flightOPS

Planning the
Takeoff performance
myths and methods
BY PATRICK CHILES

© ?/Dreamstime
Departure
O
n July 16, 2003, the flight crew of a overran the 5,000-ft (1,524-m) runway, but the
Boeing 737-800 planned a reduced- pilots and their three passengers were not injured.
thrust takeoff based on performance Investigators found that, due to an electrical fault,
calculations for the full runway distance the stabilizer could not be moved from the cruise
at Manchester, England. They had not read a position to the takeoff position.2
notice to airmen advising that available runway These events illustrate the need to clearly un-
distance was reduced for removal of rubber derstand the nuances of takeoff performance, be-
deposits. The aircraft was close to rotation speed cause assumed margins frequently are incorrect.
when the crew noticed vehicles and repair equip- The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
ment at the departure end of the runway. They (FAA) Takeoff Safety Training Aid notes that stud-
decided to continue the takeoff, which surely ies of 74 accidents and serious incidents involving
must have gotten the workers’ attention when the rejected takeoffs (RTOs) showed that more than
aircraft cleared their vehicles by about 50 ft. The half occurred after the takeoffs were rejected at
crew had correctly determined that there was not airspeeds greater than V1 — which, simply stated,
enough stopping distance remaining; neverthe- is the maximum speed at which a crew must take
less, an engine failure at that moment would action to reject the takeoff. Most of the accidents
almost certainly have been disastrous.1 were overruns after RTOs were initiated at “high
Four months later, on the night of Nov. 11, speed,” defined as 120 kt or more.3
2003, a Cessna Citation Excel was being taxied The FAA has been working with Europe’s
for takeoff after a quick turnaround at Wheel- Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), which now
ing, Illinois, U.S. “Short runway, full fuel, with a is transferring many of its functions to the
stab[ilizer] that is not moving,” the captain mused. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), to
“This could get interesting.” As the aircraft was harmonize regulations affecting takeoff perfor-
taxied onto the runway, annunciator lights likely mance, focusing on certification standards, wet
warned that the horizontal stabilizer was not con- and contaminated runways, obstacle analysis,
figured properly. The configuration warning horn runway lineup distance, 10-minute thrust time
sounded as the first officer advanced the power limit, and operating standards.
levers for takeoff. However, the flight crew did
not take action to reject the takeoff until the first The Basics
officer found that he could not rotate the aircraft. Five factors affect every takeoff: field length,
The Citation was substantially damaged when it tire speed, brake energy, climb performance

26 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007

 flightOPS
© Sam Chui/Airliners.net

and obstacle clearance. They create a variety of V1 Conundrum

policy choices for the operator. Some examples Despite almost 10 years of efforts to eliminate
are: a common misconception about V1, it is still
widely referred to as “takeoff decision speed.”
• An unbalanced field length policy;4
To emphasize that V1 is not a decision speed, the
• Improved climb or “overspeed,” using FAA and JAA in 1998 introduced the following
excess field length to improve climb two-part definition:
gradient;
• “V1 means the maximum speed in the
• Obstacle avoidance procedures, which a takeoff at which the pilot must take the
flight management computer (FMC) can- first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce
not duplicate without an internal obstacle thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the
database; airplane within the accelerate-stop dis-
tance; [and,]
• Flap retraction heights above the 400-ft
regulatory minimum; • “V1 also means the minimum speed in the
takeoff, following a failure of the criti-
• Increased takeoff thrust time limit; and,
cal engine at VET [the speed at which the
• Runway lineup distance. critical engine is assumed to fail during
takeoff], at which the pilot can continue
These choices are reflected in dispatch the takeoff and achieve the required height
performance-calculation software or runway above the takeoff surface within the take-
analysis tables, but they could be unknown to off distance.”
the end user — the pilot or dispatcher — or
unavailable in the aircraft’s FMC. Thus, FMC- Most pilots know that, during certification,
derived takeoff “V-speeds” may not match manufacturers of transport category airplanes
dispatch performance calculations or provide typically designate V1 airspeeds that result in
adequate terrain/obstacle clearance. Any takeoff balanced field lengths, or equal accelerate-stop
policy choices that may not be duplicated and accelerate-go distances (Figure 1, p. 28).
aboard the aircraft should be explained to crew- Takeoff configuration, weight, altitude and tem-
members in the event they need to rely solely on perature are among the factors that must be con-
FMC calculations. sidered by the manufacturer when ­designating

