Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Easy Runway Length Question  
User currently offlineBristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3857 times:

Couldn't fit a relevant sentance in the Topic field.

Are there any/many runways out there at major airports where the pilot could be at take off speed (in any aircraft) and still abort if there was a problem? I think it's called V1 - the point of no return - is that correct?

When I say 'any aircraft' I mean the one with the longest take off distance - I'm guessing 747 or A340.

BF

PS I once saw a crop duster plane doing a demo in the UK that took off at 26mph, I guess that could take off and land about a dozen times on an average runway!


Fortune favours the brave
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Yes.... Occasionally Vr and V1 can be equal... This would depend on favorable weather conditions, runway length, aircraft weight, among other factors......

User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

It is not uncommon on twin engine transport aircraft such as the 75/320 to have V1 and Vr equal.

However, on the 744 you will always have a V1 VR V2 being different speeds. V1 and Vr will never be the same as the case of a twin.


User currently offlineCapt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Many vairables are factored into consideration when deciding whether or not to reject a take-off.

A TWA L-1011 that aborted take-off after Vr at JFK is an interesting example of what could happen - If I recall correctly, the pilot did rotate, but than decided to abort for some reason. The airplane was over landing weight and the main gear punctured the wing upon contact w/ the ground.

I recall after that Lauda Air 767 crash over Thailand, 767s with PW4000 engines were not using thrust reverse for a brief period, at least AA 767s. During that time, they would select a longer departure runway because in the event of a rejected take-off, they could not use thrust reverse. (I don't remember if there was an Airworthyness Directive or if this was just something AA did for precautionary reasons.)


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16994 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

I recall after that Lauda Air 767 crash over Thailand, 767s with PW4000 engines were not using thrust reverse for a brief period, at least AA 767s. During that time, they would select a longer departure runway because in the event of a rejected take-off, they could not use thrust reverse. (I don't remember if there was an Airworthyness Directive or if this was just something AA did for precautionary reasons.)

This must have been precautionary since the effect of reversers is never included in braking calculations. They are just a bonus.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCRJ200Mechanic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (reply 4):
They are just a bonus


I didn't know TR's were a bonus. I thought that they were always included



Always remember the responsibilies you hold with an A&P license
User currently offlineEADC8 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3673 times:

I've been reading this forum for quite sometime now and I did not think that this would be my first post, but here it goes:

This is in response to Capt.Fantistic's comments about the TWA L-1011 crash at JFK. That particular flight was departing from 13R bound for SFO in Aug of '92. The control tower notified the Capt that "your tail is on fire" just as he was lifting off the ground. If my memory serves me correct, he had climbed to about 100 ft and decided to put her back down on the runway. He proceeded to do so and the Tristar ran off the runway to the left. Emergency evacuation procedures were implemented and everyone onboard got out alive.
The plane itself was burned beyond recognition, with the exception of the tail. Quite ironic, because the fire started in the tail engine.

As far as the subject of this thread goes, this is a perfect example of how runway length saved the lives of a couple of hundred pax (I don't remember the exact number). 13R/31L at JFK is roughly 15,000 feet long. My guess is he probably rotated somewhere between 7000 and 9000 feet.
Once he was informed that he was on fire, he obviously realized that he had plenty of runway to set her back down and stop.

If the runway would have been any shorter, he would not have made the decision that he did. He would have had no choice but to continue his climb and then try to make an emergency landing. Who knows what the results would have been, but my guess is that they would not have been good.



721 722 731 732 733 73G 741 742 744 752 753 762 764 DC8 DC9 MD80 DC10 L1011 A300 A319 A320 A332
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

CRJ200Mechanic:

FAR accelerate-stop distances are certified on two bases.

On a dry runway, you are not allowed to use thrust reversers. On a wet runway, you are.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CRJ200Mechanic (reply 5):
I didn't know TR's were a bonus. I thought that they were always included


It makes sense not to include them, as one of the reasons for aborting a take off is engine failure and hence no reverse thrust available.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3637 times:

I believe you, but strangely its not in the NTSB records. I used the Database indexed by month, and nothing for it. I then queried any L-1011 accident/incident from 1982 to present, and in 4 pages of replies not one was at JFK.

Weird.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineEADC8 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

I believe you, but strangely its not in the NTSB records. I used the Database indexed by month, and nothing for it. I then queried any L-1011 accident/incident from 1982 to present, and in 4 pages of replies not one was at JFK




Is it possible that because there were no fatalities it is not listed? Though that really doesn't make sense.

I have a copy of the NY POST with the headline "THEY ALL LIVED", with a picture of the wreckage on the front page. I also have personal video of the wreckage that myself and a friend took two or three days after it happened.

I'm not saying this to defend myself, you already stated that you believe me. But, I just find it weird that there could be no online record of this incident

[Edited 2005-03-05 07:56:20]


721 722 731 732 733 73G 741 742 744 752 753 762 764 DC8 DC9 MD80 DC10 L1011 A300 A319 A320 A332
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16994 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920730-0


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

I was on DL MD-11 flight 39 from AMS to ATL that had smoke in the cabin and made an emergency landing at IAD in December 2002 that does not show up in the NTSB database either.

User currently offlineBristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

I often wondered what would have happened if the captain had tried to put the 'Paris crash' AF Concorde back down on the deck once he realised that he was on fire. I know he was past the point of no return but with the fire raging that badly crashing through a few fences at the end of the runway seems preferable. I guess he wouldn't have known how bad things were at that stage.

BF



Fortune favours the brave
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force 1 In Waco / Runway Length Question posted Sun Feb 18 2001 14:44:34 by Aus_spotter
Runway Positioning Question posted Thu Sep 7 2006 19:44:27 by AlitaliaMD11
SBA Runway Length..can It Handle A 737 Or Larger? posted Thu Mar 23 2006 09:17:14 by Stealth777
757 Runway Length posted Tue Mar 14 2006 04:57:03 by YX717fan
IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length posted Sun Jan 29 2006 21:22:34 by ThaiAggie
A380 Required Runway Length To Take Off And Land posted Sun Jan 8 2006 05:45:36 by NZCH
What Runway Length Does A340 Need? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 13:44:21 by Fly2CHC
London Luton Runway Length posted Tue Jun 14 2005 04:57:17 by Wdleiser
Shortest Runway Length Used By Mainline Jet posted Wed Mar 16 2005 16:31:37 by Mozart
FLL Runway Ops Question? posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:17:25 by Flairport