Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V1 is or is not a LOCATION on the runway...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    ...And what is with this sweet monkey river stuff?
    A fellow cargo pilot of yours, known as "The International Super Genious Pilot of the Milleneum" lives there and operates a tail-dragger out of the local airport on his days off. Sweet Monkey River is located in Texas, not too far from Ft. Worth.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      Actually I have never even heard of an airport direcftory. Sounds like some kind of religious thing to me! We use Jeppeson charts, none of that stuff on there that is not spelled out in ENGLISH. That is the official language for aviation after all.
      Hey! Bad English is still English.

      Thank you for picking my typo anyway. Fixed the original.

      But if you want official, original documentation in English that includes those acronyms, you can check this FAA document, just as an example:

      FAA Control Number 06-01-181
      GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY AERONAUTICAL CHARTING FORUM
      06-01

      April 18-20, 2006

      Recommendation Document

      Subject: Declared Distance Information on Airport Charts

      Background/Discussion: Declared distances are frequently used by Airport
      Authorities to comply with FAA requirements for Runway Safety Areas specified
      in AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 14.

      A runway’s declared Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA), Takeoff Run
      Available (TORA) and/or Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) may each be
      shorter than the runway length depicted on an Airport Diagram.

      A runway’s declared Landing Distance Available (LDA) may be shorter than the
      length of the surface beyond the Landing Threshold Point.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        That'd be too much workload both in calculation and monitoring during the take-off.

        If you want to make it outside of the airplane's systems, request each manufacturer to provide the time it should take to go from "take-off thrust set" to say 80 knots and make the NFP wear a simple Casio wristwatch that features a timer. The crew would get the "time to 80 knots" together with the take-off speeds, the NFP would enter that time in the Casio, and if the 80kts call comes together/before the "beep-beep-beep-beep", then we are good to go. If the "beep-beep-beep-beep" sounds and we have not called 80 yet, we abort.
        Which is exactly what I was thinking. Ultimately, using a physical location has the potential for being much less precise, and it would be alot of work needed. It was said already, most phones (and in this case, most IPads that have since replaced flight bags) have the necessary devices in them already. Perhaps it's time to whip them out, and make put them to work. It's weird - because considering how many (and I had NO IDEA that there were that many incidents noted). I don't want to be an alarmist - but what are we waiting for? Another accident?

        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Oh, sorry. I forgot: pilots (except I) never wear Casio. Only Tag, Rolex or Bertling.
        Haha, it's so odd to see the 'time pieces' coming through the door. Honestly, though - does anyone need/use watches anymore? I mean, with phones, and tables everywhere - what's the use? Other, than to show off?

        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Anyway, I am willing to wait for an automated system as proposed by Evan IF the authorities and the industry are really willing work on it. It shouldn't take more than a handful of years to develop the standards and certify the systems. Now, we've been waiting since 1956 and the first recommendation to implement such a system after a fatal accident came in 1971.

        As I've said, it's time already.
        But that's just the point of this topic, no? I mean, we have been waiting. Hell, this should have been fixed already. Yes, I get it - we've not have any 'major' loss of life yet because of this - but shouldn't we fix and issue before it becomes one? We already have (with tablets replacing flight bags everywhere) the technology on board, we need to start using it.

        The watch+calculation method should be taught to all training pilots, and perhaps used where technology cannot. I get it, the courses are packed as they are already, but this could save lives, and with any pilot that is going to be dealing with anything but ideal flying conditions, this becomes increasingly important. I am all for one 'becoming one with their aircraft' but I am firmly now against the 'flying by the seat of your pants' foolishness when other lives are at stake. Now I get why you guys were so concerned.
        Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

        Comment


        • #79
          To get back on topic. The topic question is "V1 is or is not a position on the runway ?"

          Simple and most accurate answer is....

          V1 is a speed. It can vary according to weight loadings, aircraft type and altitude but it is nothing more or less than a speed. Once that speed is reached a whole bunch of other things can then happen (or not as the case may be)

          Next question ?
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            I am not going to even dignify this one with an answer. What you, Evan, 3WE and couple of other guys are trying to do here is make flying an airliner into rocket science. In the 43 years I have been doing this for a living I have never once had to give Houston a call for a launch window.

            P.S. In my day TOD stood for either takeoff dry (look that one up) or top of decent.
            I get what you are saying here (you don't get to 43 years of flying, without flying becoming second nature to you, and mastering it) - but I have a question. If such technologies were available today, and optional to use, would you use them? If there were installed onto your aircraft - would you think it beneficial, or would you wish that it weren't there?

            In other words - we've all agreed that this (V1 safety topic) is an issue when we do not know how we are accelerating. You say that we should discuss (and perhaps be much more wary - especially with lesser experienced pilots) of the issue, but you think that a change is not necessary. If that physical change (implementation of procedures, and provision of necessary equipment) did occur - how do you think that it would be received by the average pilot - as yet another hindrance/useless task - or as an improvement to their daily lives?

