Over the weekend, a Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787 had an accident while taking off on a long haul flight from Germany to Vietnam. Fortunately no one was injured, though this has to be one of the most unusual and terrifying close calls we’ve seen in a long time.
I’d like to post a recap of what happened and an update, because the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam (CAAV) has just released its preliminary report into this incident, and it only deepens the mystery.
In this post:
Vietnam Airlines 787 struggles to take off on very long runway
This incident happened on Saturday, August 15, 2026, and involves Vietnam Airlines flight VN34, scheduled to fly from Munich (MUC) to Hanoi (HAN). The flight was operated by a 10-year-old Boeing 787-9 with the registration code VN-A867.
At 1:57PM local time, the plane started its takeoff roll on runway 26L, which is 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) long. This is about as long as commercial runways get, so it’s way longer than what even a fully loaded Dreamliner would need.
However, something went seriously wrong with this takeoff. The plane accelerated down the runway… and kept accelerating, and accelerating, and accelerating. Eventually the plane overran the end of the runway, causing damage to runway lights. In the video you can see that huge clouds of dust rose around the aircraft, as the tail struck the ground.
Fortunately the plane did manage to become airborne, though the crew immediately declared an emergency. The plane climbed to 10,000 feet, and the crew reported that they had an indicator that they had an issue with tire pressure.
The plane circled around the area for around 90 minutes (either to burn or dump fuel), at which point the aircraft performed two low approaches over the runway, so damage could be assessed.
Then the plane landed on runway 26R on the third approach, and it became disabled on the runway, closing the runway for an extended period of time. That landing was at 3:57PM, two hours after the plane first took off.
There’s even video footage from inside the cabin during the takeoff.
Then there are pictures showing the tire damage and tail strike after the plane returned to Munich.
I think it’s safe to assume that this plane will be on the ground for quite some time, and isn’t going anywhere any time soon…
Preliminary report gives some clues about what happened
Looking at the video of the takeoff, there’s nothing that stands out to me as being particularly unusual. It looks like the plane is accelerating decently, the flaps are in use, etc. But the plane just keeps going and going.
On the surface, it’s hard to comprehend what could’ve happened here. If the pilots felt something was off during the takeoff roll, they’d logically abort the takeoff. And a 13,000+ foot runway is particularly long, so they should’ve had a major buffer here.
Typically when we see incidents like this, it’s because the takeoff performance for the plane wasn’t calculated correctly. Did the crew not have the right “numbers” for this flight when determining takeoff performance? It appears there may be a little bit more to this.
While we’ll have to wait some time for a full investigation to be performed, Vietnamese authorities have released some preliminary details about the incident, based on flight data and interviews with the pilots:
- Around halfway down the runway, the pilots noticed that the speed stopped increasing for around two seconds
- The plane then reached the V1 speed (“the point of no return,” the speed at which pilots commit to taking off), but then the speed dropped again
- The pilots decided there wasn’t enough runway left to reject the takeoff, so they increased engine power and rotated the plane, with around 91 meters (299 feet) remaining
- At that point the 787 left the paved runway, had a tail strike, and four of the main gear tires lost pressure
- At the time of the incident, the plane weighed 240 tons, under its maximum takeoff weight of 247.2 tons, and the weather was good
This preliminary report does somewhat explain how this issue is likely more complex than just incorrect weight calculations. The investigation is now about why the plane didn’t continue to gain speed during its takeoff roll. We also now understand why the pilots reportedly didn’t abort the takeoff, since they reached their V1 speed.
I think we also have to acknowledge how close this was to being a catastrophe. Imagine if the plane was just a little bit slower, and then ended up in the grass, where it would almost certainly not have been able to gain speed and then get airborne anymore. Everyone onboard that flight should be grateful to be alive.
Bottom line
A Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787 had a seriously messed up takeoff from Munich, as the plane overran the runway on takeoff, causing it to damage runway lights and strike its tail, with huge clouds of dust rising. When the plane came back to land, it also had serious issues with its tires, and the full damage of the tail strike was discovered.
Particularly given how long Munich Airport’s runway is, this is a really wild incident. A preliminary report suggests that during the takeoff roll, the pilots noticed that the plane stopped gaining speed, and at one point, even slowed down a bit. However, at that point the pilots felt they no longer had enough runway to stop.
This could’ve had a much worse ending. I’m curious to see what we learn as the investigation continues…
What do you make of this Vietnam Airlines runway overrun in Munich?
