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

User avatar
telex
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

Post by B208 »

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 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

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

Post by AuxBatOn »

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: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

Post by B208 »

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 -----------
 
justwork
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:59 am
Location: East Coast

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

Post by justwork »

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: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

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

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

Nope
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
User avatar
telex
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
User avatar
telex
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

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

Post by B208 »

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 -----------
 
User avatar
telex
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

Post by pelmet »

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: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

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

Post by Rockie »

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 7
Rank 7
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

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

Post by telex »

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 -----------
 
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

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

Post by Rockie »

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 -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

Post by pelmet »

Looks like the 737 cautions are not inhibited in the higher airspeed range. Fairly long runway at 10,000 feet.

"C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8 MAX aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA1049 from Palm Springs Intl (KPSP), CA to Calgary Intl (CYYC), AB. During the takeoff roll on Runway 31L at KPSP, the flight crew received a Master Caution Light for the FWD Entry Door. At an indicated airspeed of approximately 110 kts, the flight crew rejected the takeoff, brought the aircraft to a full stop, declared a PAN PAN, and exited the runway. A flight attendant confirmed that the door appeared to be properly closed and locked. A brake inspection was done by a safety vehicle, and maintenance personnel inspected once the brakes cooled."
---------- ADS -----------
 
ReserveTank
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am

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

Post by ReserveTank »

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.

Exactly. The MD-11 QRH was updated to reflect this idea. It says (I'm paraphrasing), "Don't waste time with the QRH if you need to land now."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jet Jockey
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

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

Post by Jet Jockey »

Apologize in advance because I did not read the whole thread so I don't have all the info on this incident.

A good friend of mine that flew the B767 for Air Canada (now retired) tells me that there is no way he would have rejected for a "Generator Failure" at 130kts. As far as he is concerned that was not part of any Air Canada SOPs and training manuals and never once in his career was he told he should reject for this type of failure.

Even if the APU would have been U/S (MEL), he would have taken the aircraft in the air and dealt with the consequences once at a safe altitude.

Question to the Air Canada pilots... Do we know if the pilots were replaced? Did another crew take the aircraft back home to CYYZ after the repairs?

Again, based on my friend's experience... They rejected (another type) for a valid warning but it was below 100kts.

When he talked to Ops/dispatch after getting back to the gate, one of the questions he was asked was at what speed the reject was accomplished.

They were very specific in asking if the reject had occurred above 100kts (which he confirmed it was not) because he was told by Ops that a reject above 100kts was considered an emergency and that a crew change would be required.

Personally I would not reject for a "Gen Fail" caution message at high speed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

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

Post by pelmet »

The RTO speeds are getting higher. Flaps are more of a concern than a generator of course but what would one do here. Maybe add full thrust and rotate at a higher speed if there is a concern. Any thoughts...…

"C-GCIJ, a Boeing 767-300 operated by CargoJet Airways, was conducting a flight from
Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson International (CYWG), MB to Iqaluit (CYFB), NU. During
the takeoff roll at CYWG, the flight crew observed a red FLAP EICAS message and aural warning
subsequently rejecting takeoff above V1. The aircraft stopped within the confines of the runway
and the crew subsequently followed the recommended brake-cooling schedule. ARFF was
requested for precautionary measures and emergency vehicles escorted the aircraft safely to the
ramp.
The operator's maintenance identified the flaps could not retract and was stuck at 1 with
FLAP/SLAT ELEC status message. Water was found on FSPM cards, the FSPM cards were dried
and FSPM M838 was replaced. The flaps were cycled and tested normal with no further faults."
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

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

Post by valleyboy »

Above V1 why would they reject unless the captain had better insight, like excess runway. This would have required an over weight landing at high landing ref. considering flaps stuck if they took it into the air. It worked out so no issue and proper call at the time. I'm not sure if a human brain could weigh all this in the split second and muscle memory rules. That could be the question but a red warning light could move you towards wanting to stay on the ground.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”