757 take off/land question

[dkmax]

Hello all, thanks for a great discussion board, I’ve followed with interest for a couple of years now. First post from me & probably just a regular event question – doh! Sadly my knowledge is only limited to a few commercial flights per year, a couple of Cessna lessons & MsFS, what a lightweight!

Off the back of ‘the stall’ thread, I purchased ‘flying the big jets’ a great read & very informative, thanks for the recommendation

The book actually pushed me to ask a question about a flight in 1993 that seemed odd at the time, not happened since, no doubt there’s a simple explanation…

May 1993 Gatwick due to depart to Faro, my first flight on a 757 (Monarch G MONC) I think. Boarded plane as normal, noticed cockpit door open, I was impressed with computer screen filled panels of modern jet compared to analogue dials expected, never seen that before I thought, it stayed open until safety routine.

Sitting at the back on right side window seat, I noticed ground crew repacking & taping an overloaded bag, which may well be the reason that a frustrated sounding captain announced a slight delay. Imagine the embarrassment – it was my bag! Kept that one quiet though!

Bag repaired, the captain announced he was hoping for an immediate runway slot, or we may have a severe delay. We started push back.

The first of 2 main questions then arose – was this take off normal?

We taxied away from the terminal rapidly (compared to previous/subsequent flights), we then made a turn to the left at same speed. Half way around the turn engines spooled up, completed the turn onto the runway at what seemed about half take off speed – it seemed like minimal distance we were airborne. Wow I thought, these 757’s are pretty impressive – even handle well on the ground!

Having looked at Google map/satellite of Gatwick, the only explanation I can see is that we departed North terminal along taxiway heading West & began a 180 degree left turn ¾ of way along parallel to main runway (not tight by comparison to end of runway normal pre take off turn) merging with runway from the left. Was take off power selected exiting corner on runway slip road taking off to the East?

That is speculation from memory, though for sure, we definitely accelerated hard whilst still completing a left turn & then merged with runway from the right.

Flights prior to this, every flight since & procedure according to ‘FTBJ’ we’ve turned onto runway, assumingly awaited clearance, then spooled up, released the brakes & off we go.

2nd Question then arose..

Flight to Faro was uneventful until touchdown. We approached the runway slightly banked to the right (my side) I don’t think we were in a crosswind as we were lined up parallel to runway edge. The plane touched down on the right side landing gear & the wingtip looked perilously close to the ground. A quick glance out of the opposite side & I could see only sky.

We carried along the runway in this fashion for what seemed like an eternity, finally lowering the left wheel & reverse thrust, brakes etc. Taxi ride uneventful.

I’ve mentioned this to a few people over the years & best explanation for the landing was ‘to practice for a left side gear failure’. Is this likely, with 230 passengers on board?

Three things odd that day

1, Cockpit door, though I’m almost reluctant to mention that, maybe air con had packed up – lol!

2, Hurried & thrilling take off, powering up whilst turning adjoining runway at least half take off speed.

3 Landing on right side gear, – continuing for 5 – 10 seconds & then lowering left wing / gear down. No puncture/failure or emergency.

Thanks in advance for any help putting this one to bed – 17 years later - lol

[Peter Kesternich]

May 1993 Gatwick due to depart to Faro, (...) noticed cockpit door open, (...) it stayed open until safety routine.

In the 1990s an open cockpit door wasn't unusual at all. Only after 11 Spet. 2001 did this become an issue.

(...) the captain announced he was hoping for an immediate runway slot, or we may have a severe delay (...) We taxied away from the terminal rapidly (compared to previous/subsequent flights), we then made a turn to the left at same speed. Half way around the turn engines spooled up, completed the turn onto the runway at what seemed about half take off speed – it seemed like minimal distance we were airborne. Wow I thought, these 757’s are pretty impressive – even handle well on the ground!

Looks like an intersection rolling takeoff to save time on departure. Seems like the ATC slot time was expiring and the crew had to get of the ground quickly. Not that unusal either. What might have seemed like half takeoff speed was probably in the area of 30-40 kts. Already pretty fast on the ground.

We approached the runway slightly banked to the right (my side) I don’t think we were in a crosswind as we were lined up parallel to runway edge. The plane touched down on the right side landing gear & the wingtip looked perilously close to the ground. A quick glance out of the opposite side & I could see only sky.