Whether flying a General Aviation aircraft or a Part 121/135 aircraft, there's an unwritten "rule" called "50/70". V1, not withstanding, if the aircraft has not accelerated to 70% of VR by the time you reach 50% of the runway length, you need to STOP! There's another couple of speeds that we review before the takeoff. 80K is for two things: It provides a visual that the aircraft airspeed indicators are functioning AND they agree on...
Whether flying a General Aviation aircraft or a Part 121/135 aircraft, there's an unwritten "rule" called "50/70". V1, not withstanding, if the aircraft has not accelerated to 70% of VR by the time you reach 50% of the runway length, you need to STOP! There's another couple of speeds that we review before the takeoff. 80K is for two things: It provides a visual that the aircraft airspeed indicators are functioning AND they agree on speed. It also delineates the "low speed" vs "high speed" abort procedures. V1, you gotta fly (BUT there is a caveat), VR, rotation and V2 (single engine climb speed) and V2+20 (single engine maneuvering speed). Up to 80K we will discontinue the takeoff for just about anything. Between 80K and V1, we will discontinue takeoff for any fire or fire warning, an engine failure, fear that the jet won't fly and a direct wind shear alert. After V1, we will abort ONLY if we fear the jet won't fly OR no runway left to fly. That's where the balanced field length (already figured into the various airspeeds) is considered. Rather than do the math, the "50/70" rule will work. A low speed abort, the crew will talk among themselves and with company maintenance as to whether to try the takeoff again or go back to the gate. A high speed abort...back to the gate PERIOD either under power or towed in.
boeing 787 wonderbox ?!
terrible manufacture nowadays...
I would imagine the Europeans are doing their own investigation and they will get to the issue of what really went on.
If there is an allegation of potential engine failure or misoperation, I am sure GE will be involved pretty quickly to understand what happened.
Glad to see the pilots aren't being blamed for the fuel switches this time... Goodness me if anyone points a finger at the manufacturer; gotta protect those Boeing/GE profits/bonuses. The 'ghost braking' theory is interesting, but surely there's nothing to worry about... keep flying Dreamliners assembled in South Carolina to dodge WA labor laws. What could go wrong? Nothing. Obviously.
Yes, there are reports that there was breaking action on one MLG about 210 meters before the end of the runway, I saw that from The Aviation Herald, that is normally pretty reputable. That is probably not what prevented the aircraft from taking off some where along the other 3790 meters of runway it passed before that.
But let's see what the investigation will say.
I couldn't find the reference to "ghost braking" but if it was meant to mean toes pressing on the rudder pedals, the slightest "push" on the top of the pedals will disarm the RTO (rejected take off) braking system (and on landing, the auto brake system). I tell the pilots to drop their heels to the floor when steering the aircraft on takeoff. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HELP THE RTO stop the jet!! On landing,...
I couldn't find the reference to "ghost braking" but if it was meant to mean toes pressing on the rudder pedals, the slightest "push" on the top of the pedals will disarm the RTO (rejected take off) braking system (and on landing, the auto brake system). I tell the pilots to drop their heels to the floor when steering the aircraft on takeoff. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HELP THE RTO stop the jet!! On landing, just use the rudder pedals for steering and at about 90k reduce the reverse throttles to idle and at 60K stow the reversers (helps prevent FOD getting sucked into the engine. Continue to let the auto brakes do their job as deemed necessary. Then, tap them off with a quick jab at the brake pedals. For what it's worth RTO braking applies more brake pressure than both pilots and all four feet pressing on the top part of the rudder pedals can exert. The RTO braking is a "four coupon Disney ride". If initiated above 80K, it will leave you shaking in your boots, need to find a restroom really quick and go back to home or the hotel. SCARY is an understatement (even in the simulator!) BUT beats the hell out of a funeral home! We rehearse is ALL THE TIME!! Every aircraft comes with a putty knife to be used if either one of the pilots doesn't have the shoulder harness secured. We use it to scrape the other guy's face off the windscreen!
couldn't find the reference to "ghost braking" but if it was meant to mean toes pressing on the rudder pedals, the slightest "push" on the top of the pedals will disarm the RTO (rejected take off) braking system (and on landing, the auto brake system). I tell the pilots to drop their heels to the floor when steering the aircraft on takeoff. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HELP THE RTO stop the jet!! On landing, just...
