YOW rejected takeoff

[armada]

A bit of hyperbole by the reporter in this piece.


July 27, 2005

Air Canada pilot averts disaster as engine blows

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Passengers credited the quick action of the flight crew for averting potential disaster late Monday after an Air Canada jet blew an engine and aborted takeoff.

The Vancouver-bound Airbus A320 was almost at takeoff speed and more than halfway down the runway at 6:55 p.m. when there was a "pop" from the right engine, said Peter Simpson, a passenger seated just behind the left wing.

Simpson said the aircraft, believed to be carrying about 120 passengers, seemed to lose speed and the pilot immediately deployed the flaps and started braking.

"The flaps went straight up and we roared to a stop,'' he said. "The pilot came on the intercom and apologized and announced they had lost an engine on takeoff.

"I really admire what the pilot did. He was wonderful. He stopped it almost on a dime."

Simpson said the plane's tires were shredded in the emergency stop and firefighters had fans under the aircraft to cool the overheated wheels and brakes.

Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke said the pilot noticed an engine light come on during takeoff.

"As a precaution, he rejected takeoff and as a result the aircraft came to an abrupt stop on the runway which put, obviously, pressure on the brakes and tires," she said.

The plane was not evacuated.

The flight, No. 139, originated in Halifax and stopped in Ottawa to pick up passengers and change crew before flying on to Vancouver.

Simpson said he saw skid marks about 100 metres long with only about a third of the runway remaining. He said the captain told him later that the runway was spewed with engine parts after something disintegrated in the right engine.

Erica Heaphy, 19, was flying for the first time. She and her parents were on their way to a wedding.

"I was freaking out before it happened but when I saw the flames, I was really freaking out,'' said Heaphy. "I just saw a bunch of orange."

[skibeagle]

Yes, seems like timely action by the crew. Does anyone know how close to V1 this happened ?

[NigelOnDraft]

SB...

If there was a 1/3 of the runway left when it stopped, likely a long way from V1 - and in fact somewhat unlikely there was a genuine V1. An A320 from a strip limited (dry) runway will have V1 2/3 - 3/4 down the runway, and a stop from V1 will stop very near the end i.e. airliners stop a hell of a lot quicker than they accelerate... Especially A340s :)

[sevenforeseven]

Deployed the "flaps", flaps went up????

[Tiger]

sounds like there maybe been skid marks else where other than on the runway!

[threemiles]

"Deployed the "flaps", flaps went up????"

sounds like spoilers

[NigelOnDraft]

I really didn't think it necessary to dissect the article to the very obvious extent that a punter quoted as saying "flaps went up" meant spoilers... :)

[arewenearlythereyet?]

NoD, agree completely. Do the mods have to allow every wisecrack just because some reporter put the story out in laymans terms.

If the passenger isn't as clued up as some of the spotters on here and states that they saw "flaps go up" then we don't need Reginald S Potter stating the bleedin' obvious. Those of us who do fly these things for a living are perfectly able to suss out that the passenger probably meant the spoilers.

I would have thought that the article was more a reflection on the literacy of todays yoof with the comments "I was freaking out before it happened but when I saw the flames, I was really freaking out,'' said Heaphy. "I just saw a bunch of orange."

I was cheesed off when I saw the original post but now I'm REALLY cheesed off after I saw some of the replies. :rolleyes:

[CosmosSchwartz]

I know what you mean arewenearlythereyet? I was freaking out when I first read it, but now I've read the replies I'm really freaking out!:} :E ;)

[Victor Meldrew]

arewenearlythereyet,

This is just another symptom of the media's increasingly sensationalist take on events involving transportation. These guys try to profess knowledge, but just end up looking like idiots. An engine failure on take off is not to be taken lightly, but the guys up front are trained to deal with such events, and dealt with it.

[Dave Gittins]

An engine failure just before V1 is not exactly "just another day in the office" but no more than the crew should be prepared to deal with on any particular day in the office.

Why don't I see "Shock Horror Sensation, Disaster averted as 52 seat coach has engine failure on M25" ??

Because for some mysterious reason the world expects disasters to befall aviation and then revels in them when they do.

Even when it takes a long stretch of the imagination to even get the mundane to the "could have".

:confused:

[Victor Meldrew]

Totally agree with the comment about the M25, but I think the aviation industry gets off lightly when compared to the rail industry.

[WHBM]

Erica Heaphy, 19, was flying for the first time.
Glad to see the press going for the knowledgeable witnesses to an event !

Simpson said he saw skid marks about 100 metres long with only about a third of the runway remaining
Good thing Simpson was able to distinguish these from tyre marks made by aircraft landing on the reciprocal runway.

