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
rudder
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

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

#26 Post by rudder » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:10 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
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.
Not ignore. Consider. That is why SOME caution messages are not inhibited during the high speed takeoff phase. Most SOP’s would have the PM call out the message then Captain makes the RTO decision.

Examples where caution messages might be relevant in go/no go decisions are anti-icing failure messages when taking off in to icing conditions. Or as another poster suggested - a generator failure on take off when a generator is already deferred. If this happened departing in low visibility, then a cat 2/3 approach/autoland return to departure airport would not be possible. A flight to take off alternate with a single electrical power source would result. Not ideal.

It is not always black and white. However, high speed RTO’s are potentially consequential and that too is a factor in the decision to abort a take off prior to V1 when the failure is not one that mandates an aborted takeoff per the FCOM/SOP.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Boney
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:32 pm

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

#27 Post by Boney » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm

The DC10 in YVR some years ago, went off the end after the RTO after V1. The captain probably thought he had enough room to stop.

The SOPs are there for a reason. Flight ops /chief pilot will not be impressed if you do otherwise.

Right now, I’m an armchair pilot with time to think. On the actual takeoff run, time is limited. SOPs is your lifeline.

Cheers.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3471
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

#28 Post by pelmet » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:25 pm

rudder wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:10 pm
CpnCrunch wrote:
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.
Not ignore. Consider. That is why SOME caution messages are not inhibited during the high speed takeoff phase. Most SOP’s would have the PM call out the message then Captain makes the RTO decision.

Examples where caution messages might be relevant in go/no go decisions are anti-icing failure messages when taking off in to icing conditions. Or as another poster suggested - a generator failure on take off when a generator is already deferred. If this happened departing in low visibility, then a cat 2/3 approach/autoland return to departure airport would not be possible. A flight to take off alternate with a single electrical power source would result. Not ideal.

It is not always black and white. However, high speed RTO’s are potentially consequential and that too is a factor in the decision to abort a take off prior to V1 when the failure is not one that mandates an aborted takeoff per the FCOM/SOP.
I would prefer to go to my takeoff alternate with one generator intead of doing a high speed RTO. Same thing for something like an anti-ice message(if in fact it is not inhibited above a certain speed(which it is on some aircraft as it SHOULD NOT enter into the go/no-go decision at high speed).
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1807
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

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

#29 Post by mbav8r » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:31 pm

Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm
The DC10 in YVR some years ago, went off the end after the RTO after V1. The captain probably thought he had enough room to stop.

The SOPs are there for a reason. Flight ops /chief pilot will not be impressed if you do otherwise.

Right now, I’m an armchair pilot with time to think. On the actual takeoff run, time is limited. SOPs is your lifeline.

Cheers.
This particular event was a reject after 80 knots but before V1, not sure why it’s a discussion in the first place.
Some are so single minded they refuse to see logic, Pelmet, you go on one generator and end up with the RAT deployed with emergency power only. When we bring that up on here, ok for us to criticize your decision to go?
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5594
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

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

#30 Post by ahramin » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:35 pm

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. Maybe that's why operators prefer a degree :twisted: :?:
Exactly. It's amazing that there are people out there who want to be responsible for complex decisions that involve people lives but can't be bothered to understand simple concepts necessary for basic thinking.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Boney
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:32 pm

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

#31 Post by Boney » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:17 pm

mbav8r wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:31 pm
Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm
The DC10 in YVR some years ago, went off the end after the RTO after V1. The captain probably thought he had enough room to stop.

The SOPs are there for a reason. Flight ops /chief pilot will not be impressed if you do otherwise.

Right now, I’m an armchair pilot with time to think. On the actual takeoff run, time is limited. SOPs is your lifeline.

Cheers.
This particular event was a reject after 80 knots but before V1, not sure why it’s a discussion in the first place.
Some are so single minded they refuse to see logic, Pelmet, you go on one generator and end up with the RAT deployed with emergency power only. When we bring that up on here, ok for us to criticize your decision to go?
You obviously have knowledge of this particular event. Was it briefed that this would be the plan if the other Gen failed on takeoff? If yes, then all is good as there was a discussion and plan.