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007 | 27

 flightOPS

Balanced Field Length

V1

VR

Acce 35 ft
acce lerate-st
lerat o
e-go p and
are e distance
qual. s

Source: Adapted from SimuFlite Learjet 55 Cockpit Reference Handbook

Figure 1

V1 speeds — and by the pilot or dispatcher when standards. This has resulted in subtle changes
selecting the appropriate airspeed from among that are keys to understanding the basis of the
the data published in the airplane flight manual data in the AFM. For instance, it is now allow-
(AFM). able to take credit for thrust reversers in calcu-
Accident and incident reports, however, lating takeoff performance on a wet runway.
show that misconceptions about V1 linger. Of Other changes have affected the certification
course, the pilot-in-command has the authority allowance for pilot reaction time and whether
in an emergency to do whatever is necessary for continued acceleration or a constant speed is
safety. But consider that a typical jet transport assumed during this period. A specific aircraft
accelerates at 4 to 6 kt per second; if a no-go model undergoing significant design evolution,
decision is made at V1, it may already be too late resulting in separate certification tests, could
to bring the aircraft to a stop on the runway. In have subtly different assumptions underlying
almost all cases, action to reject a takeoff must the takeoff performance data.
be taken no later than reaching V1. Another result of harmonization is FAA
It is important to remember, however, Advisory Circular (AC) 120-91, Airport Ob-
Accident and that V1, accelerate-stop, accelerate-go, etc., stacle Analysis. In draft form for several years
are based on an engine failure. Many opera- before its publication in 2006, the AC already
incident reports
tors specify lower maximum airspeeds — 80 had become a commonly accepted resource for
kt or 100 kt, for example — at which action to developing procedures to comply with takeoff
show that
reject a takeoff should be made in response to limitations specified in regulations. One effect
misconceptions malfunctions or abnormalities such as a blown of the new guidance is clarification of obstacle
tire or a warning light. Conversely, some train- clearance margins during an engine-out takeoff;
about V1 linger. ing materials and company standard operating the FAA margins now are more closely in line
procedures (SOPs) specify limited but dire with those of JAA and the International Civil
conditions — a control system failure or a fire Aviation Organization (ICAO).
warning, for example — in which a post-V1 The specific wording in U.S. Federal Avia-
RTO is justified. tion Regulations (FARs) Part 135, for charter
operators, and Part 121, for airlines, requires
What Is New only that the engine-out net takeoff flight path
One result of the FAA/JAA harmonization was must clear any obstacles by 35 ft vertically in an
refinement of takeoff performance certification obstacle accountability area (OAA) defined as

28 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007

 flightOPS

200 ft (approximately 60 m) laterally — that is, obstacle-clearance techniques. The simplest

200 ft on each side of the intended track — from is to continue climbing at V2 — takeoff safety
the end of the runway to the airport boundary, speed, or the minimum airspeed at which the
and 300 ft (90 m) laterally outside the airport aircraft can maintain the required climb gradi-
boundary. ent with one engine inoperative — straight out
In contrast, the JAA/ICAO standard is a on the runway heading. However, if obstacles
“splay” — an increasingly wider OAA — that are sufficiently high or close to the runway, it
begins at 90 m at the runway end and increases may be advantageous to create a turning pro-
by an 8-1 ratio to a maximum width of 600 m cedure to avoid them. While there is some loss
(about 2,000 ft). Although this splay makes take- of performance in the turn, it can be offset by
off performance analysis more rigorous, it offers a shallower gradient. When turns are planned,
a sound safety margin because it recognizes that they should not begin until after the aircraft is
the effects of wind or course guidance errors at least 50 ft above the runway end, and they
tend to increase with distance. should not exceed 15 degrees of bank.
In AC 120-91, the FAA recommends an In general, V2 provides stall protection to
increasing OAA similar to the JAA/ICAO splay only 15 degrees of bank. To design an ob-
beginning 4,800 ft (1,463 m) from the end of stacle-clearance procedure for a more steeply
the runway (Figure 2). Thus, there now is some banked turn, V2 must be increased to provide
difference between
the FARs standards
and the acceptable Obstacle Accountability Areas
compliance meth- Straight-out departure
ods spelled out in
Runway Airport boundary
the AC; but it can be
understood that the
200/300-ft margin Runway centerline

