Yeah, well. As you know, the press basically talks about an aborted Takeoff. In spanish, that would be the common way of calling it.
Regardless, what has been reported about the first time through, the plane had already received take-off permission, taxied to the beggining of the runaway, got there, but then decided not to proceed and requested to taxi back. They were instructed to go to that parking area.
As far as I know, they didn't initiate acceleration the first time through, although they were already "aligned at the head of the runaway and ready to go".
Some 45m later, after the RAT heater "repair", they were once again granted permission to TO and taxied back to the runaway etc.
I understand that, technically, maybe it wasn't an aborted TO. But for short, everybody is referring to it as such. Also, the "second take off", also poses a bit of a problem to describe.
Technically, and from what we know (which, of course, is speculative at this point), the airplane did have all wheels off the ground. Albeit for only a matter of seconds. But they were definetly past (estimated) VR. So do we call it a "failed attempt to take-off" or a "failed attempt to land"? Makes it evey more uncertain if the pilots did try to stop earlier on (i.e. deployed the working reverser) or tried to gain altitude (i.e. commanded max. thrust and deployed flaps and lowered the nose).
Regardless, at the very end, they probably tried to stop anyway, of course, once it was obvious they couldn't possibly safely take-off ("again").
Last edited by justme69; 9th Sep 2008 at 08:44.