            Now, in most cases - we are talking about something that will cost airlines little, if anything - given what technology is already on board. The addition of procedure (and training if any) is all that would be necessary.

            Just something personal - I have never taken a flying lesson in my life. I can only imagine the rigors of being a pilot - but, seriously - before this I came into this discussion thinking - what an (and pardon me for saying this) idiotic thing to think. What and why would you need that? Now, I get it - and the fact that there is nothing out there to prevent it, is an odd place to be, especially if you are a newby/inexperienced.

            Here's another question - how do they train pilots to identify an issue with acceleration? I mean, what do we train our pilots to look for/do on a take-off roll? I get that if it is something noticeable - we will catch it, but what about if it is not? Is there something - apart from these issues that we are talking about now - that they should be looking at, or looking out for? In other words, are they trained to spot that something is going wrong, outside of the topics discussed above?
            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              To get back on topic. The topic question is "V1 is or is not a position on the runway ?"

              Simple and most accurate answer is....

              V1 is a speed. It can vary according to weight loadings, aircraft type and altitude but it is nothing more or less than a speed. Once that speed is reached a whole bunch of other things can then happen (or not as the case may be)
              WAIT!

              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              AFTER V1, YOU FLY THE AIRPLANE! PERIOD!
              I may be wrong - but let's be sure - regardless where you are on the runway, once you arrive at V1, you must continue the climb-out (even with an engine failed). If you try to stop the aircraft (via braking) after V1 you are not going to be able to safely (and that's considering that you were on track to hit your V1 where it should have been safe to do so - have an impediment, and you might be in trouble). So, in reality (and I am just being nit-picky here), the question is not whether to abort after, or even at V1, but before it. The question here though is whether or not you are on target for that take-off, via your acceleration.
              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

              Comment


              • #82
                This thread.....

                Comment


                • #83
                  ...and I have something to add to Gabriel's many incidents...



                  The plane started on the runway with approximate usable length of 2,700 metres (8,900 ft) from its starting position. The plane started down the runway with engines at nominal thrust. After six seconds, the engines were revved up to take-off thrust. Despite the increase of engine output, the plane did not increase in speed as expected. The Committee report speculates that this could have been due to some braking force, and the committee will send the remains of the plane's braking systems to a "specialized institution" for a special examination. The plane reached a maximum speed of 230 km/h (140 mph). It did not lift off the ground until some 400 metres (1,300 ft) after the end of the runway. It then hit the airport beacon. The plane did not go more than 5–6 metres (16–20 ft) off the ground. It hit the beacon, deflected to the left and impacted the ground. The flaps and slats were in takeoff position, spoilers retracted, and the stabilizer set in a ten degree position. The elevator controls were still connected.

                  http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigat..._ra-42434.html
                  Yes, there was so much more going on in the cockpit, but a warning here should have and could have saved lives.
                  Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    "you throw it in neutral and hit the brakes".

                    This one really cracked me up! THROW IT IN NEUTRAL!! What do you think this is, a John Deere?

                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Soon there will be no one in the cockpit at all, and the fabulous computers and electronics will take care of everything. That is when I start going by boat!

                    Ok, I need these two as signatures for my profile. I nominate the John Deere comment as comment of the year!
                    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                      Yes, I get it - we've not have any 'major' loss of life yet because of this -
                      No? Then please define "major".

                      McDonnell Douglas DC-8: November 1970
                      Location: Anchorage, United States (US)
                      ... 46 passengers and one cabin crew member sustaining fatal injuries
                      (Wheels not rotating on snow and ice. Slow acceleration.)

                      Boeing 737: January 1982
                      Location: Washington, US
                      ... with five crew and 74 passengers on board... Four passengers and one crewmember survived the accident. Four people in vehicles on the bridge sustained fatal injuries.
                      (Engine probes iced up. Instruments indicatring higher engine thrust than real. Slow acceleration.)

                      Boeing 747: October 2004
                      Location: Halifax, Canada
                      All seven crew members were fatally injured.
                      (Weight from previous flight mistakenly used to compute the take-off. Slow acceleration)
                      By the way, I don't expect the tablets to be approved for this. When I said the technology was there I meant the accelerometers in most transport category planes. Longitudinal acceleration is one of the mandatory parameters to be recorded in the FDR. When I mentioned the smartphones I meant, if a $500 smartphone can have this technology, it can be that complicated to retrofit it in the few airplanes that might lack it (maybe a 737-200) (but it will cost more than $500).

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        I'd say it time already.
                        I think this topic needs its own thread. As MCM has suggested, it is a staggering omission in an industry that goes to extremes in the name of safety.

                        Seriously, what could be the holdup on this? 50+ years? 30 patents? You have everything needed: GPS, programmable avionics, an airfield database. The aircraft should already have the means to know a) almost exactly where it is and b) how long the runway is and c) where V1 should occur if performance is within the acceptable range. Just run a script and tie it to a cockpit warning. It wouldn't surprise me if, for maintenance reasons, there is even an existing device that measures ground travel on the gear assemblies.

                        And markers in the meantime? Just stick a few beside the runway and let the avionics or the EFB (or the Casio calculator watch) calculate the target speed to go with it. How difficult can that be?

                        One pitfall I can see is a runway with a recently displaced threshold that might not be in the database. NOTAMS would have to be reliably integrated somehow.

                        I do wonder where the resistance is coming from?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                          WAIT!

                          I may be wrong - but let's be sure - regardless where you are on the runway, once you arrive at V1, you must continue the climb-out (even with an engine failed). If you try to stop the aircraft (via braking) after V1 you are not going to be able to safely.
                          From an operative point of view, correct.
                          From a factual point of view, wrong (or not always correct).

                          Let's exaggerate to make the point.
                          If you have a 150 miles long runway, you are not going to overrun it for aborting after V1.

                          Going back to the real world, it often happens that the runway is longer than needed to accelerate to V1 and stop with the required margins. As proof, look at a couple of the incidents in the list that I posted before:

                          Location: London Heathrow, United Kingdom (UK)
                          On 16 September 1980 a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, N83NA, with 17 crew and 220 passengers, sustained a tyre burst during the take-off run on runway 28R at London Heathrow Airport. The tyre burst was observed by the occupants of a runway clearance vehicle parked to one side of the runway, who transmitted the information to the control tower. This message was overheard by the aircraft commander who, as a result, rejected the takeoff at 168 kts, which was 8 kts above the calculated V1 speed of 160 kts. The crew brought the aircraft to a stop about 110 m before the end of the runway.

                          Boeing B767: August 1999
                          Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
                          ... The first officer then entered the ZFW into the aircraft TOW prompt in ACARS. The captain entered the V speeds into the FMS.
                          During the takeoff, the tail skid pan came into contact with the runway, the aircraft failed to become airborne and the captain rejected the takeoff. [so the reject must have been initiated well after V1 and Vr, and in this case the airplane was accelerating much slower than predicted because the weight was much higher, so even V1 must have been achieved much farther down the runway than predicted]
                          The other side of the coin is that, often too, V1 is the latest where you can reject and stop or the soonest you can accept an engine failure and still go, or you'll likely complete your stop or take-off beyond the runway limits.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                            To get back on topic. The topic question is "V1 is or is not a position on the runway ?"

                            Simple and most accurate answer is....

                            V1 is a speed. It can vary according to weight loadings, aircraft type and altitude but it is nothing more or less than a speed. Once that speed is reached a whole bunch of other things can then happen (or not as the case may be)

                            Next question ?
                            Actually, you need to read the original post...the thread title is only a headline designed to spark interest in what's inside.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Gabriel:

                              Sorry- I'm not going to let you call Air Florida in Washington DC a V1 falure or a "takeoff performance indicator" caused crash.

                              There is some paralell as thier acceleration was a little bit off but there were so many other little swiss cheese issues and contributing factors.

                              -Failure to turn on anti-ice
                              -Possibly bad ground control management, leaving them out in the snow for a long time
                              -The belief that exhaust from the plane again would provide ice removal (that might have just been sarcasm)
                              -CRM failure
                              -Nuances of a landing plane reported as "over the approach lights"
                              -The fact that the accelration was adequate to get them airborne
                              -Maybe a little less ice here and there and maybe the plane flies
                              -Failure to look at more than one engine instrument
                              -The failure of the pilots to do what seemed so simple- Firewall the throttles
                              -In a perfect world they would have aborted and caused the landing plane to do an almost-dangerous go-around from a critical ILS to near minumums.

                              I guess if you had a modern, computer-controlled takeoff performance monitoring system and good Evan-style black and white procedures- they would have aborted....I dunno....it's complicated.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Gabriel:

                                Sorry- I'm not going to let you call Air Florida in Washington DC a V1 falure or a "takeoff performance indicator" caused crash.

                                There is some paralell as thier acceleration was a little bit off but there were so many other little swiss cheese issues and contributing factors.
                                Absolutely! The lack of a TOPMS definitively didn't cause the accident, but it would very likely have prevented it. Why? because:

                                a) It would have likely stopped the take-off with low thrust (assuming that they followed the TOPMS procedure), and
                                b) If, by chance, the thrust and acceleration had been correct, they would have likely gotten away with all the other holes they dug in the cheese.

                                Oh, and thank you for the credit, but it wasn't me who made a link between the accident and the lack of TOPMS. It was the NTSB. I just quoted the ATSB quoting the NTSB on this.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X