is a minimum width Splay = 16:1 (0.0625

200 ft 300 ft x D)
at which the OAA
splay begins. Within 4,800 ft

this lateral path, all

obstacles must be
cleared by at least 35 Turning departure
Runway Airport boundary
ft vertically. There is
also a more involved
Runway centerline
flight track analysis
method that must in- 200 ft 300 ft
Splay = 16:1 (0.0625
x D)
clude consideration of
Fli

wind and course guid- 4,800 ft

g
ht p

ance error. This allows

ath centerline

for a smaller OAA

and can be used for
procedures based on
required navigation
performance (RNP).
D = distance (ft) along runway or flight path centerline from departure end of runway
For either
Source: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
method, there are
two fundamental Figure 2

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007 | 29

 flightOPS

an equivalent stall margin. One method is to assure that one-engine-inoperative obstacle-

use the following formula, in which V2 is knots clearance requirements are met.”
true airspeed and Φ, the Greek letter phi, is bank U.S. TERPS, and ICAO Procedures for Air
angle in degrees:5 Navigation Services–Aircraft Operations (PANS-
V2Φ = V2/√cosΦ OPS), are intended for normal, all-engine
operations. The minimum 3.3 percent (200 ft
For either method, an accurate source of per nm) climb gradient required for a pub-
obstacle data is required. There are a number of lished departure procedure is a constant angle.
government and commercial sources, and it is However, transport category airplane certifica-
the operator’s responsibility to use the best data tion standards are based on engine-out condi-
available for its specific needs. tions and result in the climb performance data
provided in the AFM.
Gradients Vary Further, certification standards require
Although some corporate and charter operators that a two-engine aircraft, for example, be
use published standard instrument departure capable of maintaining at least a 2.4 percent
(SID) procedures for obstacle clearance in the gross climb gradient at the beginning of the
absence of other information, the intent of an second segment of the departure — theoreti-
engine-failure obstacle-clearance path is not cally, when the aircraft is 35 ft above the end
necessarily the same as meeting the climb gradi- of the runway, clearway or stopway, and after
ent specified by a SID. the landing gear is retracted. Unlike the TERPS
AC 120-91 states that “one-engine- climb gradient requirement, this is a “point in
inoperative procedures do not need to meet space” gradient taken at the beginning of the
TERPS [United States Standard for Terminal In- segment and not a constant angle. Nor could
strument Procedures] requirements,” upon which it be. Engines lose thrust with altitude, and if
SIDs are designed. The AC also says that meet- a constant speed is held throughout the climb,
ing a SID climb gradient “does not necessarily the climb gradient typically decreases with
altitude and resembles a decaying curve. To
© David Andrew Gilder/Dreamstime
account for this, certification standards specify
net takeoff flight paths that provide an increas-
ingly greater margin over distance against the
gross takeoff flight path.
While there is an obstacle-clearance con-
sideration in SIDs of 48 ft per nm, it assumes
normal all-engine performance. An engine-out
takeoff is certainly not a normal condition and
takes precedence over any SID or other depar-
ture procedure.
Both U.S. and European regulators en-
courage the examination of SIDs in mountain-
ous regions to plan for engine failures at later
stages in the climb, specifically after the point
at which an emergency engine-out flight path
may diverge from the charted procedure. The
question becomes: If the aircraft is committed
to the SID, will it be able to maintain ad-
equate terrain clearance with a post-V2 engine
failure, or will it need some escape path? This

