I would just like to correct some of your remarks, my comments or correction are in bold.
I can't believe some of the comments here in a supposedly 'professional' forum.
This is also a (PRUNE) rumour network—people are entitled to theIr views even if they do not agree with yours. Trying to belittle people may only serve to highlight your own inadequacies
Up to 100kts is regarded as slow speed abort and could even be considered routine. Christ, routine, tell us who you fly for?
The fact that the pilot 'jammed on' the brakes is a function of the autobrake function on take off. Above 72kts the autobrake 'arms' itself IF IT IS FUNCTIONING AND HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SELECTED and any subsequent closing of the thrust levers will automatically result in a full automatic brake application. With carbon brakes this can be fairly dramatic! (B.t.w the use of max autobrake is forbidden for landing so very few people have actually experienced it except in an abort.) ITS NOT FORBIDDEN, IT’S NOT RECOMMENDED
References to Perf A etc:
WHAT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT HERE, IN MY OPINION, IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT THAT SUFFERS A MALFUNCTION BEFORE V1, THAT REDUCES ITS ACCELERATION TO V1, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY IN FACT NEVER REACH V1. THERE ARE NO PERFORMANCE TABLES FOR DELAYED ACCELERATION TO V1, HOW COULD THERE BE?
A PERFORMANCE A AIRCRAFT IS AN AIRCRAFT THAT CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE ANY FLIGHT BETWEEN BRAKES OFF TO LANDING AFTER A FAILURE OF ONE POWERPLANT. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT BELOW V1 THAT SAFE CONCLUSION WILL ALWAYS BE A TAKE OFF
There is a small matter of a speed called V1 which with the sort of pax. number described here would have been about 130kts (dry) give or take. Before 100kts it is prudent to abandon take off for any reason, however small. NOT STRICTLY CORRECT, unless you have briefed you will stop for ANY reason, BMI brief is for any ECAM CAUTION or WARNING, and that does not include the vague ‘any reason’
Above 100kts and before V1 then he or she, lets not forget the girls (good crm) will only abandon the take off for a WARNING, engine fire, engine failure, or something which would affect the ability to get airborne (inc. sidestick failure(s) etc.)
In this case an 'amber caution' JUDGING BY THE COMMENTS THIS WAS AN ENGINE BREAK UP AND OR A FIRE AND THIS WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A RED WARNING would have appeared and the captain would have simply closed the thrust levers, automatic brakes engage, he OR SHE may or may not have even selected reverse thrust, and steered the aircraft to a halt. He would then put the cabin crew 'at stations' pending further instructions from him THE CABIN CREW ARE ALREADY AT STATIONS AND READY TO EVACUATE AFTER AN ABONDONMENT. THE SCA CAN ORDER AN EVACUATION IF THEY FEEL THE CABIN IS NOT A SAFE PLACE TO BE. A HARD LESSON LEARNED FROM THE MANCHESTER AIRTOURS 737 ACCIDENT WHERE DELAY IN EVACUATION COST LIVES.
Easy, and far from the heroics attested to here! I FEEL THAT USING THE WORD ‘EASY’ TO DESCRIBE THIS IS AN INSULT TO THE PILOT COMMUNITY, IF ITS THAT EASY WHY BOTHER PRACTICING IT ON SKILLS CHECKS?
At V1 (which is the speed at which the first retarding action should have been taken and NOT a 'decision speed') this even if an engine was to fail, it can (SHOULD) accelerate to flying speed and safely get airborne. No big deal!
PLEASE DON’T BE CASUAL ABOUT AN EVENT THAT EVERY PILOT DREADS AND HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF MANY SERIOUS WRONG DECISIONS AND SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENTS.
.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and it pays to get things into perspective. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT BUT EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE AND IT IS THAT QUALITY THAT PROMOTES THE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS WHICH IN ITSELF MAKES A BETTER TWO CREW OPERATION. THE CAA CALL IT HUMAN FACTORS, I CALL IT COMMON SENSE
Hope this helps.[/quote]