Other than that, it appeared that some are advocating non compliance with SOPs. They are there for good reason. Don’t.

Cheers.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3471
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

#32 Post by pelmet » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:52 pm

mbav8r wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:31 pm
Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm
The DC10 in YVR some years ago, went off the end after the RTO after V1. The captain probably thought he had enough room to stop.

The SOPs are there for a reason. Flight ops /chief pilot will not be impressed if you do otherwise.

Right now, I’m an armchair pilot with time to think. On the actual takeoff run, time is limited. SOPs is your lifeline.

Cheers.
This particular event was a reject after 80 knots but before V1, not sure why it’s a discussion in the first place.
Some are so single minded they refuse to see logic, Pelmet, you go on one generator and end up with the RAT deployed with emergency power only. When we bring that up on here, ok for us to criticize your decision to go?
While the details of this incident are not known.......
I am confident in my decision to avoid a high speed RTO for a second generator failing after the first one was MEL'd. An APU would be operating if there was a generator MEL. The RAT will not deploy in this situation as far as I know and you are not on emergency power, especially on an ETOPS certified aircraft.

unfortunately, some people try to come up with obscure reasons to do high speed aborts as we see here. Maybe the other generator was MEL'd so then they could be on emergency power only if the APU generator happens to fail soon after. Or maybe it was a bomb explosion that just happened to happen right after V1 in Vancouver in a DC-10 so we will abort and nearly kill everybody.

I had a warning horn right around V1 a few years ago on a short runway. Was a false takeoff config but I really didn't know what it was initially except that there was no yaw. Shook me up a bit. I used one of the most important words one can have in such a situation....CONTINUE.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3510
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

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

#33 Post by KAG » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:26 pm

The cpts emergency authority trumps all, but the correct answer is your not really supposed to reject. It's nothing more then a good discussion piece, but according to boeing you continue.
Now say you reject and the overwing pax start they're own evacuation and someone got hurt (this happened at Jazz 10 years ago) that decision to reject will be questioned.
If it were me flying, without knowing they're particular situation, route destination, etc- I would have continued and delt with it in the air.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1807
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

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

#34 Post by mbav8r » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:16 pm

Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:17 pm
mbav8r wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:31 pm
Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm
The DC10 in YVR some years ago, went off the end after the RTO after V1. The captain probably thought he had enough room to stop.

The SOPs are there for a reason. Flight ops /chief pilot will not be impressed if you do otherwise.

Right now, I’m an armchair pilot with time to think. On the actual takeoff run, time is limited. SOPs is your lifeline.

Cheers.
This particular event was a reject after 80 knots but before V1, not sure why it’s a discussion in the first place.
Some are so single minded they refuse to see logic, Pelmet, you go on one generator and end up with the RAT deployed with emergency power only. When we bring that up on here, ok for us to criticize your decision to go?
You obviously have knowledge of this particular event. Was it briefed that this would be the plan if the other Gen failed on takeoff? If yes, then all is good as there was a discussion and plan.

Other than that, it appeared that some are advocating non compliance with SOPs. They are there for good reason. Don’t.

Cheers.
I do not, however I can reasonably assume 130kts is below V1 in a 767. If I’m wrong and the stated speed of the reject is V1 or greater, a Gen failure would not be cause for reject. Do you know ACs SOPs? Does it say DO NOT REJECT T/O above 80 knots for a caution light? I know mine don’t, above 80 knots it’s discretionary and under most circumstances I would not for a Gen failure, we don’t know why they did!
I understand speculating on accidents and incidents but now a reject with a good outcome, are we that bored we need to invent the bogeyman.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

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

#35 Post by altiplano » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:40 pm

Boney wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:17 pm
it appeared that some are advocating non compliance with SOPs.
Where is the SOP non-compliance?

