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
User avatar
telex
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#51 Post by telex » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:28 am

B208 wrote:
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.
We'll finish this pissing match one way or another.

Let's finish with your Swissair excursion before we pivot back to the point. You cherry picked a fatal event which might have had a marginal chance of survival (at best) to illustrate your point that following a QRH is a bad idea. Even if immediate diversion action was taken when smoke was recognized the whole QRH issue quickly became secondary. Or even irrelevant. You disregarded the fact that it was the most comprehensive accident investigation in Canadian aviation history and summed it up rather succinctly in your own way. Nope. Followed QRH. Died. How stupid of them.

I cautioned against analyzing the result above (at least your result of following the QRH) but here you are analyzing the result. I said look at the report. What checklist did the crew follow? You said nope they followed the QRH! I said let's look at the report and see what checklist was in the QRH that the crew followed. It was a company checklist not approved by the manufacturer that the crew followed. But you said nope followed QRH and died! So simple and clean for you.

Repeating the same wrong information does not make it the right information.

Ok. I understand. In your world if a document is contained within the QRH the origin of such a document is irrelevant and it is simplified (in your world) as QRH. Follow QRH and die. Got it.

Of course you took the time to tell me you were right and you already knew you were right. Are you an egomaniac, ill-informed, or do you have magic powers? I can't be bothered to look for your qualifications but to dismiss the Swissair report and draw your own conclusions is nothing short of asinine.

Now, finally (and thankfully) back to the topic.

When I hear, "I did that because it didn't say I couldn't", what I reply is this; You should have done what it said in order to avoid making up dumb sh*t to try and save your ass. You are simply making up dumb sh*t at this point.

One more time I will post the published manufacturer direction in regards to an RTO for the B767.

Above 80 knots and prior to V1, the takeoff should be rejected for any of
the following: (But, in your words, "the QRH prohibiting an RTO". QRH does not prohibit such, but your lack of experience here is now glaringly obvious. But don't let that stop you from being the authority on such matters) Have you ever flown a Boeing? How much time on the 767?
• fire or fire warning - 208 should say nope
• engine failure - 208 should say nope
• if the airplane is unsafe or unable to fly. - Only 208 can properly interpret this one. And this is the point.

Some have already correctly stated that the B767 will fly with three, two, one, or none generators.

But it didn't say you could not reject for "that". Right, 208? So was it unsafe or unable to fly? It is really quite simple right here and right now. Unsafe or unable?

Since we already know it would fly I guess we know it was able and thus we can assume it was unsafe? That's your last leg to stand on 208. Please expand on why it was unsafe. And no more made up bullsh*t about blah blah blah. Stick to published data so we can have a common ground.

Boeing doesn't publish a document for you that says you can't do this or that. Boeing only publishes a document for you that says you should do this or that.

You're next uncontrollable tangent that the scope of Boeing manuals doesn't cover should be entertaining. I bet Boeing doesn't even say you shouldn't do that. Or isn't that your point?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3038
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

#52 Post by pelmet » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:26 pm

Not much detail in this case.

C-GENU, a Westjet Encore de Havilland DHC-8-400, was operating as flight WEN3109 from Calgary, AB (CYYC) to Nanaimo, BC (CYCD). During the take-off roll the flight crew noted an AC generator caution light and rejected the takeoff. While taxiing from the runway, the flight attendant reported smoke was coming from the brakes. The flight crew actioned the QRH and requested ARFF. ARFF met the aircraft and followed WEN3109 to the gate. There were no further smoke issues.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

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

#53 Post by Rockie » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:45 am

telex wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:28 am
You cherry picked a fatal event which might have had a marginal chance of survival (at best) to illustrate your point that following a QRH is a bad idea.
I'd like to point out doing a QRH and landing are not mutually exclusive. In a time critical scenario the crew can set the aircraft up for an immediate landing and simultaneously do as much of the relevant QRH as possible in the time available. There are at least two people up there afterall, and they can do two separate things at once.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

#54 Post by telex » Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:16 am

Rockie wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:45 am
telex wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:28 am
You cherry picked a fatal event which might have had a marginal chance of survival (at best) to illustrate your point that following a QRH is a bad idea.
I'd like to point out doing a QRH and landing are not mutually exclusive. In a time critical scenario the crew can set the aircraft up for an immediate landing and simultaneously do as much of the relevant QRH as possible in the time available. There are at least two people up there afterall, and they can do two separate things at once.
As always Rockie, thank you for your valuable, timely, and insightful input.

If you could clarify a couple issues for me I'd appreciate it. I'm confused as to whether your input is in relation to a QRH, landing, or people in the flightdeck?

The thread is about an RTO event. Right?

But, to the insights you offered.

1.Did you read the report?

2.If so, did you understand it?

I'll give you a hint as to where this is going Rockie.

Suppose for a minute there were two people/pilots in the flightdeck.

One would be the Captain and one would be the First Officer. Agreed?

Who do you think would be the one that decided what the course of action would be in the Swisair situation?

Keep in mind the one sentence you cherry picked was only in relation to following QRH direction was a bad idea. And that idea only belongs to 208.

I look forward to the clarity you will offer.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

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

#55 Post by Rockie » Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:30 pm

telex wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:16 am
Keep in mind the one sentence you cherry picked was only in relation to following QRH direction was a bad idea. And that idea only belongs to 208.
Correct, it only belongs to B208.

Yes, I read the report but it was a long time ago.

The Captain decides the division of duties and course of action. To make an informed decision input from other crew members is a necessary part of the equation.

My comment was in response to people who think there are only two responses to a perilous situation - blind adherence to the QRH and recommended procedures - or ignoring them altogether. It is rarely that simple. This also is not in any way commenting on the origin of this thread either. I will not second guess anybody without knowing all the facts first, and even then I'd have a hard time doing that because I wasn't there.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”