Any Carriers Allow FO's To Taxi?

B747forever · Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:26 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 49):
IE: Start from the end is far safer.
OR...would you discard known safety advantages, just to save a few minutes taxi time to the end of the runway?
You might...we DO NOT.

But do you seriously believe that any carrier compromises on safety when they take off from an intersection, not that they would be allowed to do so? It is all calculated according to different parameters such as conditions at departure and load. If there is enough runway after the intersection for the calculated take off why then waste time and fuel by taxiing the whole length of the runway?

You need to understand what the other members try to tell you. They dont say that it is stupid to use the whole runway. They want you to understand that it is not unsafe to take off from an intersection, as you strictly say it is.

Dont be silly and only think that you know the best.

[Edited 2010-11-19 13:30:07]

Max Q · Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:28 pm

Well, somehow the Major Airlines of the world, including British Airways all seem to do very well without the benefit of
your input 411a.

I consider British Airways to be top notch in every respect (although I wish they would upgrade me more often)

I would certainly rather fly on them than your obscure, Single Aircraft and by all acounts single Pilot Tristar operation

When you build yourself up by demeaning all others you end up losing the respect of everyone.

lowrider · Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:52 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 49):
Murphy's Law' says...'what can go wrong, will go wrong, at the most unfortunate time'

While this is certainly a piece of wisdom to keep in mind, it cannot dominate our planning, otherwise we would never leave the blocks.

Quoting 411A (Reply 49):
Engine thrust derates are a proven dollar cost savings for airlines, in conformity with runway and CAA requirements.
Intersection departures are not.

Thrust derates and intersection departures are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to do both safely. There is a limit to how much derate or reduced thrust can be used for any take off. And for any derate, it is the first few percentage points of reduction that provide the most reduction in engine wear.

Quoting 411A (Reply 49):
British Airways 'doublespeak',

I am about 90% certain this is an old joke that makes rounds from time to time, sort of like the humorous write ups or some of the amusing things heard over the radio.

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:05 am

Quoting B747forever (Reply 50):
You need to understand what the other members try to tell you.

I don't 'need' to understand any such thing.
After more than forty years in the airline business, I know what works, and ...what does not, from a safety standpoint.
We don't use runway intersection departures because, it removes one item in the safety equation, one that need not be eliminated just to save a few minutes of possible delay.

BA had a very close call in the Caribbean just awhile ago, with one of their poorly informed commanders and his improper and ill-advised actions.
He now resides in the right hand seat...and I expect he will be there for quite some time...as he certainly should be.

CosmicCruiser · Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:48 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 53):
After more than forty years in the airline business, I know what works, and ...what does not, from a safety standpoint.
We don't use runway intersection departures because, it removes one item in the safety equation, one that need not be eliminated just to save a few minutes of possible delay.

So then can I assumme that you restrict all T/Os to only runways of 10'000' or greater because though you only need 8500' for a balanced field you demand that extra margin of safety? If our perf comp. says I'll have 1500' over balanced field length from a given intersection then why not if it helps me and atc. If the intersection data is in our PAT then it CAN be used if desired; if it isn't there it cannot be used. We rarely take the intersection for expediency; it's usually for ATC normal flow, eg. LAX 25R from the cargo ramp.
p.s. you ain't the only one who's been in the business for 40 yrs.

Vmcavmcg · Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:50 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 54):
p.s. you ain't the only one who's been in the business for 40 yrs

Ditto!!! Couldn't have said it better!

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:09 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 54):
So then can I assumme that you restrict all T/Os to only runways of 10'000' or greater because though you only need 8500' for a balanced field you demand that extra margin of safety?

An old story about 'assumme'...I expect you've heard of it, before.

Vmcavmcg · Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:15 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 56):
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 54):
So then can I assumme that you restrict all T/Os to only runways of 10'000' or greater because though you only need 8500' for a balanced field you demand that extra margin of safety?

An old story about 'assumme'...I expect you've heard of it, before.

I just love how a question is never answered. Makes one think there isn't much there.....

wrighbrothers · Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:53 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 53):
don't 'need' to understand any such thing.
After more than forty years in the airline business, I know what works, and ...what does not, from a safety standpoint.

