Three months ago I was spotting at SFO for Finnair's inaugural flight.

When I checked the Flightradar24, I saw something really unusual of where BA A380, rather than going on taxiway Lima and going off 28R, it just stopped at threshold of 1R. Then I was pretty shocked to see that, an A380 blasts out of runway 01R?!?! Runway 1R is only 86500ft long, so I wonder is it too short for a typical A380 to takeoff?? I literally swore at myself after I saw the way that she took off? I think any heavies other than KLM (747,777,787) use 1R are rare.

Has anyone else seen an A380 going off 1R or similar length like that, if so does anyone think it is rare?

Btw I am new to a.net, I finally decided to post something!

Here is the link of the picture
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7IVnFgLLbdoOEM1UHIyX29lRDg/view

Hi,

Welcome to A.net! Indeed it is unusual to see the A380 depart off 01R however not impossible. The only 2 runways BA A380's are authorised to depart from at SFO are 19L/01R and 10L/28R. Landings however are forbidden on 01R/01L.

Blue skies

But 28L also seems enough for A380, I wonder why they aren't allowed to use 28L

IIRC I've also seen LH's A380 departing from 1R @ SFO.

So yes maybe uncommon, but certainly heard of in terms of A380 going from 1R.

Cheers
Michael

Imagine if KLM have A380s and send them to SFO, would they do 1R every day, as they do 1R all the time

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Runway 1R is only 86500ft long, so I wonder is it too short for a typical A380 to takeoff??

16 miles would be long enough for any aircraft.

Well, just about comfortable for the A340

zeke wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Runway 1R is only 86500ft long, so I wonder is it too short for a typical A380 to takeoff??

16 miles would be long enough for any aircraft.

I meant to say 8650ft

They're only going to Europe. They probably are only barely half filled with gas.

I'm almost certain a KLM 747 took off from 1R yesterday...

AP1 wrote:

Hi,

Welcome to A.net! Indeed it is unusual to see the A380 depart off 01R however not impossible. The only 2 runways BA A380's are authorised to depart from at SFO are 19L/01R and 10L/28R. Landings however are forbidden on 01R/01L.

Blue skies

Interesting. Are any other types forbidden from landing on the 1s?

When I was a child growing up in Millbrae, approaches to the 1s were straight in over the hill rather than the current circling to land. I think that is well over a 3 degree glide slope. Takeoffs from the 19s turned South after takeoff though.

Mutt wrote:

I'm almost certain a KLM 747 took off from 1R yesterday...

They do it everyday except straight 28 departures

They do it occasionally. Fun to see the big A380 flying (relatively) low over me in Oakland.

It is all to do with take-off performance and balanced field length. Basically the aircraft has to accelerate to V1, lose one engine, become airborne and clear a 35ft obstacle however, the airborne part does not have to be over paved surface. Where the runway meets the sea, as in this case, it means that pretty much the whole runway length can be used, so the aircraft can nominally be seen to be taking off from a shorter runway that would otherwise be the case.

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Mutt wrote:

I'm almost certain a KLM 747 took off from 1R yesterday...

They do it everyday except straight 28 departures

Didn't know this! I've got to take a KLM 744 out of SFO now and hope I get a 1R departure!

I see European departures off the 1s all the time from just about any widebody capable of doing those routes (including 767s).

The A380 wing was designed around two larger variants, the A380-900 and A380-1000, neither of which, of course, were built. So the A380-800 has *way* more wing than it needs and it lifts off like a feather even when at MTOW.

There are multiple factors that fit into the choice of departure runway. Obviously, it has to be long enough, but there are other things outside of the aircraft's weight and capabilities. Among other things, the 28s are pointed directly away from Europe, so if you can take off of a runway that is approximately pointing at your destination, you can save 10-15 minutes of flight time, and thus 10-15 minutes of fuel. There may be ATC factors with how many aircraft are in the air in a given part of the region along a given departure track, or how many aircraft are arriving on the 28s. There is, of course, wind direction, and there is also a noise advantage to the 1s because they point at the water.

So if an airplane is capable of using the 1s, why not use them?

BoeingGuy wrote:

Interesting. Are any other types forbidden from landing on the 1s?

You would think that if a 744 could do the circle-to-land to the 1s that a 380 could do it.

I was on the afternoon KLM flight on July 11th this Summer, a B747 taking off on 01R. The short taxi was the trange part, really...]