couldn't find the reference to "ghost braking" but if it was meant to mean toes pressing on the rudder pedals, the slightest "push" on the top of the pedals will disarm the RTO (rejected take off) braking system (and on landing, the auto brake system). I tell the pilots to drop their heels to the floor when steering the aircraft on takeoff. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HELP THE RTO stop the jet!! On landing, just use the rudder pedals for steering and at about 90k reduce the reverse throttles to idle and at 60K stow the reversers (helps prevent FOD getting sucked into the engine. Continue to let the auto brakes do their job as deemed necessary. Then, tap them off with a quick jab at the brake pedals. For what it's worth RTO braking applies more brake pressure than both pilots and all four feet pressing on the top part of the rudder pedals can exert. The RTO braking is a "four coupon Disney ride". If initiated above 80K, it will leave you shaking in your boots, need to find a restroom really quick and go back to home or the hotel. SCARY is an understatement (even in the simulator!) BUT beats the hell out of a funeral home! We rehearse is ALL THE TIME!! Every aircraft comes with a putty knife to be used if either one of the pilots doesn't have the shoulder harness secured. We use it to scrape the other guy's face off the windscreen!
ISn't there is a video somewhere from airport vehicle showing breaking marks close to the end of the runway.
Anyway, preliminary report is due soon - this will tell
BRAKING not breaking
You could say, the braking may be breaking the runway...
Gross incompetence from both pilots. Set off down the runway, then pick up a magazine and read it expecting the computer to send the plane safely into the air? Morons.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. The cause is now known, thank you.
Oh! Which magazine was it? Just curious. Vietnam Week? Playboy? Blueboy?
:)
Boy...that's a completely uneducated remark. Obviously you are 1: not a pilot and, if so 2: obviously not trained under FAR Part 121/135 here in the US.
The video with the inside view on the right hand side of the aircraft is so scary. You can see the grass and that the plane has not yet taken off.
Paid for whole runway; use whole runway.
See my comments above. But, I kinda smiled at the "use the whole runway"!
Normal acceleration but at 138kn brakes at the back, left side probably kicked in.
A view from inside the plane. That takeoff roll is alarmingly long.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vietnamairlines-aviationnews-munichairport-ugcPost-7494723846491533312-u-jc/
and they didn't start at the beginning
the real kicker is hearing the plane take out the runway end lights
Well, Tiny Handed Timmy, since you now say you’ve been in a WB cockpit (just not in the Captain’s seat…DL job dismissal prob held you back), why don’t with your expert pilot POV walk us what should have been done?
Inquiring minds want to know! Cause surely know indicate you know better than *active actual pilots*.
abort
A proper pilot doesn’t just “abort”. There are likely strict protocols to follow. They probably had thousands of hours of training at that point. They know what they are doing (unlike a failed analyst).
Since you in all your “expertise” tried to put Pilot Paul in his place - pray tell why don’t you tell us more specifics on the process?
The real 'kicker' in these videos taken from inside the plane is how relatively silent the passengers are, realizing (or not) how close to death they all were. Not even a 'what was that?' or a 'did you see how close we were!' (in German/Vietnamese, naturally).
This could have ended a lot worse, lucky escape for all onboard at the end of the day.
Feel that way every time I fly.
It was a particularly hot day in MUC. I wonder if that could have played a part leading to incorrect calculations.
Apparently it was merely a "technical issue" according to the airline. Is that like when the ac isn't working?
Oh and "The flight crew followed all prescribed procedures and landed safely at Munich Airport. All passengers were escorted to the terminal."
Nothing to see here
https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnam-airlines-flight-returns-to-munich-over-technical-issue-carrier-post350142.vnp
Ben, I never cease to be amazed at how a subset of your followers feel the need to chime in incessantly, on almost every controversial post, are then put in their place by one of your many expert followers, only to then double down with even more of their drivel.
Yes, you see it all the time with a *failed analyst* who somehow thinks he knows better than actual pilots.
@JHS....I Couldn't agree more!!
Very similar to what happened to Emirates EK407 in 2009. The wrong weight was entered, and the A340 only just managed to lift off but, still had runway lights puncture the skin of the aircraft. Then obviously returned to MEL for major work.
787 dreamliner is a problematic airliner it had initial lithium battery troubles. every airline who had bought this 787 had problems
airindia flight 171 crash is an "unsolved" mystery
it is due to sabotage done by some one to the hydraulic system
which disabled the aircraft from climbing up and loss of
fuel supply to the engines. a similar sabotage was done by
a maintenance man in the engineering hangar...