411A

No you don't - you think you do, you assume you have a greater amount of knowledge which leads to complacency. I'm an Engineering Apprentice and what i've learnt in my short time is that you work as a team, your FO is not less a pilot than I am an engineer just because the guy i'm working with has been in the job longer.

40yrs experience means very little whe it comes to safety. Take for example the fact you're getting on a bit....what happens if you fail to notice something because your reactions are slower, what happens if you have a heart attack inflight and the FO has to take over - do you expect the FO to be able to do his job, be able to tell you something is wrong, or do you think your attitude discourages them to speak up or take the initiative...complacency kills and so does your attitude.
To put it bluntly - your experience and all your knowledge and wisdom means nothing when it comes to safety, the policy of CRM is there for a reason and you should perhaps be a little more respectful of those around you, because one day your lives may be in their hands.

Wrighbrothers

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:44 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 58):
you assume you have a greater amount of knowledge ....

I don't 'assume' any such thing...I know.

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 58):
I'm an Engineering Apprentice and what i've learnt in my short time ....

Ah yes, an Apprentice....one who has not enough experience nor knowledge to be a journeyman.

Wrighbrothers profile,
Gender: Male
Age: 16-20
Seems this young man has't been around long enough to know very much about anything.
Perhaps that is why he is still an Apprentice.

B747forever · Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:05 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 59):

Jeez, man you are starting to be very rude. Stop being so arrogant. Taking off from an intersection is not less safe than using the full length of the runway. I am sure not a single carrier would risk losing an airplane just so they can take off from an intersection. They only do that when it is as safe as using the whole runway, when the aircraft for instance is not too heavy or if conditions allow a take off from an intersection. Seriously, if it is as dangerous as you make it sound it would have been prohibited a long time ago. Can you then explain why it is so widely used everday by carriers world wide?

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:29 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 60):
Seriously, if it is as dangerous as you make it sound it would have been prohibited a long time ago.

It was, and still is, at many aircarriers with heavy jet aircraft...including ours, unless a part of the runway is unusable or otherwise notamed closed.
Quite simple really....you follow the company mandated procedure, not make it up as you go along.

B747forever · Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:48 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 61):
It was, and still is, at many aircarriers with heavy jet aircraft

It might be prohibited by some carriers, but that doesnt make it unsafe. If it was unsafe it would have been prohibited for all airlines by the FAA for instance.

Quoting 411A (Reply 61):
...including ours, unless a part of the runway is unusable or otherwise notamed closed.

So that means that the airline you work for allows take offs from an intersection. So according to you, your company is actually practicing and allows something that is unsafe. Interesting. So much for you saying it is unsafe!

Vmcavmcg · Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:08 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 59):
I don't 'assume' any such thing...I know.

Such humility. We should be so honored. Reminds me of the saying, "there are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots".

Quoting 411A (Reply 61):
It was, and still is, at many aircarriers with heavy jet aircraft...including ours, unless a part of the runway is unusable or otherwise notamed closed.

Please tell me of one existing carrier that has this prohibition! I dare say you won't find a single one.

And by the way, please take a look at my profile!!!! I am not an apprentice.

Cubsrule · Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:30 pm

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 63):
Please tell me of one existing carrier that has this prohibition! I dare say you won't find a single one.

I'll assure you, at least, that no existing carrier that flies to ORD has it - I think before they shortened 32L, I probably saw every carrier that flew there perform a T10 departure (~9,700 feet of pavement as opposed to, IIRC, 13,000 on the whole runway)).

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:58 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 62):
It might be prohibited by some carriers, but that doesnt make it unsafe

Not 'unsafe'...less safe.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 62):
So that means that the airline you work for allows take offs from an intersection.

With stipulations (as noted previously)...not as a matter of normal ops.
We will not find ourselves in the position that the hapless BA captain did, not all that long ago, with his B777 at a Caribbean airport.
IE: wrong point to start the takeoff roll, almost ran off the end.
He was...not-so-bright.
Likewise with the Kalitta B747 captain at BRU...intersection takeoff attempted, reject...ran off the end.
He wasn't so bright either.

wrighbrothers · Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:10 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 59):
I don't 'assume' any such thing...I know.

