Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Class A take off performance invalidated by backtrack

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Class A take off performance invalidated by backtrack

Old 14th Oct 2019, 18:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: FL390
Posts: 1,274
Class A take off performance invalidated by backtrack

In a nutshell if we calculate take off performance for a multi engine transport jet from intersection B at given airport and we then are offered and accept a backtrack to full length how does this invalid the performance we have calculated from that intersection ... in a nutshell ?
spitfire747 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 18:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Age: 42
Posts: 419
Um, it doesn't?
rudestuff is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 19:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
Clearly, you've been challenged on that point - What did they say? (I'm with rudestuff here!)
Cough is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 19:48
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: FL390
Posts: 1,274
Aircraft told two mins delay due previous same route so offered backtrack to which they accepted. I was flying with a very senior and respected training Captain (large European airline ) to which he said

“why backtrack do they have no understanding of aircraft performance. .... idiots “

anyway it was a short flight and never got to ask him why.

I began thinking of TODA TORA ASDA BALANCED FIELDS CLEARWAYS etc all being calculated from a certain point and would these be invalidated if you started your take off run say 309m earlier , airfield and terrain dependent of course ??
spitfire747 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 19:57
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 63
My outfit‘s performance tool applies a shortening for the lineup loss according to the runway entry method (90 degree angle for intersection and 180 degree for backtrack). The OPT tool indicates the method used, if we would do a backtrack to a 90 degree calculated entry point crews are expected to do a shortening of 9 metres for the type I fly or apply common sense – thankfully still allowed in my company. Usually this is only of concern on short runways with holding bays at the runway end (90 degree angle used) e.g. LCY or FLR.

Edit: I just read the question again, no I see no reason to worry about performance if you start your TO earlier than calculated as the previous posters state.
FLX/MCT is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 20:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 82
I think what your pompous colleague was attempting to convey was that having worked out the performance for the intersection departure, there is little practical benefit in using full length with the same figures.
Peter G-W is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 21:57
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by spitfire747 View Post


“why backtrack do they have no understanding of aircraft performance. .... idiots “
Must be a pleasure to fly with such a smart guy....
gearlever is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2019, 22:49
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 701
Aircraft told two mins delay due previous same route so offered backtrack to which they accepted. I was flying with a very senior and respected training Captain (large European airline ) to which he said

“why backtrack do they have no understanding of aircraft performance. .... idiots “
Does he have no understanding of wake turbulence separation.
oggers is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 00:20
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
There actually is an odd case in which the performance numbers might change - obstacle clearance height. The area that is surveyed for obstacles extends out in a narrow cone. When this cone is moved back, it is possible to "capture" an obstacle that was not considered from an intersection departure. I've seen the engine-out acceleration altitude increase 20 or so feet when using full length vs an intersection. Not much I know, but it could be one of those "gotcha" things if you have a check pilot or FAA-type on board.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 00:46
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,494
Your V1 is essentially out the door.
Given the additional length you could still safely reject above the calculated V1, you just don’t know by how much.
So right after your calculated V1 you have a catastrophic failure for which you could have rejected had you requested new performance calculation.
Now you’re forced to take a sick puppy airborne.
Which is well and good in the sim but in the real world with a low overcast and a crosswind and 100 people screaming in the back it’s different.

Bit academic as there will literally only be a few seconds between the “old” V1 and the “new” V1 so realistically that window is really short but yes if it’s a substantial back taxi I would recalculate.

With a V1 of 160kts you’re moving at 253 feet second so somewhat arbitrarily if the backtrack and 180 turn and line up give me a gain of 1000’ I would recalculate.
So let’s say a total of 1500’ or more from the intersection I originally planned to use.

So here’s your solution:
When ATC assigns a runway and an intersection ask for both when you send for your performance on the ACARS.

Lets say airport is using 7L (10,000’) and 7R (8000’) for departure and I have not been assigned a runway I’d ask for both and once I’ve been assigned a runway I’ll cross out and circle or fold over.
Still leave the numbers legible in case they change their minds.

Which ATC never does
B2N2 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 07:40
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
B2N2 - When you re calculate for full length, your lovely performance software may well give you a greater flex temp/derate moving your V1 back down the runway making it relevant again. This ,for me, kinda makes your first argument irrelevant. For me, the risks of putting in wrong performance data during that 1min backtrack far outweigh the benefits... There is always a flip side - Our engineers would of course point to the benefits of the increased engine life!

