Hi
ITCZ,
Actually, it would surprise me if the B717 did not have an aural fire warning inhibit after V1 (or Vr for non-FMC inserted V speeds aircraft via Air Ground sensing), all aircraft that I know of in the modern era do have such inhibits, NONE that I know of have a before V1 aural fire warning inhibit. On post #44 in this thread I responded to
FatDog that I was referring entirely to the pre-V1 case, as that is what this thread is about.
I'm not going into print here to defend myself, but to illustrate again that all manufacturers in the modern era DO NOT inhibit the aural fire warning prior to V1, for the very good reason that it is prejudicial to the safety of flight to continue takeoff with an active fire alert, and it is intended that a rejected takeoff is the appropriate action. (If I must, I will
TRY to find the reference from Boeing).
Yes, I did fly the Diesel 9, it had no inhibitions at all, nor did I at the age at which I flew it!
I have to ask here - Just what is it that pilots fear so much from a high speed (near V1) rejected takeoff? I'm well aware that a continued takeoff in MOST circumstances is statistically far more attractive, and most operator's policies reflect this. I strongly agree also with being "GO" minded, but with an engine fire? That one, along with control jam and a few other nasties are definately prejudicial to the safety of flight. The aircraft IS certified to safely accomplish a safe RTO prior to V1 (at least in modern aircraft), albeit with lower performance based safety margins than for a continued takeoff, AS LONG AS THE AIRCRAFT IS NOT ON FIRE!
Have we taken being GO minded a little too far, where brakes release is now the commit point?
Regards,
Old Smokey