Much like Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten knew what he was doing when he pushed the throttles forward on his 747 at Tenerife...that kind of 'know' ? His 11,700hrs of flying, his position as a Training Captain, nor his 50yrs of age helped him there so do not 'know' that you know everything, because everyone is suseptable to mistakes and errors - like the BA 777 crew you strike down so much.

Quoting 411A (Reply 59):
Ah yes, an Apprentice....one who has not enough experience nor knowledge to be a journeyman.

Wrighbrothers profile,
Gender: Male
Age: 16-20
Seems this young man has't been around long enough to know very much about anything.
Perhaps that is why he is still an Apprentice.

I must state I don't particularly like your tone there and it seems to me that you cannot communicate without being condescending .

For your information, an Apprentice is someone in training, learning their trade so they can one day be the master of it. The only reason i'm 'still' an Apprentice is because i'm still in training, nothing more.
As with regards to age and knowledge I point again to the Tenerife incident - all that knowledge and experienced helped nobody then, because they made a human error - don't be so cocky as to think you are above it all. Indeed I agree I probably don't know much about anything but you weren't born with all that knowledge you apparently have, so I assume you too at somepoint knew not much about anything. As such I think you should relax the attitude - this forum is for learning and professionals to share ideas while encouraging people to learn and be invovled in the aviation industry, not beat others down with the big 'I am' attitude or talk down to others - your rank and position means nothing here.

Wrighbrothers

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:16 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 66):
your rank and position means nothing here.

Neither does yours
If, on the other hand, you don't especially like my considered professional opinions, makes absolutely no difference to me.

David L · Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:40 pm

What happens when a runway is extended? Does the previous departure point suddenly become a "no way, Jose" issue?

If failure to use all available take-off thrust is acceptable regarding the possibility of an overrun, why is failure to use "extra" runway unacceptable?

Furthermore, I'm still curious to know (as are others, I'm sure) what that "Caribbean Incident" has to do with FOs taxying the aircraft.

I'll save you some time, 411A: I'm not a pro - I'm just asking.

lowrider · Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:59 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 65):
Likewise with the Kalitta B747 captain at BRU...intersection takeoff attempted, reject...ran off the end

1 more time. That accident had nothing to do with any intersection departure. It was caused a a Post V1 reject, in combination with a failure to execute the reject procedure properly.

I have tried to understand your logic with regard to intersection departures, but there seems to be none there to grasp. But you have provided a wonderful example of why line pilots view certain types of management pilots with such distrust and contempt.

Vmcavmcg · Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:14 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 65):
Likewise with the Kalitta B747 captain at BRU...intersection takeoff attempted, reject...ran off the end.
He wasn't so bright either.

I suggest you might want to do a little more research before you start passing judgement on everyone. The Kalitta accident had nothing to do with an intersection departure. It had to do with rejecting the takeoff above V1. Nothing more, nothing less. Go read the accident report and you will see there was no mention of the intersection departure being a factor, cause or anything contributing to the accident.

But then again, why let facts get in the way of your pompous judgement.

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:42 pm

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 70):
Nothing more, nothing less.

I would entirely disagree.
IF, for example, the commander had bothered to taxi to the end of the runway, who is to say that said very serious accident would not have resulted in 'just' stopping at the runway end, or...mitigated the damage caused.

You don't know, the accident investigators don't especially know, and I don't know.
However, the SAFER course of action on the part of the concerned commander would have been to...taxi to the end of the runway, and begin his takeoff therefrom.

That you might disagree, clearly shows your lack of understanding of large heavy jet aircraft performance criteria.

Over to you.

B747forever · Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:53 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 71):

The accident was caused because of a rejection after V1, not because the runway ended before the aircraft could take off.
Even if they had used the whole runway they would probably use a derated take off thrust which means that if they tried to reject the take off after V1 they would end up in the same situation.

David L · Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:03 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 71):
However, the SAFER course of action on the part of the concerned commander would have been to...taxi to the end of the runway, and begin his takeoff therefrom.

