![]() |
As SLF, one reason I'm comforted to have humans upfront is that they could potentially recognize that seemingly minor issue are actually the first signs of something serious. As I result, I like the idea of a lower-thrust takeoff with a higher V1 giving more time for that recognition to occur. So I have no idea if a longer runway is safer, but if I knew you were taking one, I'd feel better.
|
It is interesting that the assumed reason for rejecting a take off generally appears to be an engine failure. In 11 thousand (Perf. A) flights or so I have rejected about half a dozen. Only one was a high speed reject, the rest were at a relatively low speed. But not one was due to an engine failure. I think this is quite typical for most pilots in so much that you rarely stop for an engine failure, it is normally something else.
So diving back in, in a very amateurish way, unless our performance calculations have a "Safety Quotient" against each performance calculation, you can never determine which is the safer. I believe it is far too easy assume that a greater performance margin equal a greater safety margin, but this is too simplistic because it only assumes an engine failure. There is more to it than that. So unless I'm given that information, I'll stick to my company's guidelines and operational preferences. PM |
The original post:
So it is decided to use the longer runway. The only thing is that with the longer runway a derate and ATM thrust reduction is used for the takeoff along with a different flap setting. Without including a bunch of variables such as the longer runway covers weather changes, payload adjustments, etc.......How much advantage have you gained by using the longer runway. Is the reduced thrust takeoff negating most or all of the advantage that the longer runway offers? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:58. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.