We'll finish this pissing match one way or another.B208 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:41 amNice 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.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.
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.
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?