PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Rejecting A Takeoff After V1…why Does It (still) Happen?
Old 9th Dec 2010, 12:23
  #112 (permalink)  
Clandestino
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My copy of Flight Crew Manual hasn't been updated for a decade, yet I think it still makes some very interesting reading: it states that western built jet transport aeroplanes made about 230 million take-offs in period 1960-1990.

There was about 76 000 RTOs in the same period.

74 of them ended in accident or incident.

2% of RTOs were initiated above 120kt and that's where the large majority of incidents came from.

58% of RTOs that ended in incident were initiated above V1

Only 24% of unsuccessful RTOs were triggered by engine related events.

According to the Airline-that-issued-FCM analysis, 55% of incidents could have been prevented by continuing the take-off, 9% by better preflight planning, 16% by correct stop techniques.

20% were unavoidable.


Well, so much for those John Wayne kind of pilots who can always make a proper and informed split-second decision, whose keen eyesight gives them ability to estimate remaining runway down to a couple of feet precision, who have an absolute pitch and immediately they hear a bang know whether it's a tyre, tires, compressor stall, engine falling off, improvised explosive device in cargo hold 3, Strela-2M taking out the No4 engine or collision with B747 wrecking the most of the aeroplane (I'm only half joking here; the survivors of Tenerife carnage described the sound of two Jumbos colliding as being similar to small bomb going off). 'Tis a pity that such a pilot has never walked the earth or is likely to ever walk it - the safety he would offer his customers would be nearly absolute.

In case you've missed the Big Briefing: the only available safety in flying is the statistical one. Perfect safety is as achievable as the absolute zero. We can only bring chances of having a mishap down to socially, politically and economically acceptable level and that's about it. However, make no mistake: bringing the aviation safety where we have it now was no mean feat, keeping it where it is won't be easy either.

I really don't see the way in which some around this forum pre-meditate the reasons that make post V1 abort justifiable to be beneficial to aviation safety. If aeroplane is unflyable past V1, only thick margins can save the day. If they were not there in the first place, tough. Fate was, is and always will be the hunter. Trick that can extend the operational life is to avoid her favorite hunting grounds and post V1 RTO is the place she certainly frequents.
Clandestino is offline