So, in your view, not using the full length was a bigger contributing factor than rejecting beyond V₁? I confess I don't know that operator's mandated procedures regarding intersection take-offs and post-V₁ rejections but how does that tie in with...

Quoting 411A (Reply 61):
follow the company mandated procedure, not make it up as you go along

?

Speedbird741 · Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:32 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 59):
Seems this young man has't been around long enough to know very much about anything.
Perhaps that is why he is still an Apprentice.

The arrogance and presumptuousness in your tone completely belittles you as person and as pilot. Your confidence in the knowledge and the experience you have obtainined in your life should suffice to inhibit your need to resort to such pointless arguments.

Quoting 411A (Reply 71):
IF, for example, the commander had bothered to taxi to the end of the runway, who is to say that said very serious accident would not have resulted in 'just' stopping at the runway end, or...mitigated the damage caused.

Although I do not believe the absolutist way in which you consider intersection takeoffs to be unsafe, regardless of how inexperienced a pilot I may be, I completely agree with your stance on the Kalitta accident. I do not see the post V1 abortion of takeoff as the sole cause, because if they had commenced their roll from the beginning of the runway (given the same thrust setting of course) their chances of stopping in time or of minimizing the damage could have been greater.
Nonetheless, the way you conducted yourself in this constructive discussion and the lack of respect for other members you display diminished your credibility and position of respect. This from someone who, as many others, observes and participates in these forums to learn from people like you.

Quoting NW747-400 (Thread starter):

Just curious if any airlines out there allow their first officers to taxi aircraft that are equipped with a tiller on both sides of the flight deck.

If I am not mistaken, both TAP and TAAG allow first officers to taxi. However, the norm is for the commander to taxi the aircraft.

Speedbird741

Cubsrule · Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:37 pm

Quoting Speedbird741 (Reply 74):
I completely agree with your stance on the Kalitta accident. I do not see the post V1 abortion of takeoff as the sole cause, because if they had commenced their roll from the beginning of the runway (given the same thrust setting of course) their chances of stopping in time or of minimizing the damage could have been greater.

Is there any upper limit? Should an RJ-85 not perform an intersection takeoff on a 4,000 meter runway?

Max Q · Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:02 pm

411A, You are, without doubt the Sarah Palin of the 'Aviation sound bite'

What a total twit you are.

While implying a faultless record on your own part simply because you won't admit to anything
you endlessly skewer other professionals in your pompous manner with inaccuracies, exaggerations and criticisms of their ability.

You contribute nothing to these threads but contempt from real professional Pilots and enthusiasts alike.

411A · Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:08 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 75):
Is there any upper limit? Should an RJ-85 not perform an intersection takeoff on a 4,000 meter runway?

Read and fully understand my previous comments, re: smaller jet aircraft on longer runways.
Totally different with large heavy jet airplanes, at MAX weight.
And yes, there is a distinct difference...whether you know it, or not.
IE: small jet versus very heavy.

Perhaps, for the younger reader, might be a review of Captain DP Davies well-known book...'Handling the BIG Jets'.
Much information there, IF only one wants to be informed.

PS:
And yes...I knew the specific individual personally and respected his well known opinions, and experience, from long ago.

***You contribute nothing to these threads but contempt from real professional Pilots and enthusiasts alike.***
Says you.
I could care less.
Many times, the younger, less informed, have their minds made up...incorrectly.
Ah...such is life.
Too bad for them.

[Edited 2010-11-20 15:17:44]

Speedbird741 · Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:32 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 75):
Should an RJ-85 not perform an intersection takeoff on a 4,000 meter runway?

Once again, I was referring to the Kalitta accident in Brussels. If I recall correctly it was not an RJ-85. Behavior and performance of which varies wildly from a 747 as you may imagine. Certainly I do not think a moderately loaded RJ-85 should taxi all the way to the beginning of a 4000 metre runway in an already congested airport. However, if you give me the same RJ-85 with the same moderate LF in an airport pretty much clear of traffic, I think the question would be "Why not commence roll at the beginning of the runway?" as opposed to "why commence roll at the beginning of the runway?"

