Trust levers during F/O take-off [Archive]

eggplantwalking

27th Jun 2005, 10:22

411A
Obviously you have been flying with the Mickey Mouse club when it comes to procedures. As a B-707 instructor I have never seen an operations manual which describes a procedure for a F/O preforming an abort. Although we regurally taught this maneouver to F/Os in the simulator, it was never allowed on the line. The procedure was that was generally adopted by all operators was that the power was set by 80k at which time the captain's hand was on the throttles. If a abort was initiated, the captain only would retart the throttles, deploy the speed brake, and reverse the engines; maintaining directional control with nose wheel steering and differential power. The F/O would push full forward on the control column to aid in nose wheel steering, call out reducing airspeeds and announce the abort to ATC. This same procedure is similary duplicated in most other heavy aircraft that I have flown. Allowing a F/O iniating to abort a T/O on an icey / wet runway with an engine failure and reversing the engines while the captain tried to maintain directional control, deploy the speed brake and push the control column forward for better nose wheel steering while simultaneously steering the A/C would be a recepie for some very creative writing on the part of that flight crew.

triple smudge

27th Jun 2005, 10:54

Well, I don't often side with 411A. But if having the First Officer handle a rejected takeoff is considered Mickey Mouse Club stuff, please pass the little beanie cap with ears.

I fly 747s for a major carrier, and most of the time I can be found in the right hand seat. Certainly I'm there for takeoff.

Our SOPs involve the handling pilot closing the thrust levers (his/her hands are on them until V1). The non-handler deploys reverse and checks the speedbrake.

For a First Officer's takeoff, we brief that the Captain will take over at a suitable low-speed stage, to stop the aircraft. In my brief I always include the idea that if the Captain does not positively take control, I will bring the aircraft to a halt and set the parking brake (and we won't leave the reversers on, right everyone?).

It is true that some aircraft have no tiller on the FO's side. That might make a difference to your SOPs for handling takeoffs and rejected takeoffs.

It seems to me that a "handling pilot" should be just that. A few moments of confusion as to who is actually handling the aircraft would use up a lot of runway close to V1. However whatever the SOP, the most important thing is that everyone sticks to the SOP. What DOES strike me as genuinely Mickey Mouse is the idea that the Captain would do different things (in a critical situation!) for different first officers.

Smudge

john_tullamarine

27th Jun 2005, 12:01

While not wanting to express a view, and not having flown such aircraft, I have been briefed in the past that some of the older types needed both pilots to be actively involved in an abort, especially in crosswind conditions ?

Max Angle

27th Jun 2005, 16:52

The question is really who makes the decision to abort not who carries it out. IMHO that decision should rest with one person only as there is no time to have a committee meeting about it and that person should be the commander of the aircraft. You have to have one set of SOPs and an inexperienced pilot with perhaps only 3-400 hours and on their first few months flying a large aircraft is not equipped to make the decision.

In our company if the Captain is PNF they guard the thrust levers during the roll and then take control if they have called stop. Personally I would prefer the PF to keep control of the aircraft with the Captain, who is holding the levers anyway selecting reverse, it seems an easier way to do it rather than grabbing an aircraft that may be starting to swing with an engine out or have other control problems.

TangoAir

27th Jun 2005, 19:10

In Boeing 737-200 Operation Manual, date 11/1994, a little old, yes, but still Boeing, it is clearly stated that the thrust levers a guarded by the pilot flying. The new Operation Manual changed this. But I don’t know if the change was made by the Company or by Mr. Boeing.

And this you can read on B-747-200 Flight Crew Training Manual, also a little old but, as I know, still current: “The pilot flying should keep one hand on the thrust levers until V1 so that he can respond quickly to a rejected takeoff condition”.

picobello

28th Jun 2005, 12:23

in my company, co-pilot must follow a sim check. R/H seat T/O. After 1 year.

Before It was the f/o who was handling the thrust levers before V1 until a F/o f:mad: a T/O. Then it was again L/H seat.

Hope it can help. For info Bae 146.....

