Notices
Foreign Airlines that hire U.S. pilots

Emirates tail strike

Old 11-02-2009, 02:04 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SabreDriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: The Right One
Posts: 588
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.
Depends on who your performance chart data vendor is. I would most certianly use MCT at the loss of one of my engines on takeoff, depending on the takeoff weight. If the jet is maxedout at 830k, you are gonna need every bit, just get busy putting it up. If it is at 450k, maybe not so much... Second segment climb data is predicated on MCT on the remaining engines. Besides, you need every ounce of thrust to get the jet sped up and cleaned up as quickly as possible. If you leave the thrust reduced, you are off the charts and now a test pilot, let us know how it comes out. For me, I don't want to be on the 6 O'clock news that bad.

Reduced thrust (also called FLEX) takeoffs are only to save maintenance money. For you, USMCFLYR, think of as intentionally turing most every takeoff into a critical field length takeoff, depending on the thrust reduction taken. If you end up rejecting the takeoff at V1, minus a few knots, you had better be on your game that day, you are about to use up a bunch of brakes and tires. I can't count the number of heavy takeoffs that I have done where when the PNF said V1 and I looked at the runway remaining thinking, there is no way we would be able to stop. So far, have not had to test it. Thank God

Last edited by SabreDriver; 11-02-2009 at 02:16 PM.
SabreDriver is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:21 AM
  #42  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default Safety Statistics

USMC:

The reduced-thrust concept was new to me, too, upon training for my first airline job. I was told:

The last 10% of an engine's rated-thrust is where 90% of the engine failures occur.

As a guy with an engineering background, I can buy that, from a fatigue, manufacturing tolerance, or materials variance perspective.

Thrust is not linear with RPM; it is exponential. 90% rpm is roughly 50-60% of total thrust available at 100% rpm. Small reductions in rpm are big reductions in thrust, and the probability of engine failure is directly proportional to the amount of thrust coming out of the tailpipe. One instructor told me a 2% rpm reduction lowers the probability of failure by 50%.

The numbers must bear it out...I don't think the FAA would approve it otherwise.

Given the same background as you, I was surprised to find that heavy-weight takeoffs in the 747 (sim) were easier at reduced thrust than lightweight, with any power setting. Why?

The sim instructor almost always fails an outboard engine, giving you the maximum assymetric moment-arm. Higher weights mean faster rotation and V1/V2 speeds.

And the faster you are going, the more effective the vertical fin and rudder. Reduced thrust lowers the assymetry.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:55 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
USMC:

The reduced-thrust concept was new to me, too, upon training for my first airline job. I was told:

The last 10% of an engine's rated-thrust is where 90% of the engine failures occur.

As a guy with an engineering background, I can buy that, from a fatigue, manufacturing tolerance, or materials variance perspective.

Thrust is not linear with RPM; it is exponential. 90% rpm is roughly 50-60% of total thrust available at 100% rpm. Small reductions in rpm are big reductions in thrust, and the probability of engine failure is directly proportional to the amount of thrust coming out of the tailpipe. One instructor told me a 2% rpm reduction lowers the probability of failure by 50%.

The numbers must bear it out...I don't think the FAA would approve it otherwise.

Given the same background as you, I was surprised to find that heavy-weight takeoffs in the 747 (sim) were easier at reduced thrust than lightweight, with any power setting. Why?

The sim instructor almost always fails an outboard engine, giving you the maximum assymetric moment-arm. Higher weights mean faster rotation and V1/V2 speeds.

And the faster you are going, the more effective the vertical fin and rudder. Reduced thrust lowers the assymetry.
Thanks to everyone for your explanations of the Reduced Takeoff Thrust (FLEX). Phlyer - I threw that around the ready room and got the same reaction out of the military only trained pilots, but the reservists explained it in somewhat the same manner as you.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:40 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pilotgolfer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Default

I haven't read all of the previous posts, so if this is a repeat, I apologize.

Engines failures are very rare nowadays but something like over 95 % of engine failures occur during max power takeoffs. When we did TRT takeoffs on the C-141, it always felt like the plane was gonna rattle to pieces!
pilotgolfer is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:38 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
crazyjaydawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,196
Default

Having worked in PE at NWA for a couple years I can agree with pretty much everything being said. Using De-rates/flex/optimized or whatever you want to call it, you can almost double the time between overhaul while reducing your chance at an engine failure. In fact the TBOs have gotten so high that the fan blades start to deteriorate and we need to come up with fan blade deterioration mode to go along with the drates on both the 57s and 320s.

Even on the 9osaur we can do overspeed which is by admission a poor mans de-rate.
crazyjaydawg is offline  
Old 11-07-2009, 12:54 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
698jet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 777er driver
Posts: 101
Default

on the 777ER we always use reduced power takeoffs. i think most airlines use it. we have a boeing laptop that we put in all the numbers and it is checked by my co-pilot and myself. we get the number of paxs and load form a load master and it works out great. but I can see if you dont check all the numbers it can get you in a bind fast.
698jet is offline  
Old 11-07-2009, 07:18 PM
  #47  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

On a turbine engine, you would expect most failures to occur at higher power settings. As stated, there is a very large percentage power increase in the last few percentage points of RPM.

A piston engine is different though. The typical mechanical failure (other than those due to loss of oil) occurs when REDUCING power after a high power run. The crankshaft, rods, and other parts "unwind", which encourages any weak components to fail. This why it's a good idea not reduce power in an piston ASEL until you have enough altitude to glide to a good landing site.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 12:18 AM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Contract purgatory
Posts: 701
Default

First, great discussion.

Second, someone mentioned that second segment is based, always, on max toga power. Not on the 744 or the 777 as far as I understand. On the 744 the charts (we still use charts) tell you if you are climb/runway/obstacle restricted and your max weight is restricted by, well the most restrictive restriction (sorry it's late). On the 777 the OPT tells you the same without pointing it out (as is noticible on the charts). So, if you are 395 ton or 295 ton it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, if I lost an engine I'd hit the toga buttons again. I tried it in the 777 sim as the instructor wanted us to do it the hard way, no toga button, and it climbed like a pig. I imagine an airplane with tired engines would be worse. So, stupid yes, but I think not actually incorrect.
KoruPilot is offline  
Old 11-19-2009, 04:28 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JetJocF14's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B-777 Captain
Posts: 943
Default

Not related to your tailstrike but myself and my co-pilot had to D/H from Dubai to Osaka, Japan earlier this month in first class on one of your 777. You guys run a class act...............
JetJocF14 is offline  
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