30 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007

 flightOPS

type of analysis can be arduous and requires the JAA contaminant definitions and base
all-engine performance data in addition to the takeoff-performance calculations on an all-
AFM data. engines-operating condition.7
In the meantime, the FAA has allowed
Defining Contaminants manufacturers to provide the European
The recent 737 runway overrun at Chicago advisory data to U.S. operators with the same
Midway International Airport, among other aircraft types in their fleets. The FAA has
things, refocused attention on common defini- deemed the data acceptable to use as supple- There was no cockpit
tions of runway contaminants.6 The JAA already mental information while further action is
requires manufacturers to supply “advisory in- taken to define contaminants and performance display to advise the
formation” that must be considered in dispatch calculation methods. However, U.S. operators
crew that their thrust-
performance calculations. The information should be aware that this type of information,
can be derived from flight tests or from exist- being “advisory” and not “approved,” does not to-weight ratio was
ing certification data, and must include runway include the same distance factors applied to the
contaminants such as compacted snow, slush or AFM data, such as credit for the use of thrust insufficient to lift off
standing water, and the different definitions of reversers.
the runway.
braking action.
The FAA has yet to formally define runway Performance Monitoring
contaminants. The regulatory language in Part Much of this discussion has concerned preflight
135 and Part 121 only allows the use of ap- predictions of takeoff performance. But, during
proved AFM data for landing on dry, wet or the actual takeoff roll, is there any protection
“slippery” runways. There is no definition of from an unanticipated mechanical failure or
what constitutes a slippery runway, and there simple human error?
is no guidance on how to legally dispatch an The MK Airlines 747 accident in Nova
aircraft when runway conditions are known to Scotia, Canada, illustrated that calculation
be worse than just wet. methods may be perfect but offer no protec-
No consensus was reached during efforts tion if they are based on incorrect assump-
to harmonize the definitions and require- tions. The Boeing Laptop Tool software for
ments for takeoff and landing on contami- calculating the 747’s takeoff performance
nated runways, in part due to the complexity data worked as designed, but it had no way of
of runway contamination and the potentially detecting that the flight crew had mistakenly
severe performance penalties posed by some carried over a lower payload weight from
contaminants. Slush, for example, signifi- their previous leg (ASW, 10/06, p. 18).8 There
cantly increases drag on the landing gear and, was no cockpit display to advise the crew that
when thrown up onto the airframe, can se- their thrust-to-weight ratio was insufficient to
verely affect the aircraft’s aerodynamics. One lift off the runway, a terrible fact realized too
manufacturer likened the combined effects of late to stop.
slush to having an extra engine, operating at This accident renewed interest in on-board
reverse thrust. takeoff performance monitoring. The U.S. Na-
The FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Advisory tional Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
Committee studied various methods to miti- Langley Research Center demonstrated a takeoff
gate the performance penalties and economic performance monitor in a 737 in the late 1980s,
penalties associated with contaminated run- and there has been other research work. How-
way operations, but no satisfactory solution ever, no organization has taken a leading role
was found. Among options that a majority of in developing the concept, and there are as yet
the group supported was to fully harmonize no commonly accepted methods, algorithms or
the FARs to the JAR-OPS 1 standard or to use cockpit displays.

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007 | 31

 flightOPS

The MK Airlines accident prompted Notes Werfelman, Linda. “Fatal Calculation.”