Speedbird741

lowrider · Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:42 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 71):
IF, for example, the commander had bothered to taxi to the end of the runway, who is to say that said very serious accident would not have resulted in 'just' stopping at the runway end, or...mitigated the damage caused.

The aircraft departed the end of the runway at about 80 knots. Given the fact that no spoilers were used, no reverse thrust was used, and only about 50% of the braking capability was employed, he would have needed more runway than was available, even from the threshold, to stop the aircraft. There is not a runway is Belgium long enough for him to have stopped on using this technique.

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:58 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 79):
There is not a runway is Belgium long enough for him to have stopped on using this technique.

Supposition on your part, nothing more nor less.

Max Q · Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 am

Not supposition at all. Here is the report :

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X4874...F328328-747-crash-brussels-16.html

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:09 am

Quoting David L (Reply 68):
Furthermore, I'm still curious to know (as are others, I'm sure) what that "Caribbean Incident" has to do with FOs taxying the aircraft.
I'm not a pro - I'm just asking.

Since you asked, this is my considered opinion.
Normal line operations demand a certain amount of standarization, for it to be reasonably successful.
Ground operations should, in my opinion, be conducted in that same structured manner.
IE: the Captain taxis the airplane, the First Officer reads the checklist, copies the ATC clearance (yes, this is still done at many airports, during taxi, contrary to what some might otherwise think) and completes other ancillary duties, prior to takeoff.

Once lined up for takeoff, the airplane can be handed over to the First Officer, if it is his/her turn to fly the airplane.

Ground operations however, can present some unique hazards that would otherwise not be present out near the runway...ground vehicles, tight maneuvering quarters, etc...that I feel necessitates that the Captain always taxis the airplane in these congested areas.

In the BA Caribbean incident, it would appear that the First Officer was taxiing the airplane, and in so doing, selected the 'wrong' location to enter the runway.
In addition, the selection of an intersection for departure certainly did NOT enhance safety, when turning bays at both ends of the runway were clearly available, so that the airplane could very well have used the full runway length, without restriction.
Furthermore, when the First Officer started to advance the throttles for takeoff, the Captain noticed that the runway appeared 'short' so advised the F/O to apply brakes and run the engines up to near takeoff thrust, instead of using the rolling takeoff technique that would normally otherwise be applied.

There were many abnormalities on this BA flight, including a hostie on the FD observers seat, which I also consider improper.
CC belong in the cabin, not on the FD.

FlyASAGuy2005 · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:19 am

This may be a little OT but I know some maintenance personnel are taxi qualified as well. No I don't mean riding the breaks in the cockpit under the control of the supertug but starting the engines and moving her around. I use to see it a lot at ASA when I interned there a few years back. I don't see it much at all now. They rely heavily on the tow team (normal ACS guys actually).

I assume MTC guys gets qualified in the sim?

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:24 am

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X4874...F328328-747-crash-brussels-16.html

***The speed increased under a
constant acceleration until one of the engine experienced a bird strike. This caused a
momentary loss of power, accompanied by a loud bang, heard by the crew and external
witnesses, and by flames, seen from the control tower.***

A bird strike....all very interesting.
Perhaps...if the full runway length had been used, the bird strike would not have occured.
No bird strike, no accident.
Circumstances line up like holes in swiss cheese.
Break the chain (use the full length of the runway) holes don't line up any longer...no accident.

I repeat, the Kalitta captain was not-so-bright.

Max Q · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:39 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 82):

Since you asked, this is my considered opinion.
Normal line operations demand a certain amount of standarization, for it to be reasonably successful.
Ground operations should, in my opinion, be conducted in that same structured manner.
IE: the Captain taxis the airplane, the First Officer reads the checklist, copies the ATC clearance (yes, this is still done at many airports, during taxi, contrary to what some might otherwise think) and completes other ancillary duties, prior to takeoff.

Once lined up for takeoff, the airplane can be handed over to the First Officer, if it is his/her turn to fly the airplane.

