Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Message
Author
pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#1 Post by pelmet » Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:36 am

C-FCAF, a Boeing 767-375 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA792 from Los Angeles/Los Angeles Intl, CA (KLAX) to Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl, ON (CYYZ) with 8 crew members and 211 passengers on board. On takeoff from Runway 25R, a Right Generator failure occurred when the aircraft was travelling at approximately 130 knots. The flight crew elected to abort the takeoff, without further incident. The operator’s maintenance replaced the right hand IDG as per AMMM24-11-01 PB 401, and a test run confirmed serviceable.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#2 Post by confusedalot » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:25 am

Oh boy, here we go.......

My vote is no. But what do I know.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

GRK2
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#3 Post by GRK2 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:35 am

Generally speaking NO.
High speed rejects in heavy jets is a tricky subject and may heat up brakes and wheels to the extent that overheats might occur. Almost all operators will state that in the high speed regime (over 100 KIAS) reject BEFORE V1 only for:
1) Engine fail (with 2 parameters)
2) Engine Fire Warning
3) ANY Fire Warning
4) Traffic (ATC call included here)
5) Take Off Config Warning (although almost all of these occur before thrust is even set...Low Speed Warning)
6) Any warning which leads to the belief the aircraft may not safely fly.

In general, below 80Kts...reject for any caution light/aural. Between 80-100 only for a Warning light/Aural. See above for high speed. (A Generator fail is a caution light/warning on the B767... FWIW)
I won't armchair this one...wasn't there so can't comment.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingmach_1
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#4 Post by goingmach_1 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:27 am

who gives a sh_t. Nobody got hurt, good job. Move on
---------- ADS -----------
  

rudder
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#5 Post by rudder » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:06 am

RTO below 80kts is a non event. Auto brakes are not even armed. EICAS caution messages not inhibited.

Above 80kts any RTO is a potentially risky maneuver. I don’t mean 81kts, but more like V1-5kts, particularly on a runway that is balanced due to reduced T/O thrust setting.

Delta used to teach “fire/fear/fail/shear” as the high speed RTO criteria. Any fire indication. Any power plant failure. Any wind shear indication. And lastly - any other item which in the opinion of the Captain made continued flight less safe than RTO.

Many EICAS caution messages are inhibited in the high speed take off regimen. Generator is not one of them so it is a judgement call.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#6 Post by altiplano » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:40 am

Good job to the crew.

Nothing broken, nobody hurt, nothing to see here.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#7 Post by telex » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:52 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:40 am
Good job to the crew.

Nothing broken, nobody hurt, nothing to see here.
Stunning. You fully endorse doing something other than what the manufacturer's QRH says about a rejected takeoff?

Above 80 knots and prior to V1, the takeoff should be rejected for any of
the following:
• fire or fire warning
• engine failure
• if the airplane is unsafe or unable to fly.

How about... go flying, start the APU, continue the flight, and land without incident. Just a thought.

Mind you I'm just one of those dick heads that tries to follow a QRH to the letter.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by telex on Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#8 Post by av8ts » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:52 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:40 am
Good job to the crew.

Nothing broken, nobody hurt, nothing to see here.
Is that where the bar for a good job is now? Nobody died or got hurt
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#9 Post by mbav8r » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:33 pm

That’s a great threshold, for a good job!
Since nobody commenting so far was there, you have a piece of the picture. I don’t have anymore info than that but I can certainly imagine a scenario or two where you might reject for a gen failure. APU U/S, or maybe the other one had quit on the previous leg, so in a split second you need to decide if you want to risk a double Gen failure after T/O. Maybe the other one was already MEL’d, so would you fly all the way to YYZ on the APU Gen or circle around burning fuel to return and have one fixed, me personally I’m not flying five or so hours on one Gen unless I have to.
Not enough info and very easy to criticize when it’s not your ass strapped in, also I imagine it wasn’t just a balanced field, probably some excess runway unless of course the chose an intersection departure(see thread about that topic)
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#10 Post by telex » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:47 pm

mbav8r wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:33 pm
That’s a great threshold, for a good job!
Since nobody commenting so far was there, you have a piece of the picture. I don’t have anymore info than that but I can certainly imagine a scenario or two where you might reject for a gen failure. APU U/S, or maybe the other one had quit on the previous leg, so in a split second you need to decide if you want to risk a double Gen failure after T/O. Maybe the other one was already MEL’d, so would you fly all the way to YYZ on the APU Gen or circle around burning fuel to return and have one fixed, me personally I’m not flying five or so hours on one Gen unless I have to.
Not enough info and very easy to criticize when it’s not your ass strapped in, also I imagine it wasn’t just a balanced field, probably some excess runway unless of course the chose an intersection departure(see thread about that topic)
What does the QRH say about rejecting for a generator failure? It's very simple.

I can tell you what it does not say. It does not say blah blah blah what if.