Tomaski - In EU land (if I recall correctly!) we start the 'obstacle accountability area' at the end of the TODA, not at the liftoff point. So for our regs, that wouldn't change this side of the pond...
Cough is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 09:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by Cough View Post
Tomaski - In EU land (if I recall correctly!) we start the 'obstacle accountability area' at the end of the TODA, not at the liftoff point. So for our regs, that wouldn't change this side of the pond...
Nor the other side. FAA = "End of runway". Either way, changing from intersection to full length departure doesn't change the OAA.
oggers is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 09:32
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Age: 42
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by spitfire747 View Post
“why backtrack do they have no understanding of aircraft performance. .... idiots “
I think his point here was that the performance was calculated and the aircraft perfectly capable of an intersection departure, so he didn't NEED a backtrack.

By giving yourself more runway you're not invalidating the performance figures, if anything you're giving yourself an extra safety margin.

If you've got a wet runway and a V1/Vr split then a recalc might give you a slightly higher V1 or a slightly higher de-rate. But on a dry runway with a full de-rate and no split I wouldn't bother. V1 can't get any higher and engine power can't get any lower so the numbers will come out the same.
rudestuff is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 09:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 993
More runway is never a bad thing.
So maybe your V1 is not quite right now but it is more conservative. FFS, runway behind you is useless and now you want to belly ache about being given more ahead of you???
mustafagander is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 11:28
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
Nor the other side. FAA = "End of runway". Either way, changing from intersection to full length departure doesn't change the OAA.
And yet I have actually seen this difference in the Engine Out Acceleration Altitude (EOAA) happen when comparing the takeoff data for full length vs intersection during preflight, so something changed. The explanation I gave is the one given to me by our training department.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 13:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Tomaski View Post
And yet I have actually seen this difference in the Engine Out Acceleration Altitude (EOAA) happen when comparing the takeoff data for full length vs intersection during preflight, so something changed. The explanation I gave is the one given to me by our training department.
So, theorising what might have occurred (please understand - This is just one of many possibilities!). Say you have two obstacles to be cleared, one close in, one further away.

For the intersection departure, the thrust requirement is a large one to clear the close in obstacle. As you have a large amount of thrust on, the OE climb angle is steeper and acceleration segment is shorter and you climb away without the second obstacle having any effect.

But for the full length departure, the thrust requirement to clear the first obstacle isn't too great so the performance app reduces the thrust to just clear the first obstacle be the required margin. But because the subsequent climb out and acceleration are that much longer the second obstacle comes into play, requiring the performance app to raise the EOAA to avoid this...

But say you take off from the full length with intersection data - Because you'll have the higher thrust selected, you'll not only avoid the second obstacle by miles, you'll also avoid the first by a greater margin...
Cough is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 14:09
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Cough View Post
So, theorising what might have occurred (please understand - This is just one of many possibilities!). Say you have two obstacles to be cleared, one close in, one further away.

For the intersection departure, the thrust requirement is a large one to clear the close in obstacle. As you have a large amount of thrust on, the OE climb angle is steeper and acceleration segment is shorter and you climb away without the second obstacle having any effect.

But for the full length departure, the thrust requirement to clear the first obstacle isn't too great so the performance app reduces the thrust to just clear the first obstacle be the required margin. But because the subsequent climb out and acceleration are that much longer the second obstacle comes into play, requiring the performance app to raise the EOAA to avoid this...

But say you take off from the full length with intersection data - Because you'll have the higher thrust selected, you'll not only avoid the second obstacle by miles, you'll also avoid the first by a greater margin...

That may very well be a more correct description of what caused the change. Nevertheless, from strictly an operator perspective the important point is that there was a change to EOAA that needed to be accounted for. For this reason and a few others stated above, while the intersection data will in the vast majority of cases be reasonably close for a full length departure, it may (depending on a particular airline's policies) not be considered technically legal. The question the PIC really needs to ask is, "If something were to go amiss during takeoff, would my choice of using the original intersection data be considered proper?"
Tomaski is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 14:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Tomaski View Post
Nevertheless, from strictly an operator perspective the important point is that there was a change to EOAA that needed to be accounted for
Re read my last sentence...

Originally Posted by Tomaski View Post
"If something were to go amiss during takeoff, would my choice of using the original intersection data be considered proper?"
It is if your SOP's say it is. Ours do...
Cough is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 16:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 52
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by spitfire747 View Post
Aircraft told two mins delay due previous same route so offered backtrack to which they accepted. I was flying with a very senior and respected training Captain (large European airline ) to which he said

“why backtrack do they have no understanding of aircraft performance. .... idiots “

anyway it was a short flight and never got to ask him why.

I began thinking of TODA TORA ASDA BALANCED FIELDS CLEARWAYS etc all being calculated from a certain point and would these be invalidated if you started your take off run say 309m earlier , airfield and terrain dependent of course ??
Maybe the geezer just misheard the reason for the backtrack?
hans brinker is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 19:35
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,494
Morale of the story, next time you’re faced with a potential choice requests both and see what the actual differences are.

In any case I know plenty that would redo the performance numbers.

NTSB judge : “ Did you or didn’t you use the correct performance numbers ?”

B2N2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.