Ground operations however, can present some unique hazards that would otherwise not be present out near the runway...ground vehicles, tight maneuvering quarters, etc...that I feel necessitates that the Captain always taxis the airplane in these congested areas.

In the BA Caribbean incident, it would appear that the First Officer was taxiing the airplane, and in so doing, selected the 'wrong' location to enter the runway.
In addition, the selection of an intersection for departure certainly did NOT enhance safety, when turning bays at both ends of the runway were clearly available, so that the airplane could very well have used the full runway length, without restriction.
Furthermore, when the First Officer started to advance the throttles for takeoff, the Captain noticed that the runway appeared 'short' so advised the F/O to apply brakes and run the engines up to near takeoff thrust, instead of using the rolling takeoff technique that would normally otherwise be applied.

There were many abnormalities on this BA flight, including a hostie on the FD observers seat, which I also consider improper.
CC belong in the cabin, not on the FD.

Youve still lost the plot,

In modern jet transport operations the taxi check has been eliminated. Those items are incorporated on the after start check.

The reason, to eliminate any distractions to either Pilot while taxiing.

Most ATC clearances are delivered digitally these days, probably not in Africa though, so, not what you are used to.

You infer that just because the FO was taxiing the Aircraft, thetake off was initiated from the wrong position.

That has nothing to do with it, the Captain, himself expressed concern over the remaining runway length, as he would have done if he had positioned the Aircraft in the wrong position.

No question they made a mistake, but your reasoning as to the cause,is, as usual completely incorrect.

Max Q · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:41 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 84):

A bird strike....all very interesting.
Perhaps...if the full runway length had been used, the bird strike would not have occured.
No bird strike, no accident.
Circumstances line up like holes in swiss cheese.
Break the chain (use the full length of the runway) holes don't line up any longer...no accident.

I repeat, the Kalitta captain was not-so-bright.

Seriously, you are claiming you can control these birds flight path by not using intersection take off's ? !!!

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:57 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 85):
In modern jet transport operations the taxi check has been eliminated. Those items are incorporated on the after start check.

Yes, I am well aware, however, this is certainly NOT true in many companies.
We do the taxi items and the taxi check, while taxiing.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 85):
... but your reasoning as to the cause,is, as usual completely incorrect.

I disagree entirely.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 86):
Seriously, you are claiming you can control these birds flight path by not using intersection take off's

Certainly not, however, if the concerned captain had not been in such a rush to commence the takeoff, and instead used the full length of the runway, there is every likelyhood that the bird strike could have possibly been eliminated.
No bird strike, no accident.

Seems pretty clear to me.
In airline operations, haste makes waste....without a doubt.

2H4 · Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:14 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 87):
if the concerned captain had not been in such a rush to commence the takeoff, and instead used the full length of the runway, there is every likelyhood that the bird strike could have possibly been eliminated.

Using your logic, one could just as easily conclude that "there is every likelihood" that using the full length at the previous point of departure could have resulted in a similarly disastrous birdstrike.

How absurd.

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:21 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 88):
...one could just as easily conclude that "there is every likelihood" that using the full length at the previous point of departure could have resulted in a similarly disastrous birdstrike.

Odd 'logic' on your part, nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion.

Also, keep in mind that...according to the takeoff calculations completed, the FULL length of the runway was required, yet, the captain lined up at an intersection.
I repeat again...he was not so bright.

2H4 · Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:31 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 89):
Odd 'logic' on your part, nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion.

It's based on your own 'logic'. It's absurd to fault a pilot for choosing a given point on the runway from which to depart because there may not have been a bird hazard at another point.

Vmcavmcg · Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:37 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 71):
That you might disagree, clearly shows your lack of understanding of large heavy jet aircraft performance criteria

Oh, I see now. Because I disagree with you, I demonstrate "a lack of understanding of large heavy jet aircraft performance criteria". What a load of BS!!!

You remind me of the school yard bully who tries to intimidate everyone who doesn't do what the bully demands. It's my way or the highway! Sorry, you picked on the wrong person.

