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 19th Apr 2017, 00:16   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hungary
Posts: 453
Air France high speed RTO due to missing baggage

Incident: France A343 at Fort de France on Apr 16th 2017, rejected takeoff due to ATC instruction

Quite a strange story. 130 kt RTO, 25 hours delay, a two days long AOG and an extra B-777 run because the company called ATC to instruct them to wait for some baggage. Why not cancelling their flight plan and/or sending them an ACARS message instead?
TBSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 05:16   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 47
Posts: 929
It is indeed a strange story - what would ATC request a takeoff abort for missing luggages ?

Also from the quoted article

Quote:
The flight status of the airline confirmed the destination was Moscow Sheremetyevo
Does AirFrance fly direct from Martinique to Moscow ?! Maybe a some charter operation ?
atakacs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 05:21   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Posts: 43
Could it possibly be for luggage that was about to depart without an owner and they needed to offload it?
ceeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 06:41   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Does AirFrance fly direct from Martinique to Moscow ?! Maybe a some charter operation ?
Although not mentioned in the Avherald report, the flight number involved (AF4001) is not a scheduled service but is used for ad-hoc charters.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out not to have been bound for Moscow at all.

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 19th Apr 2017 at 11:45. Reason: tupo
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 10:10   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 108
And V1 speed was?
KiloB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 10:47   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 60
Posts: 1,616
131 or higher, one assumes.

Pretty darn fast.
Tarq57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 11:31   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 3,956
Could an engineer or knowledgeable person please inform us: Was there any damage to wheels or brakes? What would render the a/c non-flyable for >20hrs? I would expect an engineering inspection is required, and that one was available.
RAT 5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 11:41   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 292
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?


esreverlluf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 11:59   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,177
The flight was a charter Orly-Martinique-Cayenne and v.v. according to this article:

Un avion d'Air France freine brutalement juste avant le décollage

which seems much more likely than the suggested destination of Moscow.

The article reports a landing gear issue detected during the takeoff run, with the resulting RTO necessitating multiple wheel changes (hence presumably the delay at FDF).
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 12:26   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 186
Makes much more sense than the luggage argument! Much better to stop if you still can
birmingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 15:05   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: .
Posts: 21
Stop on the runway at (M?)TOW or continue the flight and land at destination at a much lower weight? Most airlines and FCTM's recommend the crew to continue the take-off with a landing gear issue (chimmy, tire failure) rather than reject, because of a) possible reduced braking effectiveness because of that very landing gear issue, and b) virtually no time to trouble shoot during the take-off run.

Better to continue the take-off and then have 9-10 hours to trouble shoot, ask the tower for example if they found debris on the runway, and burn off the trip fuel in order to arrive at the destination at 1) a significantly lower weight and 2) have possible the emergency services standing by.

The whole "landing gear issue" (very hot brakes, possibly warped brakes due to the fire brigade spraying cold water on them, and perhaps some melted fuse plugs) was probably as a result of the RTO and not the reason why they rejected, and that story sounds like either a cover-up, bad journalism or both.
FrontRunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 15:15   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 68
Posts: 625
And what about the total loss where a wheel fire caused the main spar to fail?...bet they wished they had aborted.
blind pew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 15:57   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: .
Posts: 21
20/20 hindsight. One can come up with 100's of "what-if" scenarios where it would be better to reject, and one could come up with 100's of "what-if" scenarios where it would be better to continue.

However, during the split second one generally has available during a take-off run >100 kts and close to V1, as far as I remember most airplane manufacturers recommend to; continue the take-off run, get airborne, assess the gear problem, burn off (i.e. continue to DEST) or dump fuel, and then land.

Last edited by FrontRunner; 19th Apr 2017 at 16:14.
FrontRunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 16:48   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontRunner View Post
The whole "landing gear issue" (very hot brakes, possibly warped brakes due to the fire brigade spraying cold water on them, and perhaps some melted fuse plugs) was probably as a result of the RTO
Nobody is disputing that things get very hot when you RTO at approaching V1.

But that fact doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there was a landing gear issue that necessitated the RTO in the first place.
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 17:04   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 202
That's not a high speed rejected takeoff compared to Air France's RTO in Lagos in 2010. In the Lagos one the V1 was 138 knots and the speed on the runway during the rejection reached 155 knots indicated due to being unable to rotate. This was because they had inadvertently engaged the autopilot instead of the autothrottle on the takeoff roll and thought the flight controls had jammed (Same size square button for autothrottle and autopilot.I do miss the old Boeing autopilot paddles!)


Incident: Air France B773 at Lagos on Jan 12th 2010, rejected takeoff
suninmyeyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 19:43   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 68
Posts: 625
Whilst I accepted the odd guy being go minded with a eng failure before V1 when the take off calculation included a clearway ( meaning we were going cross country) tyre failure was a bigger worry as the three hydraulic lines were routed in both gear bays on the DC10 ..as they were around eng2..hence Souix city.
blind pew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 20:14   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South East Asia
Age: 50
Posts: 2,629
Suninmyeys, pretty sure AirNZ did the exact same thing when they first got 777's .
Japan somewhere I think.
framer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2017, 20:15   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 148
on the 777 you would set the trim from the load sheet, and on the aircraft theres some fancy gizmos that detect the loading on the nose wheel to cross check, damn clever.
memories of px is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 06:18   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,613
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.
stilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2017, 06:36   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,177
Another article, this time from the local Martinique press:

Cayenne-Paris : les passagers sont repartis hier soir - Toute l'actualité de la Martinique sur Internet - FranceAntilles.fr

Again, no mention of an instruction from ATC, but a reference to a problem with the gear "a few seconds before takeoff".
DaveReidUK 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 15:15.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1