There was not any SOP non-compliance here.

The SOP is not to reject for only specified conditions above 80.

The SOP to not to NOT reject for other conditions above 80.

The SOP is for the Captain to decide how fast he is willing to reject on a given runway, before V1, and for various abnormalities.

This reject was likely 20-30 knots below V1 on a 12091' runway and no V1 split - ie. room to spare, not tight...

80 knots is not limiting and the list of things you should reject for is not limiting.

You may say "I don't think I'd reject in that circumstance" and that is fine, when you're the Captain, you make that choice... but the fact is no-one in this peanut gallery knows all the circumstances surrounding this issue and even if it was a caution light only and he decided to reject he did not violate SOP in deciding to do so.
---------- ADS -----------
  

upnatem
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:30 am

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

#36 Post by upnatem » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:22 am

telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:26 pm
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.
C'mon people - where is the reading comprehension here?

The third bullet point means that any situation the pilot decides, in real-time based on experience and training, is not safe the takeoff is aborted. There are many situations or combinations of factors that, while individually wouldn't warrant an abort, when combined certainly would. In the spirit of speculation (the founding principal of this accident forum) people are merely suggesting some of those potential combinations. Claiming the first two bullet points negate the third is ridiculous.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3471
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

#37 Post by pelmet » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:49 am

Quite ironic that I happen to be reading the Aug 2017 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation(an excellent publication that is free) and am right on an article about RTO's.

http://aviationweek.com/business-aviati ... aught-risk

According to one study....

"Historically, pilots have rejected takeoffs less than 18% of the time due to engine failure, according to the Netherlands Aerospace Center’s (NLR) Air Transport Safety Institute. The other four-fifths were due to blown tires, warning lights or other indications. However, less than half of those RTOs were warranted. And when pilots made the decision to continue the takeoff despite such abnormal indications, none of those “go” decisions resulted in accidents or incidents, according to FlightSafety’s research."

So while we don't know all the info in the particular case that started this thread and therefore no comment is being made on it......

.......aside from the Boeing mentioned reasons, at high speeds, just continue. Most of the time, it will be written up at destination. Turning obscure scenarios (such as loss of a second generator on an airliner) into emergencies requiring a high speed RTO is not a good idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Redneck_pilot86
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: between 60 and 70

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

#38 Post by Redneck_pilot86 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:49 am

"Right Gen Failure" sounds A LOT like "Right Engine Failure" Maybe the crew just doesn't speak good.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3471
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

#39 Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:22 am

Redneck_pilot86 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:49 am
"Right Gen Failure" sounds A LOT like "Right Engine Failure" Maybe the crew just doesn't speak good.
Who knows what happened. Maybe the F/O saw a gen failure indication and assumed that it was an engine failure and yelled Engine Failure leading to the RTO. These things can happen. Look at some of the strange things you have seen in the sim over the years.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

#40 Post by B208 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am

telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:47 pm


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.
Does the QRH say you can't carry out an RTO for a gen fail?

I will also point out that the crew of Swissair 101 followed the QRH to the letter.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#41 Post by telex » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:19 pm

B208 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am
telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:47 pm


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.
Does the QRH say you can't carry out an RTO for a gen fail?

I will also point out that the crew of Swissair 101 followed the QRH to the letter.
Since you're a stickler for details what the crew of Swissair 101 followed was not a QRH. It was a Swissair checklist entitled "In case of smoke of unknown origin". So in this case they didn't follow the QRH. See where that got them?

The QRH doesn't say a lot of things. But the board of inquiry is probably going to focus on what it does say, rather than what it does not. Things like manufacturer procedures might even get mentioned.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

#42 Post by B208 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 pm

telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:19 pm
B208 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am
telex wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:47 pm


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.
Does the QRH say you can't carry out an RTO for a gen fail?

I will also point out that the crew of Swissair 101 followed the QRH to the letter.
Since you're a stickler for details what the crew of Swissair 101 followed was not a QRH. It was a Swissair checklist entitled "In case of smoke of unknown origin". So in this case they didn't follow the QRH. See where that got them?

