PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th Apr 2017, 07:16   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 47
Posts: 744
@Dave - thanks for that article, it finally gives a "reasonable" routing (wasn't a direct flight to Moscow nor a charter between Martinique and Guyane but a Cayenne - Fort de France - Orly flight, which makes a lot more sense !). And there was a significant number of Russian paxes on board (maybe code sharing ?).

As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out... it might very well end up being a pilot initiated one having detected some trouble during the roll out.
atakacs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 07:24   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Planet Earth (sometimes)
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out... it might very well end up being a pilot initiated one having detected some trouble during the roll out.
quite possibly but FWIW (and it's the media so pinch of salt time .) the French language article DR linked to starts with the comment that (roughly translated): "the pilots braked heavily after having detected a problem with the landing gear a few seconds before lift off"
wiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 08:47   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 3,525
As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out..

The tapes must exist and thus the jury should have black & white evidence to return a verdict.
RAT 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 08:49   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: notts
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
I don't think the most important question has been answered here.


How many of you would perform a high speed reject if requested by ATC
without a really good reason ?


And why on earth did the controller make that request at that moment
even if requested by company operations ?


I doubt i'd be stopping even if before V1.
Before V1 would stop, after wouldn't.
Do you really have time to diagnose why you were being told to reject and I would hope it didn't sound like a request.
At that moment you have no idea why you were being "given the order" but maybe better to have hot brakes!
simmple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 10:10   #25 (permalink)

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 70
Posts: 2,053
IIRC, most modern aircraft have an inhibit after 80 knots for everything except engine fire or failure, and the SOP is between then and V1 the stop would only be for those warnings or something that would suggest the aircraft would be unable to fly. Unless the undercarriage was shaking itself to bits, a simple tyre failure would be taken into the air. As has been said, touching down at the correct point, much slower (lighter) and better prepared is better than trying to stop from some point further down the runway, faster and heavier. But, we don't know the whole story in this case, so that's just a two cent's worth.
Herod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 11:00   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 919
Simple and Stilton

Most tower controllers would not cancel take off unless there was an extremely urgent reason - such as a runway incursion. Even if something is seen wrong with the aircraft the crew are very likely to already know and calls from ATC are unlikely to be welcome. Unless it is very early in the takeoff roll say the first 1000ft it is best to wait till the aircraft is airborne.


A call from airline ops that the flight has left some bags would definitely not be cause for canceling takeoff.
Ian W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 11:26   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 47
Posts: 744
Does anyone know if this will be followed up by the BEA ?
atakacs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 04:28   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,569
Exactly my point IW !
stilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 06:29   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Does anyone know if this will be followed up by the BEA ?
I'd be surprised, it doesn't really fit the Annex 13 criteria for an accident or serious incident.

If there were to be any repercussions, they would more likely come from the DGAC.
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 07:26   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in the barrel
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by esreverlluf View Post
Is it possible that there was a loading error resulting in an incorrect (and possibly dangerous) C of G detected by the company after pushback?


If this was the case, the load sheet should have raised suspicion with the crew right away, at the latest when trying to set some unusual stab trim value for T/O.
Except when the paperwork did not reflect the actual load distribution. In that case, this could get quite interesting
AviatorDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 07:48   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 284
That was precisely what I was thinking, and the TWR guy put in the awful position of "Do I say something, or possibly live with the consequences . . . "
esreverlluf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 08:14   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: notts
Posts: 8
My point also IW.
If you getting that sort of call from tower it must be urgent. I expect them to filter the need, baggage filtered out
I wouldn't want to be hearing a request with reason, no time for that, would expect an "order"
simmple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 09:21   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 211
Agree with some posts above - if ATC instructs me to stop and I'm under V1 I'll stop - I don't know why they've asked me to stop in that split second and nor do I have time to ask. It's no different to the FO saying stop, I'd stop.
overhere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 16:53   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 2,489
To me, there is huge difference from the F/O and from ATC.
aterpster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 17:48   #35 (permalink)
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 67
Posts: 2,218
Lots of BS as usual from the press ( and as a consequence here ) .

1) ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ATC primary task is to ensure separation .
2) an RTO is not an incident.
3) after a high velocity RTO is is essential to check / eventually replace brakes or tyres. ., hence delays... nothing unusual...
ATC Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 19:21   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ...
Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?
OldLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 19:54   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Lots of BS as usual from the press ( and as a consequence here ) .

1) ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ATC primary task is to ensure separation .
2) an RTO is not an incident.
3) after a high velocity RTO is is essential to check / eventually replace brakes or tyres. ., hence delays... nothing unusual...
I agree about the press and it wasn't worth my time to post while awaiting confirmed facts.

I accept your item #1 above. (the others are subsets based on "what if")

In the subject event the major question I have is who and why was the RTO called and at what speed?

any tower tapes to forestall more BS from the uninformed?

back to lurking
lomapaseo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 20:20   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLurker View Post
Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?
Sounds believable.
I don't think I'd have carried out a high speed RTO just because ATC said "Stop!"

I've had two runway incursions on the t/o roll and ATC didn't notice; or didn't mention it. One was an Alpha Jet turning on for opposite direction take-off; pilot noticed L1011 @ 100kn+ and continued 180 and exited. It was at far end of runway and, so long as he didn't start his t/o roll wasn't a problem.
The other was Luton van crossing. I assessed that he was going to continue and so did we. If the tvat had turned onto the runway it would have been messy.
Basil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 20:52   #39 (permalink)
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 67
Posts: 2,218
Old Lurker , you said :
Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?

Quick answer : No , absolutely not. Martinique is a French Department, so part of France DNSA, same controllers as you will find in CDG or ORY ( often coming from there for a few years)
ATC Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 20:54   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
I don't think I'd have carried out a high speed RTO just because ATC said "Stop!"
Interesting statement. Have you considered that it might be because of something you can't see? Just thinking out loud. I'm not talking post V1 of course.
Hotel Tango is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:57.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1