Notices
Foreign Airlines that hire U.S. pilots

Emirates tail strike

Old 09-27-2009, 08:34 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Airhoss's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,708
Default

This is all very interesting but you can't fly 98.2 hours international or otherwise in a month and NOT be chronically fatigued. PERIOD.
Airhoss is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 08:39 PM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
Default

Originally Posted by navigatro View Post
[

No, you do not go to full power on the remaining engines. The reduced power settings factor in the loss of an engine when calculating obstacle clearance.
What kind of a/c are we talking about here? I have flown the BE 1900, BA 4100, and EMB 145...So nothing close to heavy, but this is new to me. The 1900 didn't use reduced power takeoffs, but both the BA 4100 and EMB 145 we use reduced takeoffs unless we need full power. On both of those planes if we lose an engine the first thing we do is go to full power on the good engine....(the EMB 145 even has a logic that will automatically put the good engine to full power if one is lost during reduced takeoff thrust mode) Our memory items include moving the thrust lever to the full power stop as a backup to the auto logic to make sure the good engine goes to full power.

Oh and for the F18 guy...the amount we reduce thrust by is right around 10% of the thrust so that means we takeoff at 90% thrust (lbs not N1 setting). From what I've noticed it doesn't seem to make a big difference if you reduce or not for the same weight....a bigger difference is felt compared to being light vs heavy.
Great Cornholio is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 10:05 PM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Dominican's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 747 captain
Posts: 1,549
Default

Originally Posted by Great Cornholio View Post
What kind of a/c are we talking about here? I have flown the BE 1900, BA 4100, and EMB 145...So nothing close to heavy, but this is new to me. The 1900 didn't use reduced power takeoffs, but both the BA 4100 and EMB 145 we use reduced takeoffs unless we need full power. On both of those planes if we lose an engine the first thing we do is go to full power on the good engine....(the EMB 145 even has a logic that will automatically put the good engine to full power if one is lost during reduced takeoff thrust mode) Our memory items include moving the thrust lever to the full power stop as a backup to the auto logic to make sure the good engine goes to full power.

Oh and for the F18 guy...the amount we reduce thrust by is right around 10% of the thrust so that means we takeoff at 90% thrust (lbs not N1 setting). From what I've noticed it doesn't seem to make a big difference if you reduce or not for the same weight....a bigger difference is felt compared to being light vs heavy.
Depends on the A/C, the information that Jungle posted is correct and you can see on the 767 up to 25% reduced thrust for T/O as a max reduction, the only thing you have to be a little careful with when you have a long aluminum tube behind you is not to venture beyond the 3 degrees/ second rate of rotation since the likelihood of a tail strike at reduced thrust is little higher.

There is also the controllability issue with wing mounted engines because as you apply the remaining thrust, you will have to apply a healthy amount of rudder to compensate, the procedure doesn't call to apply full thrust. It is just one of those handful of things that is a little different when you are flying the heavy Iron
The Dominican is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 10:38 PM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Dominican's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 747 captain
Posts: 1,549
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
I wonder if given the oportunity - not goverened by your companies operating limitations (which are probably based on monetary savings or noise restrictions) - how many would CHOOSE a reduced powered takeoff?

Interesting discussion.

USMCFLYR

Max thrust at light weights in the 767 and you are going to be climbing at more than 5,000 fpm with a deck angle higher than 20 degrees in some of these departures that call for low altitude level off you are going to be exposing the passengers to unnecessary G's (I understand G's is a source of entertainment in your neck of the woods) manhandling the inertia that is created by a couple of hundred tonnes can give the folks an uncomfortable ride.

Besides it is not a company imposed limitation in the sense that you are obligated to use reduced thrust, it is always at the pilot's discretion and you are not going to hear a peep if you decide to use max thrust in a particular T/O. But then again, I fly in a very "captain discretion" oriented company

Last edited by The Dominican; 10-01-2009 at 10:49 PM.
The Dominican is offline  
Old 10-02-2009, 09:03 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
Default

Originally Posted by The Dominican View Post
Depends on the A/C, the information that Jungle posted is correct and you can see on the 767 up to 25% reduced thrust for T/O as a max reduction, the only thing you have to be a little careful with when you have a long aluminum tube behind you is not to venture beyond the 3 degrees/ second rate of rotation since the likelihood of a tail strike at reduced thrust is little higher.

There is also the controllability issue with wing mounted engines because as you apply the remaining thrust, you will have to apply a healthy amount of rudder to compensate, the procedure doesn't call to apply full thrust. It is just one of those handful of things that is a little different when you are flying the heavy Iron
Thanks. I was wondering if he was talking military transport or airline heavy. I had no idea that you guys didn't push the thrust up on the good engine....but to be honest never really thought about it. The wing mounted engine and needing more rudder makes sense, but we did it in the turboprop and sometimes it would get kinda sporty in the sim. In my opinion the 145 is underpowered (EP especially) and if we didn't throw to good engine up to full power we would probably fall out of the sky. I hope to be flying heavy iron soon, but with the way things are these days it looks like I'm going to get to live the dream one nightmare at a time for a little while longer here in the regional level. On a side note is your "heavy captain discresion" company still hiring expat guys?
Great Cornholio is offline  
Old 10-02-2009, 09:31 AM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CloudSailor's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,037
Default

Cornholio,

Dominican flies the 767 for ANA, and he's a great guy to get in touch with if you go that route.

