|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : ebbr.airport|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : d10.tracon|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B767-200|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Navigation In Use||other|
|Flight Phase||climbout : takeoff|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||conflict : ground less severe|
non adherence : clearance
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
other flight crewb
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||Environmental Factor|
Flight Crew Human Performance
ATC Human Performance
|Airport||procedure or policy : ebbr.airport|
We were given an improved performance takeoff in bru that included a 7 KT tailwind. The wind direction was variable from 220 degrees to 260 degrees at 6-11 KTS. The only runways we could use because of our weight were runways 7 and 2. Bru was landing on runways 25 so we could not have either runway 7 for takeoff. We took off on runway 2 with a 3-4 KT tailwind. On paper everything looked good. The weights were right and the wind was within performance limits but during the takeoff roll using my judgement from 30 yrs of flying airplanes, I do not believe we could have stopped the aircraft near V1. With 2 good engines we cleared the end of the runway by approximately 50 ft. I realize that we are using improved performance takeoff with a tailwind because the B767-200 is so limited in its weight capability, but I believe we are reducing our margin of error too far. Putting a B767-200 back on the route would solve the problem and we could carry more revenue and cargo. If that is not an option then I suggest that we scale back on our use of including a tailwind in the data. I also suggest that we expedite our efforts to modify our takeoff procedures for runways 25 so that can eliminate the second segment climb problem with the church steeple. The only church steeple I could find was not a problem as far as I could see. I would much rather find a way to avoid the church and be able to use the longer runway into the wind. Reducing the weight of the aircraft may also help. This could be done by modifying the typical fuel load. Most of the flts I fly from europe have from 2000-5000 pounds of fuel over and above operational requirements. On my flight I think we had about 2500 pounds. When a flight is weight critical this non operational fuel should be eliminated. I also think that we should look at flying more re-released flts, which would cut down on the fuel load.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B767-200 PIC REFLECTS ON HIS ACFT'S PERFORMANCE ON A DOWNWIND TKOF AND OFFERS SOME SAFETY ACFT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE FLTS OUT OF EUROPE AND SPECIFICALLY EBBR, FO.
Narrative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
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.