787 dreamliner is a problematic airliner it had initial lithium battery troubles. every airline who had bought this 787 had problems
airindia flight 171 crash is an "unsolved" mystery
it is due to sabotage done by some one to the hydraulic system
which disabled the aircraft from climbing up and loss of
fuel supply to the engines. a similar sabotage was done by
a maintenance man in the engineering hangar night shift
that aircraft was supposed to go to new delhi from bombay
next morning and pick up the former prime minister
india gandhi to singapore that flight was cancelled due to
damage. then the p m office and civil aviation minister
asked the former managing director/CEO of airindia
mr k g appuswamy who was a licensed 747 engineer
to visit the hanger and submit a report. he gave clear
report that it was a sabotage to the hydraulic system
hence the plane cannot climb up. I am aware of it well
that might be a tad much but UA did have to send a recent 787 back to Boeing.
AA has had similar major problems w/ their recent 787 deliveries.
The actuators that control the fuel valves (not to be confused with the switches in the cockpit) on the 787 are electric and have absolutely nothing to do with the hydraulic system. Good spin effort though.
Correct!! Now the fire switches...different story!! :)
Methinks I would like a puff of whatever you are smoking.
Methinks I would like a puff of whatever you are smoking.
Didnt know that a loss of fuel to the engine would also automatically turn of the physical fuel cut off switches?
Time to tone the nationalistic drivel and conspiracy theories down a bit and look at the cold hard facts.
Another scheme by communist countries to make a fool of the US. They would never do that to an Airbus. US should ban Vietnam Air from flying Beoings going forward.
You're deranged.
See a mental health doctor asap!
Quit watching Fox. Oh, and seek help for your mental issues.
What other countries/Airlines should be banned from flying "Beoings" going forward, in view of your esteemed intellect?
I am sure "Beoing" will appreciate their customer pool narrowing even as they struggle to keep apace with Airbus.
Anyone else surprised that the flight (to nowhere) lasted that long?
If in the first few minutes of a take off there’s a tail strike, is it common to have pursued the original flight trajectory for that long?
Possible I’m missing something!
Look at the map in the article, the flight didn't follow the original trajectory at all but rather spent entire time in holding patterns around Munich in order to dump fuel. Additionally, when the emergency isn't urgent in terms of affecting the plane's ability to fly, it is a good practice for pilots to take time to analyse the situation and prepare and brief the emergency landing. And finally, as far as I understood, they...
Look at the map in the article, the flight didn't follow the original trajectory at all but rather spent entire time in holding patterns around Munich in order to dump fuel. Additionally, when the emergency isn't urgent in terms of affecting the plane's ability to fly, it is a good practice for pilots to take time to analyse the situation and prepare and brief the emergency landing. And finally, as far as I understood, they also done a low pass (or two?) above MUC before actual landing for the ground personnel to observe and relay the state of the aircraft.
Ok that makes sense, thanks.
Since a lot of those circles were over populated areas, I doubt they were dumping fuel, it is kind of frowned upon over populated areas. The aircraft crossed the absolute centre of Munich 3 times. Then again you don't burn that much fuel in a little less than two hours. So I'd think they would have needed to lighten the load....
I'm also seeing a report of punctures in both the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. I'm not enough of an avgeek to have any idea what could have caused something like that.
https://www.threads.com/share/BBelZgsPh7/
If the tires shredded when they overran, then a piece of one could have been flung up and caused damage.
Agree with @Miguel_R, in the landing video you can see tire chunks flying everywhere. As we well know from prior accidents even small pieces of that dense rubber with high energy can inflict major damage.
My impeccably informed, super deep technical insight leads me to conclude that a B789 decided to do a A343 impression for its Insta account and got distracted and ran out of runway.
My first off the cuff guess is they forgot the flaps until halfway down the runway…. then they realized,..
but I can’t imagine a 787 is not set up to alert you in such cases…?
The B787 does have that safety feature to warn the crew of a flap setting that does not agree with the take off data, however, if the data input was incorrect in any way then the the take off data output would also be incorrect and therefore a moot point.
First impression is incorrect data in the box - wrong takeoff weight or bad assumed temp are the two most-likely culprits that would produce too low of a takeoff power setting, resulting in the overrun.
Why the pilots didn't catch it can come down to experience (true at ANY airline, in ANY country). Vietnam airlines has been flying the 787 since 2015 so they have lots of time with it, but every pilot has a...
First impression is incorrect data in the box - wrong takeoff weight or bad assumed temp are the two most-likely culprits that would produce too low of a takeoff power setting, resulting in the overrun.