I normally suggest 01R for departure from SFO. It probably saves 20-30 minutes on block time on the way back to LHR and there's plenty of performance in hand. You will always get a bigger thrust derate on 28 though, so some colleagues were initially keen to use 28. I think more people are getting used to the idea as they get familiar with 28R being a pain! I'm ex 747 so used 01 the whole time on that.

If there's a gusty strong wind down 28 then that's probably the better option still.

DocLightning wrote:

I see European departures off the 1s all the time from just about any widebody capable of doing those routes (including 767s).

The A380 wing was designed around two larger variants, the A380-900 and A380-1000, neither of which, of course, were built. So the A380-800 has *way* more wing than it needs and it lifts off like a feather even when at MTOW.

There are multiple factors that fit into the choice of departure runway. Obviously, it has to be long enough, but there are other things outside of the aircraft's weight and capabilities. Among other things, the 28s are pointed directly away from Europe, so if you can take off of a runway that is approximately pointing at your destination, you can save 10-15 minutes of flight time, and thus 10-15 minutes of fuel. There may be ATC factors with how many aircraft are in the air in a given part of the region along a given departure track, or how many aircraft are arriving on the 28s. There is, of course, wind direction, and there is also a noise advantage to the 1s because they point at the water.

So if an airplane is capable of using the 1s, why not use them?

I’ve actually seen some Asian birds going off 1R, such as China Southern 77W. I don’t see any sense of it bc it is pointed away from Asia than 28s

SFOFlightSim wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I see European departures off the 1s all the time from just about any widebody capable of doing those routes (including 767s).

The A380 wing was designed around two larger variants, the A380-900 and A380-1000, neither of which, of course, were built. So the A380-800 has *way* more wing than it needs and it lifts off like a feather even when at MTOW.

There are multiple factors that fit into the choice of departure runway. Obviously, it has to be long enough, but there are other things outside of the aircraft's weight and capabilities. Among other things, the 28s are pointed directly away from Europe, so if you can take off of a runway that is approximately pointing at your destination, you can save 10-15 minutes of flight time, and thus 10-15 minutes of fuel. There may be ATC factors with how many aircraft are in the air in a given part of the region along a given departure track, or how many aircraft are arriving on the 28s. There is, of course, wind direction, and there is also a noise advantage to the 1s because they point at the water.

So if an airplane is capable of using the 1s, why not use them?

I’ve actually seen some Asian birds going off 1R, such as China Southern 77W. I don’t see any sense of it bc it is pointed away from Asia than 28s

Relative the distances involved, using one runway or another has an insignificant impact on total time and burn. However if the wind favours a certain runway, that is the safe option.

Redbellyguppy wrote:

They're only going to Europe. They probably are only barely half filled with gas.

What about Emirates A380 that took off on 1R back in last January?

If you've got the numbers for it, you've got the numbers for it.

I enjoyed a conversation with the Captain on a lax mel flight I used a zed pass on a few weeks ago and he told me that it could always make lax-mel no matter how hot it was, from the short runway 24L. Granted, that's 1400 ft longer than 1R at sfo but I was impressed at what a sprightly performer the 380 was.

zeke wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Runway 1R is only 86500ft long, so I wonder is it too short for a typical A380 to takeoff??

16 miles would be long enough for any aircraft.

The Runway is 8650 ft long, not 16 miles. that runway would be in Oakland if it were that long.

strfyr51 wrote:

zeke wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Runway 1R is only 86500ft long, so I wonder is it too short for a typical A380 to takeoff??

16 miles would be long enough for any aircraft.

The Runway is 8650 ft long, not 16 miles. that runway would be in Oakland if it were that long.

strfyr51 your not very smart...read what he is pointing out...

AndrewJM70 wrote:

It is all to do with take-off performance and balanced field length. Basically the aircraft has to accelerate to V1, lose one engine, become airborne and clear a 35ft obstacle however, the airborne part does not have to be over paved surface. Where the runway meets the sea, as in this case, it means that pretty much the whole runway length can be used, so the aircraft can nominally be seen to be taking off from a shorter runway that would otherwise be the case.

Your 35' obstacle is at the end of the runway and not some arbitrary point down the road.

26point2 wrote:

AndrewJM70 wrote:

It is all to do with take-off performance and balanced field length. Basically the aircraft has to accelerate to V1, lose one engine, become airborne and clear a 35ft obstacle however, the airborne part does not have to be over paved surface. Where the runway meets the sea, as in this case, it means that pretty much the whole runway length can be used, so the aircraft can nominally be seen to be taking off from a shorter runway that would otherwise be the case.

