Flykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 445 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6339 times:
I usually take no part in these kinds of threads as they serve no purpose and are usually completely inaccurate. However, I want to give you a couple of things to think about regarding both the comments and the pic:
1. Comments such as "its mainly because they dont trust them...", implies racism and the fact that certain cultures are bad pilots. You can get bad pilots in any airline and any country. Moreover, consider the fact that many airlines, such as the airline I work for (KE), as well as many others including China Airlines employ foreign Captains (and some foreign F/O's). This airplane in the picture could be flown by one of them. If the picture was of a UA 744, would people still post the same comments??
2. Probably this aircraft is operating HKG-TPE which is only a 1:35 sector. Same for us when we fly GMP-CJU or PUS-CJU with a 744. They get off the ground and climb very quickly.
3. "Just like only the captain of Taiwanese aircraft can taxi it..." Perhaps true (I don't know), but this applies to many other airlines too, and I consider it to be entirely logical, especially for large aircraft that are difficult to taxi (777-300, 744, A340-600) considering their length and the design of some airports taxiways.
Anyhow, not trying to have a personal swipe at you, but simply inform you of some of the other information which should be considered. As for the picture, no-one can say whether it's nose high or not. Besides, what's really the point, anyhow?
One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
Trident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6196 times:
Flykal - time to chill out I think. Seems like a little of an over-reaction to what was a perfectly mild post. I think your first reaction was the right one - don't participate in these threads if you don't like them.
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6176 times:
The point, Phil, is for us as aviation enthusiasts to get some insight as to why an aircraft as large as the 747 is taking off at such a high AOA. I am sure there were no racist reasons to start this thread, only love/interest in planes. As for the picture itself, I am no pilot, but it does seem insanely high! He must have gotten there relatively quickley too, since his gear is still out. My guess is light load, otherwise I doubt it would be feasable for him to get so high/steep so quickly!
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
Ben From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6136 times:
Climb attitude (pitch) is set by airspeed.
That means an attitude is flown to maintain a certain calculated airspeed. To fly at that certain airspeed, the pitch will vary according to things like the weight, engine power, aircraft configuration etc..
A lightly loaded airliner at full power just after takeoff will have a very steep climb and high rate of climb.
I know a BBJ pilot who still uses rude words to describe the incredible rate of climb on his aircraft in that situation, and he's been flying them for a good few years.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13017 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6072 times:
Flykal, no one would ever suggest CAL has bad pilots. If you leave out a few accidents they've had, they have a perfect safety record.
This picture doesn't seem unusual; as BMA bound suggests, if a 747 is lightly loaded, it can take off pretty smartly. A very heavy 747 would climb out at about 12-13 degrees, but a lightly loaded one can manage around 16 degrees.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1877 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5829 times:
Flykal, no one would ever suggest CAL has bad pilots.
There are many who are very critical of CAL's cockpit crews. N754pr has been one of the more vocal one on the a.net. With CAL's safety record, one must wonder.
If you leave out a few accidents they've had, they have a perfect safety record.
You gotta be kidding. How many should I leave out? They have crashed almost every jet type they have flown, including the 707, 737, 747, MD-11, A300... Find me an airline that has crashed as many jet types as CAL has.
With this said, I think flykal's reaction is not inappropriate. N754pr's post was not as naive as some others might think.
Cessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5795 times:
I recently (within the last month) flew on an ANA 747-400D from Haneda to Fukuoka, and that bird used up around 3,000 feet of runway and that was about it. We shot into the sky like a rocket. I can believe (from flying on this flight and watching other 747s from RJFF/FUK) that the 747 can take off, under light loads, at such a high AOA and keep it up for a while... If you are in doubt, book an ANA flight or some kind of domestic flight in Asia on any 747 that is around one hour and a half and you will see...
Tt737fo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 472 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5583 times:
As for the picture: aggressive appearing angle of attack, but with a good stiff headwind and empty load....it just looks cool.
Onto another issue that's been skirted here:
>>>"Comments such as "its mainly because they dont trust them...", implies racism and the fact that certain cultures are bad pilots. You can get bad pilots in any airline and any country"
Agreed in part. However, I will maintain that certain cultures do, in fact, have a difficult time embracing CRM. (Two relatively recent accidents at KAL fall squarely into that category: Cheju A300 and the 747 on Nimitz Hill in Guam).
Here is a good link to some issues that were uncovered in an audit of KAL in the 1990s--many of these findings apply to several other asian carries...I have witnessed several such things first hand:
RareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5099 times:
Noise abatement procedures at some airports require the aircraft to climb rapidly to a certain altitude and then resume a more normal climbout attitude. This is sometimes the reason for the incredibly steep AOA on initial climbout. A lightly loaded 757 does this quite well, as well as a 747 in a lightly loaded configuration.
N754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4918 times:
Please confirm your saying that on all aircraft on the captain can taxi the aircraft!!. Wow, I think the pilots here will have some interesting replies for you.
As for CI, yes they are bad. I would never fly them but that was not the reason for my post. HKG and TPE are very close but other carriers flying the route do not rocket out like CI. You should see their A306's when they go, there are times when after departure you see them pushing the nose down as they are so nose high!!
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6732 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
After takeoff, we climb to acceleration height (Normally 1000ft AGL) at no more than V2+25. If the aircraft continues to accelerate, then we will adjust the pitch attitude to stay within V2+25. If this means pitching up, then we will do so (Within reason!).
As for the tiller, most widebodied airliners have tillers on both sides. It's only smaller jets that tend to have a single tiller. Every type in our fleet has dual tillers, and all CI's widebodies certainly have dual tillers. The fact that FO's cannot taxi is a Taiwanese law and has already indirectly led to the death of a Captain after the FO brought the plane in following the captain's heart attack but was not allowed to vacate the runway. Go figure.