[Kopeloi]

NigelOnDraft,
Wouldn't you think that if there is only 1/4 of the runway left and the V1 is not even reached on twin engine jet there is something seriously wrong! A320 will need more than remaining 1/4 to stop ....

[oldebloke]

No big thing...Performed a reject/abort on runway 32 ,a few years ago ,with the 320.we actioned at 90knots,and with brake setting auto we were stopped by the 07 intersection(V1 about 140)..The wheel temps went up to 480,but the fuse plugs held,and after 25 mins of brake cooling(external,as no fans fitted on the the gear)we again Departed for YVR.
IN this case I can only assume a higher speed at the reject,and the YOW area have a Hot session of weather(it was a transient flight,what was the residual brake temp?),all would contribute to the plugs going...
cheers..:ok:

[Re-Heat]

I was freaking out before it happened but when I saw the flames, I was really freaking out,'' said Heaphy. "I just saw a bunch of orange
Note to all - Heaphy does NOT like flying easyJet.

[NigelOnDraft]

K Wouldn't you think that if there is only 1/4 of the runway left and the V1 is not even reached on twin engine jet there is something seriously wrong! A320 will need more than remaining 1/4 to stop .... Don't quite understand what you are saying?

On a dry runway, when I have a "real" Stop V1 (not often) I would say I am 75%+ down the TODA - as a wild generality... Examples being, say, EDI from the Intersection, ABZ....

In short, this aircraft was reported "stopped" with 1/3 left. Doesn't sound like a critical V1 abort to me :)

Nod = A320 Capt

[catchup]

Hope, the autopilot wa switched to "on".

:D :D :D

[LatviaCalling]

My older son just arrived on a three leg flight LAX-JFK-PRG-RIX for a visit. He's one of them that has a fear of flying and admitted he used the barf bag four times. Asked about the flight conditions, he admitted that they were fine except some thunderstorms departing New York.

This goes with the quote of the passenger who said she was "freaking out" even before the plane was airborne but she was "really freaking out" when she saw flames.

I don't know how to explain it properly, but we all have some kind of phobias. As a formerly trained pilot I don't have any problems in the cockpit or in the cabin. I can sit by the window and the whole world whirls below without any problems because I know I'm safe.

Put me in a car in the driver's position going over a very high bridge (Lisbon, Seville) and I'm a wreck, concentrating on the center line and not feeling too good in my stomach. For me, also high mountain roads are off limits.

Interestingly enough, aircraft don' affect me at all. Maybe because I was a former pilot and I know what they're doing there up-front.

[Kopeloi]

Nod,
I am impressed . Didnt know that A320 will stop with max gross from 140KIAS in less than 400 meters.

[Carnage Matey!]

I don't think an A320 at max gross weight would get airborne from a 1600m runway.

[NigelOnDraft]

Thanks CM...

Whoever K is, he seems determined to cause trouble and dig holes in posts, rather than speak in generalities :)

[QDMQDMQDM]

Honestly, I think you lot need to get some perspective and deal with your siege mentality vis a vis the press. This was a perfectly reasonable article. Some of the comments on pprune about press articles are frankly unbelievable.

Of course the press is interested in aviation incidents, because when something goes wrong it is very graphic and very public and the newspaper readership is interested. It sells papers. This is the world we live in. Deal with it and shed the pompous, superior attitude when journalists make a minor mistake or write about an incident in a manner you don't particularly favour.

This is what having a free press is about.

QDM

[Kaptin M]

If you feel that some of the press reporters deserve a little more respect from the aviation community, QDMQDMQDM, perhaps you might gain it, if some of the "dedicated aviation experts" made themselves somewhat more familiar with airline aircraft ops.
Most of us are only TOO happy to give you some time, gratis, in explaining some of the stuff.

Occasionally the sensationalism incorporated into aviation incidents DOES make the journo look pretty amateurish in the eyes of professional crews, who are trying hard to maintain a safe standard, and to retain the trust of the people who entrust themselves and their loves ones to us on what we hope will be a safe and pleasant experience for them.
Likewise, many of us are sick and tired of being reminded by our superiors, that our job requires no more skill than a 'bus or train driver, and that we should be rewarded and rostered similarly.

If you feel that this is a "pompous, superior attitude", then so be it - however I can assure you it is not.
We're probably all just a little "battle weary" from the continued snipes.
Cheers. :O

And last, but by no means least, "Well done" gentlemen, on executing a successful rto! :ok:
(I'm certain you expected no less of yourselves.)

