Airliners.net

OzzyPirate wrote:

In short, if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. In other words, incapable of sustained flight.

Post-V1 rejects should not form part of any normal takeoff brief or considerations. I see a worrying number of discussions between supposedly experienced pilots on this topic, normally starting with "if you've got a really long runway and you know you'll stop...". The V1 speed exists for a reason, and is not open to interpretation.

Starlionblue wrote:

Well, "if you've got a really long runway and you know you'll stop..." then V1 = Vr so the point is moot.

OzzyPirate wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Well, "if you've got a really long runway and you know you'll stop..." then V1 = Vr so the point is moot.

Point taken but it's still discussed: V1 has been called (and the silent decision to go has been made) and as Rotate is called a fire bell goes off. You've still got 2.5km of runway ahead and you haven't rotated, do you reject?

The answer is of course no, but this is the kind of discussion I'm seeing.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Boeing manuals state the only reason you ever reject above V1 is if in the Captain's judgement the airplane is incapable of safe flight. This is consistent with what the experienced pilots on this thread have stated.

OzzyPirate wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Well, "if you've got a really long runway and you know you'll stop..." then V1 = Vr so the point is moot.

Point taken but it's still discussed: V1 has been called (and the silent decision to go has been made) and as Rotate is called a fire bell goes off. You've still got 2.5km of runway ahead and you haven't rotated, do you reject?

The answer is of course no, but this is the kind of discussion I'm seeing.

Starlionblue wrote:

OzzyPirate wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Well, "if you've got a really long runway and you know you'll stop..." then V1 = Vr so the point is moot.

Point taken but it's still discussed: V1 has been called (and the silent decision to go has been made) and as Rotate is called a fire bell goes off. You've still got 2.5km of runway ahead and you haven't rotated, do you reject?

The answer is of course no, but this is the kind of discussion I'm seeing.

OzzyPirate wrote:

Hope you guys aren't aiming any of this shock at me directly. I agree with everything that's been said in this thread.

Starlionblue wrote:

Not at all. I'm as baffled as you are that this discussion is happening.

Certainly we can sit and discuss this sort of thing from a theoretical perspective, but out there in the real world a high speed reject is one of the riskier things we do. It's not something you really want to fiddle with on the fly.

SaveFerris wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

OzzyPirate wrote:

Point taken but it's still discussed: V1 has been called (and the silent decision to go has been made) and as Rotate is called a fire bell goes off. You've still got 2.5km of runway ahead and you haven't rotated, do you reject?

The answer is of course no, but this is the kind of discussion I'm seeing.

My exact reaction when I read that...

On the 747 the fire bell, Master Warning light and associated EICAS message(s) are indeed inhibited from V1 to 400'.

Starlionblue wrote:

One If the pilots have serious doubts about the aircraft's ability to fly. For example if all engines quit or if there's an obvious severe structural issue. The situation would have to be pretty dire. Rejecting after V1 is very bad feng shui.

Side note: "abort" is not a very common term in aviation. We would "reject" the take-off.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

One If the pilots have serious doubts about the aircraft's ability to fly. For example if all engines quit or if there's an obvious severe structural issue. The situation would have to be pretty dire. Rejecting after V1 is very bad feng shui.

Side note: "abort" is not a very common term in aviation. We would "reject" the take-off.

Except for the military and former military trained pilots. Every military aircraft I flew, the term was 'Aborted Takeoff' or 'Abort'. It's hard to get out of your system once transitioning to civil aircraft operations.

BravoOne wrote:

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

One If the pilots have serious doubts about the aircraft's ability to fly. For example if all engines quit or if there's an obvious severe structural issue. The situation would have to be pretty dire. Rejecting after V1 is very bad feng shui.

Side note: "abort" is not a very common term in aviation. We would "reject" the take-off.

Except for the military and former military trained pilots. Every military aircraft I flew, the term was 'Aborted Takeoff' or 'Abort'. It's hard to get out of your system once transitioning to civil aircraft operations.

Keep in mind that some multi cultural, and non English native speaker operators like Qatar, have adopted the term STOP as just about everyone knows what that means regardless of their native language..

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, it's easy for everyone to sit in an armchair and say, "Well, a pilot should always do this, and never do that," etc etc etc.
But until you're in the actual situation.....
I'd say that a person has to VERY QUICKLY make a high-stakes decision based on the information he/she has at the time.
Everyone is ignoring the most recent post-V1 RTO that comes to my mind, in which an MD-80 driver discovered his elevator was jammed.
Many people- myself included- were quick to question his decision, until WE had all the facts. That airplane wasn't going to leave the ground, if the runway stretched from Michigan to Mongolia.
So he rejected at nearly 20 KIAS above V1.
And it was the right decision.

litz wrote:

The recent accident involving the Michigan basketball team is a perfect example ...

They went to rotate, the airplane didn't rotate, and since it was obviously not flying, they aborted ... and ended up 1000ft off the end of the runway.

Pretty much a textbook example of exactly what happens.

BoeingGuy wrote:

litz wrote:

The recent accident involving the Michigan basketball team is a perfect example ...

They went to rotate, the airplane didn't rotate, and since it was obviously not flying, they aborted ... and ended up 1000ft off the end of the runway.

Pretty much a textbook example of exactly what happens.

What were his choices? What would have happened if he hadn't RTO-ed?

At rotation speed, the captain rotated the airplane to an initial target pitch attitude of 11o airplane nose up. Shortly after liftoff, when the airplane was about 20 feet above the runway and about 7,000 feet down the runway, all three crewmembers heard a loud noise and observed the thrust lever for the No. 2 (left inboard) engine rapidly retard to the aft limit of the throttle quadrant. The captain stated that he applied full right rudder and near full right aileron to maintain directional control and level the wings, but the airplane continued to drift to the left. The captain reported that he perceived the airplane would not continue to climb and decided to “put it back on the ground.”
Witnesses and a cell phone video from another Omega 707 crewmember observing the takeoff indicated that the No. 2 (left inboard) engine separated and traveled up above the left wing as the airplane was passing abeam taxiway A2. The inlet cowling for the No. 1 (left outboard) engine separated immediately thereafter, consistent with being struck by the No. 2 engine nacelle.
The airplane began to descend with the remaining three engine power levers at maximum power, and the left wing dipped slightly (Pratt & Whitney indicated that loss of the inlet cowling on the No. 1 engine would increase drag, effectively resulting in less than zero thrust output). The captain said he lowered the nose and leveled the wings just as the airplane touched down on the runway between taxiway A2 and A1. The airplane made multiple contacts with the runway before drifting left and departing the runway surface before the airplane reached taxiway A1. The airplane crossed taxiway A and came to rest in the marsh area.