Why the pilots didn't catch it can come down to experience (true at ANY airline, in ANY country). Vietnam airlines has been flying the 787 since 2015 so they have lots of time with it, but every pilot has a period where a plane is new to them. You might have plenty of training, but you can have very little experience. If you're only on your 10th takeoff ever instead of your 100th, it's harder to instinctively recognize that "something's not right" when the performance calculations return a derated takeoff setting of 85% when it should have been 92%.
This wasn't an overloaded cargo flight from a sketchy fly-by-night operator with 40-year-old planes. My money's on inaccurate performance data sent to the pilots (wrong zero fuel weight) or inaccurate performance data entered by the pilots (zero fuel weight entered as the takeoff weight, and/or wrong assumed temp for the derated thrust setting).
accurate statements but when you are on a 13K foot runway and you are halfway down and aren't close to being able to rotate esp. in a modern, well powered jet like a 787, something is wrong and the takeoff should have been aborted.
how many widebody aborts have you done?
Tiny Tim, you’re a failed analyst, not an actual pilot. Sit down.
Please, Tim - I'm 100% confident the only time you've spent in a widebody is watching a movie in business class. How many aborts have I done in any widebody? Or any turbine powered aircraft, for that matter? Lost count. I do them multiple times in the sim each recurrent training cycle. Simulated bird strikes, engine surges, wind shear, cargo/engine fires, engine failures, gear collapses, runway incursions, and on and on and on. I've done...
Please, Tim - I'm 100% confident the only time you've spent in a widebody is watching a movie in business class. How many aborts have I done in any widebody? Or any turbine powered aircraft, for that matter? Lost count. I do them multiple times in the sim each recurrent training cycle. Simulated bird strikes, engine surges, wind shear, cargo/engine fires, engine failures, gear collapses, runway incursions, and on and on and on. I've done all these and more in the sim literally more times than I can count. I'm betting you've done zero, and never had to actually sit in the seat, with contradictory information staring you in the face, and with literally seconds to figure out what is really happening and how to appropriately react.
Any study of accident and incident history produces NUMEROUS examples of crews doing inexplicable things because of incorrect settings and a misunderstanding of what the automation is telling you, vs. what makes sense. You can't substitute training for experience at any airline in any country, and inexperience continues to produce examples.
The Emirates 777 takeoff in December of 2021 immediately comes to mind. The altitude selector was set to "0000" at setup, the F/O reported setting it to "4000" (initial climb clearance altitude) - but both pilots missed that the Flight Director mode remained in Altitude Hold (captured from the original "0000" feet setting). They took off, but the First Officer started following flight director commands (which was trying to return the plane back down to 0000' altitude, because it was still in Alt Hold), and instead of climbing out normally, only entered a shallow climb of 800' fpm max, and only cleared a residential area just off the airport by less than 200 feet. All because the pilot was following the (incorrectly programmed and set) automation guidance, instead of realizing "this doesn't feel right" and setting the pitch at 10 to 15 degrees for a normal climb.
So, yeah, Tim - it happens. More than you'd guess. Yes, of course, the takeoff should have been aborted. But the more we train pilots to just "trust the automation" the more we will see incidents like this one.
When I learned to fly decades ago, we were always taught to "trust but verify". You crosschecked your instruments ALWAYS to be sure what you were being told by one makes sense. I don't see that being emphasized in the industry as much anymore, and this incident is often the result.
I'll wait for any final reports to come out before 100% passing judgement on what happened here, but "incorrectly entered data" is still the most likely culprit.
of course sHIT happens. that's why pilots working for top notch carriers go to the simulator and recurrent; I presume that includes you.
Cameras are everywhere now.
and you know that one of the greatest challenges in high tech aircraft is inputting wrong data and not questioning if something doesn't look right in reality. when you are 8K feet down a 13K foot runway in a new technology aircraft like a 789 you...
of course sHIT happens. that's why pilots working for top notch carriers go to the simulator and recurrent; I presume that includes you.
Cameras are everywhere now.
and you know that one of the greatest challenges in high tech aircraft is inputting wrong data and not questioning if something doesn't look right in reality. when you are 8K feet down a 13K foot runway in a new technology aircraft like a 789 you should be in the air or well into the rotation.
of course we should wait for final reports but cockpit recorders provide so much data that it won't take time to figure out what happened w/ a pretty high degree of certainty.
btw, I have a lot of respect for seasoned pilots. I have a lot less for anyone that tries to blindly copy failed arguments from those that are trying desperately to refuse to admit that another airline does something, in fact a whole lot of things, better than "yours"
Play YOUR part and we'll get along just fine.