Fly high

Pico

eggplantwalking

28th Jun 2005, 14:05

Smudge
The original question was " Whose hands are on the thrust levers after 80 kts during a F/O take-off?". NOT, what is briefed or not briefed; allowed due experience, or not allowed due to other considerations. Line flying always has many variations that may deviate from strict company policy. However, as Max Angle points out, SOPs dictate who will make the decision to abort and this is the reason that procedures are written in the manual. In my experience from flying several types including the B-747, I have not yet seen a procedure from Boeing where the F/O controls the aircraft and decides the corse of action to be taken with an engine loss on T/O. Perhaps the F/Os you fly with are all have fantastic experience, but in the aviation community I am used to dealing with, especially in recent years, this has not been the case and I will continue to guard the power on take-off.

moggiee

28th Jun 2005, 14:12

As a B-707 instructor I have never seen an operations manual which describes a procedure for a F/O preforming an abort.

In that case you have never seen the ops manuals of British Airways and many other UK based airlines.

BA for example practice total role reversal - on his/her sector the FO will taxy, set take-off thrust and have their hand on the PLs to V1.

For the record, they are also permitted to command a "STOP" as well. the theory being that if they are fit to be on your flight deck then they are fit to handle the power levers. My opinion is that this is good practice - treat the FO like the grown up that they are.

My recollection of Britannia and MyTravel is the same.

Max Angle

IMHO that decision should rest with one person only as there is no time to have a committee meeting about it and that person should be the commander of the aircraft.
and what if the FO spots a problem which justifies an RTO but the Captain does not? A decision to reject is then delayed as the FO brings it to the Capt's attention so that he can think about it.

Max Angle

28th Jun 2005, 17:04

A decision to reject is then delayed as the FO brings it to the Capt's attention so that he can think about it. Yes, the decision to stop or go would be delayed by a second or two, but I still maintain that the decision should rest with the Captain. Clearly some people and a few companies (BA for instance) disagree with that but my opinion, having had to call "go" two or three times close to V1 is that they are wrong. One incident in particular would almost certainly have resulted in a high speed RTO on a shortish runway with a perfectly serviceable aircraft, the chap in right seat (very capable but inexperienced) said he would have stopped if he had been holding the thrust levers and was very pleased we kept going. You are never going to get it right 100% of the time, as the statistics clearly show, but generally I reckon you are more likely to get a correct decision from the more experienced pilot and again, generally, that is the person in the left seat.

moggiee

28th Jun 2005, 22:39

I would rather make one hundred unnecessary stops from below V1 than once take an aeroplane into the air after V1 when I should not have.

The only safe place for a sick aeroplane is on the ground with the parking brake applied and a problem that occurs 4 seconds before V1 but which (because of the delay in making the decision) does not lead to the required RTO places you outside the engine-out performance envelope.

Max Angle

29th Jun 2005, 00:14

The problem with that argument is that only one unnecessary stop from just below V1 could result in total loss of the aircraft and injured or dead passengers, stopping is NOT the safe option some people assume it is. Apart from engine failure/fire below V1 or say a control jam or restriction that will prevent flight it is almost always safer to get airbourne than stop once you are into the high speed part of the take-off. I quite agree that the only place for a sick aircraft is on the ground with park brake set but the safest way to get there is usually to fly a circuit and do your high speed stopping from the start of the runway not two thirds of the way down it.

Right Way Up

29th Jun 2005, 05:40

Have to agree with MaxAngle. Accident statistics would tend to disagree with a "stopping" mentality.

Hotel Mode

29th Jun 2005, 06:16

As an FO in one of the aforementiond companies i can only call stop for 5 items with Captain HP and 7 if I am. Captain can always call stop or continue for any other failiure. The only difference is what happens after. What about in blocked runway/loss of control case, Captain NHP, looking in, FO handling looking out, who's hands will close the levers faster?

Piltdown Man

29th Jun 2005, 19:02

Air UK/KLM uk/KLM Cityhopper etc... The PF has their hands on the knobs and buttons. Either pilot calls stop. The other reacts. Only when stopped (or nearly stopped) does any form of change of control take place. I recon that for what we fly, that is a reasonable system. If matey boy/girl calls incorrectly, then so be it - but I have generally found that the brain in the other seat works a damn site quicker than mine. So far, so good!

eggplantwalking

30th Jun 2005, 11:51

Moggiee
You guys still drive on the wrong side of the road on your island too, don't you?

moggiee

30th Jun 2005, 22:35

eggplantwalking - nope, we drive on the left, which IS the right side!

