Parking Brake on the Runway

[pelmet]

I agree. While this thread has been interesting and has some information I didn't know that could have applied very much to a couple aircraft I flew in my career, the practice of never setting the parking brake because a few crews managed to take off with it on doesn't apply to a single one of the many types of aircraft I currently fly.

Why not?

[PointyEngine]

It's written into our SOP's that if the crew is to make any changes to the FMS, then the parking break MUST be set. Logic would dictate you would advise ATC of the delay, and either have things sorted out prior to lining up, or taxi clear of the active runway - unless traffic wasn't going to be an issue. If you tried to advance the power levers with the park break on, all hell would break lose and the computers would quickly start squawking.

[oldtimer]

Hey guys, they are parking BRAKES that if left on one may BREAK the airplane.
But if one is inclined to set the park BRAKE on the runway, make sure it is fully on so the airplane will not move until the BRAKES are released and begin to move forward with minimum BREAK away thrust.
Just my $0:02

[Cat Driver]

It's written into our SOP's that if the crew is to make any changes to the FMS, then the parking break MUST be set.

Your company SOP's allow you to accept to position and hold for take off while you are typing into your FMS?

[ahramin]

I agree. While this thread has been interesting and has some information I didn't know that could have applied very much to a couple aircraft I flew in my career, the practice of never setting the parking brake because a few crews managed to take off with it on doesn't apply to a single one of the many types of aircraft I currently fly.

Why not?

Most don't have enough power to overpower the brakes, the ones that do have ECAM warning or takeoff config warnings for just this situation.

[pelmet]

I agree. While this thread has been interesting and has some information I didn't know that could have applied very much to a couple aircraft I flew in my career, the practice of never setting the parking brake because a few crews managed to take off with it on doesn't apply to a single one of the many types of aircraft I currently fly.

Why not?

Most don't have enough power to overpower the brakes, the ones that do have ECAM warning or takeoff config warnings for just this situation.

Try selecting full power on a large aircraft when light and see what happens with brakes applied. Then try it on a slippery or wet runway and see what happens.

Depending on the takeoff config warning is not a good idea.

Just ask these guys....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest ... Flight_255
Contributing to the accident was the absence of electrical power to the airplane takeoff warning system which thus did not warn the flightcrew that the airplane was not configured properly for takeoff. The reason for the absence of electrical power could not be determined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... light_1141
Probable cause #2..."the failure of the plane's TOWS to sound and alert the crew that their plane was not properly configured for takeoff."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanair_Flight_5022
"The CIAIAC determined the following contributory factors:
The absence of any warning of the incorrect take-off configuration because the TOWS did not work. It was not possible to determine conclusively why the TOWS system did not work."

Three accidents with takeoff warning failures, over 300 dead and plenty of injured.

And there are more if I take the time to really do a search.

[ahramin]

Exactly Pelmet. If through some misfortune I end up flying old aircraft with all sorts of inop systems, I'll be very glad of the information contained in this thread.

[Rowdy]

It's written into our SOP's that if the crew is to make any changes to the FMS, then the parking break MUST be set.

Your company SOP's allow you to accept to position and hold for take off while you are typing into your FMS?

Cat, did you miss the bulk of that post? He later went on to state that if you were unable to comply with that, you would stay holding short or advise ATS and taxi clear. No one's SOP's are going to tell you to stop on a runway and reprogram the FMS...

As for Pelmet, You pointed to a bunch of old accidents that were related to configuration screw ups. Mostly flap/slat. Nothing to do with park brakes. If you operated in the airline environment you'd be aware of proper park brake usage and the systems to avoid a foul up. The aircraft I operate has a big glaring PARK BRAKE light in plain view on the caution panel, it also has a config horn that will sound. It also won't move. The park brake handle is also in a position that makes it an easy catch, as are the handles in most of the airliners I have had the pleasure of riding the jumpseat. Not to mention the Before Takeoff Check requires a confirmation that ALL of those caution lights are out.