Tiny Hands Timmy, let the aviation professionals do the real work and analysis, unlike past-their-prime failed keyboard jockeys such as yourself.
"Tiny Hands Timmy, let the aviation professionals do the real work and analysis..."
"I'lL LeT tHe DaTa sPeAk FoR iTsElF bEcAuSe I aM daTa PeOpLe AnD I kNoW eVeRyThIng So I dOn'T hAvE tO lEaRn AnYtHiNg!!!!!1!!!!!!!!"
-T. Dunn, Soon
He WILL need to get the last word on this thread, just like every other thread that threatens him with knowledge he doesn't possess.
yep, I will.
So WTH did you think you would succeed at your comment?
If Paul is truly an Air Transport pilot in the US, he is a professional
you and your ilk are just paid internet rabblerousers that are consistently wrong in your support for UA.
Paul's only mistake was blindly copying the non-sense posted from your buds.
Timcel, isn’t it sad that your pathetic life is defined by the profitability of a corporation? Holy fck you are a sad little weak twat. Go touch grass.
Hey Tim - to elaborate:
"that's why pilots working for top notch carriers go to the simulator and recurrent"
Actually, all pilots do that. Not just the pilots at "top notch" carriers.
But I wanted to elaborate on something else. It's easy for BOTH you and I to say, "They just should have aborted the takeoff" - but it's actually far more complicated than that. Again, I include myself in the criticism of saying,...
Hey Tim - to elaborate:
"that's why pilots working for top notch carriers go to the simulator and recurrent"
Actually, all pilots do that. Not just the pilots at "top notch" carriers.
But I wanted to elaborate on something else. It's easy for BOTH you and I to say, "They just should have aborted the takeoff" - but it's actually far more complicated than that. Again, I include myself in the criticism of saying, "they should have aborted". Here's why:
Takeoff performance for your flight, as a pilot, is given in a power setting (Engine N1) and takeoff speeds (V1, Vr, V2). You are not given the expected runway takeoff length. You only know below V1, you should be able to stop for any reason. Above V1, you should be able to continue the takeoff and clear obstacles, even if you lose one engine right at V1.
You are not told, and you have no idea, how many feet down the runway you'll hit that decision point (V1) on that given day.
And even though experience helps (which was my point) there can be significant, planned differences between two takeoffs - even at the same weight and ambient temp - when the performance plan intentionally "unbalances" the field (the runway).
A "balanced" takeoff is when the "accelerate-stop" and "accelerate-go" distances are the same. And on a very short runway, they often need to be.
But if you have a very long runway, you might be able to force a later stop point (longer "accelerate-stop") because that also gives you more energy in the "accelerate-go" scenario. IOW, if you normally need to start the abort at 6,000' to stop on a 9,000' runway, but today you're taking off from a 12,000' runway... you can now start the abort at maybe 8,200' to safely stop. And that extra time accelerating between 6,000' and 8,200' to a faster speed is extra initial climb performance if you lose an engine, right after the 8,200' point.
In this situation, an unbalanced runway is giving you a forced, higher V1, which means you spent more time accelerating "flat" on the runway, so you're faster at rotation and you carry more energy into the first stage climb and can better meet the single engine climb criteria. Remember, performance data is all about the worst case scenario - what if you lose an engine at the worst possible time?
By "unbalancing" the runway, the better single engine stage one performance may mean you can carry more weight (so the airline is making more money). That's why it's done, and all airlines do it.
Here's how this is relevant to this flight: A crew isn't really told if today's performance data is based on an unbalanced field or not! They don't know if the takeoff speeds are slightly higher to get better Stage 1 performance, or if the engine N1 settings are slightly lower to reduce engine wear - with normal V speeds - and rotation will not occur until about 2,000' remains on the runway (which can be normal, even on a long runway, FYI).
Again, all the crew is given are the three V speeds and the takeoff power setting. They didn't know where V1 is expected to be reached.
So when a crew realizes "Something's not right!" as the end of the runway gets rapidly close while the airspeed isn't accelerating like they'd want - they don't know: WHICH SIDE OF THE "REAL" V1 ARE THEY ON?
That's the problem - once you recognize the data is bad, you don't know if you still have enough runway left to stop - because you didn't know the correct V1 speed! And you don't know if you have enough remaining runway to accelerate to an unknown rotation speed to clear any obstacles, because you didn't know the correct Vr, and you likely didn't have the correct power setting for that speed anyhow!
