for that, because the words don't really imply the definition and lead people to try to invent alternate definitions that seem to match the definition of the words, but are meaningless. Perhaps a better title would be something like: "Minimum safe runway length"
* If someone is speaking of "balanced field" for a light twin which does not have the capability to continue a take off in the event of an engine failure, he hasn't a clue what he's talking about, and what he's saying may be disregarded.
I say this because when I first encountered the term, it was described as when the distance required to stop, beginning at the decision to reject, was the same as the distance to accelerate to flying speed. (in the context of a light twin) Didn't make any sense to me at the time, and no wonder, because it's complete gibberish. I have encountered this "definition" a number of times since, so it wasn't just me not understanding what was being described.
So, to make sure that we're on the same page, the actual definition of balanced field is when, for a transport category aircraft*, the runway distance required to accelerate to V1, lose an engine and continue the takeoff, is the same as the distance required to accelerate to v1 lose and engine and reject the takeoff, stopping in the remaining runway.
We on the same page as far as the definition? OK
The *significance* of this is the balanced field length for a given set of conditions (gross weight, field elevation, temperature, etc) is the minimum runway length for which there is, at all points during the takeoff run, a safe course of action in the event of an engine failure which will result in the airplane not crashing. IOW, with a runway length less than balanced field length, there is a window of time when if an engine fails, you don't have enough runway to stop, and you don't hae enough runway to continue the takeoff.
I think that "balanced field" is not a good term for that, because the words don't really imply the definition and lead people to try to invent alternate definitions that seem to match the definition of the words, but are meaningless. Perhaps a better title would be something like: "Minimum safe runway length"
* If someone is speaking of "balanced field" for a light twin which does not have the capability to continue a take off in the event of an engine failure, he hasn't a clue what he's talking about, and what he's saying may be disregarded.
Moderator
A search of the archives on this topic will give you hours of entertaining reading.
operational significance of a Balanced Field
(a) provides the easiest and quickest procedure to figure runway limited take off weights as all the various limitations are built into (and hidden within) the AFM BFL takeoff chart(s)
(b) provides a useful quasi-Standard for comparisons between different aircraft .. in a manner similar to using a Standard Atmosphere for performance comparisons
(c) many runways are, or approximate, a BFL situation
Beyond that, there really isn't any great significance.
Note that the calculation for a non BFL takeoff involves consideration of ALL possible limiting cases, takes somewhat longer to do longhand, and will provide the best weight - generally in excess of the BFL weight which might be fitted to that runway.
Then again, next to no-one does this stuff by hand any more (ah, memories of mountains of cross plotted data to get to the end ..) as the preferred option is to stick the AFM data into a computer simulation which means that BFL, in the main, is of very little interest anymore to anyone.
Keep in mind that those with an airports engineering bent probably will talk of BFLs in terms of TODA = ASDA rather than what is of interest operationally, viz., TODR = ASDR
where TORA is more than TODA
Most unlikely ever to be the case. TODA, on the other hand, generally exceeds TORA
you need to do a Perf A course
Not really the case. A bit of reading and practice with some AFMs is more than adequate. Indeed, I know a number of pilots who are reasonably competent in performance engineering without being an operations engineer or having a ticket in Perf A.
in the context of a light twin
While some OEMs may provide data relating to their own definitions of BFL the term has no Design Standard relevance to light aircraft
the actual definition of balanced field is when
More specifically, TODR = ASDR
a safe course of action in the event of an engine failure
A generalisation. May be dependent on the actual aircraft performance data and very definitely is dependent on the inherent assumptions being matched by reality. It really is very important to keep in mind that the books give a presumed outcome in the case of this, that, and the other things being as specified .. if the real world situation differs sufficiently then all bets are off.
with a runway length less than balanced field length
Not the case - if the BFL required exceeds that available .. then the operation is outside the AFM requirements unless RTOW is reduced to suit the available distances. What you say is valid but ought never to occur.
operational significance of a Balanced Field
(a) provides the easiest and quickest procedure to figure runway limited take off weights as all the various limitations are built into (and hidden within) the AFM BFL takeoff chart(s)
(b) provides a useful quasi-Standard for comparisons between different aircraft .. in a manner similar to using a Standard Atmosphere for performance comparisons
(c) many runways are, or approximate, a BFL situation
Beyond that, there really isn't any great significance.
