Warning: Your Takeoff rotation may be an accelerated stall manuver

[Quimby]

^^^^^^^^^

What he said.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Ride out of Atlanta and you will change your mind.

I'm ATL based....

 

[wings421]

How about the guys that rotate too slow? No need to take out the approach lights on the opposite end either. For every guy that rotates too fast, there's one the rotates much too slow. Think you can just rotate nice and slow then several seconds past V1 (and VR), chuck an engine (while you're still stuck on the ground "very smoothly rotating") and still make the performance numbers on your data? Think again. Just saying.

 

[hockeypilot44]

On the Airbus, we get a printout after acceleration altitude telling us how fast we rotated. I've never seen anything above 3.4 degrees/sec. I don't think this is as big of an issue as you guys are making it out to be.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

As I recall, on the SF-340 it was pitch at about 3deg/sec to until you got to 10deg. No prob: ~3 seconds.

Then someone somewhere decided you needed to pitch to 15deg. Manuals changed but they left it at 3 seconds for the rotation. If you followed the manual, you were now supposed to rotate at 5deg/sec.

I like what a Captain told me about the 737: At the end of the rotation, you should be steady at V2+20.

 

[BigMeat]

Good points above except for rotating a 737-900 too slow and watching the end of a 10000 foot runway coming at u too fast

 

[rajflyboy]

How about the guys that rotate too slow? No need to take out the approach lights on the opposite end either. For every guy that rotates too fast, there's one the rotates much too slow. Think you can just rotate nice and slow then several seconds past V1 (and VR), chuck an engine (while you're still stuck on the ground "very smoothly rotating") and still make the performance numbers on your data? Think again. Just saying.

Find me an accident report where this came into play??

Some of the guys actually pull G's on there rotations. I was on Delta last week out of Memphis (MD 80). I'm guessing we pulled about 1.5 G's on the rotation. There is no reason for this with paying passengers in the back.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I know that on the 88 there are a few guys that like to yank the yoke in to their chest on rotation. I actually asked a Capt about it. His response was that if you are past Vr there is no possibility of a tail strike.

That said in most other iron here at DAL, you rotate slow. I have never seen a guy yank a 767/757/737 control column. I have never felt that the guy at the controls was nothing more than very careful. With the heavy weights we are flying at, there is no reason for it.

 

[rajflyboy]

I know that on the 88 there are a few guys that like to yank the yoke in to their chest on rotation. I actually asked a Capt about it. His response was that if you are past Vr there is no possibility of a tail strike.

That said in most other iron here at DAL, you rotate slow. I have never seen a guy yank a 767/757/737 control column. I have never felt that the guy at the controls was nothing more than very careful. With the heavy weights we are flying at, there is no reason for it.

I do notice that it normally happens on 88's. Those pilot need to learn how to Fly.

Being past Vr >>> You can still stall the airplane and kill everyone on board.

 

[aewanabe]

This was one of my pet peeves at my regional. Couple of younger guys (not to sterotype, but they were young) liked to yank the jet off the ground. If you fly a CRJ200 or E145 you're in serious danger of an accelerated stall: the risk is far worse in a jet with no LEDs. Problem is, these kids never studied the industry, hadn't read any aerodynamics books, or NTSB reports (think CO DC9 in DEN circa 1987), and just thought they were "having fun".

Have only seen one guy do it here as the E190 is a tailstrike risk if rotated too quickly.

 

[Quimby]

This was one of my pet peeves at my regional. Couple of younger guys (not to sterotype, but they were young) liked to yank the jet off the ground. If you fly a CRJ200 or E145 you're in serious danger of an accelerated stall: the risk is far worse in a jet with no LEDs. Problem is, these kids never studied the industry, hadn't read any aerodynamics books, or NTSB reports (think CO DC9 in DEN circa 1987), and just thought they were "having fun".

Have only seen one guy do it here as the E190 is a tailstrike risk if rotated too quickly.

Just like the PCL guys in the CRJ @ 410.

 

[rajflyboy]

This was one of my pet peeves at my regional. Couple of younger guys (not to sterotype, but they were young) liked to yank the jet off the ground. If you fly a CRJ200 or E145 you're in serious danger of an accelerated stall: the risk is far worse in a jet with no LEDs. Problem is, these kids never studied the industry, hadn't read any aerodynamics books, or NTSB reports (think CO DC9 in DEN circa 1987), and just thought they were "having fun".