So a pilot, faced with this "oh S###!" situation, has literally seconds to make a guess of it's safe to stop, or safe to continue - and it's possible if the takeoff settings are really inaccurate, neither may be possible.
What's the answer to prevent this?
1) Strict adherence to the established, approved procedures of the company to verify given weights, settings, and performance data. When an error occurs and isn't caught, it's often because the crew was rushed or didn't follow the company procedures.
2) Experience to recognize as early as possible when something doesn't make sense - and to intervene immediately when this happens. What we are not hearing about are the times it's being caught by crews during pushback or taxi out ("The planned takeoff weight went down by 125,000 pounds? That can't be right!"). That's when experience is saving the day.
First, I like you wearing the pilot hat much more than trying to get into aviation business and finance issues esp. since on those you have just copied other people’s data and arguments.
Specific to this discussion, being a pilot in any aircraft is more than just inputting data and being subject to the whims of a high tech machine. Yes, you are absolutely correct that pilots of high tech, cutting edge planes like the...
First, I like you wearing the pilot hat much more than trying to get into aviation business and finance issues esp. since on those you have just copied other people’s data and arguments.
Specific to this discussion, being a pilot in any aircraft is more than just inputting data and being subject to the whims of a high tech machine. Yes, you are absolutely correct that pilots of high tech, cutting edge planes like the 787 – and all Airbus airliners – have to get data entry right but there is also common sense that comes with experience to know when something is wrong and to stop the process before there is harm to people or damage to property.
A modern aircraft on a 13,000 foot runway even on a fully loaded flight should not have gone 10,000 feet down the runway before the pilots realized something was wrong. It was precisely the inability of those pilots to recognize what went wrong that as much damage to property occurred – thankfully w/o a loss of life or injury thanks to the resilience of what Boeing engineered into the 787.
General aviation pilots interestingly often have to use far more judgment than air transport pilots because there isn’t a level of conformity in procedures or the assistance of computers that air transport pilots often have. In this case, a GA pilot’s use of the 30/70 or 50/70 guideline would and should indicate that something is wrong. GA pilots make more mistakes per rata than air transport pilots which is why standardization and extensive technical support is used to help minimize what happened here. Even data input errors or mechanical issues produce signs that should be caught by judgment rather than just waiting until damage is done or lives are lost or injured. It is precisely because judgment kicks in that data errors which you acknowledge happen more than many know or mechanical problems don’t turn into what happened on this VN flight.
And, yes, all kinds of pilots do go through training but there are always companies and regulators that do a better job than others and there are pilots that don’t do what they were taught or don’t have the right instincts when judgment is required.
Well, Tim - we've come a long way from "Have you ever flown an arrival into ATL?" to here. At least you appear to believe that I am an actual airline pilot. Thanks for the permission to comment on articles related to aircraft operations.
As to your dislike of my takes on financial and company system statistics and trends (on time stats, cancellations, baggage handling, GAAP vs non-GAAP financials, etc.) I'm going to continue to...
Well, Tim - we've come a long way from "Have you ever flown an arrival into ATL?" to here. At least you appear to believe that I am an actual airline pilot. Thanks for the permission to comment on articles related to aircraft operations.
As to your dislike of my takes on financial and company system statistics and trends (on time stats, cancellations, baggage handling, GAAP vs non-GAAP financials, etc.) I'm going to continue to call you out when I believe you are wrong, thank you very much. You don't have a monopoly at all in that department, and your inability to say almost anything positive about any of Delta's competitors shows how biased you are. The fact that you are exclusively "Delta is killing it!" is an obvious tell that your contributions are not "analysis" but rather "propaganda". TASS would be proud, and somewhere Baghdad Bob is smiling.
I still haven't figured out how, by your analysis, Delta can fly 540,000 fewer revenue passengers in the three NYC airports (JFK, LGA, and EWR) Year-Over-Year and you still stick to the claim that Delta is "doing better than ever" in the NYC market. With a +/- 80% load factor and additional seats to sell, and an average domestic ticket price of +/- $250, you'd think Delta would have wanted that extra $135M of revenue and extra $10M of profit. But who am I to judge?
if this is all you get
"The fact that you are exclusively "Delta is killing it!" "
then your glasses are scratched.
If you can't figure out that volume is not the only metric of success, esp. for a for-profit company, then you disqualify yourself from discussions about for-profit companies.
There are many companies that generate less volume and produce better financial results.
