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.

 

[Snakum]

I just had a discussion about this on CAAM while preparing to learn a new airplane (C90B). I don't recall ever making but a few static TOs in the B200 and B58, most are rolling, and it made me uncomfortable at first. But the boss always allowed me to roll into perfect alignment before pushing up the power, even if someone else was on final. He says "You don't go till YOU'RE comfortable and the the other guy can just go around if he gets here too soon."

 

[FN FAL]

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."

What's it like looking way up a great big ladder full of stupid people and only seeing their butts?

 

[labbats]

The other thing about static takeoffs is when it's slippery, you could be more prone to sliding around.

 

[AirBadger]

Heres a question, is it easier to set power when you're static? Single pilot in a King Air I would think it would be somewhat difficult from a rolling start to stay centerlined, move the throttle levers forward and be watching the engine instruments at the same time.

 

[ozpilot]

The other thing about static takeoffs is when it's slippery, you could be more prone to sliding around.

Interesting comment. If I suspect the runway may be slippery I always make a static takeoff. If I cannot hold the plane with brakes, we don't go.

I'd rather find out the runway is slippery before I start the takeoff than when I'm racing down the runway and have to abort.

 

[Bjammin]

Alot of fighter type airplanes will slide forward on locked brakes at max power. Kinda tough to do a max power check and wipe out before T/O. I don't think any US fighter can still put in afterburner. Wet runway? forgeta'boutit.

 

[Wiggums]

Early Lears, when light, will also slide when trying to do a static takeoff.

 

[Snakum]

Heres a question, is it easier to set power when you're static? Single pilot in a King Air I would think it would be somewhat difficult from a rolling start to stay centerlined, move the throttle levers forward and be watching the engine instruments at the same time.

It did take a bit of getting used to, especially considering that the power levers on the B200 I fly are not rigged symetrically (left must be 1/2 - 3/4 farther forward for symetrical power). But I am very, very low time and I got used to it, so for most full-time pros it wouldn't be an issue at all, I'd think. The Captains I tag along with all do it quite smoothly, with no thought whatsoever.

 

[coloneldan]

When I was going through recurrent on LR-35's, FlightSafety said you had to have at least 10% more than minimum required to do a rolling takeoff. I think they used the same figure for the 20's also. However, I never saw that in writing anywhere.

I my opinion, if you have enough time in the airplane that you're comfortable, and enough runway for the conditions that you feel safe, there's no reason not to use a rolling takeoff along with a reduced power setting. But, if anything happens, you better be able to stop or clear the obsticle. If not and you survive, there are going to be questions to answer. So, CYA.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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

My understanding is that the 3 minutes is simply the number that the FAA chose to allow for certification...you can sit on the runway with the thrust levers full for 3 minutes before doing your certification takeoffs.

According to my SimCom Hawker book, "When using a rolling takeoff, reduce the available field length by 100 feet." IOW, plan on an extra 100 feet of ground roll. Not that big a deal on most runways.

I'm nowhere near the airplane now, so I can't actually verify that with AFM data, but I'm guessing it's a reasonable facsimile of something in the AFM performance section.

Fly safe!

David