Jet departing Courchevel

@Jimmy_Norton are you absolutely, positively certain the takeoff violated some sort of regulation?

If so, there's probably some way to make you a special contact within EASA so that you can have the pilot prosecuted and brought to justice.
The U.S. could probably send one or two "world police special ops" guys in and have that whole show shut down. Clearly, they don't know what they're doing over there.

Cool to watch, next... would be my response. Much worse could be done.
 
Cessna414JJB said:
@Jimmy_Norton are you absolutely, positively certain the takeoff violated some sort of regulation?

If so, there's probably some way to make you a special contact within EASA so that you can have the pilot prosecuted and brought to justice.
The U.S. could probably send one or two "world police special ops" guys in and have that whole show shut down. Clearly, they don't know what they're doing over there.
Click to expand...

If he had an engine failure at the moment he crested that hill, do you think he could have either stopped, or continued the takeoff?
 
Jimmy_Norton said:
If he had an engine failure at the moment he crested that hill, do you think he could have either stopped, or continued the takeoff?
Click to expand...

I can only speak from the limited experience I gained during 12, maybe 13 takeoffs and landings there. None of them in a CJ.

Basically, the moment the airplane reaches half way down the steep gradient of the runway, an engine failure will result in bent metal or death.
Chances are, the decision to GO is made when the airspeed indicator reaches about 60-70. The aircraft will take more than the prescribed slope and does get free acceleration during the downhill run. Just because the POH doesn't address this, doesn't make the phenomenon disappear...

Conservative PIC judgment prevails. You set minimum speed to be attained at a certain spot and if you got it, you go.
I doubt too many Citation engines fail, and according to what I learned during all my engine failures, engines don't care for the length of the runway or terrain.
 
Cessna414JJB said:
I can only speak from the limited experience I gained during 12, maybe 13 takeoffs and landings there. None of them in a CJ.

Basically, the moment the airplane reaches half way down the steep gradient of the runway, an engine failure will result in bent metal or death.
Chances are, the decision to GO is made when the airspeed indicator reaches about 60-70. The aircraft will take more than the prescribed slope and does get free acceleration during the downhill run. Just because the POH doesn't address this, doesn't make the phenomenon disappear...

Conservative PIC judgment prevails. You set minimum speed to be attained at a certain spot and if you got it, you go.
I doubt too many Citation engines fail, and according to what I learned during all my engine failures, engines don't care for the length of the runway or terrain.
Click to expand...

The point that I have been trying to make is that you are REQUIRED to have enough runway to either stop, or go, regardless of when the engine fails, in this class of aircraft. It's an FAR. Taking off without a balanced field in a Part 25 certificated airplane is no different than exceeding redline, taking off above MTOW, or going below mins on an approach. You can probably get away with it for a while, but it is going to get you someday. You say it doesn't affect you, but when airplanes like this crash, insurance rates go up, and the FAA starts to scrutinize more.

A good example is the Challenger that went off the runway at TEB a bunch of years ago. You could say that them flying around out of CG and above MTOW doesn't affect you, but because they crashed, the FAA took a fine toothed comb to the FAR 135 regs, and an operator that was doing everything by the book got shut down (TAG Aviation). Many other 135 operations were affected as well.
 
FAR = N/A. Part 25 = N/A. FAA = N/A. FAR 135 = N/A.

I understand your point, I just fail to see what it seeks to accomplish.
 
Jimmy_Norton said:
The point that I have been trying to make is that you are REQUIRED to have enough runway to either stop, or go, regardless of when the engine fails, in this class of aircraft. It's an FAR. Taking off without a balanced field in a Part 25 certificated airplane is no different than exceeding redline, taking off above MTOW, or going below mins on an approach. You can probably get away with it for a while, but it is going to get you someday. You say it doesn't affect you, but when airplanes like this crash, insurance rates go up, and the FAA starts to scrutinize more.

A good example is the Challenger that went off the runway at TEB a bunch of years ago. You could say that them flying around out of CG and above MTOW doesn't affect you, but because they crashed, the FAA took a fine toothed comb to the FAR 135 regs, and an operator that was doing everything by the book got shut down (TAG Aviation). Many other 135 operations were affected as well.
Click to expand...
I don't think you and I are using the same definition of "balanced field".
 
Jimmy_Norton said:
So if this was a takeoff on a 10,000' runway, at sea level, on a calm and clear day, but he took off 1000 pounds over the MTOW of the aircraft, what would your reaction be?
Click to expand...


