767 Takeoff procedure
E.B. Gillespie
I was on a 767 recently from Brussels to JFK. The plane was fully
loaded at Brussels, air temp 50 F, wind light, 9000' runway. To my
surpise, no flaps were used on takeoff (however, the leading edge
flaps may have been used, but I couldn't tell from where I was
sitting).
Is this normal takeoff procedure?
Evan Gillespie
Dale Grose
Hi,
The 200 series are certified for a Flaps1(leading edges only) takeoff.
The 300 series minimum flap setting is Flap 5, which is leading edge
and first stage of trailing edge flaps.
Dale.
evangi...@mindspring.com (E.B. Gillespie) wrote:
>Evan Gillespie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Grose | Email: dgr...@transend.com.tw
| Email: dgr...@ozemail.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.B. Gillespie
>The 200 series are certified for a Flaps1(leading edges only) takeoff.
It was a 767-200, so I suppose the leading edge flaps were the only
ones that were down. Put is a Flaps1 setting practical for such a
heavy aircraft?
Evan
Rex Chadwell
In article <5htkie$c...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
evangi...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I was on a 767 recently from Brussels to JFK. The plane was fully
> loaded at Brussels, air temp 50 F, wind light, 9000' runway. To my
> surpise, no flaps were used on takeoff (however, the leading edge
> flaps may have been used, but I couldn't tell from where I was
> sitting).
>
> Is this normal takeoff procedure?
>
> Evan Gillespie
They likely conducted a "Flaps 1" takeoff, which has the leading edge
slats extended. Fairly common for a fully loaded 767-200ER.
Rex Chadwell
757/767 Cap't AAL
Underaged
Duck Dodgers wrote:
>
> E.B. Gillespie wrote:
> >
> > I was on a 767 recently from Brussels to JFK. The plane was fully
> > loaded at Brussels, air temp 50 F, wind light, 9000' runway. To my
> > surpise, no flaps were used on takeoff (however, the leading edge
> > flaps may have been used, but I couldn't tell from where I was
> > sitting).
> >
> > Is this normal takeoff procedure?
> >
> > Evan Gillespie
>
> takeoff. Any B767 jocks care to confirm?
It seems strange because I've been on 737s on a 15,000ft runway (McCaren
airport) and they still use flaps/slats.
I very rarely see full power though, in fact, never. Even on a 737 off
SBA with a 6,500 ft runway, they went to 95 percent. (I asked the
pilot.
Tyson
JS
The flaps setting depends on several things:
Airport elevation
T/O wieght
Temperature
Runway length
Obstacles for the departure
On the MD-88 I operate to LAS regularly. The flap settings ther range
from 0.0 degrees to 15.0 degrees for various weights, temperatures, and
runways. For LAX the flaps range from 3.0 degrees to 24.0 degrees.
The MD-88 is of course much lighter than the 767 but the principles are
still the same.
--
Jay Schnedorf
MD-88 FO
Midwest Express Airlines
email: jays...@sprynet.com
web site: http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jayschne
ICQ: 560569
Freetel: MD-88 Pilot
Michael Fox
Underaged wrote:
> > Below standard day, long runway...I suspect it wasn't even a full power
> > takeoff. Any B767 jocks care to confirm?
> It seems strange because I've been on 737s on a 15,000ft runway (McCaren
> airport) and they still use flaps/slats.
> I very rarely see full power though, in fact, never. Even on a 737 off
> SBA with a 6,500 ft runway, they went to 95 percent. (I asked the
> pilot.
>
> Tyson
Here Palmerston North, the runway is only 5,000 ft. The 737 does use
full power
here! And, furthermore, is weight restricted on take-off, so that it
cannot take
off fully loaded with full fuel. There is a restriction on the number
of passengers
it takes, with their luggage also. Then, it flies to Hamilton (40
minutes), where
it picks up more passengers, luggage, and full fuel, before departing
across to
Australia.
Michael
Steven P. Moraes
Underaged <mcdo...@adnc.com> wrote in article <334AC0...@adnc.com>...
> Duck Dodgers wrote:
> >
> > E.B. Gillespie wrote:
> > >
> > > I was on a 767 recently from Brussels to JFK. The plane was fully
> > > snip
> I very rarely see full power though, in fact, never. Even on a 737 off
> SBA with a 6,500 ft runway, they went to 95 percent. (I asked the
> pilot.
>
> Tyson
>
A common misconception with turbofan engines is what constitutes "maximum
power." 95% is quite a bit on a fan, it probably was the maximum. The fan
speed you set on takeoff is a percentage of the maximum fan speed for the
engine. On our CFM-56's, for a "full power" takeoff, we rarely use above
92%. This is determined solely on temp and P.A.
Steve
Robert Gary
> A common misconception with turbofan engines is what constitutes "maximum
> power." 95% is quite a bit on a fan, it probably was the maximum. The fan
> speed you set on takeoff is a percentage of the maximum fan speed for the
> engine. On our CFM-56's, for a "full power" takeoff, we rarely use above
> 92%. This is determined solely on temp and P.A.
>
> Steve
This is true...and also the cause of the worst avaition accident
in Washington D.C about 10 (give or take) years ago. The crew
was not familiar with ice conditions and did to properly preflight
the aircraft. Because of this they got some bad readings on the
engine guages (EGT was one I believe). The crew determined the
fan speed for the take off. The plane never climbed and a couple
miles out hit a bridge. The FAA said that if they had simply shoved
the throttle forward they wouldn't been a couple thousand feet above
that bridge. They also had several minutes of knowing they were not
climbing but never figured it out. Almost all died when the plane
went into the icy river.
--
Robert Gary
email: rober...@osi.com
Ron Natalie
> This is true...and also the cause of the worst avaition accident
> in Washington D.C about 10 (give or take) years ago. The crew
> was not familiar with ice conditions and did to properly preflight
> the aircraft. Because of this they got some bad readings on the
> engine guages (EGT was one I believe).
Actually, preflight had little to do with it. The failure
to engage the engine inlet anti-ice along with the fact that
the aircraft powered back on a slushy ramp caused the EPR
probe to be frozen up and not read properly. This kept the
proper take-off power from being set. Then the crew failed
to either abort or apply more power in a situation that the
first officer recognized as "not being right."
N. D. Shane
Underaged <mcdo...@adnc.com> wrote:
>Duck Dodgers wrote:
>>
>> E.B. Gillespie wrote:
>> >
>> > I was on a 767 recently from Brussels to JFK. The plane was fully
>> > loaded at Brussels, air temp 50 F, wind light, 9000' runway. To my
>> > surpise, no flaps were used on takeoff (however, the leading edge
>> > flaps may have been used, but I couldn't tell from where I was
>> > sitting).
>> >
>> > Is this normal takeoff procedure?
They used five degrees of flaps.
'Probably looks nearly clean from aft of the wing.
Even with Brussels' huge runways, you'd have known if they went
no-flap. It would have gotten REALLY loud at the far end... ;-]
Andy
Andy's Hangar http://www.metronet.com/~nshane/