Note that the calculation for a non BFL takeoff involves consideration of ALL possible limiting cases, takes somewhat longer to do longhand, and will provide the best weight - generally in excess of the BFL weight which might be fitted to that runway.
Then again, next to no-one does this stuff by hand any more (ah, memories of mountains of cross plotted data to get to the end ..) as the preferred option is to stick the AFM data into a computer simulation which means that BFL, in the main, is of very little interest anymore to anyone.
Keep in mind that those with an airports engineering bent probably will talk of BFLs in terms of TODA = ASDA rather than what is of interest operationally, viz., TODR = ASDR
where TORA is more than TODA
Most unlikely ever to be the case. TODA, on the other hand, generally exceeds TORA
you need to do a Perf A course
Not really the case. A bit of reading and practice with some AFMs is more than adequate. Indeed, I know a number of pilots who are reasonably competent in performance engineering without being an operations engineer or having a ticket in Perf A.
in the context of a light twin
While some OEMs may provide data relating to their own definitions of BFL the term has no Design Standard relevance to light aircraft
the actual definition of balanced field is when
More specifically, TODR = ASDR
a safe course of action in the event of an engine failure
A generalisation. May be dependent on the actual aircraft performance data and very definitely is dependent on the inherent assumptions being matched by reality. It really is very important to keep in mind that the books give a presumed outcome in the case of this, that, and the other things being as specified .. if the real world situation differs sufficiently then all bets are off.
with a runway length less than balanced field length
Not the case - if the BFL required exceeds that available .. then the operation is outside the AFM requirements unless RTOW is reduced to suit the available distances. What you say is valid but ought never to occur.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT - Could you make a simple subject MORE complicated?
Balanced field is just a calculated field lengh that at the point where you can depart safely with one engine inoperative, you can also have X amount of runaway remaining to safetly stop the aircraft. The purpose is to insure either a safe departure or safe rejection.
Now let's talk about assumed temp...lol....
Balanced field is just a calculated field lengh that at the point where you can depart safely with one engine inoperative, you can also have X amount of runaway remaining to safetly stop the aircraft. The purpose is to insure either a safe departure or safe rejection.
Now let's talk about assumed temp...lol....
Moderator
JT - Could you make a simple subject MORE complicated?
Mea culpa .. apologies to all .. actually, if you really want me too, I probably could double the wordiology for not much gain
Balanced field is just a calculated field lengh that at the point where you can depart safely with one engine inoperative, you can also have X amount of runaway remaining to safetly stop the aircraft.
ie TODR = ASDR
The rest of my yarn reflects the amount of confusion amongst (especially) the junior piloting ranks when folks get to talking about BFL matters
Mea culpa .. apologies to all .. actually, if you really want me too, I probably could double the wordiology for not much gain
Balanced field is just a calculated field lengh that at the point where you can depart safely with one engine inoperative, you can also have X amount of runaway remaining to safetly stop the aircraft.
ie TODR = ASDR
The rest of my yarn reflects the amount of confusion amongst (especially) the junior piloting ranks when folks get to talking about BFL matters
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
in the context of a light twin
While some OEMs may provide data relating to their own definitions of BFL the term has no Design Standard relevance to light aircraft
While some OEMs may provide data relating to their own definitions of BFL the term has no Design Standard relevance to light aircraft
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
a safe course of action in the event of an engine failure
A generalisation. May be dependent on the actual aircraft performance data and very definitely is dependent on the inherent assumptions being matched by reality. It really is very important to keep in mind that the books give a presumed outcome in the case of this, that, and the other things being as specified .. if the real world situation differs sufficiently then all bets are off.
A generalisation. May be dependent on the actual aircraft performance data and very definitely is dependent on the inherent assumptions being matched by reality. It really is very important to keep in mind that the books give a presumed outcome in the case of this, that, and the other things being as specified .. if the real world situation differs sufficiently then all bets are off.
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
with a runway length less than balanced field length
Not the case - if the BFL required is less than that available .. then the operation is outside the AFM requirements unless RTOW is reduced to suit the available distances. What you say is valid but ought never to occur.
Not the case - if the BFL required is less than that available .. then the operation is outside the AFM requirements unless RTOW is reduced to suit the available distances. What you say is valid but ought never to occur.