Seriously, does anyone else notice the difference in philosophy between the East and West sides of the Atlantic? This side we trust our FOs, on the other side they don't. Maybe it's because in the USA the FOs only have FAA licences so are not to be trusted!!!

Pilot Pete

2nd Jul 2005, 00:49

My recollection of Britannia and MyTravel is the same.
Not so for Britannia any more. In common with many operators these days they are aligning more with the Boeing philosophy, which for the 73/75 and 76 seems to be that the captain decides and conducts the reject, the F/O only rejecting for incapacitation.

I've flown for airlines that do allow the F/O to both call 'stop' (PF or PNF) and indeed do the reject as PF. Certainly deploying the speedbrake is an easier task for the captain IMHO, and I guess the philosophy is that the captain being the only one to announce a stop should lead to fewer 'incorrect' rejects. I can see both sides of the argument, but you have to look at the lowest common denominator and with a significant number of 200hr F/Os these days (here in the UK) I guess that has a bearing..........

PP

eggplantwalking - nope, we drive on the left, which IS the right side!
Sorry egg, have to agree, WE drive on the correct side as it allows us to draw our swords and fend off the blaggards on the opposite side of the track!:)

tamalai

2nd Jul 2005, 11:00

moggie,

what an absolute load of Bo##ox, anyone who aborts a 390 ton 747 on a limiting runway around V1 wants their head examining !!! at V1 you maybe have 4500 feet of runway remaining and a max energy stop will undoubtably result in a wheel fire/evacuation and all that entails...................
better to take it into the air, sort the problem whatever it maybe, it's not as though time is going to be a limiting factor, probably got 100+ tons of gas so flying round for a couple of hours whilst you get things set ain't a problem then a nice leisurely approach with the full runway length available will result in a far more satisfactory outcome............................

moggiee

2nd Jul 2005, 21:19

Properly briefed and trained, the FO having permission to call "STOP" or him/her being allowed to close the thrust levers themselves is not a problem.

The issue of "unnecessary rejection" is solved by the BA type brief - giving the FO a clearly defined list of permissible occurances. Typically, this will be :

Any Fire
Engine failure (two indicators required)
Obviously blocked runway
Serious handling difficulty
Pilot incapacitiation

The Captain may call "STOP" for anything else he/she deems appropriate.

In addition, a cut of speed - 80kt for example - will be applied below which the crew will stop for any failure, above which they will only stop for major occurances.

Surely, with everything clearly defined like this, everyone knows where the limits of their authority lie and the risk of that unneccesary rejection is eliminated.

Techman

2nd Jul 2005, 21:56

moggiee make a lot of sense.

If the FO is not capable of making a Stop/Go decision, as per the brief below, then there appears to be a training problem.

It seems to me that the most difficult part of an RTO is the actual decision to do so. And if training is only given to half of those in a position to perform one, then the outcome of an RTO or even a continue, in the case where the trained part is incapacitated, is dubious at best.

We spend a lot of time in the sim training both pilots for scenarios that are at best very unlikely, so why not train the pilots onboard to an equal standard when it come to an abort?

Centaurus

3rd Jul 2005, 11:33

Moggie. Horsefeathers, old chap. Any max weight high speed abort on a limiting runway length is a dangerous event. There is no shortage of accidents that were caused by near V1 aborts, and in any case the chances of red hot brakes catching fire are significant. In contrast, there are very few reports of accidents directly caused by the aircraft continuing a take off from below V1 even allowing for the inevitable reduced screen height.

With regard to a copilot being responsible for initiating and conducting the abort while the captain looks on in keen interest, then this is a sure fire legal case of the captain abrogating his own command responsibity.

The fact that the captain has allocated a "leg" to the copilot should not mean that the copilot now becomes the captain and assume full command responsibility. That is illegal. Certainly in the latest Boeing 737NG FCTM there is an unequivocal statement: "The decision to reject is the responsibility of the captain and must be made prior to V1 speed. If the captain is PM he should initiate the RTO and announce the abnormality simultaneously."

If operators wish to vary from that procedure then that is their prerogative. But just remember that the Regs say it is the captain that carries the can. And always remember the lawyers are watching you.