Your 35' obstacle is at the end of the runway and not some arbitrary point down the road.

The obstacle is at the end of the Clearway (ie the TODA) not the end of the runway (TORA). In this case there is no difference as the declared TORA and TODA are the same, but, its not correct to say the screen height is at the end of the runway.

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Redbellyguppy wrote:

They're only going to Europe. They probably are only barely half filled with gas.

What about Emirates A380 that took off on 1R back in last January?

IIRC the A380 needs about 9,000 feet of runway to take off at MTOW according to Wikipedia.

From wikipedia the range of an A388 is 8,200nm and SFO-DXB is just over 7,000nm (so not loaded with fuel). You would also have favorable winds on route potentially reducing the fuel load, an airport at sea level with a moderate temperature most of the time. With the A380 being a quad (less likely the need to abort a takeoff) and a favorable wind for the 1's it would be easily doable in 8650 ft. Who knows it might have also been a light load also and they could use 1R to save time.

StarAC17 wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Redbellyguppy wrote:

They're only going to Europe. They probably are only barely half filled with gas.

What about Emirates A380 that took off on 1R back in last January?

IIRC the A380 needs about 9,000 feet of runway to take off at MTOW according to Wikipedia.

From wikipedia the range of an A388 is 8,200nm and SFO-DXB is just over 7,000nm (so not loaded with fuel). You would also have favorable winds on route potentially reducing the fuel load, an airport at sea level with a moderate temperature most of the time. With the A380 being a quad (less likely the need to abort a takeoff) and a favorable wind for the 1's it would be easily doable in 8650 ft. Who knows it might have also been a light load also and they could use 1R to save time.

The number of engines on the aircraft doesn’t change any requirements of whether a rejected takeoff is required or not......and honestly I wouldn’t be using Wikipedia as your source for information. The information that means anything is the performance numbers based on that particular flight on that particular day at the particular time!

StarAC17 wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

Redbellyguppy wrote:

They're only going to Europe. They probably are only barely half filled with gas.

What about Emirates A380 that took off on 1R back in last January?

IIRC the A380 needs about 9,000 feet of runway to take off at MTOW according to Wikipedia.

From wikipedia the range of an A388 is 8,200nm and SFO-DXB is just over 7,000nm (so not loaded with fuel). You would also have favorable winds on route potentially reducing the fuel load, an airport at sea level with a moderate temperature most of the time. With the A380 being a quad (less likely the need to abort a takeoff) and a favorable wind for the 1's it would be easily doable in 8650 ft. Who knows it might have also been a light load also and they could use 1R to save time.

Not correct. If an engine fails before V1, you reject. Doesn't matter if you have 2, 3, or 4 engines.

]Probably looked a lot like this:



(May 1st, 2015 from SF Waterfront Hilton, Burlingame)

So does that mean all A380 operators at SFO had used 1R with whalejets before?

At NCE, when 04R/22L (2 960 m/9 711 ft) is closed, take-offs are on 04L/22R (2 570 m/8 432 ft). No problem for the daily EK A380 to DXB. Of course probably not MTOW.

SFOFlightSim wrote:

So does that mean all A380 operators at SFO had used 1R with whalejets before?

I don't know if that statement is true, but I have personally seen UA, AF, LH, BA, and KL 744s take off for Europe off the 1s.

And not that this is relevant to this discussion, but I was once aboard a UA 744 with about 10 pax aboard that took off 19R for ORD. Now, THAT was an unforgettable experience. I was slammed back into my seat such that I could barely look out the window (and I was 20 or 21 at the time and strong as an ox), and then for noise abatement we took a very sharp right turn immediately after rotation. The captain had come on the PA and warned us about it.

I had planned on it being my first 777 flight, but when I got to the stand there was a 744 sitting there. I never thought I'd be disappointed to see a 744 as my equipment swap, but this one time, I was. The takeoff made up for the equipment swap, though.

DocLightning wrote:

SFOFlightSim wrote:

So does that mean all A380 operators at SFO had used 1R with whalejets before?

I don't know if that statement is true, but I have personally seen UA, AF, LH, BA, and KL 744s take off for Europe off the 1s.

And not that this is relevant to this discussion, but I was once aboard a UA 744 with about 10 pax aboard that took off 19R for ORD. Now, THAT was an unforgettable experience. I was slammed back into my seat such that I could barely look out the window (and I was 20 or 21 at the time and strong as an ox), and then for noise abatement we took a very sharp right turn immediately after rotation. The captain had come on the PA and warned us about it.

