Why do pilots rotate so fast?
09-07-2009, 04:19 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Chair Flying
Posts: 257
I don't have any problems when I rotate my C172haha. On a serious note, you guys mention manual power reduction. I assume manual reduction as oppose to automatic reduction. I get the impression that a manual power reduction is a big deal. Can anyone briefly explain what a manual power reduction entails? Thank you.
09-07-2009, 04:36 AM
#42
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
You have to alter your scan a bit and take your eyes off the attitude indicator and airspeed to include the engine gauges at a very busy time.
Pilots resent having to jump through the hoops at SNA because it compromises safety for the sake of a handful of rich people, most of whom bought their houses knowing full well there was an airport next door.
09-07-2009, 06:02 AM
#43
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Sailing's post was right on for his aircraft.
Frankly, there are is a pretty wide range of what gets certified and what weights and temperatures it gets flown at.
09-07-2009, 06:37 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
The other elephant in the room, though, is that at some places obstacle clearance really IS a factor (LGA, 9/27 or 22R at BOS, PWM, etc...) so if you're constantly using a very slow rotation good SA of your surroundings is key. Unfortunately just being a pilot at a Major does not automatically endow us with good SA when we become used to doing things the same 99 percent of the time.
09-07-2009, 10:00 AM
#45
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: B747-400 Captain
Posts: 54
On our 747-400's we rotate at a steady rate of 2deg/sec towards 15 deg NU before following the FD. Note: is towards, not to 15NU, and often about 12.5deg NU works out right using reduced thrust at normal operating weights.
When operating at 390+tonnes the FD will kick in and stop you at 12.5 deg NU or thereabouts anyway.
As to minimising the tailstrike risk, I understand that this is best achieved by following the same/correct rate of rotation at all weights irrespective of the runway length, and can confirm that it works well using reduced thrust ex Boston 09 and O'Hare 04L as well as Joberg and Mexico and Singapore and Narita and and and ...
It is about time that some people realise that the performance manuals are written by the test pilots for us mere mortals to follow. If you don't then you are volunteering to be test pilots yourselves but without the training (and possibly skills). If you have real concerns about the operating weights you should really address that with your company rather than devise your own unproven variations on your FCOM's, imho.
On our 737-200's we used to have various noise abatement techniques at various times, one sounds similar to the SNA technique: we used to take off with Flaps1 using reduced thrust (say about 1.92 EPR iirc) to 1500ft agl, then reduce to 1.55 EPR and maintain V2+10? to 3000ft agl before resuming acceleration. With the (lovely) noise the JT8D-15's made, the power (and noise) reduction was enough to make passengers think the engines had failed, and we used to warn them in advance that it would happen.
When operating at 390+tonnes the FD will kick in and stop you at 12.5 deg NU or thereabouts anyway.
As to minimising the tailstrike risk, I understand that this is best achieved by following the same/correct rate of rotation at all weights irrespective of the runway length, and can confirm that it works well using reduced thrust ex Boston 09 and O'Hare 04L as well as Joberg and Mexico and Singapore and Narita and and and ...
It is about time that some people realise that the performance manuals are written by the test pilots for us mere mortals to follow. If you don't then you are volunteering to be test pilots yourselves but without the training (and possibly skills). If you have real concerns about the operating weights you should really address that with your company rather than devise your own unproven variations on your FCOM's, imho.
On our 737-200's we used to have various noise abatement techniques at various times, one sounds similar to the SNA technique: we used to take off with Flaps1 using reduced thrust (say about 1.92 EPR iirc) to 1500ft agl, then reduce to 1.55 EPR and maintain V2+10? to 3000ft agl before resuming acceleration. With the (lovely) noise the JT8D-15's made, the power (and noise) reduction was enough to make passengers think the engines had failed, and we used to warn them in advance that it would happen.
09-07-2009, 12:06 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Blue fifi flogger
Posts: 738
No worries. I agree strongly with you. However personal experience has shown that our SA as individuals is not always as it should be. Some guys/gals get locked into the same mindset and have trouble modifying for variables. Just from observation...
09-08-2009, 02:39 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 416
09-08-2009, 05:03 PM
#48
New Hire
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: DAL and CAL Poolie
Posts: 3
KC10Fatboy
The KC10 is also a little different than the MD11. The KC10 is guaranteed to not have a tail strike because Rotate speed is against faster for the boom. But rotating too slowly can cause performance to be diminished for an obstacle. But that brings us to Change 9 in the 1-1 and thats another atrocity in itself.
The KC10 is also a little different than the MD11. The KC10 is guaranteed to not have a tail strike because Rotate speed is against faster for the boom. But rotating too slowly can cause performance to be diminished for an obstacle. But that brings us to Change 9 in the 1-1 and thats another atrocity in itself.
09-09-2009, 02:28 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 114
09-09-2009, 07:24 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Its not that big of a deal. It just means you pull the throttles back by hand rather than let the auto-throttles do it. We're doing big power chops at low altitude at SNA for "noise reduction".
You have to alter your scan a bit and take your eyes off the attitude indicator and airspeed to include the engine gauges at a very busy time.
Pilots resent having to jump through the hoops at SNA because it compromises safety for the sake of a handful of rich people, most of whom bought their houses knowing full well there was an airport next door.
You have to alter your scan a bit and take your eyes off the attitude indicator and airspeed to include the engine gauges at a very busy time.
Pilots resent having to jump through the hoops at SNA because it compromises safety for the sake of a handful of rich people, most of whom bought their houses knowing full well there was an airport next door.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
