Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

[Schooner69A]

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)

[GRK2]

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...

[digits_]

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

[CpnCrunch]

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.

[altiplano]

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.

[rudder]

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.

[Boney]

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.

[pelmet]

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).

[mbav8r]

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?

[ahramin]

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

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.

[Boney]

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.

[pelmet]

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.

[KAG]

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.

[mbav8r]

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.

[altiplano]

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.

[upnatem]

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.

[pelmet]

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.

[Redneck_pilot86]

"Right Gen Failure" sounds A LOT like "Right Engine Failure" Maybe the crew just doesn't speak good.

[pelmet]

"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.

[B208]

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.