I do notice a trend here.. Many of the operators of smaller equipment lament the use of park brakes due to hearsay/old wives tales/stories/etc. Thats fine, do as you wish. I personally never set the park brake in the beechs I flew, they were always chocked. Those that operate airline equipment seem to be operating them as per their respective SOPs. SOP compliance is mandatory. Good on you.

I've always been against the philosophy of flying aircraft A in a certain manner because aircraft B needs to be flown that way.

THIS! RIGHT HERE! Thanks ahramin.

[pelmet]

As for Pelmet, You pointed to a bunch of old accidents that were related to configuration screw ups. Mostly flap/slat. Nothing to do with park brakes.

Exactly Pelmet. If through some misfortune I end up flying old aircraft with all sorts of inop systems, I'll be very glad of the information contained in this thread.

I was hoping that people would understand that when someone says that they can rely on a takeoff warning system to warn them of a critical item not being where it should be, that they would understand that my examples were examples of the takeoff warning system NOT warning of a critical system being where it should be.

There are multiple systems on many aircraft that are involved in the takeoff warning system. It would be foolish to assume that because the accidents involved flaps settings that a failure cannot involve the parking brake system, especially if the entire takeoff warning system has failed(which can be the reason due to an open CB as was suspected in the NW 255 case).

I would also caution people against assuming that because the examples given were older generation aircraft, that miraculously, this kind of failure could not happen in a more modern aircraft or that somehow, there were multiple inoperative systems(there were not). But to each his own. Excuse after excuse can be made for any action despite multiple examples being shown of disasters resulting from those actions.

[ahramin]

Well Pelmet, I'm still open to changing my mind. If you know of any example in the 30 year history of Airbus FBW aircraft where an accident happened because a crew forgot the parking brake on a takeoff please post it. Alternatively if you know of any Airbus or Boeing document that supports not setting the parking brake on the runway I'd follow that.

[Rowdy]

ahramin you beat me to it!

Vigilance, SOP compliance, checklist usage and situational awareness, backed by takeoff configuration warning systems, caution lights and what not should be more than sufficient to stop someone from attempting to take off with a park brake set. Forgoing all of that, you'd certainly catch it as you applied power.

[pelmet]

Well Pelmet, I'm still open to changing my mind. If you know of any example in the 30 year history of Airbus FBW aircraft where an accident happened because a crew forgot the parking brake on a takeoff please post it. Alternatively if you know of any Airbus or Boeing document that supports not setting the parking brake on the runway I'd follow that.

No examples to post. And in reality, the accident scenario is unlikely for you even if you decide to set the parking brake every time you taxi to position for the rest of your career. But there is a long history of accidents where the parking brake was left on for the takeoff. And for those relying on the Takeoff Warning System(TOWS), there is a long history of TOWS failures not preventing accidents.

So continue as you have been and likely you will be fine, but remember, somebody has to be the first to be involved in an incident on type before there is an actual history of incident on type.

At least, now you know why so many don't set the parking brake on the runway.

It's like leaving the lights on below 10K for collision avoidance in your Airbus. If you don't, you probably still won't have a midair collision. But it is considered to be good airmanship(along with usually being SOP).

[justwork]

Don't over think this guys... Its a parking brake.

[complexintentions]

I was hoping that people would understand that when someone says that they can rely on a takeoff warning system to warn them of a critical item not being where it should be, that they would understand that my examples were examples of the takeoff warning system NOT warning of a critical system being where it should be.

I do not "rely" on a takeoff or any other warning system. I rely on my own basic situational awareness, the correct execution of procedures, and things like judgement and experience. The systems are there to enhance and back that up.

Not the other way around.

Frankly I'm quite comfortable using the parking brake, plus even more complicated parts of the aircraft.

I hope we only need another three pages on this thread to resolve this harrowing question.