We carried along the runway in this fashion for what seemed like an eternity, finally lowering the left wheel & reverse thrust, brakes etc.

It's really difficult to judge bank angle and runway alignment from looking out a passenger window. From what you described this seems to have been a cross-wind landing... not too well executed I might add

I’ve mentioned this to a few people over the years & best explanation for the landing was ‘to practice for a left side gear failure’. Is this likely, with 230 passengers on board?

See above... I have never heard for "practice for a left side gear failure" and if there is/was anything like that in Monarch's flight training syllabus it would not have taken place on a passenger carrying flight.

Thanks in advance for any help putting this one to bed – 17 years later - lol

You're welcome

[mzk49o1]

2, Hurried & thrilling take off, powering up whilst turning adjoining runway at least half take off speed.

That may be because the 757 is something of a rocket.

[Highkeas]

............. what seemed about half take off speed – it seemed like minimal distance we were airborne. ..........

Flights prior to this, every flight since & procedure according to ‘FTBJ’ we’ve turned onto runway, assumingly awaited clearance, then spooled up, released the brakes & off we go.
...............................................

Half speed is not an issue - dynamic presure is a function of velocity squared - so at half speed the plane only had a quarter of lift required for take-off.

Aircraft often increase engine power prior to runway entry and proceed to take-off without stopping- it depends on how busy the airport is.

[Evan]

3 Landing on right side gear, – continuing for 5 – 10 seconds & then lowering left wing / gear down. No puncture/failure or emergency.

This is because your bag stowed was on the right side.

[ced ampo]

This is because your bag stowed was on the right side.

Nah. probably crosswind or the pilots are playin'

[dkmax]

Thank you for your replies guys.

I must have done 50 or so flights since, without anything like a similar recurrence, so I thought I'd 'consult the oracle' just to clear my mind

I mean a wild ride take off & landing in the same flight got me thinking, particularly as the guy who mentioned the 'practice/suspected' gear failure was an A300 Freight Pilot :-o

Also, having read the book (Flying The Big Jets), it just seemed like there were so many pre flight calculations & procedures to be completed - distances, velocities, take off weight, obtaining clearance (airport was very busy) that merging with the runway from a slip road with 1/4 of the runway gone negated all of this. Though I guess you could easily calculate the required speed when joining the runway to achieve the same V1 result. It certainly felt like we were well above 40knots even before merging with the runway.

As for the landing, guess it was just a cross wind - though sure seemed strange, continuing on right main gear for so long before finally using both, reverse thrust & braking.

Seems like almost everybody has a dodgy flight story, that's mine put to bed!

Thanks all

[3WE]

That may be because the 757 is something of a rocket.

Rocket?

I was thinking slow, cumbersome, glider-like efficiency-machine with a big wing that gets you off with gentle acceleration and with every seat full, will march right to FL410 without hesitation nor stalling on arrival (as empty CRJ's sometimes do)

707's, MD-80s, 747s will blow the doors off a 757 (to some extent) Those are more deserving of the term "rocket"

[Peter Kesternich]

Rocket? I was thinking slow, cumbersome, glider-like efficiency-machine with a big wing (...)
707's, MD-80s, 747s will blow the doors off a 757 (to some extent) Those are more deserving of the term "rocket"

Hmmmmmmm - think again. The 757 is one of the best-powered commercial airliners ever built and if there is any aircraft since the DC-9-10/-20 that deserved the nickname "sport" then it's the 757. The only area where 707s, MD-80s, and 747s could blow the doors off a 757 is noise produced during takeoff run

[3WE]

Ok Peter- I challenge you to a little debate/dissect.

I went to airliners.net and found these figures (I did round a couple by a couple of kts). This was "crusie speed" and of course the true cruse speed depends on a lot of factors including how fast you want to fly.

757-200 : 460 kt
707: 480 kt
747: 490 kt
MD80: 440 kt
DC-8 60/70 480 kt
L-1011: 460 kt
DC-9 30 : 480 kts

So, yep- I was cleary wrong on the MD-80.

Still, it looks to me like the 757 on the slower end of the spectrum.