L337

3rd Jul 2005, 11:57

Centaurus:

Out of interest,

Are you suggesting that I vary BA SOPs (approved by the CAA and in compliance with JAR ops) because of what Boeing say in there generic flight manual ?

moggiee

3rd Jul 2005, 12:54

I believe that Centaurus is suggesting just that. However, how the legal eagles would view the decision by the Captain to disregard the JAA approved company SOP for a critical phase of flight is anyone's guess.

rubik101

3rd Jul 2005, 13:03

Having flown with many operators over the years and used both systems I have to say that I consider the Captain deciding and then carrying out the abort sequence is the only safe way to go. For reasons that would need pages to explain, any other method is just so frought with potential mess ups as to be not worth the efort of writing the SOP.
FO calls a fault, Captain decides. That is what he is paid for, to make Command Decisions.

JW411

3rd Jul 2005, 15:24

Moggiee:

You have obviously never ever been in a wide-bodied jet at MTOW on a critical runway. If you ever had and had seen just how little runway is left (most of it marked with red lights) you would not be coming out with the junior jet-jockey remarks that you are.

If you shut those throttles at V1, then you have absolutely NO option but to stop. Don't forget that if you get absolutely everything right and react within a millisecond you are still going to be in the prepared overrun (not necessarily on the runway) for you are required to be able to stop in ASDA and not in TORA.

As an experienced old phart let me tell you that it is much better to be up there with a whole book full of options (plenty of fuel, find a better/longer airfield, find better weather, burn or dump down to a reasonable weight before making an approach etc etc). Up there you have so much choice; down there you have absolutely NO choice once you have shut the throttles.

I freely admit that there have been several occasions when I have discussed the options beforehand with my crew and we have all agreed that nothing would be said after V1 - 20 knots for we all agreed that going was a much better option.

Some aircraft are poor goers and great stoppers but most serious flying machines are great goers and poor stoppers!

L337

3rd Jul 2005, 17:16

FWIW, and I know it sounds pompous, I am a 747-400 training Captain with BA. So have seen the end of plenty of runways, and when it is the FOs sector, his hands are on the thrust levers.

That's how we train, and it works on the line, and in the simulator.

Moggiee has given you BA SOPs. No more no less. So to abuse him by calling him a "junior jet-jockey" seems a little unfair.

Every month BA has rejected take offs. No doubt if it was causing incidents the CAA would have something to say. BA has operated like this for generations. No problem.

One of the great things about BA is that it treats FOs as capable pilots, and responsible adults. It makes for a safe flight deck, and an easier transition to the left hand seat.

L337

moggiee

3rd Jul 2005, 23:05

Thanks for your comments - as my first WAT limited take-off on a critical runway in a wide body jet was conducted in 1986, I probably no longer fall into the category of junior jet jockey!!

As L337 says, I am giving you the BA SOP (and others in the UK) - I have direct experience of teaching these SOPs to pilots on the airlines in question.

You may not agree with me - fine, that is your perogative. However, unless YOU have experience with a number of different airline SOPs on the Eastern side of the Atlantic, I would suggest that you think more carefully yourself before opening your trap.

It never pays to make assumptions about people's experience, does it?

Anyway, the thread is about whether or not the FO may handle the thrust levers, not about the merits of stop/go at V1 - we all seem to have digressed.

I repeat my assertion that if the FO is properly trained and briefed, there is no more risk involved with him/her handling the TLs than with the Captain doing it. A stop before V1 is a stop before V1 - the physics involved are the same regardless of who handles the thrust levers.

Maybe I should amend my previous post - with the properly trained, properly briefed FO at the controls, there will be no more "unnecessary" RTOs than with the Captain doing it. Therefore my 100-to-1 statement would be irrelevant.

I would be interested to hear if L337 could tell us what percentage of his company's RTOs are initiated by the FO as Handling Pilot and what percentage by the Captain as HP (of course, there will be none on which the Captain closes the TLs when the FO is HP - that would be non-SOP).

