Static vs Rolling Takeoffs

[getonit]

I know all of the performance numbers, for the Citation 500's are based on static T/O's. Does anybody have any ballpark numbers of the performance hit if you do a rolling T/O? My simuflight and flightsafety manuals have some vague wording about more than adequate length, but no real guidelines.

Reason I am asking is, at my new job everybody does static T/O's on every runway and I am not a big fan of them, unless necessary.

Any opinions?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Static T/O's seem more orderly and methodical, allowing you more time to think and check for anything missed. Rolling departures can cause things to speed up and feel rushed. Never know if you'll need that extra margin of runway for an abort. The time afforded on the positioning can make a difference.

 

[El Bucho]

In Falcon 50 school they told us that unless you hold the brakes and set the power, that the DEECs won't let the engine provide advertised takeoff thrust for something like 3 minutes after you push up the thrust levers. Thus the reason to get on the runway and hold the brakes. Actually I'm confused. How does anybody actually do a "static" takeoff? Do you sit in the cockpit and make airplane noises or something? Just kidding...

EB

 

[Airboss]

Static vs Rolling T/O

At our regional airline a rolling takeoff is the normal.
Static takeoff's are rare and only when performance dictates.
On that same thought reduced thrust takeoffs are also normal too.

 

[con-pilot]

There is nothing wrong with a rolling takeoff. If, you have enough runway.

However, as far as the FAA, aircraft manufactures and the insurance companies are concerned all takeoffs should be static power. In the real world, of course, one has to make rolling takeoffs at most major airports for traffic flow.

Come on, if your BFL on any given day is half or a third of the runway length available there is no reason not to make a rolling takeoff.






A little clue here, it is called "Situational Awareness"!


Just remember to brief it to your crew, both in the front and the back, if your going to do anything unusual.

 

[ThreeMartinis]

Our 747-400 DTW--->NRT made a rolling T/O. Anyway, here is an interesting link.



http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-06-06-ask-the-captain_x.htm

 

[bubbers44]

We have a takeoff procedure at a Honuras airport that doesn't allow rolling takeoffs. Still getting the engines spooled up, releasing the brakes and going to takeoff power is a lot better than letting the plane shake at takeoff power before releasing the brakes with maybe 10 feet extra runway.

 

[FL420]

Some aircraft such as the Seneca have a caution about rolling takeoffs as centrifugal force on the fuel can unport a fuel pickup. Check your POH/AFM.

I think a FED with a burr under his saddle could conceivably come after someone for making a rolling takeoff for "careless and reckless operation" as there is no published takeoff data for such takeoffs. Each situation and pilot technique is different making it nigh on impossible to produce such data.

 

[D.sanchez]

Our 747-400 DTW--->NRT made a rolling T/O. Anyway, here is an interesting link.



http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-06-06-ask-the-captain_x.htm

This stupid woman with her goofy looking hair under her hat is, suprise, suprise, a UAL scab. (Check the U.S. master scab list) I hate these people that wear their captain hats/uniforms in pictures attached to their articles which make them sound like "experts."

 

[ptarmigan]

While a static takeoff will give you the manufacturers max performance numbers, there are some real advantages to a rolling takeoff.

First, when I say "rolling" that doesn't mean pushing the throttles up until aligned with the runway, it just means that the brakes aren't held while power is advanced. Taxi on, align like normal, then advance the power. The forward movement while power is advancing reduces stress on the engine (less chance of compressor stall as a result), reduces chance of FOD ingestion and is less wear on the airframe and brakes. The difference in actual runway useage is very small.