777 strikes approach lights on departure 9/15

Derg said:
Ehh, those are relatively "young" carriers and I bet you a lot of stuff gets brushed under the rug.

A major airline in the United States can't even have a little frozen blue juice land on someone's cotillion without it making NBC Nightly News and Chuck Schumer demanding a national investigation about that and TARMAC delays.
Click to expand...
Tarmac delays are the worst
 
Derg said:
View attachment 32792

Hmm.

I know it's easy to say "I'd have done things differently", especially when you know there were mistakes made, but even in a 319 I'd set the parking brake, take a real "jaundiced, mistrustful" look at the performance data and think "is this really worth it?" before accepting a departure from T1.

Now a 767? Nope. 330? Forget it. 777-300? Having never flown one, I seriously doubt I would even consider doing that, especially without a static takeoff.

You may have "the numbers" for that, but there may be other considerations like PKOF on the 76 or APU on the 330/320 for improved performance. Generally too much stuff to worry about during a critical phase of operation.
Click to expand...
Tier 1?
 
Did find a picture of the damaged Approach Lighting System.

http://www.jacdec.de/2015/09/17/2015-09-15-qatar-airways-boeing-777-300-hit-approach-masts-at-miami/

2015-09-15_A7-BAC_B773_QR@KMIA_MAP2.png


21492621105_dba130ab8a_o.jpg
 
Alchemy said:
There are really only two reasons to accept an intersection: you're trying to save time or to acommodate an ATC request/construction. With that said, the performance most airlines operate with these days is just going to give you a lower thrust setting when you use a longer runway, so your stop margin doesn't really improve most of the time, unless you use airmanship and judgement to force a higher thrust setting.
Click to expand...

My same thoughts. Just had to look at an intersection departure from MDW to meet a wheels up time the other day. It added a few fractions of a % to our reduced thrust and also reduced our V1 by a knot. Given that, the margin was probably identical to using the full length.
 
Derg said:
View attachment 32792

Hmm.

I know it's easy to say "I'd have done things differently", especially when you know there were mistakes made, but even in a 319 I'd set the parking brake, take a real "jaundiced, mistrustful" look at the performance data and think "is this really worth it?" before accepting a departure from T1.

Now a 767? Nope. 330? Forget it. 777-300? Having never flown one, I seriously doubt I would even consider doing that, especially without a static takeoff.

You may have "the numbers" for that, but there may be other considerations like PKOF on the 76 or APU on the 330/320 for improved performance. Generally too much stuff to worry about during a critical phase of operation.
Click to expand...
Takeoff data setting is non-trivial. Just ask the ATSB about it. Oh wait, another one of those carriers did this same sort of thing with an A345. Multiple times, in fact, but they only found it when it was severe enough to make smoke...

mikecweb said:
Wouldn't that be Captain Low and FO Wong?
Click to expand...
"Mister Il"
 
Derg said:
A couple scenarios from the safety of my couch:

a. Mission oriented. "Can you take an intersection departure?" "Sure!"
b. Impatience. Might have been number one billionty in line.
c. Could have been disoriented and maybe thought he was at the end. Runway position (performance data vs geographic position), departure, first fix - "Am I where my performance data says I should be?"
d. Running from the "law". Maybe Roscoe P. Coltrane was on Bandit's tail and he had to geet up on outta there on the double.
Click to expand...


I am voting 'd'
I picture the Qatari Sheikh in the jump seat saying: Come on guys, hurry up, just take this turn here.....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rrari-Porsche-claims-diplomatic-immunity.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top