BFD. It's not my violation. Had the guy put me at risk, it would be a different story. But this was from an airport in another freakin country, in what was probably a pt23 certificates Citation. It's not like the guy was trying to take a Lear off from there. If there ever was a "short field" jet, a straight wing Citation is it. Your panties are in a bunch over, IMO, nothing.
 
Jimmy_Norton said:
So if this was a takeoff on a 10,000' runway, at sea level, on a calm and clear day, but he took off 1000 pounds over the MTOW of the aircraft, what would your reaction be?
Click to expand...


BFD. It's not my violation. Had the guy put me at risk, it would be a different story. But this was from an airport in another freakin country, in what was probably a pt23 certificates Citation. It's not like the guy was trying to take a Lear off from there. If there ever was a "short field" jet, a straight wing Citation is it. Your panties are in a bunch over, IMO, nothing.
 
SteveC said:
On my phone so I'll do the short version: acccelerate-stop = take-off distance (V1 engine fail)
Click to expand...
accelerate go = accelerate stop.

Your take off distance is usually going to be shorter than your accelerate go or accelerate stop distance. Take off distance being the distance it takes to get to 35' above the runway with all engines operating. Since your runway/clearway distance has to be the longest of:
1. All engine distance x 115% (to 35 feet)
2. Accelerate go (to 35 feet)
3. Accelerate stop
4. I think I'm missing one?

Balanced field length is usually going to work out to be the shortest amount of "pavement" you will need for a given scenario. Most tab data for the biz jet types are balanced field numbers. Some have the ability/process to go in and adjust V1 up or down thus giving you a safety margin for your given conditions, ie, lower V1 on an slick runway to take away the abort at higher speeds. Gives you a lower accelerate stop distance but higher accelerate go distance (just an example). Or you may want to increase V1 to equal Vr, etc and so on.

Just for an example

Using dry runway for a beechjet at -5 degrees, 1300' field elevation at MGTOW, I get a 4100foot requirement
Wet runway, my V1 drops from 109 to 97 and my required runway length goes to 5000
 
Dugie8 said:
accelerate go = accelerate stop.

Your take off distance is usually going to be shorter than your accelerate go or accelerate stop distance. Take off distance being the distance it takes to get to 35' above the runway with all engines operating. Since your runway/clearway distance has to be the longest of:
1. All engine distance x 115% (to 35 feet)
2. Accelerate go (to 35 feet)
3. Accelerate stop
4. I think I'm missing one?

Balanced field length is usually going to work out to be the shortest amount of "pavement" you will need for a given scenario. Most tab data for the biz jet types are balanced field numbers. Some have the ability/process to go in and adjust V1 up or down thus giving you a safety margin for your given conditions, ie, lower V1 on an slick runway to take away the abort at higher speeds. Gives you a lower accelerate stop distance but higher accelerate go distance (just an example). Or you may want to increase V1 to equal Vr, etc and so on.

Just for an example

Using dry runway for a beechjet at -5 degrees, 1300' field elevation at MGTOW, I get a 4100foot requirement
Wet runway, my V1 drops from 109 to 97 and my required runway length goes to 5000
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that.

Especially the part that says "Most tab data...are balanced field numbers." That's my point - balanced field is not a requirement, and in the jets I fly I don't know if the numbers are balanced or not. The Lear 40 is a great stopper, and it is very possible that take-off distance for some circumstances is solely dependent upon accelerate-go limitations. The accelerate-stop numbers may well be shorter...or they may be equal. Even if they are equal across the board my problem with the way many people talk about this is to say that "Part 25 aircraft required balanced field numbers" or something to that affect, when in reality balanced field is just one circumstance that meets the certification requirement. It is possible to meet the accel-go/accel-stop requirement with unbalanced numbers.
 
SteveC said:
I agree with all of that.

Especially the part that says "Most tab data...are balanced field numbers." That's my point - balanced field is not a requirement, and in the jets I fly I don't know if the numbers are balanced or not. The Lear 40 is a great stopper, and it is very possible that take-off distance for some circumstances is solely dependent upon accelerate-go limitations. The accelerate-stop numbers may well be shorter...or they may be equal. Even if they are equal across the board my problem with the way many people talk about this is to say that "Part 25 aircraft required balanced field numbers" or something to that affect, when in reality balanced field is just one circumstance that meets the certification requirement. It is possible to meet the accel-go/accel-stop requirement with unbalanced numbers.
Click to expand...

Most definitely. I think it a real shame that there isn't some way of showing and calculating what your actual numbers are for all 3 conditions, just to show what is really going on and what happens when you start moving V1 around for a given weight.

You have to be careful and read all that fine print in the performance charts so you know exactly what that 4 digit number for your take off distance is really trying to tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top