The QRH doesn't say a lot of things. But the board of inquiry is probably going to focus on what it does say, rather than what it does not. Things like manufacturer procedures might even get mentioned.
The document in which that "Smoke of Unknown Origin" checklist is called a ......?

I rather doubt that a successful RTO is going to trigger a BOI, but if it did I doubt that their findings would be that the crew deviated from the QRH.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#43 Post by telex » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm

B208 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 pm
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:19 pm
B208 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am


Does the QRH say you can't carry out an RTO for a gen fail?

I will also point out that the crew of Swissair 101 followed the QRH to the letter.
Since you're a stickler for details what the crew of Swissair 101 followed was not a QRH. It was a Swissair checklist entitled "In case of smoke of unknown origin". So in this case they didn't follow the QRH. See where that got them?

The QRH doesn't say a lot of things. But the board of inquiry is probably going to focus on what it does say, rather than what it does not. Things like manufacturer procedures might even get mentioned.
The document in which that "Smoke of Unknown Origin" checklist is called a ......?

I rather doubt that a successful RTO is going to trigger a BOI, but if it did I doubt that their findings would be that the crew deviated from the QRH.
It's called a Smoke of Unknown Origin checklist. The manufacturer does not approve the checklists used by the operators.

I'm sure you will miss the point but I would not consider a company created checklist (not approved by a manufacturer) located within the QRH to be classified as manufacturer QRH procedure. I'm sure you will disagree. So again I advocate for following manufacturer documentation. To the letter.

You can educate yourself here if you wish.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp ... 18_02.html

You are correct in that there will be no BOI for a rejected take-off. However, use the BOI as a litmus test for your "it doesn't say that I can't do that" defence against any decision you make when advocating against manufacturer guidance.

"I did that because it doesn't say I can't."

Or... "I did that because of published manufacturer direction and historical data to suggest a favourable outcome in the event of...".

I really don't know how many more ways you can advocate not following manufacturer data.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

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

#44 Post by AuxBatOn » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:51 am

If you are using a company-developped checklist, it should be in the COM or SOP (which are approved by TC). In this case, I'd say that using such a checklist is probably ok. I doubt a company like Swissair would just "wing it" and would have a group of smart people come up with a checklist that makes sense.

Beyond the "was it legal" question to me is: Was there another manufacturer approved checklist that would have resulted inna different outcome? This is the real question to ask, not whether or not the checklist was manufacturer-approved.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

#45 Post by B208 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:12 am

telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm

It's called a Smoke of Unknown Origin checklist. The manufacturer does not approve the checklists used by the operators.
While the manufacturer did not approve the checklist, the regulator did.
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm
I'm sure you will miss the point but I would not consider a company created checklist (not approved by a manufacturer) located within the QRH to be classified as manufacturer QRH procedure.
So, the crew were following the QRH provided to them.
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm
You are correct in that there will be no BOI for a rejected take-off. However, use the BOI as a litmus test for your "it doesn't say that I can't do that" defence against any decision you make when advocating against manufacturer guidance.
There is no need for you to acknowledge that I am correct; I already knew that I was correct. I would feel quite comfortable explaining to any board my decision to carry out an RTO under the circumstances described.
It would be highly entertaining, however, to watch someone try and convince that same board that that same RTO had violated the manufacturer's guidance. Had the manufacturer not wanted you to carry out an RTO under those conditions they would have stated it quite clearly; i.e. "RTO between 80kts and V1 approved only for engine failure, fire, etc..."
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
justwork
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:59 am

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

#46 Post by justwork » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:37 pm

A rejected take off at that speed is a tricky thing. They had to be close to V1 which means it was a very fast decision to make. Below V1 and any question as to safety, why not reject? The plane can take it. Or hum and ha and then be above V1 and now you've you're committed and potentially wishing you weren't

We are all trained at high speed rejects. We practice this, the crew executed it, no one injured, no damage done. If they took off and returned it would be an overweight landing inspection plus the IDG repair, plus the press spinning it as a near death experience, plus the tweets and FB updates about how some pussy thought their life was going to end.

