Emirates tail strike
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
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.
#33
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.
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.
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
#34
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.
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
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
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
#36
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.
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.
#37
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.
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
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.
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.
#39
On a personnal note, I like the fact that now in many cases I have performance to spare
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left Out
Posts: 188
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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post