Whats up with this DC-10?

[Airfoilsguy]

Very much so.

Not as cool as this, the DC didn't have to clear a fence.

[Gabriel]

Regardless the flaps setting, I feel uncomfortable when I see photos/videos with such take-offs.

A transport category airplane that takes off in such conditions (weight, wind, altitude, temperature) that the runway length available is the minimum runway length that is legal for take-off in such conditions should be able to get to at least 35ft over the departure end of the runway IF AN ENGINE FAILED AT V1, and at least 35ft over a point 15% before the runway end with all engines working.

[cegro27]

Not all that unusual. I've seen a World Airways DC-10 (and a Delta MD-11) lift off just a few feet from the runway end, and 727's a few times also.

[CcrlR]

There was a video of a China Airlines 737 that did the same thing on youtube.

[3WE]

A long time ago, in a thread far far away, it was pointed out that when the wings generate lift, they generate drag.

It was also pointed out that when you are flying extra slow, you may be generating even more drag.

So, while the pilots probably could get airborne sooner (especially if there were an emergency), they are actually better off climbwise by using more runway, keeping the nose down and building up some speed.

So, while this looks like a near-total disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!, the pilots may be exactly where they want to be and with a very healthy speed margin, and quicker climb performance, as well as the ability to quickly jump into the air when the runway runs out.

Some parlor talk here, but bring on the professional corrections.

[screaming_emu]

A long time ago, in a thread far far away, it was pointed out that when the wings generate lift, they generate drag.

It was also pointed out that when you are flying extra slow, you may be generating even more drag.

So, while the pilots probably could get airborne sooner (especially if there were an emergency), they are actually better off climbwise by using more runway, keeping the nose down and building up some speed.

So, while this looks like a near-total disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!, the pilots may be exactly where they want to be and with a very healthy speed margin, and quicker climb performance, as well as the ability to quickly jump into the air when the runway runs out.

Some parlor talk here, but bring on the professional corrections.

Could also be a wind shear situation. When wind shear advisories are in effect at a certain airport. We delay rotation until speed that we would get were we to take off at the maximum weight allowable for that runway.

[Gabriel]

A long time ago, in a thread far far away, it was pointed out that when the wings generate lift, they generate drag.

It was also pointed out that when you are flying extra slow, you may be generating even more drag.

So, while the pilots probably could get airborne sooner (especially if there were an emergency), they are actually better off climbwise by using more runway, keeping the nose down and building up some speed.

So, while this looks like a near-total disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!, the pilots may be exactly where they want to be and with a very healthy speed margin, and quicker climb performance, as well as the ability to quickly jump into the air when the runway runs out.

Some parlor talk here, but bring on the professional corrections.

And going on with the parlor talk, a long time ago in the same far thread, it was said that yes, that's true, but a sane pilot would not wait until the last inch of runway to lift off a plane that was ready to fly a lot of feet earlier, that he/she would use just some of the exceeding feet to build speed and would keep some other of the exceeding feet jus exceeding, for the sake of margin.

(as a side note, in that far thread the plane showed nothing along the lines of "the ability to quickly jump into the air" after it was rotated)

[Leftseat86]

Can't some happy medium be found between using every single foot of runway and building some extra speed before rotation on take-off? Just seems a bit ridiculous to me to do this.

[Airbus_A320]

Just seems a bit ridiculous to me to do this.

Coming from someone who plays FS drunk...

Did you not read the thread? It was already explained. Also what's rediculous about using the runway that's there, it's all paved with the whole length useable for takeoff.

[Leftseat86]

Coming from someone who plays FS drunk...

What does that have to do with anything? Do you pretend follow FAA regulations while sitting in front of your desktop and joystick?

Did you not read the thread? It was already explained. Also what's rediculous about using the runway that's there, it's all paved with the whole length useable for takeoff.

Possible reasons why this was done were explained, what exactly happened was not. I just think that waiting till the very last moment to rotate on a 12,500ft runway is a little absurd unless absolutely necessary, and I don't think it was absolutely necessary. There is no terrain immediately around Ferihegy that would cause much concern where a quick climb-out is needed. I can also think of a lot of airports where pulling this kind of thing would not result in a nice take-off. It requires absolute knowledge that nothing high enough to get in the way is anywhere near the end of the runway, which is usally discernable on charts, but still seems iffy in my opinion.

Its funny you say "whats wrong with using runway thats there", a while back we had a discussion (I think it was here) about where airplanes should touch down on the runway and I was informed that the touchdown zone did not, in fact, begin at the runway threshold as I had previously believed, and that touching down before the solid fixed distance markers was considered un-safe.

Anyways, this is just my opinion, no need to get your panties in a self-righteous wad over it.

[Gabriel]

Coming from someone who plays FS drunk...

Did you not read the thread? It was already explained. Also what's rediculous about using the runway that's there, it's all paved with the whole length useable for takeoff.

Do you know why flying is so safe? Do you think it's because airplanes are perfectly designed to be flawless and each system fully reliable, crews are trained to be perfect and never make a mistake, and meteorological conditions are known to the 10th decimal? Well, that's not the case. The reason why flying is so safe is because one thing: cushion. Cushion comes in several ways, for example:

Redundancy: If every time an engine failed in flight there was an accident, there would be 10 times as many accidents. An airplane doesn't need all of its engines, all off its tires, all of its control surfaces working or even all its pilots living to be safe.