Who cares? The decision was the PIC, armchair quarter back all you want with the minutes you can spend coming up with alternate decisions. He/she had a matter of seconds to make that same decision. If they were past V1 the decision is easy. Creeping up on V1 and it becomes more difficult.

IMO, good job.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

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

#47 Post by Illya Kuryakin » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:50 pm

Nope
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
  
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#48 Post by telex » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:07 am

justwork wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:37 pm
A rejected take off at that speed is a tricky thing. They had to be close to V1 which means it was a very fast decision to make. Below V1 and any question as to safety, why not reject? The plane can take it. Or hum and ha and then be above V1 and now you've you're committed and potentially wishing you weren't

We are all trained at high speed rejects. We practice this, the crew executed it, no one injured, no damage done. If they took off and returned it would be an overweight landing inspection plus the IDG repair, plus the press spinning it as a near death experience, plus the tweets and FB updates about how some pussy thought their life was going to end.

Who cares? The decision was the PIC, armchair quarter back all you want with the minutes you can spend coming up with alternate decisions. He/she had a matter of seconds to make that same decision. If they were past V1 the decision is easy. Creeping up on V1 and it becomes more difficult.

IMO, good job.
Who cares? I guess you do.

Can you cite a reference to a go no go decision that continued and ended poorly?

Creeping up on V1 really should make the decision easier. You plan to go flying.

"If they took off and returned it would be an overweight landing inspection plus the IDG repair, plus the press spinning it as a near death experience, plus the tweets and FB updates about how some pussy thought their life was going to end."

Can you post the flightplan that shows an overweight landing would have been a consideration?

Go flying. Start APU. Continue to destination. Why is an overweight landing required with two operating engines and a fully functioning electrical system?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#49 Post by telex » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:44 am

B208 wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:12 am
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm

It's called a Smoke of Unknown Origin checklist. The manufacturer does not approve the checklists used by the operators.
While the manufacturer did not approve the checklist, the regulator did.
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm
I'm sure you will miss the point but I would not consider a company created checklist (not approved by a manufacturer) located within the QRH to be classified as manufacturer QRH procedure.
So, the crew were following the QRH provided to them.
telex wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 pm
You are correct in that there will be no BOI for a rejected take-off. However, use the BOI as a litmus test for your "it doesn't say that I can't do that" defence against any decision you make when advocating against manufacturer guidance.
There is no need for you to acknowledge that I am correct; I already knew that I was correct. I would feel quite comfortable explaining to any board my decision to carry out an RTO under the circumstances described.
It would be highly entertaining, however, to watch someone try and convince that same board that that same RTO had violated the manufacturer's guidance. Had the manufacturer not wanted you to carry out an RTO under those conditions they would have stated it quite clearly; i.e. "RTO between 80kts and V1 approved only for engine failure, fire, etc..."
You have free access to the most comprehensive accident investigation ever conducted in Canadian aviation history.

Your response is: Nope! Followed QRH. Died. Case closed.

Until you can post your qualifications to support your expert opinion I will kindly disagree with your assessment.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

#50 Post by B208 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:41 am

telex wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:44 am

You have free access to the most comprehensive accident investigation ever conducted in Canadian aviation history.

Your response is: Nope! Followed QRH. Died. Case closed.

Until you can post your qualifications to support your expert opinion I will kindly disagree with your assessment.
Nice attempt at diversion. My response, (to the topic at hand: the QRH prohibiting an RTO), stands. Doing an RTO under those circumstances did not violate the QRH. As to SOPs or whether or not its a good idea I make no comment.

My qualifications are already laid out elsewhere in the forum if you want to make the effort to find them. I'm not going to ask you about yours because I assess people based on what they say as opposed to what is printed about them in a booklet.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”