Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V1 is or is not a LOCATION on the runway...

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

  • Originally posted by MCM View Post
    On the balance, I strongly believe we will have a better safety outcome by installing such a system than not. And I don't think we're too far away from seeing them, whether we like it or not.
    Just to make a general comment- the concept of a computer monitoring critical stuff with the human in ultimate control is generally a good one- and as you say , this sort of stuff is already all over the place in airplanes.

    And, I beleive, in the not too distant past, BB told how he would use autoland if he was fatigued.

    That's giving the computer all sorts of control and kind of pales when compared to a warning that you aren't accelerating as fast as you should.

    Plus, I'm thining the system is designed to detect bad acceleration long before V1 99.99% of the time (100 kts is probably plenty of time for the computer to analyze acceleration)...then 99.99% of the aborts might spare the tires and only cause ordinary wear and tear on the brakes.

    All speculation on my part, but I'm thinking the engineers could come up with an extremely reasonable and good system.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • http://avherald.com/h?article=46c0ecfc&opt=0
      A Belair Airbus A320-200 on behalf of Air Berlin, registration HB-IOR performing flight AB-7785 from Porto (Portugal) to Palma Mallorca,SP (Spain) with 158 people on board, was preparing for departure from Porto's runway 17 and lined up for takeoff from intersection taxiway F instead of full length of runway (full length takeoff distance available 3480 meters, distance available from intersection F 1900 meters) but used takeoff power settings computed for a full length departure. The aircraft became safely airborne and continued to destination for a safe landing.

      The French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin that the occurrence was rated a serious incident, Switzerland's SUST is investigating the occurrence.
      Interesting. This would bypass any acceleration check unless it's linked to the actual runway data and the airplane's position in it.

      --- 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


      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        http://avherald.com/h?article=46c0ecfc&opt=0
        Interesting. This would bypass any acceleration check unless it's linked to the actual runway data and the airplane's position in it.
        I see the system incorporating GPS and database mapping. If takeoff settings are used that the system determines to be insufficent for the runway position it would trigger the alert. Trying to takeoff from a taxiway would trigger it. If this system was networked with other a/c it could also warn of runway conflicts. Again, I think all the hardware is in place.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          I see the system incorporating GPS and database mapping. If takeoff settings are used that the system determines to be insufficent for the runway position it would trigger the alert. Trying to takeoff from a taxiway would trigger it. If this system was networked with other a/c it could also warn of runway conflicts. Again, I think all the hardware is in place.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FQJushOxnm4

          Comment


          • You know BB, if airplanes could talk to each other they would probably go on about how human pilots occasionally do some pretty stupid things with them. I don't see the problem with letting them talk directly to the pilots, in the form of a configuration-style warning, to warn them of their impending stupidity. They have the brains now to know where they are and what they can and can't do. Robotic machines orbit the earth, telling each plane almost exactly where it is. Ring laser gyros tell it what it is doing. A phalanx of computers calculate performance parameters in microseconds. Engines control themselves, only taking 'requests for power' from the pilots. It's all pretty Star Trekkish I admit, but this is the future we only dreamed about in 70's science fiction. It's a pretty interesting time we are living in: the handing over, if you will, from the age of human error to the age of digital autonomy. But, unlike science fiction, this will be a partnership, not a competition.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              You know BB, if airplanes could talk to each other they would probably go on about how human pilots occasionally do some pretty stupid things with them. I don't see the problem with letting them talk directly to the pilots, in the form of a configuration-style warning, to warn them of their impending stupidity. They have the brains now to know where they are and what they can and can't do. Robotic machines orbit the earth, telling each plane almost exactly where it is. Ring laser gyros tell it what it is doing. A phalanx of computers calculate performance parameters in microseconds. Engines control themselves, only taking 'requests for power' from the pilots. It's all pretty Star Trekkish I admit, but this is the future we only dreamed about in 70's science fiction. It's a pretty interesting time we are living in: the handing over, if you will, from the age of human error to the age of digital autonomy. But, unlike science fiction, this will be a partnership, not a competition.
              Evan, Your attempt at being verbose amused me. I believe you meant to say plethora, meaning many, instead of phalanx, which is a type of military formation. But least I digress, see I can do it too.