You can check out the contract via www.crewresourcesworldwide.com or through PARC.

Good luck.
CloudSailor is offline  
Old 10-02-2009, 09:28 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by The Dominican View Post
Max thrust at light weights in the 767 and you are going to be climbing at more than 5,000 fpm with a deck angle higher than 20 degrees . . .
I would say that this is likely something that most pilots with non-heavy experience don't immediately think about, the HUGE difference, not only pure weight wise, but % wise too, between a 'light' and a 'heavy' t/o in a very large aircraft.

Think a 747 out of JFK. Could be just going empty to Boston, or could be going to Seoul full of 14+ hours of fuel and passengers/cargo. We're talking a difference of over 300,000 lbs here b/t these two t/o scenarios (more than 125% of the entire Emirates t/o weight miscalculation), a difference of almost 40%, weight wise, b/t min and max scenarios. The engines obviously have to have the thrust to do an 800K lb t/o, so, if you give them full power but 40% less weight to pull into the air to BOS (think of an 18K lb ERJ @ max thrust, 'Cornholio'), you've got a serious amount of power, considering the 74 will usually reduce T/O thrust out of JFK @ MTOW.

The centerline thrust difference is one thing with heavies v/s RJ's and military fighters, but the huge weight range that a 'heavy' operates in is a easy concept to grasp once pointed out, but perhaps not immediately obvious without personal experience.
Sniper is offline  
Old 10-03-2009, 12:46 AM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper View Post
I would say that this is likely something that most pilots with non-heavy experience don't immediately think about, the HUGE difference, not only pure weight wise, but % wise too, between a 'light' and a 'heavy' t/o in a very large aircraft.

Think a 747 out of JFK. Could be just going empty to Boston, or could be going to Seoul full of 14+ hours of fuel and passengers/cargo. We're talking a difference of over 300,000 lbs here b/t these two t/o scenarios (more than 125% of the entire Emirates t/o weight miscalculation), a difference of almost 40%, weight wise, b/t min and max scenarios. The engines obviously have to have the thrust to do an 800K lb t/o, so, if you give them full power but 40% less weight to pull into the air to BOS (think of an 18K lb ERJ @ max thrust, 'Cornholio'), you've got a serious amount of power, considering the 74 will usually reduce T/O thrust out of JFK @ MTOW.

The centerline thrust difference is one thing with heavies v/s RJ's and military fighters, but the huge weight range that a 'heavy' operates in is a easy concept to grasp once pointed out, but perhaps not immediately obvious without personal experience.
This makes sense. I know that I notice a huge difference in how the ERJ acts when heavy compared to when light...and we are talking of a diff of only about 15,000 to 20,000 ish lbs....or just shy of 50% weight. Although we go to max thrust on the good engine regardless of our weight. While I've thought a few times about how heavys have many times my MAGTOW in fuel alone I've never thought about weight in the V1 cut. In everything I've ever flown if you lose an engine you have to give the good engine all its got in order to miss the trees at the end...and some times all its got isn't good enough and you will hit the trees anyways (light piston twin). I'd say if there is one thing about RJ's that makes me mad (other than pay etc) its the fact that we are typically under powered. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to climb and cruise as fast as mainline jets. I guess on the plus side for me it seems V1 cuts will get easier or simplier as I go on. Turboprops to RJ's was a nice change and now it seems like I can take the little extra rudder out when we "goose the good engine" when I get to the big iron.
Great Cornholio is offline  
Old 10-03-2009, 09:27 PM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Dominican's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 747 captain
Posts: 1,549
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper View Post
I would say that this is likely something that most pilots with non-heavy experience don't immediately think about, the HUGE difference, not only pure weight wise, but % wise too, between a 'light' and a 'heavy' t/o in a very large aircraft.
.
And remember that reduced thrust can only be accomplished when you have performance to spare, when you are close to your MTOW the numbers won't allow it.

On a personnal note, I like the fact that now in many cases I have performance to spare
The Dominican is offline  
Old 10-11-2009, 11:43 AM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left Out
Posts: 188
Default

I fly the 747-400 and during a max derate and a high assumed temp scenario (D-TO2 58 degrees) with an engine out, it climbs like a dog even when light. My company allows discretion in increasing thrust on the remaining three. You will make the climb requirements, at a much slower rate, with the remaining 3 at the original thrust settings. On PCs I leave the original thrust setting because by the time I am airborne I should have already sorted out the amount of rudder required to keep her straight and more thrust would obviously change that.

I flew the EMB 145 series and if I remember correctly, the reason that the FADEC added power after sensing a engine failure was due to the fact that when reduced it was possible to still meet the 2 engine climb performance but needed the "reserve" thrust to make the SE requirements. It is certified that way....when the reserve power function was MEL'd, there was a weight penalty (may be confusing with the CRJ).

FO
4everFO is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dune
Foreign
35
08-23-2009 12:55 PM
fr8pilot
Foreign
27
02-11-2009 07:45 AM
Sniper
Foreign
6
10-31-2008 03:52 AM
PilotFrog
Foreign
9
10-17-2008 10:41 AM
FloridaGator
Foreign
1
10-07-2008 08:39 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices