Originally Posted by
fireman0174
So then runway excursions should never happen.
Of course many of the calculations come from the certification process where the pilots know they are going to have an aborted takeoff, the tires are new, the brakes are also new - and cool.
I remember a USAir 737-300 sitting in the water at LGA due to an aborted takeoff on 31 (1989 or so). As I recall, all of their calculations were correct.
The book doesn't take care of all variables in the real world.
You're comparing apples to bananas. Any calculation of takeoff performance begins with certain assumptions. Reaction times and proper procedures are assumed in the process. Failure to follow the proper procedures, or mechanical failures not foreseen in the calculations will invalidate the outcomes. There's no argument on that point.
SikPilot implied that the
numbers themselves would lie. He said that some numbers would say the airplane would not be able to stop on the runway at LGA.
Originally Posted by
SikPilot
"should" is the key word. I would bet that even though some of the numbers say "the plane should be able" to stop, some would not. Anyone care to do the math? How short is the runway at LGA?
If the numbers themselves said that the airplane would not be able to remain on the runway for a reject performed according to procedures, then the takeoff should never be attempted. To suggest that a Continental crew would attempt such a feat would be irresponsible.
.