Have only seen one guy do it here as the E190 is a tailstrike risk if rotated too quickly.

Good Post !!!!!!!!!!

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Funny thing is that the m88 has the highest initial deck angle of any of the jets that DAL flies. (DC-9 I am guessing too)

You literally pitch up to 20 degrees NU.

I did a slow rotation a few times in it and a slightly faster rotation works better. Not like the 767/777/744/330 and other heavies where slow is the preferred choice.

 

[JT12345]

Just like the PCL guys in the CRJ @ 410.

You shouldn't be a d!ck when you talk about dead people. Bad karma. Brings bad luck. Your feked up.

 

[JT12345]

This was one of my pet peeves at my regional. Couple of younger guys (not to sterotype, but they were young) liked to yank the jet off the ground. If you fly a CRJ200 or E145 you're in serious danger of an accelerated stall: the risk is far worse in a jet with no LEDs. Problem is, these kids never studied the industry, hadn't read any aerodynamics books, or NTSB reports (think CO DC9 in DEN circa 1987), and just thought they were "having fun".

Have only seen one guy do it here as the E190 is a tailstrike risk if rotated too quickly.

There are pilots out there that think you can not excede V2+10 or you do not meet your Part 25 2-engine performance. I don't understand where they are getting this from when I have FAA Advisory Circulars to the contrary about rate of pitch during rotation to a target pitch.

The CRJ-200 during a Flex takeoff in the summer will climb below green line Vs 1.25 if you yank it off the ground at 7 degrees/sec. You won't accelerate past it till you lower the nose. At 3 degrees/sec it will be nicly above Green line at about V2+20 to 25.

 

[bubbers44]

About the only airport I could justify a rotation rate so as to not exceed V2+10 is SNA. Not because of safety but to not set off the noise abatement sensors on the departure path. They were very serious about those sensor readings. We had a lot of tail strikes overdoing the rotation there. It took the DC 10 crash at ORD to show what slowing to V2+10 can do under special situations.

 

[rajflyboy]

About the only airport I could justify a rotation rate so as to not exceed V2+10 is SNA. Not because of safety but to not set off the noise abatement sensors on the departure path. They were very serious about those sensor readings. We had a lot of tail strikes overdoing the rotation there. It took the DC 10 crash at ORD to show what slowing to V2+10 can do under special situations.

SNA

"an accident waiting to happen"

 

[UALRATT]

Find me an accident report where this came into play??

Some of the guys actually pull G's on there rotations. I was on Delta last week out of Memphis (MD 80). I'm guessing we pulled about 1.5 G's on the rotation. There is no reason for this with paying passengers in the back.

Why do you need an accident to prove that something is dangerous? I'll do better that an accident report. The link is from the experts at Boeing and I value their recommendations...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_09/article_04_1.html

If we all follow the manufacturers recommendations this will certainly not be a discussion. There is a valid answer to each of these questions which is often masked by personal opinion. A thorough understanding of why we do what we do goes a long way to ensuring the correct procedures are followed every time.

 

[rajflyboy]

Boeing publishes a recommended all-engine normal takeoff procedure in the Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM) for 727, 737 Classic, and Next-Generation 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 models and in the Flight Crew Operations Manual for 717, MD, and DC models. In order to avoid tire-speed-limit exceedance during takeoff, Boeing stresses adhering to the recom­mended average all-engine takeoff rotation rate of 2 to 3 degrees per second, which provides adequate tail clearance margins with a target liftoff attitude reached after approximately 3 to 4 seconds


I agree. Read what it says! 2 to 3 degrees per second. Some of these guys on the 80's are reaching 20 degree's pich in 3 to 5 seconds. It should be taking them 7 to 10 seconds to reach that pich attitude.

Something else that I don't think people are figuring is that you are definately above your computed takeoff weight on most takeoffs. Standard winter and summer weight plus checked baggage weights are probably much lower than your actual weights for each. This means that your takeoff speeds are more than likely too low. Another reason why you don't want to jerk the thing off the ground!

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Something else that I don't think people are figuring is that you are definately above your computed takeoff weight on most takeoffs. Standard winter and summer weight plus checked baggage weights are probably much lower than your actual weights for each. This means that your takeoff speeds are more than likely too low. Another reason why you don't want to jerk the thing off the ground!

What make you think that? Do have any data to support this?