              Although you, Gabriel and a few others here seem to have some small airplane experience, and you all do very well at Googling and reading. Until you have been out on the line flying a large transport category aircraft, you will never quite understand.

              You have all seen the incident with the LCF landing at the wrong airport last week. I personally know the Captain that was on this trip and I can tell you he is very experienced. How this can happen in a glass equipped aircraft with all of the goodies you might ask? There is that magic magenta line, all you have to do is follow it and it will take you right where you programed it to. Well human beings F**k up every once in a while!

              Gabriel’s post yesterday about the 737 that used the intersection instead of the full length using the calculations for the full length is a perfect example.

              Until YOU have been out on a 4, 6, 8, 12 or 18 day pattern, sometimes not remembering what day it is let alone what country you are in, or continent you are on, you will never understand. Yes you can read about it and you can spout your opinions and try and look at it objectively. BUT YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!

              I have tried to explain this at the beginning of this thread. You just can’t keep putting more and more electronics in the aircraft to try and prevent these kind of problems. The pilots are already pretty saturated as it is.

              I have three friends that are or have been drone pilots in Afghanistan. Do you know how many of these things go down on a weekly basis? The number is staggering!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                Until YOU have been out on a 4, 6, 8, 12 or 18 day pattern, sometimes not remembering what day it is let alone what country you are in, or continent you are on, you will never understand. Yes you can read about it and you can spout your opinions and try and look at it objectively. BUT YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!
                Agreed. But what I DO know very well is what it is like to be a passenger sitting back there wondering if my pilot had enough sleep or if he will make some basic human error and end everything that I have spent my life building (oops, he inputted a 2 instead of a 3, game over). What I also know if that some additions to the cockpit ARE justified, and as MCM (who DOES KNOW very well) has pointed out, such a warning will not saturate anything unless the error has already been made.

                I think you are resisting this on principal instead of really considering the risk/benefit involved.

                I understand how it is when something that used to require uncommon skill, something you've worked very hard to become very good at, is suddenly made easier by technology and accessible to many less skilled people with far less effort on their part. It's called the digital camera, and I wish it never existed because photography used to require a special depth of knowledge and devotion to the craft. But I also have to admit that remarkable images are being produced far more often, especially in journalism. It's the future. There's no going back.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Agreed. But what I DO know very well is what it is like to be a passenger sitting back there wondering if my pilot had enough sleep or if he will make some basic human error and end everything that I have spent my life building (oops, he inputted a 2 instead of a 3, game over). What I also know if that some additions to the cockpit ARE justified, and as MCM (who DOES KNOW very well) has pointed out, such a warning will not saturate anything unless the error has already been made.

                  I think you are resisting this on principal instead of really considering the risk/benefit involved.

                  I understand how it is when something that used to require uncommon skill, something you've worked very hard to become very good at, is suddenly made easier by technology and accessible to many less skilled people with far less effort on their part. It's called the digital camera, and I wish it never existed because photography used to require a special depth of knowledge and devotion to the craft. But I also have to admit that remarkable images are being produced far more often, especially in journalism. It's the future. There's no going back.

                  No I think you are missing MY point. I am all in favor of any enhancements to safety, be they electronic or procedures. What I am trying to get across to you is that as long as there are humans involved, mistakes will be made from time to time. It is all a statistical thing!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    No I think you are missing MY point. I am all in favor of any enhancements to safety, be they electronic or procedures. What I am trying to get across to you is that as long as there are humans involved, mistakes will be made from time to time. It is all a statistical thing!
                    Actually, BB, I don't think that piont has been missed. The argument here is that a TOPMS would catch a couple of different human errors. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Spectator View Post
                      Actually, BB, I don't think that piont has been missed. The argument here is that a TOPMS would catch a couple of different human errors. Wouldn't that be a good thing?


                      TOPMS? You already have a name for it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        TOPMS? You already have a name for it?
                        Take-off performance monitoring system.
                        The name is out there. It was not the invention of anybody in these fora.

                        --- 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


                        • The recent activity on the Asiana thread drives home what this is about.

