knot4u
Repeat Offender
Agreed.It's anyone's guess. Could've ended up like the Concorde, or not. Hard to say. Glad they didn't have to test it though.
Agreed.It's anyone's guess. Could've ended up like the Concorde, or not. Hard to say. Glad they didn't have to test it though.
I don't know how the sound of a several pound chunk of titanium impacting the roof compares to the ambient noise level inside a UPS facility.
Now THATS a story!THROUGH the roof. A UPS employee said he heard it hit the floor and it was still hot and smoldering when we found it.
THROUGH the roof. A UPS employee said he heard it hit the floor and it was still hot and smoldering when he found it.
Now THATS a story!
The black area just above the ruler is the fatigue fracture. That crack existed for a while and the fretting between crack surfaces created the discoloration. The rough gray area is where it failed suddenly in overload.![]()
Help me out here, can we see the initial fracture in this picture? I'm a bit naive when it comes to this.
Also, it surely seems like that was plenty of runway as they still had 3-4K of runway left after the stop. Why not use full length every time? Can you even if op specs don't call for it?
![]()
Help me out here, can we see the initial fracture in this picture? I'm a bit naive when it comes to this.
Also, it surely seems like that was plenty of runway as they still had 3-4K of runway left after the stop. Why not use full length every time? Can you even if op specs don't call for it?
![]()
Help me out here, can we see the initial fracture in this picture? I'm a bit naive when it comes to this.
Also, it surely seems like that was plenty of runway as they still had 3-4K of runway left after the stop. Why not use full length every time? Can you even if op specs don't call for it?
You don't leave anything to chance, you want to get it stopped ASAP. You know you have a major problem, and you have no idea what else is wrong, you could lose brakes, tires, steering, hydraulics. QRH or memory items at all shops I have been at were max braking until a safe stop for an RTO. You would hate to let up on the brakes, get near the end and then find out you compromised stopping ability or steering problems.
Get it stopped, get CFR on it, and get the people off if necessary.
They were most likely using auto brakes and the RTO/MAX setting for T/O will get you stopped in a hurry.
You don't leave anything to chance, you want to get it stopped ASAP. You know you have a problem, and you have no idea what else is wrong, you could lose brakes, tires, steering, hydraulics. QRH or memory items at all shops I have been at were max braking until a safe stop for an RTO. You would hate to let up on the brakes, get near the end and then find out you compromised stopping ability.
Get it stopped, get CFR on it, and get the people off of necessary.
They were most likely using auto brakes and the RTO/MAX setting for T/O will get you stopped in a hurry.
Sorry, I meant use full length for TO every time.
Because there is no need to. Takeoff data gives you sufficient runway to accelerate and go or accelerate and stop. You've got to trust the data.
We do lots of things that aren't the most safe possible solution in aviation, but somebody has done a risk/reward analysis on it and deemed it a worth of the risk.
While true, i still think that for something like takeoff, there's little reward/gain, for the risk being taken. The numbers are best case, assuming parameters and assumptions are met in an RTO initiation. Runway behind you is wasted space, with little to gain from leaving it behind you. Unlike, for example, not tankering fuel; where there's a real gain made there for little risk of flying computed fuels + reserves.
Flying pax from Pt A to Pt B , isn't akin to trying to launch for survival in a B-52 when nukes are inbound. Which to me, is why leaving runway behind you in a large aircraft, is a healthy amount of risk for little overall gain.
For an operation such as 121 turbine, where risks are kept to the absolute minimum (and understandably so), I'm surprised this would be a risk considered to be worth taking, by the airlines. If the RTO isn't near-perfectly accomplished or some other problem crops up during the initiation of it, that runway left behind would be highly desired at best, and critical life or death at worst.
Trusting data when the runway is indeed limited is one thing. Intentionally limiting available runway to where you've cornered yourself to the data with little to no slop available, just doesn't seem wise; barring extenuating circumstances.
By using flex and derate numbers for takeoff you use more runway, but have a lower probability of the engine coming apart on you on takeoff because you're using such a low thrust rating.
As an example, in my aircraft this is so extreme that our climb power is almost always an INCREASE in N1 as compared to most takeoff thrust settings. As such we're more likely to have the engine to knock off for the day when we select that thrust setting, at around 2,000' AGL. I'd much rather have the risk of the engine failing occur at that point than at V1.
As such, I find that our data commonly has us rotating with about 3,000' left on almost any runway.
Does that mean you have a higher chance of rolling off the end of the runway at a few knots if you have to do an abort just before V1? Sure, but it also means you have a much lower chance of the engine coming apart on you to begin with, thus lowering the overall risk to the takeoff.
You've got to accept the risk somewhere, so this method just changed the place where that risk is assessed.
Which all makes sense, I agree, but still doesn't explain the concept of leaving unused runway behind you (and thus, potential stopway ahead of you) for nothing more than what would appear to be convenience, with anything but full length departures regardless of the numbers. That's a risk that seems to yield little tangible reward for an overall risk mitigating flight operation.
I don't think I've ever done a takeoff in an airliner from an intersection that cut off more than 500' on a 10,000' runway. We simply don't plan to takeoff from halfway down the runway, even if we could in theory do so using no flex non-derate data.
Only a few places come to mind that do it regularly are ORD (32L at T10 or 28R at N5) and JFK (31L at KK).
Also, you can only derate and flex so much. So the thrust numbers may not even be different and the RATOW may not even change from the full length vs an intersection T/O for an intersection, provided the runway is long enough.
At C5 we would always get takeoff data for G at EWR (dead center of 11000' 4L/22R) so we could depart anywhere up to midfield...really helped skip the conga line sometimes.I don't think I've ever done a takeoff in an airliner from an intersection that cut off more than 500' on a 10,000' runway. We simply don't plan to takeoff from halfway down the runway, even if we could in theory do so using no flex non-derate data.