the Transportation Safety Board of Can- AviationSafety World Volume 1 (October
1. U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch
2006).
ada to recommend a requirement that report no. 3/2006.
transport category aircraft be equipped Rosenkrans, Wayne. “Rethinking Overrun
2. U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
with a takeoff performance monitoring Protection.” AviationSafety World Volume 1
(NTSB) report no. CHI04FA031. NTSB
(August 2006).
system. In response, Transport Canada said that the probable causes of the accident
said that it cannot require installation of were “the flight crew’s intentional operation FSF Editorial Staff. “Absence of Aircraft
a system that does not exist. However, with known deficiencies in the aircraft and Load Data Cited in Failed Takeoff in Benin.”
their delay in aborting the takeoff when a Accident Prevention Volume 62 (October
the two organizations have agreed to
no-takeoff warning was presented.” 2005).
work together on preliminary research
to determine if a system could be de- 3. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration FSF Editorial Staff. “King Air C90 Pilot
(FAA). Takeoff Safety Training Aid. Section Continues Takeoff After Engine Fails at
signed to give flight crews an “accurate
2, “Pilot Guide to Takeoff Safety.” <www. Minimum-Control Speed.” Accident Prevention
and timely indication of inadequate
faa.gov/pilots/training/>. Volume 62 (June 2005).
takeoff performance” (ASW, 5/07, p. 8).
4. An unbalanced field length policy allows FSF Editorial Staff. “B-737 Strikes Terrain
consideration of extra distance provided
Going Forward After Power Loss Occurs on Takeoff.” Accident
by clearways and stopways, in addition to Prevention Volume 62 (March 2005).
There has been substantial movement, available runway length, in calculating take-
particularly in the last 10 years, toward off performance. Thus, accelerate-stop and FSF Editorial Staff. “Foreign-Object Damage
harmonization of U.S. and European accelerate-go distances might not be equal. Cripples Concorde on Takeoff From Paris.”
requirements and standards for takeoff Accident Prevention Volume 59 (April 2002).
5. Allen, Carl (Alaska Airlines). “One
performance calculation. Efforts to Airline’s Method for Calculating Engine FSF Editorial Staff. “Noncompliance With
standardize wet runway takeoff per- Failure Turn Procedures.” A presentation Departure Procedures Sets Course for Impact
formance, RTO time sequences, brake to the Boeing Performance and Flight With Mountain.” Accident Prevention Volume
Operations Engineering Conference, 57 (August 2000).
wear and use of 10-minute takeoff
Seattle, Washington, U.S., September 2003.
thrust have been completed. Obstacle Wagenmakers, Joop H. “A Review of Transport
clearance methods now have a more 6. NTSB report no. DCA06MA009. The Airplane Performance Requirements Might
preliminary report said that snow was falling
common basis, although some minor Benefit Safety.” Flight Safety Digest Volume 19
Dec. 8, 2005, when the landing aircraft slid (February 2000).
differences remain. off the runway and came to a stop on a road.
Efforts to define runway contami- None of the 103 aircraft occupants was in- FSF Editorial Staff. “Cargo Airplane Strikes
nants continue, and some significant jured; one person on the ground was killed, Building During Rejected Takeoff.” Accident
changes in takeoff performance and 12 others received minor injuries. Prevention Volume 57 (January 2000).
calculations may be presented to U.S. 7. Stimson, Don (FAA). “Harmonization Sallee, G.P.; Gibbons, D.M. “Propulsion
operators when rule making is under of FAR/JAR Airplane Performance System Malfunction Plus Inappropriate
way. Requirements: Status and Future Plans.” A Crew Response (PSM+ICR).” Flight Safety
Despite progress in these areas, full presentation to the Boeing Performance and Digest Volume 18 (November–December
Flight Operations Engineering Conference, 1999).
harmonization has yet to be realized.
Seattle, Washington, U.S., September 2003.
Common sense tells us that what works FSF Editorial Staff. “Jammed Elevator Prompts
for the European Union should likewise 8. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Twin-Turboprop Rejected Takeoff, Runway
Reduced Power at Takeoff and Collision Overrun.” Accident Prevention Volume 56
work in the United States: Airplanes are
With Terrain, MK Airlines Limited, (April 1999).
airplanes, runways are runways, and Boeing 747-244SF 9G-MKJ, Halifax
terrain is terrain. But with anything International Airport, Nova Scotia, 14 FSF Editorial Staff. “International Regulations
technical or regulatory, the devil lies in October 2004. Aviation Investigation Redefine V1.” Flight Safety Digest Volume 17
the details. ● Report A04H0004. (October 1998).

Patrick Chiles is the technical operations man- FSF Editorial Staff. “After Beech 1900D Lifts
Further Reading From FSF Publications
ager for the NetJets BBJ program and a member Off From Runway, Stall Warning Prompts
of the Flight Safety Foundation Corporate Lacagnina, Mark. “Off-Balance Overrun.” Crew to Reject Takeoff.” Accident Prevention
Advisory Committee. AeroSafety World Volume 2 (March 2007). Volume 55 (July 1998).

32 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | July 2007