Take-off performance calculation errors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take-off performance calculation errors
I am currently reading a report about these types of errors. One example I don't understand is what happened in this case. How would a visual departure affect takeoff performance.
"Boeing 737: September 2007
Location: Alice Springs, NT
In preparation for takeoff, the crew calculated the take-off performance data based on a required navigation performance (RNP) departure. While taxiing, the crew were advised by air traffic control (ATC) that there would be a delay for the RNP departure due to an inbound aircraft that required priority. The crew received a revised clearance from ATC to conduct a visual departure. After takeoff, the crew realised that the takeoff data had not been checked or amended to take into account the revised departure clearance."
"A change in operational or environmental conditions was recorded in six of the 11 occurrences. This change necessitated the crew to either check, amend and/or update the take-off performance parameters previously calculated. These included:
• the ambient temperature increasing above the FLEX temperature
• a change from an RNP departure to a visual departure
• a change from a full-length runway departure to an intersection departure
• MAC TOW re-calculation using a ZFW work-around
• an unserviceable ACARS printer requiring verbal transcription
• a change in V speed/s due to a wet runway."
"Boeing 737: September 2007
Location: Alice Springs, NT
In preparation for takeoff, the crew calculated the take-off performance data based on a required navigation performance (RNP) departure. While taxiing, the crew were advised by air traffic control (ATC) that there would be a delay for the RNP departure due to an inbound aircraft that required priority. The crew received a revised clearance from ATC to conduct a visual departure. After takeoff, the crew realised that the takeoff data had not been checked or amended to take into account the revised departure clearance."
"A change in operational or environmental conditions was recorded in six of the 11 occurrences. This change necessitated the crew to either check, amend and/or update the take-off performance parameters previously calculated. These included:
• the ambient temperature increasing above the FLEX temperature
• a change from an RNP departure to a visual departure
• a change from a full-length runway departure to an intersection departure
• MAC TOW re-calculation using a ZFW work-around
• an unserviceable ACARS printer requiring verbal transcription
• a change in V speed/s due to a wet runway."
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would a visual departure affect takeoff performance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of any airport that we operate to where we put the departure procedure into the calculations for takeoff V-speeds or runway limit weights. Is this example a unique situation?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of airports which have a special departure published in your performance data in order to meet climb segment restrictions.
That being said this sounds like typical CML flying... Fly right into the mountain because the FMC said to.
That being said this sounds like typical CML flying... Fly right into the mountain because the FMC said to.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced Takeoff Area
Jammedstab,
I don't know if you work in the same jurisdiction of the operator in the example you cited, however, Aus CAO 20.7.1B - 12.1.1 (b) allows the lateral expansion of the takeoff area to be discontinued when 0.125xD intersects the RNP containment area (2xRNP).
In plain language, when doing an RNP departure the area for obstacle assessment is narrower, potentially allowing greater uplift as limiting obstacles would not be considered (as mutt alludes to above).
I would hazard a guess that the operator concerned has an RTOW chart labelled "RNP" or it's EFB performance program allows selection of a variable or runway label that accounts for the reduced takeoff area with an RNP departure.
Alternatively, the "RNP" option may only be provided at airports where there is a commercial benefit for doing so. Cairns RWY 15 (when RNP departures were used) comes to mind as an example.
I don't know if you work in the same jurisdiction of the operator in the example you cited, however, Aus CAO 20.7.1B - 12.1.1 (b) allows the lateral expansion of the takeoff area to be discontinued when 0.125xD intersects the RNP containment area (2xRNP).
In plain language, when doing an RNP departure the area for obstacle assessment is narrower, potentially allowing greater uplift as limiting obstacles would not be considered (as mutt alludes to above).
I would hazard a guess that the operator concerned has an RTOW chart labelled "RNP" or it's EFB performance program allows selection of a variable or runway label that accounts for the reduced takeoff area with an RNP departure.
Alternatively, the "RNP" option may only be provided at airports where there is a commercial benefit for doing so. Cairns RWY 15 (when RNP departures were used) comes to mind as an example.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess what happened was that the crew flew a different routing than the RNP routing and this route had higher terrain and therefore had there been and engine failure at a during a critical time period, terrain clearance would not have been assured.
Does this sound reasonable?
Does this sound reasonable?
Does this sound reasonable?
Now if ATC had said "maintain runway heading", straight towards the large mountain (ok hill) range on the extended centreline, their RTOW (they would have had to have used a different RTOW chart or different departure in their EFB) would have been less. Some departures may be so different, obstacle-wise, that you need to use a different chart/EFB input to arrive at the RTOW.