Zero-zero takeoff (also low visibility takeoff)

Timothy wrote:

By comparison to this, it’s a huge problem.

Hang on, in which case you would only ever legislate against “big problems”.

As is the case with low level aeros, I dont think legislation is just about preventing people doing things that are dangerous only when lots of people are “doing it”.

I dont see how you support a ban on low level aeros, but then protest a ban for zero zero departures, when in both cases you can solve the problem with a dispensation.

The argument seems the same, with appropriate training both are reasonable and safe things to do, but without, probably not.

I am not sure I care whether it is an actual ban or a recommendation, but I do think there should be recognition that zero zero departures are unwise for the majority of pilots, and I base that conclusion, as I said previously, on the concensus of those with the experience. Point me to those with the experience suggesting it is a good idea, against those who do not?

It will take just one departure from Biggin with the aircraft running into something expensive and the ban will be for a much higher limit, so if the restriction is not introduced we had better hope those who do so are good at it all the time, and, in any event the larger airports may “stay” with their own bans, leaving zero zero departures to grass strips and the like where I suspect a few pilots will carry on doing whatever it is they are doing anyway!

However I accept it is a circular discussion, difficult to reach any conclusion, and so if no restrictions are introduced, it would be good to see some discussion as to the safety considerations and how to ensure those who do, go about it as safely as possible.

Taking Biggin Hill as an example.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-gulfstream-iii-g-1159a-n103cd

Anyway, the bit that gets me about this whole discussion is that it moves in a theoretical direction at the cost of common sense. Personally, I also like having a landing option before I take off.

Peter wrote:

As I said, airliners do this all the time down to 75m.

… and they are trained & signed off to do it!

MedEwok wrote:

And if someone runs off the runway due to low vis then that’s their own problem.

Err, that’s assuming there’s nobody else involved.

Airliners also have a very small risk of total engine failure on initial climb in IMC while there have been many deadly GA accidents in this type of scenario.

Peter wrote:

As I said, airliners do this all the time down to 75m.

But it is totally different doing this in a two crew environment than single pilot. Multicrew, the pilot flying (the captain usually as low visibility operartions are a captain-only thing in many operations) will only look outside at the runway centreline whilst the pilot monitoring will look at engine readings and call out speeds. As I said earlier, low visibility training is quite challenging and especially takeoff aborts close to V1 due to an engine failure are difficult to handle. Even with a second pair of eyes and hands.

Remember this one of Mr. Rockefeller in his Meridian? There’s many more.

http://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/spatial-disorientation-cockpit-quick-killer

Alexis wrote:

Remember this one of Mr. Rockefeller in his Meridian?

No. As we were told several times in this thread already, there has never been an accident in the United States during low visibility operations.

In my previous company I held the post of “nominated person flight operations” or “Flugbetriebsleiter” as it was called then. That was under EU-OPS, several years before EASA-OPS came in force (which in Germany did not bring much difference for commercial operators anyway). After some incidents and accidents in low visibility elsewhere (which never happen as we know) our national supervising authority decided that – in commercial operations – multi engine piston aircraft can no longer be allowed to take off in conditions which would not permit them to land back on the departure airfield (200ft/550m), based on the common knowledge that (most) part 23 piston twins won’t fly anywhere on one engine at maximum take off mass. Initially our management wanted to fight this (arbitrary in their view) restriction of their entreprenurial freedom with legal means. The pilots, including myself, however loved it and in the end it was accepted by all parties.

Alternative facts, Alexis.

I’ve taken some time to read through this. To me it all comes down to the magic word “freedom”. Personally I’m of the opinion that there should be as little limitations as possible. Instead of strict rules and associated punishment for breaking them more should be put out in form of guidelines and education. That seems to be more productive than growing a non-thinking population following rules because they exist. Once you learn a bit about sociology you will discover how the existence of rules influences the perception of activities and creation of more rules. See Activity Theory.

To me it is a good thing to fight unnecessary regulation.