Ok- you said "power".....I would not argue that. As I said in my post it seems to march very effortlessly up to FL410.

However it does have nice, big, not-so-swept wings to generate more lift at slower speeds......

There's a rule of thumb though- power gives you a lot more climb rate than it does speed.

Now for the word mincing.....I'll confess I used some overly strong words and was being a bit sarcastic....but I think I might be safe calling it an "effeciency machine". BUT, I don't think it can be called a rocket ship either if you want to be technical.

So- anyway- Do you stick to your argument that it's one of the faster airliners? If so- what's your basis, data or explanation?

[SYDCBRWOD]

Ok Peter- I challenge you to a little debate/dissect.


So- anyway- Do you stick to your argument that it's one of the faster airliners? If so- what's your basis, data or explanation?

He didn't claim it was one of the faster airliners. He claimed it could be called sporty (compared to other airliners presumably).

That could and probably does mean he considered it to be fast accellerating and climbing...

Over to you Peter...

[3WE]

He didn't claim it was one of the faster airliners. He claimed it could be called sporty (compared to other airliners presumably).

That could and probably does mean he considered it to be fast accellerating and climbing...

Over to you Peter...

Go reread everything...you have selective "hearing".

[Peter Kesternich]

SYDCBRWOD is right. I was talking about acceleration and climb - since the whole thread started with the description of a takeoff experience in a 757.
Cruise speeds don't figure into my definition of a fast aircraft - especially since selecting cruise speeds depends on - like 3WE said - how fast you want to fly (and how economical you want to do this). Concerning cruise speeds the 757 is in the middle of the spectrum, doing around M.78-M.80 at altitude. I have no idea, where a.net got their figures, but these are probably the max cruise speeds. DC-9s at Delta/Northwest for example regularly cruise at M.74-M.76 and that's quite a bit slower than the 757. The important thing to note is that aircraft almost never cruise as fast as they can, so when I talk about a fast or sporty aircraft, cruise speed doesn't figure into my considerations.
Going back to the original scenario of takeoff, I definitely stick to my statement that not many passenger aircraft at normal weights give you a kick like the 757.

[3WE]

SYDCBRWOD is right. I was talking about acceleration and climb - since the whole thread started with the description of a takeoff experience in a 757.
Cruise speeds don't figure into my definition of a fast aircraft - especially since selecting cruise speeds depends on - like 3WE said - how fast you want to fly (and how economical you want to do this). Concerning cruise speeds the 757 is in the middle of the spectrum, doing around M.78-M.80 at altitude. I have no idea, where a.net got their figures, but these are probably the max cruise speeds. DC-9s at Delta/Northwest for example regularly cruise at M.74-M.76 and that's quite a bit slower than the 757. The important thing to note is that aircraft almost never cruise as fast as they can, so when I talk about a fast or sporty aircraft, cruise speed doesn't figure into my considerations.
Going back to the original scenario of takeoff, I definitely stick to my statement that not many passenger aircraft at normal weights give you a kick like the 757.

Well, I take issue with your statment that "speed doesn't figure in the definition of fast" , but aside from that would not argue. Thanks for the discussion.

[Gabriel]

Going back to the original scenario of takeoff, I definitely stick to my statement that not many passenger aircraft at normal weights give you a kick like the 757.

Maybe it's because the 757 typically doesn't take off as close to MTOW as other planes do?

I flew a 757 once, from Buenos Aires to Princess Juliana non-stop. It was 100% full of passengers in one class (the most cramped coach I've ever seen). It was a charter flight (operated by LAPA) with everybody on-board having bought an at-least-one-week vacation package, so everybody had some heavy suitcases.

I don't remember being surprised by any out-of-the-ordinary performance.

Take-off acceleration and climb performance (specially at low speed / low altitude) is a matter of mainly thrust-to-weight ratio.

On the other hand, one of the most stringent limitations for the engine size (rated thrust) on the low side is the one-engine-inop take-off and initial climb performances at MTOW, which again are a matter of thrust-to-weight (except thrust with only one engine).

That's why twins at MTOW tend to have a more-or-less similar acceleration and climb performance, and it's better that those in a four-engines plane (which would still have 75% of the installed thrust available after one engine quits)