Mistake proofing: Airplanes and procedures will prevent (or at least give an early warning for) most human mistakes. Reversers cannot be set in flight. The landing gear cannot be raised on ground. Try to land with the gear up and the airplane will soon make something that you'll read like "what are you doing stupid!", be distracted looking the at map while making a turn and if you bank too much the airplane will tell you "bank angle!". Check things at specific points in flights so you make sure certain critical task that should have been made have actually been made, but even more have someone read you what you have to check so you don't forget an item, and so on. Even with all this, human mistake is still the main cause of most accidents. Remove mistake proofing and you'll have 100 times as many accidents.

Safety Margin (here is where I wanted to get): Airplanes are rated for 2.5Gs but will not brake until reaching 3,75Gs, the max allowed speed is a speed that you can exceed to a certain point and be able to recover, the assumed climb slope is shallower than what the airplane can make, and yous till have to be able to clear obstacles with a certain margin over that assumed poorer climb profile, and the runway required to take-off or land is longer than what is actually needed to take off or land. If you think the runway is there to use it, my opinion is that you are wrong. The runway is there to use a part of it and keep the rest as a margin of safety.

Tell me one thing: What would you think of a crew that doesn't need to shut down the engines because as soon as they set the parking brakes after a flight the engines shut down themselves due to fuel exhaustion? Would you say that everything is Ok, that the fuel is there to use it?

The safety of margin is there not to be used under normal circumstances. The minute you use it it's not a safety of margin anymore.

The same happens with redundancy: If you get a flat tyre in your car, while you use the spare tyre you don't have a spare tyre.

And the same happens with mistake proofing: If your procedure is to wait to hear the landing gear warning to lower the landing gear, the one day that the warning fails you'll land gear up.

[Airbus_A320]

What does that have to do with anything? Do you pretend follow FAA regulations while sitting in front of your desktop and joystick?

Where is there a reg that says you have to lift off by a certain point on the runway?

Its funny you say "whats wrong with using runway thats there", a while back we had a discussion (I think it was here) about where airplanes should touch down on the runway and I was informed that the touchdown zone did not, in fact, begin at the runway threshold as I had previously believed, and that touching down before the solid fixed distance markers was considered un-safe.

Yes, but on takeoff you can use whatever you need. The only part you can't use the overrun/stopway area with the yellow chevrons, and this DC-10 was airborne before that (remember, it's also quite a bit higher than it seems as you are looking down from above the plane, and not from below or directly sideways.)

And I'm not getting my panties in a wad, just trying to understand why you think that it's somehow an unsafe takeoff unless you takeoff in half the runway.

[Gabriel]

As an addition: Do you know why GA flying is not remotely as safe as commercial flying? Because we at GA don't have the requirements of training, safety margin, redundancy and mistake proofing that those at the airline have. It's up to the pilot/operator to make some of that. Pilots that are well trained, put redundancy in their planes, and use their own operational limitations with margin over what the book say the airplane can do, tend to have far less accidents than those who just comply with the minimum requirements.

[Airbus_A320]

And now we have gone away from the subject that the thread was started about and we are talking about the safety of GA, G loadings, where you can or can't raise the landing gear, where you can or can't deploy the reversers, and bank angle warnings, all of which are extraneous to the subject at hand.

Redundancy: If every time an engine failed in flight there was an accident, there would be 10 times as many accidents. An airplane doesn't need all of its engines, all off its tires, all of its control surfaces working or even all its pilots living to be safe.

Yes, get the rudder stuck all the way to one side (US Air 427), or have the horizontal stableizer jack screw fail which allowed the stabilizer to travel past where it was intended (Alaska 261) and see how far you get. By that logic both of those accidents shouldn't have happend because the plane can should be able to fly with no problems if the control surfaces are broken.

And as far as fuel goes, there are regs for how much you need in reserve. So if the engines shut off due to running out of fuel they would be in violation.

But all the is beside the point. We are talking about the fact that highly experienced pilots got a plane into the air in the alloted amount of runway and why this was somehow an unsafe operation.

[Leftseat86]

Where is there a reg that says you have to lift off by a certain point on the runway?

What? I'm asking why you brought up the fact that I like to play flight simulator while drunk sometimes as if it somehow invalidates my opinion on events occuring in REALITY where things like this actually MATTER.

Yes, but on takeoff you can use whatever you need. The only part you can't use the overrun/stopway area with the yellow chevrons, and this DC-10 was airborne before that (remember, it's also quite a bit higher than it seems as you are looking down from above the plane, and not from below or directly sideways.)

I'm quite certain I could find a lot of airports in which a similar take-off using all available runway would lead to disastrous results. As for the perspective, a quick look at the map of Ferihegy shows that this pic must have been taken from the tower, though it is not hard to judge the height of the plane given the shadows and perspective. From the photo it looks like they probably lifted off the ground somewhere around the threshold.

And I'm not getting my panties in a wad, just trying to understand why you think that it's somehow an unsafe takeoff unless you takeoff in half the runway.

I didn't say that. I didn't even say this was not safe. I said it seemed ridiculous. Because in my opinion a DC-10 should not need to roll 12,500 ft and rotate at the threshold of the opposite end of the runway in normal operations unless absolutely necessary, and, again, I don't think it was necessary in this case. As I said:

Can't some happy medium be found between using every single foot of runway and building some extra speed before rotation on take-off?

The reasons why I think it may be better to NOT do this, are mostly outlined in Gabriel's post above.