|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 25812222)
Yes. We occasionally do full power takeoffs.
|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 25812533)
SNA! :D :D :D
|
Twice
I have experienced two go arounds but they both came on the same flight! Flying SQ into SFO we seemed to be at about 1,000 feet when the engines came to life and we started climbing. The power was extraordinary but smooth. No announcement from the cockpit though. As we came back around the exact same thing happened and we started climbing again. Now I was getting nervous. I thought they must be having problems with the landing gear. Again no announcements from the cockpit. We got back into the approach pattern and I could tell a few others were nervous too. However, the third time was the charm. Landed, taxied to gate and disembarked. I was happy to be on the ground. Never found out why we went around twice.
|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 25810035)
This supports my experience (3-4 go-arounds) that a go-around is NOT significantly different in pitch and climb rate from a takeoff, but because it is occurring at an unexpected part of the flight, I have no doubt that some people perceive it as steeper and/or faster.
|
Originally Posted by N1Flyer
(Post 25803208)
If that's the case, then it wasn't loss of separation - the a/c on 28R is the trailing a/c (which has to maintain as the trailing a/c) and cannot overtake the one on the 28L approach. The two a/c are paired with the 28L a/c leading. If you're really bored, look up FAA Order 7110.308 for the specifics.
|
Originally Posted by physioprof
(Post 25810067)
Never experienced an aborted take-off.
|
Originally Posted by GBadger
(Post 25816258)
That's interesting -- I landed (in a UA A320) on 28R a couple of weeks ago, and we certainly overtook a CR7 on the parallel approach to 28L.
|
Originally Posted by GBadger
(Post 25816258)
That's interesting -- I landed (in a UA A320) on 28R a couple of weeks ago, and we certainly overtook a CR7 on the parallel approach to 28L. We landed first, exited the runway and waited for the CR7 on 28L to complete its landing before crossing the runway to get to the terminal... We overtook the other aircraft just past the bridge, when the gear goes down.
This is the standard rule for SFO, during typical weather, where visual approaches are the norm (instrument landings slow flow way down): Parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Unless standard separation is provided by ATC, an aircraft must report sighting a preceding aircraft making an approach (instrument or visual) to the adjacent parallel runway. When an aircraft reports another aircraft in sight on the adjacent final approach course and visual separation is applied, controllers must advise the succeeding aircraft to maintain visual separation. However, do not permit a heavy/B757 aircraft to overtake another aircraft. Do not permit a large aircraft to overtake a small aircraft. http://tfmlearning.faa.gov/Publicati...C/atc0704.html |
Most have involved a plane on our active runway-either an incursion for takeoff or previously landed not exiting as expected. It is always slightly startling. Equally startling to me is how few passengers realize that a non routine event in the daily life of an aircraft-an aborted landing-had occurred.
Runway incursions in their various forms have always concerned me from an operating standpoint. All of the ones I remember, the pilot briefly spoke on the intercom after climbing out and beginning the re-approach. Some added the reason, some didn't. |
I recall a go-around once but can't recall if it was UA. The more memorable power-up and climb for me was what was a terrain warning while descending into BOI.
The change to high angle of climb and lots of power was very noticeable and unexpected while were were probably at ~FL7000, BOI is ~3000. Listening to Ch9 the pilot informed ATC of a terrain warning and ATC told her it was something about descending lower than assigned altitude. Here's a video from the end of the runway in BOI showing a go-around with ATC audio. |
Originally Posted by GBadger
(Post 25816275)
This one I have seen -- MartinAir DC10 back in the day at AMS. We were very near takeoff when the pilot slammed on the brakes due to an indication of problems with the tail-mounted engine. Turns out the engine was fine, but we burned through all of our brakes and tires, which then all needed to be replaced. That was an experience...
|
Originally Posted by N1Flyer
(Post 25803208)
If that's the case, then it wasn't loss of separation - the a/c on 28R is the trailing a/c (which has to maintain as the trailing a/c) and cannot overtake the one on the 28L approach. The two a/c are paired with the 28L a/c leading. If you're really bored, look up FAA Order 7110.308 for the specifics.
Listening to SFO LiveATC this happens all the time...And by that I mean almost every day, if not every day [parallel approaches are allowed] |
Originally Posted by physioprof
(Post 25818265)
Must have been very close to the go-no-go point. Any sense for whether the tires locked up and skidded?
Here's rejected takeoff testing on the B777. |
Originally Posted by climmy
(Post 25818548)
Ding Ding. Winner.
Listening to SFO LiveATC this happens all the time...And by that I mean almost every day, if not every day [parallel approaches are allowed] Below is one particularly good illustration: Descending to 9000 FT on a clearance to intercept the FMS Bridge Visual Runway 28R final. We were handed off to the final NORCAL Controller just before intercepting the Bridge Visual track, and he was obviously very busy. When we checked in we reported the "bridge and airport in sight," and the Controller's response was simply "descend to 8000 FT, slow to 210 KTS." This was followed by another descend clearance to 5000 FT. We were high on the profile, as we had been for the last few miles, due to the constraints of the ATC issued altitude, so we were trying to make things work with configuration changes. When there was a break in radio traffic we again reported the field and asked for approach clearance. The Controller's response was "Do you have the 10 o'clock traffic in sight?" We said "No, you never issued us traffic" and his response was I'm issuing it now, traffic is a XXXX at 10 o'clock 5000 FT descending for Runway 28L, report him in sight." We said "not in sight," and he said "stop descent at 6000 FT." Since we were already below 6000 FT we stopped descent immediately at 5700 FT and climbed back to 6000 FT shortly thereafter we acquire the competing aircraft on the parallel approach, slowed to 180 KTS on our own initiative based on the TCAS spacing from the traffic ahead on our runway, and were issued the approach clearance. Just 3 miles before the bridge we were handed to Tower with the injunction "maintain 180 KTS to the bridge." (At that point speed assignments hardly matter.) As soon as we checked in with SFO Tower a few seconds later, they cleared us to land, and announced a 50 KT overtake on the traffic ahead. So of course we slowed to final speed, speed assignment notwithstanding, and landed just as traffic ahead cleared the runway. This is typical of what we encounter every day during simultaneous visual approaches to Runway 28L and R at SFO. These are very high-pressure, sometimes chaotic approaches. We are often left high, given last-minute heading, altitude, and speed assignment, taken off the final and then back on again, sometimes twice, and all of this while the frequency is too busy to get a word in edgewise. There is precious air time available for niceties like call signs. The Controllers and the pilots do a good job trying to communicate, even truncating radio transmissions to a degree that would make the authors of the FAA Pilot-Controller handbook shudder - but the situation is often gut-wrenching. These approaches involve airplanes coming down the Bay from both sides of the airport, head-on base legs, and then closely-spaced, staggered, parallel flight paths down final. The possibility for a loss of separation, a near miss, or some other scary thing are multitudinous, not to mention almost impossible "compliance with ATC instructions." SFO is usually busy when the published visual approaches to Runway 28L and R are in use, and the changing speed and altitude assignments are fairly typical. If more printed detail could be added to the approach procedures - such as publishing speeds, or reducing the "cut" at the final - perhaps these simultaneous visual approaches could be conducted in a more orderly fashion. Or maybe the airspace needs to be re-allocated to take the load off the Final Controller. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 25819237)
The wheels don't lock up. That's what the antilock brakes are for. The tires fail due to the heat generated during the rejected takeoff. The tires have fuse plugs which melt and release the pressure in the tires to prevent them from failing explosively.
Here's rejected takeoff testing on the B777. https://youtu.be/Mr4V680UQ-k |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.