So, according to the description, this guy rejected take off after V1 (at rotate) and still everyone got home alive. Did the captain do the right thing? Does it always make sense to continue take off after V1?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... XWAgDBHxDc
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Rejected take off after V1
It is much safer to continue and return than aborting at this speed, this configuration... A crew of an ATR aborted at Vr or was it Vlof even and the aircraft suffered a few non-serious damage and most importantly both captain and f/o were fired.
-
- sixtyseven
- Posts: 830
- Joined:
Re: Rejected take off after V1
cmorgantini wrote:So, according to the description, this guy rejected take off after V1 (at rotate) and still everyone got home alive. Did the captain do the right thing? Does it always make sense to continue take off after V1?
Look at the aircraft and ask yourself if he did the right thing? Hint....the answer would be no....
Re: Rejected take off after V1
The only time I can imagine you should not continue after V1 is if the aircraft simply cannot produce sufficient lift to do so. N370V was such a flight (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... R0604.aspx) which aborted above V1 as it was out of CG limits and didn't have the pitch authority to rotate. Granted the pilots screwed up in the first place by letting it be out of CG, leaving them the only option to abort above V1.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
akiss20 wrote:The only time I can imagine you should not continue after V1 is if the aircraft simply cannot produce sufficient lift to do so. N370V was such a flight (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... R0604.aspx) which aborted above V1 as it was out of CG limits and didn't have the pitch authority to rotate. Granted the pilots screwed up in the first place by letting it be out of CG, leaving them the only option to abort above V1.
Put more broadly than your valid points, there is only one valid reason to RTO at or above V1.
Boeing guidance states to never RTO after V1, unless in the Captain's judgement, the airplane is not capable of safe flight.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
cmorgantini wrote:So, according to the description, this guy rejected take off after V1 (at rotate) and still everyone got home alive. Did the captain do the right thing? Does it always make sense to continue take off after V1?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... XWAgDBHxDc
Might want to read the accident report for that one, there were no V speeds set. There were a cascade of screw ups by the crew and the aircraft was perfectly capable of sustained flight.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
Didn’t we have this discussion a month ago? And again last year..and the year before that? Yawn.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
26point2 wrote:Didn’t we have this discussion a month ago? And again last year..and the year before that? Yawn.
Those who fly for a living may not realize that - but entire idea that being airborne means being safe is pretty counter-intuitive for the rest of the world. So this would keep coming up over and over again - how comes they got a problem and chosen to sort it out in the air??
AF66 thread is a latest example: people don't understand why ASAP landing on absolute nearest runway was not the best option... What do you mean by "need time to run those checklists"??
Being mostly earthbound creature, I am, for one, not fully OK with the concept in my heart - even though my head knows that terra firma may not be the best option at all times..
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: Rejected take off after V1
Well put Kalvado.
After an engine out on departure in the sim, we entered a hold close to the airport in order to prepare for the return. Took a good 15 minutes to run through what we needed to do. The sim instructor said in real life we'd probably take even longer. All on one engine. For the layman, it may seem that with an engine we should go back and land immediately, but that would be less safe than briefing and preparing properly and without rushing.
After an engine out on departure in the sim, we entered a hold close to the airport in order to prepare for the return. Took a good 15 minutes to run through what we needed to do. The sim instructor said in real life we'd probably take even longer. All on one engine. For the layman, it may seem that with an engine we should go back and land immediately, but that would be less safe than briefing and preparing properly and without rushing.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
It is always preferred to continue after V1. Right up until an event takes place, which make staying on the ground a better idea. There are, literally, hundreds of permutations which must be evaluated before making the decision. If a single engine lets go, it's an easy job. If you hit something on the runway and am unsure about the integrity of the airframe, but have all engines running, you have a couple of seconds to make up your mind. Get it right, and everybody goes home; get it wrong and everybody ends up in a morgue.
The only thing you should consider is the safety of crew and passengers; metal can be replaced. Sure it's best to bring home both crew, passengers and aircraft, but if you need to sacrifice the aircraft in order to save lives, so be it.
There is a reason why airlines require their captains to have a certain level of experience, it's so that they are able to make these decisions safely and quickly. It's also why we pay them a rather handsome salary, whilst hoping they never need to prove it. Bit like insurance, really.
The only thing you should consider is the safety of crew and passengers; metal can be replaced. Sure it's best to bring home both crew, passengers and aircraft, but if you need to sacrifice the aircraft in order to save lives, so be it.
There is a reason why airlines require their captains to have a certain level of experience, it's so that they are able to make these decisions safely and quickly. It's also why we pay them a rather handsome salary, whilst hoping they never need to prove it. Bit like insurance, really.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
There's only one instance of a reject beyond V1 that was justified that I know of...
Happened about 7 years ago to an Omega Tanker 707-321B
https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20110518-1
They lost more than one engine post V1, at 20 feet above ground... #2 engine separated, hit #1, which smacked off #1's cowl and prevented it from making normal thrust.... at 7,000 feet down the 11,000 foot runway. The captain put the plane back down on the runway and ran off the left side of the runway... Plane was destroyed, but the NTSB more or less stated the correct decision had been made as the plane was heavily loaded and would likely not have continued safe flight with only 2 engines on the same side producing full thrust.
Happened about 7 years ago to an Omega Tanker 707-321B
https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20110518-1
They lost more than one engine post V1, at 20 feet above ground... #2 engine separated, hit #1, which smacked off #1's cowl and prevented it from making normal thrust.... at 7,000 feet down the 11,000 foot runway. The captain put the plane back down on the runway and ran off the left side of the runway... Plane was destroyed, but the NTSB more or less stated the correct decision had been made as the plane was heavily loaded and would likely not have continued safe flight with only 2 engines on the same side producing full thrust.
Re: Rejected take off after V1
cmorgantini wrote:So, according to the description, this guy rejected take off after V1 (at rotate) and still everyone got home alive. Did the captain do the right thing? Does it always make sense to continue take off after V1?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... XWAgDBHxDc
Just an addendum: I passed this aircraft last weekend. Here is the state she is currently in:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: airportugal310 and 39 guests