Max Angle

4th Jul 2005, 18:13

with the properly trained, properly briefed FO at the controls, there will be no more "unnecessary" RTOs than with the Captain doing it. Do you have any data to back that up?. Boeing and Airbus have both decided that the best way is for the Captain to handle the thrust levers during take-off and to make the go/no go decision. Both those companies have conducted, and continue to conduct, extensive research into RTO's using data drawn from a huge worldwide fleet of jet transports. Neither company has seen fit to change it’s advice on the subject, in fact it's probably the only thing the two of them agree on.

moggiee

4th Jul 2005, 20:11

............and what evidence do YOU have to suggest that a properly trained, properly briefed FO is a liability at the controls?

As L337 will attest, there is plenty of first hand evidence within his company and others which will indicate otherwise.

bufe01

4th Jul 2005, 21:04

HI THERE,
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION WE HAVE THREE BASIC ASPECTCS IN THIS MATTER:

1. WHO TAKES THE DECISION (AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE CAPT)
2. WHO HANDLE WHAT
3. SOP THAT HAVE TO BE CLEAR, FULLY UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOWED (WE ALL DO THE SAME THING, NOTE DEVIATIONS AND EVENTUALLY CHANGE IT. DOING DIFFERENT THINGS WITH DIFFERENT CREW IS DANGEROUS AND BASICALLY WILL NEVER BRING TO A FINAL SOLUTION)

...THEN THERE ARE THE 2 BIG VARIABLES AIRCRAFT THAT SOMETIMES MAKE PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY ARE MADE AND PILOTS WITH THEIR EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING LEVEL.

I'M MILITARY AND FLY B707s, I BELIEVE WHAT EGGPLANT SAID IS THE BEST PROCEDURE FOR THAT PLANE BUT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FOR OTHERS. IN THE AIR FORCE WE ARE A SMALL BUNCH OF PILOTS, FLY A LOT TOGHETER AND KNOW EACH OTHER WELL SO TEAMWORK IS SOMEWHAT EASIER, I GUESS IT WOULD NOT BE THE SAME BETWEEN PILOTS WHO FLY TOGHETER ONCE A YEAR AND DONT KNOW EACH OTHER VERY WELL.

I MYSELF HAVE TWO OR THREE FIRM POINTS, THAT COMES FROM REAL RTOs, BUT THAT'S MY GENERAL IDEA.
CIAO

HI THERE,
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION WE HAVE THREE BASIC ASPECTCS IN THIS MATTER:

1. WHO TAKES THE DECISION
2. WHO HANDLE WHAT
3. SOP THAT HAVE TO BE CLEAR, FULLY UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOWED (WE ALL DO THE SAME THING, NOTE DEVIATIONS AND EVENTUALLY CHANGE IT. DOING DIFFERENT THINGS WITH DIFFERENT CREW IS DANGEROUS AND BASICALLY WILL NEVER BRING TO A FINAL SOLUTION)

...THEN THERE ARE THE 2 BIG VARIABLES AIRCRAFT THAT SOMETIMES MAKE PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY ARE MADE AND PILOTS WITH THEIR EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING LEVEL.

I\'M MILITARY AND FLY B707s, I BELIEVE WHAT EGGPLANT SAID IS THE BEST PROCEDURE FOR THAT PLANE BUT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FOR OTHERS. IN THE AIR FORCE WE ARE A SMALL BUNCH OF PILOTS, FLY A LOT TOGHETER AND KNOW EACH OTHER WELL SO TEAMWORK IS SOMEWHAT EASIER, I GUESS IT WOULD NOT BE THE SAME BETWEEN PILOTS WHO FLY TOGHETER ONCE A YEAR AND DONT KNOW EACH OTHER VERY WELL.
CIAO

Max Angle

5th Jul 2005, 12:53

and what evidence do YOU have to suggest that a properly trained, properly briefed FO is a liability at the controls? None, other than the fact that the worlds two biggest jet transport manufactures are very clearly in favour of the Captain making the decision to reject. To be blunt about it, the idea of a 300 hour pilot with a few weeks on line being required to make that sort of decision is absolutely ludicrous. You can brief and train people all you like but things are rarely clear cut and in the heat of the moment what counts is what they won't have, experience.

I have a lot of respect for the BA operation, it has proved itself to be a safe way to operate but they are clearly out of step with the aircraft makers and most other operators on this one. The procedures that Airbus and Boeing recommend are based on RTO incidents from all over the world and must carry some weight. I am surprised that any airline, however large and experienced, sees fit to ignore that advice.

moggiee

5th Jul 2005, 17:00

Of course.............because BA are different they MUST be wrong!

