Understand the picture in the original post does not really prove anything. They could have entered any speeds into the FMC, that does not in any way confirm they are accurate. Mistakes can happen.

I think one point being made was that it's not possible to enter 95 in the NGX FMC. Anything less than 100 is an invalid entry.

If it was an -800 out of Stockholm and 22k, then 95 could be the Vmcg. V1 would normally be about 136, though. I don't know what corrections would require that much of a split.

 

It was a -800 with 22K derate, the maximum it can get is 26K, so it is derated by 4k.

 

It was tailwind upon departure from ARN rwy 08 this day.

And it was really slippery on tarmac and some parts of the runway as well

 

And they used the EFB to calculate the takeoffspeeds, and it was this values who where put in the FMC as well So it is not just a random V1 out of nowhere they used, it was actual numbers directly from the ToDC in the EFB.

 

A bit off topic: I guess it's all relative... I've been flying in and out of Arlanda all week and the only parts actually slippery are the aprons . I was surprised to read the sentence "if the weather is as bad as yesterday" since it was basically CAVOK and clean runways yesterday .

 

-Nils Holgersson

 

Edit: Missed the original post date. Still, Thursday was a relatively nice day as well in my opinion .

Nils, you are right. We had to stop the pushback because the wheels on the truck where just spinning on ice. Taxi ways and runways were very good.

 

Now guys, remember that you do not rotate before Vr - and remember the EFB takes weight, thrust rating etc into account.

 

 

I just can't see accelerating 41 knots on one engine. Yikes.

 

A loooong runway and a plane that goes better than it stops? I can see that. But it wouldn't be nice.

 

V1,... left engine flameout... umm, go... (lloooong time passes) rotate.

 

 

 

My company calls V1 at V1-5 for some crazy reason - probably a holdover from the Coronado or the Grumman Goose. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

 

To account for reaction time, I suppose.

A loooong runway and a plane that goes better than it stops? I can see that. But it wouldn't be nice.

 

V1,... left engine flameout... umm, go... (lloooong time passes) rotate.

 

 

To account for reaction time, I suppose.

It is for reaction time. But that's already accounted for in the published V1. They double-correct.

 

 

And they used the EFB to calculate the takeoffspeeds, and it was this values who where put in the FMC as well So it is not just a random V1 out of nowhere they used, it was actual numbers directly from the ToDC in the EFB.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that they are real. It just sounds like a good day to stay on the ground!

Oh, I don't doubt that they are real. It just sounds like a good day to stay on the ground!

 

Exactly.  I'm having a tough time visualizing conditions where a V1 that low would be beneficial.  If the braking action is that bad we wouldn't be going anyway.

It was a -800 with 22K derate, the maximum it can get is 26K, so it is derated by 4k.

 

It was tailwind upon departure from ARN rwy 08 this day.

And it was really slippery on tarmac and some parts of the runway as well

 

And they used the EFB to calculate the takeoffspeeds, and it was this values who where put in the FMC as well So it is not just a random V1 out of nowhere they used, it was actual numbers directly from the ToDC in the EFB.

Probably best to open a support ticket and ask PMDG directly whether they will change the software to allow manual entry of V1 less than 100 knots.

 

This discussion is very interesting and informative. I don't mean to derail it but it won't resolve your original question.

Exactly.  I'm having a tough time visualizing conditions where a V1 that low would be beneficial.  If the braking action is that bad we wouldn't be going anyway.

long, but slippery runway, not much stopping power, but plenty space to accelerate on single engine.

I just wonder, if it's slippery enough to warrant such low V1, what of ground control effectiveness? i.e. wouldn't nose gear just slide to the side as well?

long, but slippery runway, not much stopping power, but plenty space to accelerate on single engine.

I just wonder, if it's slippery enough to warrant such low V1, what of ground control effectiveness? i.e. wouldn't nose gear just slide to the side as well?

 

That's exactly my point.  If it's that slippery directional control becomes an issue.

90kts is the minimum you can put in the box, according to my test this morning.