CO 737 off runway in DEN

[Sedona16]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=5136219

Is it just me or do they show the airplane in this video animation trying to take off on the taxi way?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Yeah, it does appear that way.

 

[EWR_FO]

I am based in DEN. The plane actullay started to veer of the runway around 2,500 feet. I was in my full A319 going to the East coast (probably same weight or a bit heavier than the 737 to IAH) last week and marked my airspeed at the same point in the takeoff roll. It was 110 Kts!

I believe the FO has stated that they were somewhere between 85-95 knots when things started to happen. If you are at V1 with 8,000 feet remaining is aborting a bad thing? Not trying to start an argument, just being hypothetical.

 

[GuppyWN]

If I'm V1 plus whatever with 8000 ft of concrete left and I haven't started to rotate I'm going to at least think about aborting. Yeah I know - test pilot, cowboy, idiot. I'm fine with that. I'd much rather wrestle a full jet at V1 with zero altitude than "hope she flies like the sim."

Gup

 

[172driver]

I believe the FO has stated that they were somewhere between 85-95 knots when things started to happen. If you are at V1 with 8,000 feet remaining is aborting a bad thing? Not trying to start an argument, just being hypothetical.

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

 

[bubbers44]

Seems to me that aborting or continuing the takeoff had little to do with the cause of the crash. Either one should have worked fine with the x-wind they were dealing with. Since we don't know why they lost directional control at this point, until we do know, speculation is meaningless.

 

[EWR_FO]

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

Don't you generally land on the same length of runway you took off from? Even a 747 will coast to a relatively slow speed in 10,000 feet.

 

[firstthird]

Don't you generally land on the same length of runway you took off from? Even a 747 will coast to a relatively slow speed in 10,000 feet.

Landing and takeoff are very different regimes. For landing you are touching down between 1000-1500 feet from the threshold whereas for takeoff you are rotating midfield (or so). If the above quoted numbers are correct, then they were 4000 feet down the runway with 8000 feet left. A classic 737 at DEN with a full load probably has a V1/Vr up around 145-155 knots. Whereas it probably had a landing speed around 135 -145. So, land at 140 with 11000 feet left and decelerating or abort at 150 with 8000 feet left and accelerating. They seem quite different to me.

The "same runway you landed on and same speed" is simplistic at best and dangerously naive at worst. I'm making no judgments or statements on this CAL accident as I know no more than the mainstream press has reported.

 

[EWR_FO]

Landing and takeoff are very different regimes. For landing you are touching down between 1000-1500 feet from the threshold whereas for takeoff you are rotating midfield (or so). If the above quoted numbers are correct, then they were 4000 feet down the runway with 8000 feet left. A classic 737 at DEN with a full load probably has a V1/Vr up around 145-155 knots. Whereas it probably had a landing speed around 135 -145. So, land at 140 with 11000 feet left and decelerating or abort at 150 with 8000 feet left and accelerating. They seem quite different to me.

The "same runway you landed on and same speed" is simplistic at best and dangerously naive at worst. I'm making no judgments or statements on this CAL accident as I know no more than the mainstream press has reported.

They departed the runway at 2500' and, according to the FO, somewhere in the vicinity of 85-95 knots. I agree it is somewhat simplistic but don't agree that V1 is hard and fast in EVERY situation. Obviously a 40 kt. headwind as opposed to a 10 kt. tailwind will greatly affect the amount of pavement you need.

 

[firstthird]

If I'm V1 plus whatever with 8000 ft of concrete left and I haven't started to rotate I'm going to at least think about aborting. Yeah I know - test pilot, cowboy, idiot. I'm fine with that. I'd much rather wrestle a full jet at V1 with zero altitude than "hope she flies like the sim."

by Gup

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

by 172driver

Good points 172driver. Many highspeed aborts end up off the sides of the runway, not the end; leading a reasonably pilot to conclude that the pavement remaining isn't always the key aspect of a successful abort. Some aborts/accident landings go off the end more due to directional difficulties rather than any inherent lack of pavement (well, a lack of width of pavement could be argued)

It is one thing to brief in a light twin or a cessna that you will "put it back down after we are flying if we encounter something right after airborne" seeing as a 12000 foot runway and a cessna aren't matched performance wise. even though a 12000 foot runway seems generous by 737 standards, remember that 5000 feet altitude skews the equation. also, no specific comments on this accident as I have no knowledge of it.