Remember, Airbus and Boeing have to write an Operation Manual that covers the whole world. This will include some states and companies who have, shall we say, "questionable" safety and training standards. This is partly done to avoid being sued into oblivion in the USA.

An airline as an entity can examine it's own historical data and produce an SOP that works best for them. Surely this make more sense than having to write a compromise SOP which has to legislate for organisations and situations that have no relevance to them.

However, if you prefer "one size fits all".......................

L337

7th Jul 2005, 00:44

Absolutely. The manufacturer has a whole raft of agendas when writing it's operations procedures. And it is always with the litigation lawyer calling the shots.

Crossing fingers as I write this.

BA has operated this way for generations. Literally. To date no incident has occurred because a FO has made a bad decision. And as the worlds largest operator of 747-400s, It seems to work for us.

300 hour pilots do not get to fly 747-400s or the 777. Obviously.

However on a daily basis 300 hour pilots, of A320s, B737, B757, B767s, get to have their hands on the thrust levers on takeoff, and amazingly.... no incidents.

maybe it is all down to excellent training!!

Then I would say that.

What we have here is a clash of cultures. On one hand we have the "Man and dog", and on the other "Adult adult". Because it is different does not make it "absolutely ludicrous"

L337

Centaurus

11th Jul 2005, 12:50

Many years ago, a major Australian domestic airline operating DC9's had a policy of the first officer conducting the take off with hands on throttles all the way to V1. However, the company operations manual stated that any abort would be executed by the captain while the first officer resumed a monitoring role during the abort. It worked fine for a couple of years.

Then one day, an F/O was doing the take off (his hands on the throttles) when a flock of birds suddenly appeared from nowhere and scattered in front of the aircraft which was 10 knots below V1 but accelerating rapidly.

To the captain's astonishment, the F/O instinctively whipped closed both throttles and commenced a full scale abort by which time the aircraft had gone past VR because of the delay by the F/O in getting on to the brakes.

The captain took a couple of precious seconds to wonder what the f....k was wrong with the F/O, initially thinking that the F/O had experienced a not so subtle incapacitation. The captain had no option but to continue the abort process and the DC9 went off the end of the runway at slow speed, with consequent tyre damage and buggered brakes.

Immediately after the incident, the airline changed it's policy and made it a directive that once take off power had been set, the captain took over the thrust levers until passing V1. As far as I recall (it was a long time ago), the captain in all major airlines in Australia, retains control of the thrust levers regardless of which pilot is executing the take off.

When asked by the investigators why he aborted the take off without reference to the captain, the F/O stated that it was an instinctive action when he saw the birds. The F/O had over 5000 hours, most of which were on airline aircraft.

There was no bird strike, but the cost of repairs and down-time of the DC9 was significant. On a more critical length runway, the final result could have been disastrous.

All the superb simulator training in the world (as espoused by some contributors to this forum), cannot replace command experience. It is commendable that first officers of some of the airlines mentioned in these posts are top class steely-eyed professionals who, except for annoying lack of a high seniority number, would surely deserve to be captains with the same type of eyes. This ideal (steely-eyed professionals), is not a universal trait in all airlines. Which may explain why Boeing and Airbus make it clear in their manuals, that the captain keeps his hand on the thrust lever until V1 and also conducts a rejected take off if one becmoes necessary.

Quidnunc

11th Jul 2005, 13:22

Just for the record, something that a lot of people here have failed to notice: Boeing and Airbus build aircraft. Airlines operate aircraft.

BA and most airlines have more experience opertaing a/c than either Boeing or Airbus. As such, they should decide on an SOP that suits them and their operating enviroment.

I don't expect the builder of my house to tell me how to live in it. I'll put the furniture where I want, and move around it in the way I want.

Boeing and Airbus are NOT the authority on SOPs - they are the authority on how to build a/c.

eggplantwalking

13th Jul 2005, 11:23

Quidnunc
.....and in your house, the lights are "on" but nobody is home!

moggiee

13th Jul 2005, 11:37

eggplantwalking - I've always believed (and still do) that when one of the protaganists in an argument resorts to unwarranted abuse he has lost the case.