I had planned on it being my first 777 flight, but when I got to the stand there was a 744 sitting there. I never thought I'd be disappointed to see a 744 as my equipment swap, but this one time, I was. The takeoff made up for the equipment swap, though.

19R is the other direction of 1L, which is shorter than 1R.

The PSA L-1011s took off frequently from 1L. There is a precedent for wide body airplanes departing 1L, albeit for a relatively short flight.

DocLightning wrote:

we took a very sharp right turn immediately after rotation [on SFO runway 19R]

Left turn, you mean?

When widebodies did shortish flights out of SFO, they weren't unusual on 1L. Think I saw an Il-96 to LAX off of 1L.

timz wrote:

Left turn, you mean?

When widebodies did shortish flights out of SFO, they weren't unusual on 1L. Think I saw an Il-96 to LAX off of 1L.

We took off of 1R (which is odd, I know, but the plane weighed nothing) and turned right. There was an A320 on 1L (I know, odd) and he turned left.

DocLightning wrote:

timz wrote:

Left turn, you mean?

When widebodies did shortish flights out of SFO, they weren't unusual on 1L. Think I saw an Il-96 to LAX off of 1L.

We took off of 1R (which is odd, I know, but the plane weighed nothing) and turned right. There was an A320 on 1L (I know, odd) and he turned left.

An A320 on 1L isn't odd at all. It's common. Simultaneous takeoffs on the 1s are common. For obvious reasons, they turn in opposite directions after takeoff.

BoeingGuy wrote:

An A320 on 1L isn't odd at all. It's common. Simultaneous takeoffs on the 1s are common. For obvious reasons, they turn in opposite directions after takeoff.

An A320 on 1L isn't odd, but it is a bit odd with a 744 on 1R. You'd think they'd be swapped.

DocLightning wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

An A320 on 1L isn't odd at all. It's common. Simultaneous takeoffs on the 1s are common. For obvious reasons, they turn in opposite directions after takeoff.

An A320 on 1L isn't odd, but it is a bit odd with a 744 on 1R. You'd think they'd be swapped.

No, that’s expected. 1R is longer than 1L. I think you have them backwards.

hotelmode wrote:

26point2 wrote:

AndrewJM70 wrote:

It is all to do with take-off performance and balanced field length. Basically the aircraft has to accelerate to V1, lose one engine, become airborne and clear a 35ft obstacle however, the airborne part does not have to be over paved surface. Where the runway meets the sea, as in this case, it means that pretty much the whole runway length can be used, so the aircraft can nominally be seen to be taking off from a shorter runway that would otherwise be the case.

Your 35' obstacle is at the end of the runway and not some arbitrary point down the road.

The obstacle is at the end of the Clearway (ie the TODA) not the end of the runway (TORA). In this case there is no difference as the declared TORA and TODA are the same, but, its not correct to say the screen height is at the end of the runway.

More precisely, the imaginary 35’ screen is at the end of the accelerate-go distance of the planned take-off. If the accelerate-go is 8000’ and the runway or clearway ends at 10,000’, the screen is at 8,000’.

GF

eamondzhang wrote:

IIRC I've also seen LH's A380 departing from 1R @ SFO.

So yes maybe uncommon, but certainly heard of in terms of A380 going from 1R.

Cheers
Michael

I’m pretty sure it’s pretty inconvenient for LH A380 to taxi to 1R without crossing both runways

On the SFO archive web site there are a few shots of an AF Concorde on runway 1R in 1974. The legend says "lands" but it looks to me as though it's rather taking off. Thoughts?

ro1960 wrote:

On the SFO archive web site there are a few shots of an AF Concorde on runway 1R in 1974. The legend says "lands" but it looks to me as though it's rather taking off. Thoughts?

I could be wrong, but if it was landing, wouldn't the nose be drooped more?

AirKevin wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

On the SFO archive web site there are a few shots of an AF Concorde on runway 1R in 1974. The legend says "lands" but it looks to me as though it's rather taking off. Thoughts?

I could be wrong, but if it was landing, wouldn't the nose be drooped more?

Good point. Plus given how close it is to theshold I would expect the nose gear to not have touched the ground yet.

ro1960 wrote:

On the SFO archive web site there are a few shots of an AF Concorde on runway 1R in 1974.

The site has more pics of it, showing it taking off.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=596583