DL simply has chosen the path that it flies less...
if this is all you get
"The fact that you are exclusively "Delta is killing it!" "
then your glasses are scratched.
If you can't figure out that volume is not the only metric of success, esp. for a for-profit company, then you disqualify yourself from discussions about for-profit companies.
There are many companies that generate less volume and produce better financial results.
DL simply has chosen the path that it flies less and generates far more non-transportation revenue and ends up w/ more revenue and more profits in the process.
The fact that you have copied the same arguments that others make doesn't do anything to enhance your credibility.
btw, yes, I have been in the cockpit of multiple widebodies - but just not at the controls. I don't have an ATP.
very glad there are cameras everywhere and spotters around the world that catch stuff like this.
the flight recorders most certainly were pulled and German/European investigators will know very quickly what went wrong.
Ben is correct that they should have rotated long before they finally realized they were at the end of a very long runway and caused a tail strike trying to finally get the plane into the air.
The tire problems were undoubtedly...
very glad there are cameras everywhere and spotters around the world that catch stuff like this.
the flight recorders most certainly were pulled and German/European investigators will know very quickly what went wrong.
Ben is correct that they should have rotated long before they finally realized they were at the end of a very long runway and caused a tail strike trying to finally get the plane into the air.
The tire problems were undoubtedly because of hitting objects on the ground.
You're obviously not a pilot. You can't rotate early if you don't have sufficient speed for your weight and flap setting! Which they obviously didn't!
the point is that they should have realized long before 10,000 feet that their speed was not what it should be not that they should have rotated before Vr
The most important question however is whether they served lunch considering the flight duration of over two hours :P
Not really funny!
Even just watching the first video with the timing, the plane is already well into its takeoff roll at the start, and it doesn't even start to rotate until the :42 mark. Personally, I've never been on a flight where the takeoff run was >50 seconds, but that's just my experience and and is not, clearly, science.
Either way, that's one helluva' long takeoff run, and it's a huge relief that this didn't end catastrophically.
Could it be wrong flap setting? In any case, Vietnam is an enemy country that still embraces Communism. They should pay reparations to the United States.
That's a great take!
That said, let's withhold judgment until Alert chimes in about it as well. I suspect he'll suggest that the plane was overladen with girl food, and that a 50% reduction in global airline activity will solve the problem.
What kind of moron are you? The US committed countless war crimes in Vietnam including poisoning of vast areas with agent orange with terrible consequences until today. The US never took responsibility for that. Vietnamese people would have every right to be upset about Americans. They aren't which shows their great attitude sharply in contrast to people like you!
Btw. Vietnam and the US have a good relationship today. A few days ago the USS...
What kind of moron are you? The US committed countless war crimes in Vietnam including poisoning of vast areas with agent orange with terrible consequences until today. The US never took responsibility for that. Vietnamese people would have every right to be upset about Americans. They aren't which shows their great attitude sharply in contrast to people like you!
Btw. Vietnam and the US have a good relationship today. A few days ago the USS George Washington visited Da Nang. This was the fourth visit of an US aircraft carrier in Vietnam. You should realize that the war enden more than 50 years ago and that the Mc Carthy area is over even longer.
"....the USS George Washington visited Da Nang..."
And now it's heading for the ME, leaving no US carrier in Asia, because, you know, the fat orange Nazi doesn't want to upset his dictator-lover, Kim Jong-Un...or Jina, for that matter.
Welcome to the new US forever war.
And Yurop is now also the enemy according to your demented and incontinent lawd and savior, right? So it makes sense that these two set up a cunning and evil plan to make Boeing look even worse than it already does due to its own actions. Where do they find the pilots who are willing to risk their own lives to cause an incident that doesn't make it past a select few aviation geeks to...
And Yurop is now also the enemy according to your demented and incontinent lawd and savior, right? So it makes sense that these two set up a cunning and evil plan to make Boeing look even worse than it already does due to its own actions. Where do they find the pilots who are willing to risk their own lives to cause an incident that doesn't make it past a select few aviation geeks to make some sort of vague statement?
Oh, by the way, 'Murica invaded Vietnam, committed an innumerable amount of war crimes and left the country shattered. If anyone should be paying repatriations, it's definitely not the 'Nam.
Giant orange man stowed away in the catering - weighed the plane down!
LOL!! That's fantastic!
Indeed, it looks like wrong input for take off unless something seriously wrong with the engines which are unlikely in my opinion considering it flew to MUC fine and not just after a maintenance.