For the record, I use the word argument in the sense of "discussion of opposing pints of view" rather than "verbal fight".

Again, why should it be wrong because it is different from YOUR point of view? Quidnunc actually makes a very valid point.

You must remember that BA is not based in America, but in Britain. This is a nation where (thankfully) commonsense still prevails in the main and we don't sue MacDonalds because the coffee is hot but wait for it to cool down.

eggplantwalking

13th Jul 2005, 13:41

Moggie
I really don't comprehend Quidnunc's analogy of the placement of furniture in his house and how this relates to SOPs in aircraft. However, if you do, then that is really cool. I would suggest that you go back and re-read what the contributers to this thread have said and make a quanitative analysis of their comments. You will then most likely ascertain that BA stands alone in their SOPs. Right or wrong in your opinion, it appears that the vast majority of operators favor the manufacturer's procedure of having the guy in the left seat make the decision to abort. Your observation that BA is not based in America is a very keen one. Perhaps you have also noticed that other foreign carriers, ones that are not "N" registered, are not based there either. Interestingly, and perhaps more important though, it does appear that most of the opinions in the aviation community disagree with your SOPs no matter what their nationality.

banana head

13th Jul 2005, 14:35

Tamalai, you stated earlier:

what an absolute load of Bo##ox, anyone who aborts a 390 ton 747 on a limiting runway around V1 wants their head examining !!! at V1 you maybe have 4500 feet of runway remaining and a max energy stop will undoubtably result in a wheel fire/evacuation and all that entails...................

I'm afraid I have to ask, how long since you did your CAD Perf T exam?
Can you recall that V1 must be < Vmbe?
A short or limiting runway will have a V1 that takes account not only of the physical length of tarmac available, the temp, the aircraft weight & thrust setting but also Vmbe - and if a stop could not be made without a guarenteed fire & evacuation/ going off the end, then the scheduled MTOM would have to be reduced.
That's the point of doing a T/O performance calculation in the first place.

I have to say I'm VERY alarmed to think our training (ok checking) department have somehow confused you into believing that it would be OK to continue a T/O (even on your limiting runway) with an engine failure BELOW V1.

I can see in my mind a beautiful 744 reduced to burning rubble just outside the airfield boundry after failing to become airbourne, and leaving the paved surface at 130+ knots with you pulling back on the control yolk wondering why she wouldn't fly.

Anyway, enough about performance, on the subject of who guards the T/L's during an F/O's take off I feel I am somewhat qualified to comment.
I've flown large jets for a number of airlines in the past, some of whom used BA's SOP's, and I have to say I agree completly with moggiee that with appropriate training (note I said training not checking), this is a perfectly safe way to operate.

Before critising another operators SOP's it helps to consider that the underlying goal of SOP's is to create an airline specific (tailored to its own environment/ equipment & culture) set of operating guidlines.

Some operators choose to use generic Boeing/ Airbus SOP's, which are fine - others form their own. Provided everybody receives training in an open environment & the SOPs are reviewed & matured it really dosen't matter who specifically positions what control, or what word is said when!

L337

13th Jul 2005, 16:00

BA has on average 6 - 9 rejected takeoffs per month.

All handled as per SOPs. No Incidents, no accidents. All as per the book.

Like it or not, the system works for BA.

As ever, I hate to tempt fate.. keeping fingers crossed.

L337

moggiee

14th Jul 2005, 09:24

I'll try to explain quidnunc's analogy for you, by narrowing it down a little.

Your house probably has a toilet (WC, John, Dunnie) in it. These devices come with a number of possible locations for the flush handle/button. Normally it will be left, right or centre.

Now, after using the toilet you may choose to operate that flushing mechanism with your left or right hand as you choose (or indeed any other part of your anatomy that works). If the flush is centre mounted than either hand can be used relatively conveniently. If it is mounted on the left then it is probably easiest to use your left hand, but there is no law which states that just because W C Boggs and Son (inc.) chose to place it there that you must use your left hand - after all, it may be busy holding onto something else. If it was unsafe for you to use the "wrong" hand, then there would probably be laws prohibiting you from doing so. However, if asked, W C Boggs and Son (inc.) would suggest a way that they thought was appropriate.

