Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ouch!!

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Tim Green
    Member
    • Nov 2003
    • 79

    Ouch!!

    How did I miss this in the papers?

    Even allowing for camera angle he must have collected that fence and VERY nearly got his feet wet!

    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/995911/M/
  • murph
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2005
    • 552

    #2
    Dunno what the fuss is about, still got a few yards to go yet there...

    Comment

    • wannabe pilot
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2003
      • 3652

      #3
      I think the telephoto effect helps this one. I'd say there's another 50 yards left there.

      Comment

      • RIPConcorde
        EGPH
        • Feb 2004
        • 3192

        #4
        Originally posted by wannabe pilot
        I think the telephoto effect helps this one. I'd say there's another 50 yards left there.
        Yeah, that fence is furthur away than it looks, although there isn't much runway left I must say!
        This overview pic gives a better idea of the distances:

        http://www.airliners.net/open.file/558865/L/

        Comment

        • Skymonster
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2004
          • 1986

          #5
          I don't see any issue... Its just another departure. They don't lay concrete for fun - its there to be used. Furthermore, we have no idea whether the departure was done using a de-rated takeoff, and in any case RTOW and performance is calculated to allow for a continue with engine out after the decision speed is reached.
          "Light travels faster than sound-that's why some people seem bright until they speak"
          AirTeamImages
          - the best aviation photography

          Comment

          • Hugh Jarse
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2005
            • 193

            #6
            Commercial jet aviation is somewhat different to general aviation. Rotation that close to the end of the runway is cause for concern. V1 will have been a long way back down the runway and as such the aircraft must still accelerate to Vr. If they were rotating on the piano keys with all engines operating, they will not have made it with one failed, that is assuming that they did have all engines operating here. There is very little clearway on the this runway and with a 50ft screen height, there is no way they satisfied the rules here derated take off or not.

            Comment

            • OneLeft
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2003
              • 1099

              #7
              I mean him no disrespect, and call me a synic if you wish, but whenever anyone posts one of this guys photos I find myself wondering if they are real or not. Don't know why.

              1L.

              Comment

              • RIPConcorde
                EGPH
                • Feb 2004
                • 3192

                #8
                The pics remind me of a very similiar situation at the same location, involving the same aircraft type, and taken by the same photographer. Only difference is the other runway was in use. But it looks just as close, if not closer!

                http://www.airliners.net/open.file/312682/L/

                Comment

                • Whiskey Delta
                  Vote for Pedro
                  • May 2003
                  • 2581

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Skymonster
                  Furthermore, we have no idea whether the departure was done using a de-rated takeoff, and in any case RTOW and performance is calculated to allow for a continue with engine out after the decision speed is reached.
                  True, but derated or not I've never seen a properly planned takeoff put rotation at the numbers of the departure end.

                  Comment

                  • Hugh Jarse
                    Senior Member
                    • Feb 2005
                    • 193

                    #10
                    My point exactly WD. The rules state that on a dry runway there is a 50ft screen height that must be reached by the end of the ASDA. This is reduced to 35ft with a wet runway. As such both of these photos show that this was not acheived and the runway was dry.

                    Comment

                    • Whiskey Delta
                      Vote for Pedro
                      • May 2003
                      • 2581

                      #11
                      Looking at the picture you provided showing the length of the runway I'm suprised that they used that much runway. How long is the runway there?!

                      Comment

                      • Hugh Jarse
                        Senior Member
                        • Feb 2005
                        • 193

                        #12
                        10,000ft if memory serves me correctly.

                        Comment

                        • cloud_9
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Sep 2005
                          • 2418

                          #13
                          I can see what people say about the fence, it is further away than first thought, but there is not much runway left...

                          As Whiskey Delta suggests, I too am suprised that they would of used the entire length of the runway in order to take off.

                          Comment

                          • Hugh Jarse
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2005
                            • 193

                            #14
                            If anyone is having trouble understanding my posts with the jargon used, let me know as I would rather be understood than have you thinking that rotation this close to the end of the paved surface is acceptable.

                            Anyone care to work out how long it would take to cover 50ft at 170kts?

                            Comment

                            • RIPConcorde
                              EGPH
                              • Feb 2004
                              • 3192

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Hugh Jarse
                              If anyone is having trouble understanding my posts with the jargon used, let me know as I would rather be understood than have you thinking that rotation this close to the end of the paved surface is acceptable.

                              Anyone care to work out how long it would take to cover 50ft at 170kts?
                              170 knots = 286.9 feet/second

                              Calculated mentally of course....

                              Which means it would take a very very short amount of time!

                              Comment

                              • Hugh Jarse
                                Senior Member
                                • Feb 2005
                                • 193

                                #16
                                Sorry, it was 50 yds mentioned above and 170kts is about 87m/s therefore less than 0.6 seconds to cover the remaining "runway" as mentioned. At the end of this the aircraft should be at least 50 ft above the surface.

                                Comment

                                • Tim Green
                                  Member
                                  • Nov 2003
                                  • 79

                                  #17
                                  One Left:

                                  I have to tell you that the same thought had crossed my mind. It really looks like they are about to get their feet (very) wet at any second.

                                  Last year he published a photo of a 747 rotation off either 24L or 25L at LAX with the nose was pointing right at the camera. I cannot believe that the Tower would allow a VFR transition with a 'heavy' rolling off the runway when the VFR corridor is at 1,500' or so. My comments were met with howls of derision from his followers.

                                  This photo, to me, would and should have generated an M.O.R. (Mandatory Occurence Report) which would almost certainly have resulted in disciplinary action. 10,000' is a respectable length of runway and from the look of it V-1 was not calculated correctly and V-R occurred way to close to the end. Was he way too heavy or was there an engine failure after V-1?

                                  Then again, who made me an expert?

                                  Comment

                                  • ALBERT ROSS
                                    A man of experience!
                                    • Jan 2004
                                    • 2633

                                    #18
                                    I think the location where this was taken says it all!!!
                                    Adrian

                                    Comment

                                    Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                    Collapse

                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X