It says this:

Above 80 knots and prior to V1, the takeoff should be rejected for any of
the following:
• fire or fire warning
• engine failure
• if the airplane is unsafe or unable to fly.

Do you still advocate for disregarding manufacturer direction?

Your dramatic on the scene account is riveting but irrelevant.

It's called threat and error management. You goofballs are analyzing the result vs the incorrect action applied in a certain situation. Please tell me you understand this concept. Please.

ps. how much extra fuel are you packing that you need to burn off fuel for your landing? Wouldn't you be under max landing weight at departure for a five hour flight?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#11 Post by pelmet » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:10 pm

There are always more details that are unknown. I wonder if there was an accidental belief that a generator warning meant that an engine had failed. While I have never had an actual engine failure in a jet, I have noticed in the sim at least once(during a landing) that the first indication was a generator fail warning. Of course that was at low thrust and there was no yaw indication to help identify the situation.
mbav8r wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:33 pm
Since nobody commenting so far was there, you have a piece of the picture. I don’t have anymore info than that but I can certainly imagine a scenario or two where you might reject for a gen failure. APU U/S, or maybe the other one had quit on the previous leg, so in a split second you need to decide if you want to risk a double Gen failure after T/O. Maybe the other one was already MEL’d, so would you fly all the way to YYZ on the APU Gen or circle around burning fuel to return and have one fixed, me personally I’m not flying five or so hours on one Gen unless I have to.
I personally would not do a high speed RTO for a second generator failing.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#12 Post by altiplano » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:41 pm

Haha! Telex, good one!

You're one to talk about understanding concepts!

While the AOM says that for the reasons you listed you should reject a takeoff, it does not say that it is limiting.

What does it say?

The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the take-off.

We really don't know what that crew had out there.

Maybe they should have done it different?
Made a mistake on the failure recognition?
Felt a big vibration/surge/heard a clank when the IDG let go?
Had other restrictions?
Operating with MELd APUs isn't uncommon, particularly on NA flights because they don't like to send them overseas so will put them on that type of sector.
Were there other factors?
Is the report 100% accurate?

Whatever it is, they are experienced, 25+, even 30+ year veterans flying those machines and they made a difficult split second decision to a good outcome and that gets a good job from me with the information presented.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#13 Post by Zaibatsu » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:42 pm

Nope.

Risk goes up exponentially after 80 knots on a reject.

A reject after 80 should only be for engine failure, fire, control issues, or structural problems.

Plane can fly with one generator. It can fly with no generators.

No harm no foul doesn’t cut it. We have SOPs and don’t fly by the seat of our pants for a reason... and fatalities and hull losses have plummeted because of it.

If the Captain wants to brief outside of SOPs, fine. But he’d better have a really good reason for it. There is no conceivable reason I can think of to reject for a generator failure above 80 without an associated engine failure or fire.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Schooner69A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#14 Post by Schooner69A » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:50 pm

With just over 12000 feet of runway and a 0.3% uphill run, do any of the armchair airframe drivers know the accelerate/stop distance required?

Might give a little insight into the decision made...?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#15 Post by confusedalot » Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:03 pm

767 three quarters full and fuel for Toronto, meh.....7 or 8000 feet at min takeoff flap setting? It's been a long time since I've flown the plane and the books are long gone, so don't go too far with that.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#16 Post by telex » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:26 pm

altiplano wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:41 pm
Haha! Telex, good one!

You're one to talk about understanding concepts!

While the AOM says that for the reasons you listed you should reject a takeoff, it does not say that it is limiting.

What does it say?

The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the take-off.

We really don't know what that crew had out there.

Maybe they should have done it different?
Made a mistake on the failure recognition?
Felt a big vibration/surge/heard a clank when the IDG let go?
Had other restrictions?
Operating with MELd APUs isn't uncommon, particularly on NA flights because they don't like to send them overseas so will put them on that type of sector.
Were there other factors?
Is the report 100% accurate?

Whatever it is, they are experienced, 25+, even 30+ year veterans flying those machines and they made a difficult split second decision to a good outcome and that gets a good job from me with the information presented.
Wrong again.

This is why you reject above 80 knots:

Above 80 knots and prior to V1, the takeoff should be rejected for any of
the following:
• fire or fire warning
• engine failure
• if the airplane is unsafe or unable to fly.

If you choose to not accept manufacturer procedures as the way to operate an aircraft I have nothing further.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#17 Post by telex » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Schooner69A wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:50 pm
With just over 12000 feet of runway and a 0.3% uphill run, do any of the armchair airframe drivers know the accelerate/stop distance required?

Might give a little insight into the decision made...?
12000 feet of bare and dry pavement is sufficient for a 767 to complete an RTO. Works for 747 and 380 as well.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#18 Post by pelmet » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:50 am

telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Schooner69A wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:50 pm
With just over 12000 feet of runway and a 0.3% uphill run, do any of the armchair airframe drivers know the accelerate/stop distance required?