I have asked you specific questions which you have chosen to ignore. To me that tells it all. You make these all sweeping statements and I have asked you to provide one example and you have not. To me it sounds like you are the one who has no understanding of heavy or light jet performance. As someone said, you really have lost the plot.

I have better things to do than try to have a logical conversation with you on this subject. I have a 18 month old Lab who is brighter than you!

AMF!!!

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:58 am

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 91):
...I demonstrate "a lack of understanding of large heavy jet aircraft performance criteria"

Quite likely possible.
Those pilots who fly heavy jet transport aircraft, and continue to use intersection departures to (possibly) 'save time', open themselves up to all kinds of problems, and this was aptly demonstrated by the BA777 captain at a Caribbean airport not long ago, and the Kalitta B747 captain at BRU.
Penny wise, pound foolish.

seven3seven · Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:10 am

411A- you give pilots a bad name. What 3rd rate outfit are you at again?

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:32 am

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 93):
411A- you give pilots a bad name

What an odd sort of reply.

seven3seven · Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:38 am

your high and mighty captain god complex style of running the cockpit went out with disco music years ago.

Which airline was that again?

[Edited 2010-11-20 23:42:56]

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:39 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 89):
Odd 'logic' on your part, nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion.

While having no real time in anything other than piston singles, I am pretty well versed in statistics, and it is absolutely illogical (not to mention pointless) to make the claim that a given departure point on any runway produces any more/less likelihood of bird encounters without access to a host of variables you couldn't possibly have knowledge of whether we're talking about BRU or any other field. Suppose you have a quartering headwind across the runway with a bird or two in flight in the vicinity of a heavy jet's primary accelerative field - surely you realize even minute differences in gust activity would completely alter the position of the birds relative to the aircraft, every time? Not to mention that except for calm wind conditions, the immediate environment around any runway with bird activity is best described as 'fluid' - with no two aircraft encountering identical conditions from moment to moment - which is precisely the purpose of having carefully-formulated tabulations in the cockpit that provide the necessary numbers for crews to make decisions with. Thus your "full length would have avoided birds" conclusion is, well, bunk.

Unfortunately in the rush to debase other professionals with your assumed superiority of experience, you seem to have overlooked those overtly simple facts, no?

Mir · Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:45 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 87):
Certainly not, however, if the concerned captain had not been in such a rush to commence the takeoff, and instead used the full length of the runway, there is every likelyhood that the bird strike could have possibly been eliminated.
No bird strike, no accident.

Seriously?

Birdstrikes are something the pilot has no control over - the probability of one occurring is the same no matter where you start your takeoff roll. I can understand your argument for using the extra distance from a rejected takeoff standpoint, but to claim that a birdstrike would not have occurred had the full length been used is ridiculous. One could just as easily argue that using full length for departure would result in you climbing right into a flock of birds and losing an engine or two when using an intersection for takeoff would have resulted in you passing beneath them on the runway and never making the headlines at all. But such an argument would have no more merit than yours, because you can't control where the birds are and when they're there.

-Mir

411A · Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:19 am

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 95):
Which airline was that again?

You quote yours (with bonefides to back it up) and I'll compare my experience with yours...such as it might be.
Let's see...I posed the same question (re: intersection departures with heavy jet types) to a rather senior B737 Captain at Southwest just two days ago, and his reply was...'IF I flew a heavy jet, there is NO way I would ever depart from an intersection, especially near max weight, if I could possibly avoid doing so.'
Clearly, he has what some might call...common sense.
Sadly, seemingly lacking with a few posters, here.
Such is life.

Quoting Mir (Reply 97):
...because you can't control where the birds are and when they're there.

Of course you can't, however...one can mitigate exposure to undue risks when departing from limiting runways with heavy jet aircraft, by using (surprise, surprise)...the full length of the runway.

Shock/horror, who would have ever thought...sadly, not many here, it appears.

Vmcavmcg · Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:21 am

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 63):
Quoting 411A (Reply 61):
It was, and still is, at many aircarriers with heavy jet aircraft...including ours, unless a part of the runway is unusable or otherwise notamed closed.

Please tell me of one existing carrier that has this prohibition! I dare say you won't find a single one.

The silence tells it all!!!!!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net