Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rejected Take Off : Stop or Go ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rejected Take Off : Stop or Go ?

    The Colombian Aerosucre 727 crash was really unfortunate.I read this article and it has very well discussed handling a rejected takeoff at high speed.http://flyinganarchy.com/rejected-take-off-stop-go/
    [/SIZE][/FONT]

  • #2
    Seems like a good procedure, although, I'm sure someone will second-guess it.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      I by far don't use every link that is presented here, not either if it were presented in letters that reach the main floor of my avatar (I sometimes mention the agl of that floor...).

      So, let me try to give the baby a rather serious name. Aerosucre Flight 4544, so they name it at en wiki.

      A lack of fuel on a three engined jet, during a domestic flight? That for me doesn't feel better than a lack of fuel on a Bolivian four engined jet...

      But this time it is a Boeing: in detail, a 6N-B722F .
      Length: 153 ft (46,7 m)
      Range with MTOW: 1,900 nautical miles, but only if you arrive at the gate (fuel cut off) with mile # 1899! We already had such a discussion.

      There are two things which I could do now. First, I could take out my ruler, from SKPC to El Dorado. And then I could ask Gabriel, is Colombia so big that a B722F under no circumstances would be able to cross that country?
      My rough guess is, no, Colombia is not that big...

      Sometimes it is luck that it is "only" a cargo airline, isn't it?

      And don't misunderstand me, cargo airlines have to fight the same weather as passenger airlines. But I can't get that thought out of my mind, as LH is also a Cargo airline ...,
      Cargo pilots very rarely take a risk which they wouldn't take if 343 pax or 353 pax sat behind them.
      Only an assumption.

      Back on topic. As far as I understand en wiki, the B722F took off on that VERY short strip and then struggled to climb.
      8,400 ft or 2600 m are urgently recommended for the t/o of a B722F.

      Not more than 5,900 ft are available at SKPC, in German 1800 m.

      As far as I know, for landing, the runway does not have to be as long as for t/o.

      I don't know if I'd try to t/o on a 1800 m rwy in an Airbus A318. Very probably, not. Although the Airbus is much much shorter than a B722F.

      Good pilots know the limits of the a/c which they sit in, don't they?!

      It always sounds bad or superior if you write something like that and you have survived.
      But my sympathy for a lack of fuel in a jet is very strongly limited! Also if the jet was invented before the 747 was invented.

      Preparation takes place on the ground, and with a little luck on modern computers.

      PS: Oha, I'm not much better than Gabriel, with lengthy entries... Sorry.
      Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-12-28, 23:42. Reason: Comparison with Gabe
      The German long haul is alive, since more than 60 years.
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
        I don't know if I'd try to t/o on a 1800 m rwy in an Airbus A318.
        British Airways flies A318s out of LCY on a 1500 m runway daily.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
          British Airways flies A318s out of LCY on a 1500 m runway daily.
          You got me!

          Did I mention that I am an expert for BA-A318? Never in my life. As you've perceived today.

          But we can discuss about how far the official requirements and the real world are away from each other:
          Aerosucre has caused a fatal accident, and I doubt if we can call that survivable, with 5 dead bodies out of 6 on board. The data
          >> 2600 m are urgently recommended for a t/o in a B722F. Aerosucre tried a 1800 m rwy. Makes 800 m less than the urgent recommendation.

          BA uses the A318 on LCY daily, without a problem reported. The data
          >> 1780 m are urgently recommended as a minimum for a t/o in an A318 with MTOW. BA does it on the LCY 09/27 (4,948 ft or in German 1508 m).

          272 m less than the official recommendation for MTOW.

          LCY shows it. 272 m less if not with MTOW are good in an A318.

          So, it shouldn't be new for you n me, that a 747 is able to t/o from KGCN, although this airport only provides one 9,000 ft rwy.

          But something went wrong with that B722F.
          The German long haul is alive, since more than 60 years.
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
            You got me!

            Did I mention that I am an expert for BA-A318? Never in my life. As you've perceived today.

            But we can discuss about how far the official requirements and the real world are away from each other:
            Aerosucre has caused a fatal accident, and I doubt if we can call that survivable, with 5 dead bodies out of 6 on board. The data
            >> 2600 m are urgently recommended for a t/o in a B722F. Aerosucre tried a 1800 m rwy. Makes 800 m less than the urgent recommendation.

            BA uses the A318 on LCY daily, without a problem reported. The data
            >> 1780 m are urgently recommended as a minimum for a t/o in an A318 with MTOW. BA does it on the LCY 09/27 (4,948 ft or in German 1508 m).

            272 m less than the official recommendation for MTOW.

            LCY shows it. 272 m less if not with MTOW are good in an A318.

            So, it shouldn't be new for you n me, that a 747 is able to t/o from KGCN, although this airport only provides one 9,000 ft rwy.

            But something went wrong with that B722F.

            What?

            Comment


            • #7
              The A318 service to JFK from LCY is an all business class configuration with just 32 passengers max on board. An A318 is designed to carry up to 132 passengers so it is operating at a much lower weight than standard operations. The BA service stops off in Shannon outbound to clear US customs and immigration and to refuel.
              Inbound a stop is not required due to the Atlantic jetstream giving them a kick up the butt ! Although there is always the option of a fuel stop if necessary.
              Last edited by brianw999; 2016-12-29, 14:27.
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • #8
                I know all that. It's nowhere near MTOW at LCY. But I'm just engaging with our friend.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                  The BA service stops off in Shannon outbound to clear US customs and immigration and to refuel.
                  Inbound a stop is not required due to the Atlantic jetstream giving them a kick up the butt ! Although there is always the option of a fuel stop if necessary.
                  I believe that the main reason for the difference in the fuel stop behavior between the outbound and inbound legs is not the jetstream but that the plane cannot take off from LCY with more fuel than it does due to weight restriction due to the short runway and obstacles. When it takes off from JFK the runway is huge and they can take all the fuel that fits in the plane, and it will be no problem for the landing in LCY because they will have burned most of it by then.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You are of course quite correct. Pardon me while I dispose of my "daft bastard head"
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                      I know all that. It's nowhere near MTOW at LCY. But I'm just engaging with our friend.
                      The info was for our friend.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X