Might give a little insight into the decision made...?
12000 feet of bare and dry pavement is sufficient for a 767 to complete an RTO. Works for 747 and 380 as well.
It also makes it sufficient to reject above V1 for many aircraft at lighter weights and be able to easily stop before the end of the runway. Maybe that is how it works at some companies.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#19 Post by telex » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:01 am

pelmet wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:50 am
telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Schooner69A wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:50 pm
With just over 12000 feet of runway and a 0.3% uphill run, do any of the armchair airframe drivers know the accelerate/stop distance required?

Might give a little insight into the decision made...?
12000 feet of bare and dry pavement is sufficient for a 767 to complete an RTO. Works for 747 and 380 as well.
It also makes it sufficient to reject above V1 for many aircraft at lighter weights and be able to easily stop before the end of the runway. Maybe that is how it works at some companies.
Now an advocate for rejecting after V1? Where do those performance numbers get generated?
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#20 Post by altiplano » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:13 am

You are wrong Telex.

Again. It's not limiting to only the reasons you post.
For those reasons Boeing simply says you should reject, but not only for... every situation can be different and it's the Captain's to make in a split-second.

The first line of the SOP says:

The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the take-off.

Not you, not even Boeing.

You might disagree, you might have done it different, but it's not your responsibility or decision, nor do you have any information beyond a 5 line report. It was this Captain's decision, he made it, and followed through with a successful maneuver to a successful outcome.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Schooner69A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#21 Post by Schooner69A » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:28 am

The reason I posed the question involving runway remaining is because of an incident I had involving carburetor icing many years ago.

To counter the formation of ice in the carburetor, the recommended actions in the "Emergency Procedures" section was to "...apply full throttle and pull the carburetor heat knob full out until the engine runs smoothly; then remove carburetor heat and readjust the throttle..."

I have no doubt that following the recommended procedure would have solved my problem; however, I modified the procedure by selecting carb heat "ON" and reducing the power to idle.

Why?

Because the engine started to wind down about a hundred feet in the air on take-off... With four thousand feet of runway in front of me, the decision was obvious. It was obvious from thousands of hours of experience that given my altitude, my airspeed, and the available run remaining, a safe landing could be accomplished.

I have no experience on a Boeing 767; however, whatever the reason for the rejection, the captain knew that a safe outcome would be experienced if he stayed on the ground.

Now, if either of us had wound up off the end of the runway in among the sagebrush and the cacti, we'd have had our mussentouchits whacked. However, we didn't, and they weren't...

PS Observant folks will notice the sexist assumption I've made... (;>0)
---------- ADS -----------
  

GRK2
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#22 Post by GRK2 » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:15 am

Yes, you can hilight the Captain's sole responsibility all you want. What if he/she was wrong? Not following SOP and/or manufacturers recommendations and bending tin by making up your own shit will cost a job. Every. Freakin'. Time. Why even go there? Simpler to follow the rules, do what you agreed to do when you signed the tech log that certified you agreed everything was correctly done, and retire when you want...and you know what? It's satisfying...seriously....The comments I see here about RTOs are chilling...
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#23 Post by digits_ » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:42 am

GRK2 wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:15 am
Yes, you can hilight the Captain's sole responsibility all you want. What if he/she was wrong? Not following SOP and/or manufacturers recommendations and bending tin by making up your own shit will cost a job. Every. Freakin'. Time. Why even go there? Simpler to follow the rules, do what you agreed to do when you signed the tech log that certified you agreed everything was correctly done, and retire when you want...and you know what? It's satisfying...seriously....The comments I see here about RTOs are chilling...
Where does it say he didn't follow manufacturer's recommendations?

Based on the information posted/quoted in this topic:

The manufacturer says:
"if A happens, do B"

This does in no way mean that:
"if A doesn't happen, don't do B"

That's really basic logic. Maybe that's why operators prefer a degree :twisted: :?:
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2861
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#24 Post by CpnCrunch » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:59 am

rudder wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:06 am
Many EICAS caution messages are inhibited in the high speed take off regimen. Generator is not one of them so it is a judgement call.
Seems a little odd to not inhibit a caution that you're expected to ignore during that phase of the takeoff.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

#25 Post by altiplano » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:38 am

digits_ wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:42 am
GRK2 wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:15 am
Yes, you can hilight the Captain's sole responsibility all you want. What if he/she was wrong? Not following SOP and/or manufacturers recommendations and bending tin by making up your own shit will cost a job. Every. Freakin'. Time. Why even go there? Simpler to follow the rules, do what you agreed to do when you signed the tech log that certified you agreed everything was correctly done, and retire when you want...and you know what? It's satisfying...seriously....The comments I see here about RTOs are chilling...
Where does it say he didn't follow manufacturer's recommendations?

Based on the information posted/quoted in this topic:

The manufacturer says:
"if A happens, do B"

This does in no way mean that:
"if A doesn't happen, don't do B"

That's really basic logic.
Right on.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”