[Old King Coal]

The whole point of the pilots doing the pre-departure performance calculation is so that they can be certain that the weight of the aircraft is such that – given the Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) and the Accelerate / Stop Distance Available (ASDA) - it can be accelerated to a certain speed (v1) and if needs be, at that speed, subsequently stopped in what runway remains (which might see the aircraft entering the 'stopway', but that will see it come to a stop on the paved surface, be that surface the runway or stopway).

Likewise, v1 provides for the aircraft suffering an engine failure at that speed and, if the decision is made to continue the take-off (nearly always the safest thing to do – and you'll see why in a minute), the aircraft still has enough thrust to continue to accelerate to Vr, become airborne, and achieve the screen height (30' dry runway / 15' wet runway) by the end of the TODA.

On a limiting runway, beyond the performance calculation, the variable factor is the technique the pilots use to stop the aircraft, i.e. if the pilots do not execute correct technique, during a Rejected Take Off (RTO), then the aircraft will go off the end of the runway. The correct technique for stop from v1 is: Aggressively close the thrust levers & simultaneously apply maximum braking.
Pull the speed brake lever.
Select maximum reverse thrust.Nb. On aircraft whose engines are fitted with thrust reversers, the use of reverse thrust is not factored into the performance calculation for a RTO that is actioned on a dry runway (but wherein if one uses it, one will come to a stop some distance prior to the end of the runway - or, putting it another way, if one doesn't use reverse thrust during a v1 stop on a dry runway, the aircraft will stop at the end of the runway, i.e. the flightdeck might be over the grass but the nose wheel will still be on the runway / stopway).
On a wet runway use of reverse is factored into the performance calculation and failure to use reverse following a RTO, actioned at v1, will see the aircraft run off the end of the runway / stopway.

Any other variations in the pilots RTO technique (e.g. not selecting speed brakes and / or not using maximum braking, etc.) will likewise see the aircraft run off the end of the runway / stopway.

Needless to say, it is the application of correct technique that pilots practice in the simulator - and it also happens to be part of how the regulatory authorities ascertain that a simulator behaves as the aircraft would prior to approving its use for flight crew training.

If in any doubt about this, have a read of Boeing's Flight Crew Training Manual (wherein I'm certain that Airbus's will read just the same on this topic as it's all governed by the same rules).

For those who might think otherwise, aircraft performance is neither arbitary or guesswork.

Kaptin M - Well said !!! :ok:

[BBN RADAR]

Likewise, v1 provides for the aircraft suffering an engine failure at that speed...

Now, I don't want to be a smartarse but wouldn't an engine failure at V1 always result in a continuation of the T/O?

For a reject at V1 the engine must have failed before V1 to allow time for the recognition of the failure and time for the reaction to the failure (ie thrust levers to full reverse, full initiation of braking and spoilers etc....). Apologies in advance if I'm wrong as I'm not an airline pilot yet but am just recalling knowledge from ATPL theory.

Kaptin M - good post mate.

:ok:

[Old King Coal]

Built into the takeoff performance planning data ( aka the Airfield Analysis ) there's an allowance as follows (depending under which regulatory authority ones opperating) for recognition of a problem that would require an RTO and for the instigation of the said same RTO: FAR - 1 second.
JAR - 2 seconds ( 1" for recognition that there's a problem, and a further 1" for instigation of the RTO)

[NigelOnDraft]

OKC....

You state:
The correct technique for stop from v1 is:
Aggressively close the thrust levers & simultaneously apply maximum braking.
Pull the speed brake lever.
Select maximum reverse thrust.

Might be on your type, but be careful saying it is "the correct technique". For instance on the type this thread relates to, these are not the pilot's "memory actions"...

NoD

[Old King Coal]

NigelOnDraft - point taken and duly noted, please accept my appologies.... and for Airbus pilots, please carry on doing whatever it is you do to effect an RTO. :ok:

[QDMQDMQDM]

If you feel that some of the press reporters deserve a little more respect from the aviation community, QDMQDMQDM, perhaps you might gain it, if some of the "dedicated aviation experts" made themselves somewhat more familiar with airline aircraft ops.

Kaptin M,

I am a doctor and PPL, not a journalist and my profession gets subject to inaccurate reporting and sensationalism frequently in the press too. My point is simply that many of the reactions to the press on pprune are completely over the top and this is a case in point: it isn't a great article, but it's not exactly terrible.

When something is completely wrong, then fair enough, point it out, but being a prima donna about this stuff is wearisome.

Some people need to chill. And maybe take a pill. I know some good ones. :D

QDM

[Kaptin M]

As am amateur (non-practising) ND and iridologist, I think I can see where you're coming from, QDMQDMQDM.

Maybe just some Jasmine tea, or a rub with comfrey will help, instead of the pills. :D