                          Not all pilots have Boeing Bobby's calibrated butt accelerometer....

                          Thus you have pilots otherwise doing a competent job zooming down the runway, building speed a little bit slow...

                          The Asiana dudes had ways to monitor their landing performance. Departing pilots really only have their human perceptions.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            The recent activity on the Asiana thread drives home what this is about.

                            Not all pilots have Boeing Bobby's calibrated butt accelerometer....

                            Thus you have pilots otherwise doing a competent job zooming down the runway, building speed a little bit slow...

                            The Asiana dudes had ways to monitor their landing performance. Departing pilots really only have their human perceptions.

                            I have been called a fat ass, a wise ass, a dumb ass and a smart ass. My wife has called me a lazy ass and a lard ass. But I have never been told that I have an ass that excels!

                            Comment


                            • Would it to be safe to say that there is never a fixed point on any runway where you will reach V1, but there is always a fixed RTO (Reject Take Off) point on all runways? So many people have already said there are many different elements thay could affect acceleration on the runway. It could be be that the wind has changed, and now you have a tail wind, there could be water on the runway which causes drag..... There are so many things to consider.

                              Let me give you an example:
                              The Munich air disaster occurred on 6 February 1958, when British European Airways flight 609 crashed on its third attempt to take off from a slush-covered runway at Munich-Riem Airport in Munich, West Germany. On the plane was the Manchester United football team, nicknamed the "Busby Babes", along with supporters and journalists.[1] Twenty of the 44 on the aircraft died. The injured, some unconscious, were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where three more died, resulting in 23 fatalities with 21 survivors.
                              The football team was returning from a European Cup match in Belgrade, Yugoslavia (now Serbia), against Red Star Belgrade. The flight stopped to refuel in Munich because a non-stop flight from Belgrade to Manchester was out of the "Elizabethan" class Airspeed Ambassador aircraft's range. After refuelling, pilots James Thain and Kenneth Rayment twice abandonded take-off because of boost surging in the left engine. Fearing they would get too far behind schedule, Captain Thain rejected an overnight stay in Munich in favour of a third take-off attempt. By then, snow was falling, causing a layer of slush at the end of the runway. After the aircraft hit the slush, it ploughed through a fence beyond the end of the runway and the left wing was torn off after hitting a house. Fearing the aircraft might explode, Thain began evacuating passengers while Manchester United goalkeeper Harry Gregg helped pull survivors from the wreckage.
                              They unfortunately never made V1, never mind VR which they they so badly wanted. On the third attempt, they pushed the plane to get it into the air. The results are history......

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gandalf123 View Post
                                Would it to be safe to say that there is never a fixed point on any runway where you will reach V1, but there is always a fixed RTO (Reject Take Off) point on all runways? So many people have already said there are many different elements thay could affect acceleration on the runway. It could be be that the wind has changed, and now you have a tail wind, there could be water on the runway which causes drag..... There are so many things to consider.

                                Let me give you an example: They unfortunately never made V1, never mind VR which they they so badly wanted. On the third attempt, they pushed the plane to get it into the air. The results are history......
                                I don't think a contaminated runway is a stealth factor. It's fairly obvious. I think any competent pilot is going to factor that into their calculation. The issue that TOPMS is addressing is degraded performance in getting to V1 and the fact that the pilots have no clear indication of whether they are reaching V1 at the location on the runway that the culculation has assumed. They could be 1000ft beyond that point, still below V1, reject and not be able to stop on the runway surface because they reached V1 late even if they correctly factored in the runway conditions. In other words, in every takeoff calculation, V1 will occur at a specific point of the runway. If there is a performance issue (due to thrust issues, winds, drag, GTOW or whatever) V1 will not be reached at that point but will be reached further along, and the span between the calculated V1 point and the actual V1 point may no longer be a safe area to reject and the runway beyond the actual V1 point may no longer be adequate to rotate (esp.w 1 eng inop) and clear obstructions beyond the runway. Then there is no longer any safe option. That is why TOPMS is essential to the future of aviation safety. Without TOPMS, the safeguard of V1 has little or no redundancy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X