However, if you happened to be Donald Trump or Her Majesty the Queen and wished to employ someone to operate the flush for you and briefed them when you wanted it done then, I am sure, with the appropriate training they could operate the flush with no more risk of wet trousers than if you did it yourself.

Now it is unlikely that you would take this course of action but the point is that it is safe, feasible and above all legal.

Now, Airbus and Boeing build airliners - and both do a very good job. They place the thrust levers in the middle so that they are easily reached by both pilots, and the control column/sidestick is placed in such a way that the Pilot's outside hand can operate it effectively. They will suggest a way of operating the aeroplane that is safe, feasible and legal - as they must because as the manufacturer they are required so to do. That said, just like your toilet flush, there are a number of different ways to operate the aeroplane and I am sure that the Airbus/Boeing manuals do NOT specifically state that commandment number 11 reads: "Thou shall not allow the FO to touch the thrust levers during the take-off roll up to V1".

However, if an airline decides that the Airbus/Boeing way of operating does not suit it's particular circumstances then that is fine - as long as the procedure is safe, feasible and legal. The SOP is scrutinised by the FAA/CAA/JAA and other relevant authority and if not appropriate then the authority will require it to be changed. It would be madness to try to fly cross handed and I am sure that if anyone tried to write an SOP that required such an action the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority would come down upon them like a ton of bricks (Tonne of bricks for Airbus!).

So there it is - W C Boggs and Son (inc.) provide you with a toilet flush and may, if asked, suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of using said toilet flush. Airbus/Boeing provide you with an aeroplane and suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of so doing and provided that the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority is happy with the airline's alternative style then that is fine.

All clear?

Fragman88

16th Jul 2005, 06:57

Great thread, with reasoned discussion from all sides. Have used both in the past and both work if properly trained. I would tend to the Captain Abort decision from personal experience. A few incidents come to mind. Me as junior F/O, called abort for what turned out to be an N1 gauge failure (tail mounted engines, so little noise or swing indications), aborted for an ASI fail around V1 on an F27., in retrospect handover might have been better! On the F27 one, 'Ground test found satis.' , so to his credit the CP went with the skipper for a test circuit before reboarding pax. As I sat in the crewroom contemplating a dismal, if any, future, the sweetest sound was the 'Whoosh ' of the props going into Ground Fine as they aborted! There is an Aviation God.

On a wider note, on the larger A/C, a sort of two stage V1 was the norm, bearing in mind that performance figures are based on concrete, and not on rubber covered wet concrete. I and my 747 very nearly beat QF1 to his golfing expedition in Bangkok a few months previously, in only a moderate crosswind, adhesion 0. Remember at least 1500 Ft. of your last ditch stopping attempt will be on the other end's touchdown zone, which will be covered in rubber. Landing in Athens in a 737, I had insufficient wheel spinup for spoiler deployment, days after the runway had been declared serviceable to iCAO standards, and 2 Swissair pilots sent to jail for sliding off the end in their DC8!

That said, a wise man once told me that you should always look beyond V1. In some places that come to mind, the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong, Naples, Kaoshiung in Taiwan, it may be better to take your chances with the brake fires, evacuation and the bushes at 80Kts, rather than a rock at 220! Anyway that's what the stripes and the money are for, so good luck with the split second decision, just accept, someone will have plenty of time to decide you were wrong!

Who's got my coat?
:ok:

BOAC

16th Jul 2005, 07:50

Well, having experienced the 'BA way' I had no problem with it, and it seened to work ok, and the only 'wrong call' I know of was from the F/O with the Captain handling anyway! The ONLY difference I can put forward to Quidnunc's analogy is that it is extremely unlikely that I would require Flying Lawyer's help to defend the use of the wrong bit of my anatomy to flush the toilet, but the Captain is, in law, RESPONSIBLE for the safety of the blah blah blah and I have never been certain that just 'following orders' would be a complete defence for me when the F/O slammed the throttles shut at VR on a short runway. I can now understand to some extent why one of my 'Mr Grumpy' Captains always used to put his hand behind the throttle levers on an F/O take-off! I guess his hand could have been hurt, however:D

I now operate to 'Boeing'. No big deal. In reality, why should the F/O handle the throttles on reject? Is it a 'status/image' thing, like the RHS tiller, provided at significant expense in cost and weight, and never used AFAIK in anger?