Last edited by A Squared; 16th Jan 2013 at 21:18.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 38
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hated thinking of this in terms of TORA / ASDA / TODA etc. It simply balances the risk so that, generally, stopping at V1 - 1 knot isn't significantly more dangerous than continuing at V1 + 1 knot, or vice-versa.
Example 1:
“I think rejected take-offs are more dangerous so will set a low V1. This ensures I'll stop with loads of runway left.". Good so far, but consider the failure after V1. You now need the entire runway to get airborne and just meet the legal requirement at screen height. However, you might be digging a chimney out of the wheels and you'll definitely need new underwear.
Example 2:
“I think that EFATO is more dangerous, so I'll set the highest possible V1 to give the best performance." This time, though, when you reject before V1, you need the entire runway + any stop end to come to a halt, with the brakes on fire and the nose gear six feet away from falling into the shark filled pit at the end of the runway.
So the balanced field calculation takes both scenarios into account and tries to give the best shot at either case. This is a simplistic overview (and, possibly, completely wrong...), and when, for example, the calculation is performed by computer many, many, more factors are taken into consideration and the balance is skewed one way or the other.
Example 1:
“I think rejected take-offs are more dangerous so will set a low V1. This ensures I'll stop with loads of runway left.". Good so far, but consider the failure after V1. You now need the entire runway to get airborne and just meet the legal requirement at screen height. However, you might be digging a chimney out of the wheels and you'll definitely need new underwear.
Example 2:
“I think that EFATO is more dangerous, so I'll set the highest possible V1 to give the best performance." This time, though, when you reject before V1, you need the entire runway + any stop end to come to a halt, with the brakes on fire and the nose gear six feet away from falling into the shark filled pit at the end of the runway.
So the balanced field calculation takes both scenarios into account and tries to give the best shot at either case. This is a simplistic overview (and, possibly, completely wrong...), and when, for example, the calculation is performed by computer many, many, more factors are taken into consideration and the balance is skewed one way or the other.
Last edited by David Horn; 16th Jan 2013 at 22:14.
you can also have X amount of runaway remaining to safetly stop the aircraft
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me try to simplify:
When you increase the speed at which you consider that the engine failure will occur, which equates toincreasing V1, the ASD increases but the TOD decreases.
You need to meet both requirements, to have enough runway meters to able to stop or to continue after an engine failure, so the laongest of both distances, ASD or TOD, will be the limiting one.
When the ASD is equal to the TOD, you have the minimum runway distance required.
The balanced field v1 gives you an optimum. That is its operational significance.
Then you can take credit of stopways and clearways, wich will give unbalanced field v1, but optimum anyway.
I dont know how to put a picture, im trying copy paste to no avail...
When you increase the speed at which you consider that the engine failure will occur, which equates toincreasing V1, the ASD increases but the TOD decreases.
You need to meet both requirements, to have enough runway meters to able to stop or to continue after an engine failure, so the laongest of both distances, ASD or TOD, will be the limiting one.
When the ASD is equal to the TOD, you have the minimum runway distance required.
The balanced field v1 gives you an optimum. That is its operational significance.
Then you can take credit of stopways and clearways, wich will give unbalanced field v1, but optimum anyway.
I dont know how to put a picture, im trying copy paste to no avail...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG - Your not one of those guys that believe that you always go are you? Better to take a flying bomb up in the air vs blow a tire on the ground is it?
Balanced Field Length. (as defined by the FAA) The runway length (or runway plus clearway and/or stopway) where, for the takeoff weight, the engine-out accelerate-go distance equals the accelerate-stop distance.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%20120-62.pdf
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 18th Jan 2013 at 04:24.
Moderator
.. quite clearly, the lad would have been an asset at dinner the other week ... he could have taken up the subject with Centaurus directly and have had the three of us as adjudicators, perhaps ?
Are you going to teach him about helicopters?
I suspect that that might have been an interesting exchange ...
Are you going to teach him about helicopters?
I suspect that that might have been an interesting exchange ...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks davereid! How do u do it
From this graph you can see that the v1 corresponding to the balanced field is the one requiring the shortest runway. Any other v1 will require a longer runway.
That's why it is operationally important.
From this graph you can see that the v1 corresponding to the balanced field is the one requiring the shortest runway. Any other v1 will require a longer runway.
That's why it is operationally important.
