Would you abort after V1?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Just to add to clandestino's post (that "times ten" rule is one I've not seen before, but sounds useful .. must check for our types ..)

A typical rule of thumb used for assessing safety implications of runway excursions goes something like:
40kts and below : "major" - damage and injuries, no deaths
40 to 70 knots : "hazardous" - serious damage, risk of death
70 plus : "catastrophic" - hull loss, multiple deaths


Now, there are of course exceptions (good and bad luck) but it's a decent average.

[OutOfRunWay]

never heard of the times 10 rule before either. Sounds like a good rule of thumb, though. I think ill do some maths, and see if I can get to similar numbers. (better than verifying by experiment).

MadFltScientist - true, but only as long as the area beyond the runway isn't littered with walls, berms, ditches and whatnot. There are still too few airports out there which have a safety area to allow you to stop gently after an overrun.


Regards, OORW

[Mach E Avelli]

Some good numbers above to think about. Has any research been done in to what sort of maximum speeds are practical for deliberately inducing a ground-loop or going in to soft grass or earth? Thinking - that if you see an over-run is inevitable and to continue straight off the end would be really, really ugly, what is there to lose by putting it off the SIDE of the runway at an angle dependant upon what obstructions are in the side area? I have seen it done successfully on wet grass during a landing that was about to over-run, but granted it was a DC3 and only doing about 25 knots when the guy gave it a bootful of rudder and a well-judged squirt of throttle. He actually got it nearly all the way around through 180 degrees, chewing up a couple of cone markers as he went but basically keeping it within the runway confines. On another occasion I saw another DC3 deviate at a near right-angle off the tarmac onto grass, but that one was a crosswind landing stuff-up by a deputy chief pilot who was out of his depth on the old Gooney. Neither incident caused any damage other than skid marks (of both the visible and not so obvious kind!).

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Did some quick maths with some simplistic assumptions about accels and decels and that "rule of ten" is pretty good. It actually looks like it UNDERESTIMATES the runway exit speed for small values - it looks about right for 5-6 knots, for reasonable V1 values. For one or two knots, the multiple is more like 20, though. And for ten or more knots delay the factor drops to 7 or lower.

If I use the 40/70 break points for hazards, then any delay of more than, say, 4 knots is hazardous, and anything over 9 or 10 knots is catastrophic. And, as OORW astutely notes, that's assuming a relatively "friendly" overrun area...

Assuming a (lowish) takeoff T/W of, say, 0.25'g', that's an accel of about 5knots/sec. A light weight could see that nearly double. So those speed increases equate to about a second of delay.

[FE Hoppy]

welcome back ssg.
If the tires are blown you are not stopping so no numbers to run!!

[thebooms]

I grew up in props and we always planned on V1 max and in most cases V1=Vr. It certainly was easier to abort a prop plane over a jet. Much more controllability on the runway and easy to abort. It was a big learning curve making the transition to jets and taking them airborne at V1 is the way to go. Our FMS has a V1 max function but our SOP calls for balanced field or V1 min. Ask to try a V1 max in the sim and I think you'll find that flying is the way to go. Good luck

[tarik123]

Iwill tell you a story that happened with me long time ago,
It was L1011/500 250 pax on board, take off weight was around
200000 kgs, 400000 lbs , just after V1 we heard a loud bang, we
continued rotation. just after leaving the ground a black thing
just flew infront of the winshield and went straight into engine
no2, at that time sever vibration shook the plane, F/E started
screaming Vibration on eng 2, tower also reported lots of smoke
from our plane, eng 2 throttle was moved back to idle and
vibration stopped, at that time the lead cabin crew flew to the
cokpit reporting smoke from the left engine, we looked at engine
no1 parameters, and it had the high EGT light on, limitation
was 800 c for max 20sec, now we thought that F/E made a mistake
reporting eng2 instead of eng no 1, as we learned in the sim that
sever damage is always accompanied by high temp, so eng no 1
was retarded below temp limit and eng n02 thottle was addvanced
slightly, which brought vib back, we realised that 2 engines were affected,
it took us 10 min to reach 1000t AGL, luckily no high terrain around,
Engine no 2 was shut down, and no1 was kept below High EGT limit.

We started dumping fuel and the tower reported lots of rubber
on the runway, which meant one tire was lost. fuel was dumped
to the minimum which took almost one hour, we dropped the
landing gear and made a low pass over the tower, which reported
a left tire was gone.

We landed on the right side first, did not use left reverser and stopped
the plane on the runway,no evacuation was made as there was no fire
reported.

The main tire blow up at V1, hit the left wing and ruptured the fuel
tank in front of eng 1 and went straight in front of the windshield
into eng no 2.

It is always safer to go airborne, deal with the problem, and come back
and land.

[A37575]

A thoroughly interesting set of replies and certainly thought provoking. From reading countless incident and accident reports of over-runs over many years it has been my personal view only that from 15 knots below V1 it is safer to continue the take off if on a limiting runway length wet or dry surface. I know this would horrify the experts but it is a question of learning from the experience of others. Fortunately I have never had to put this to practice except in the simulator.

[PicklePilot]

That's crazy...a canned 'let's go' regardless of the circumstances..I wonder how many airliners tried to fly it off, only to crash somewhere down the road vs even the very worst of overruns where everyone walked away.Sorry guys, sometimes the plane doesn't want to fly, and I could sit here and come up with failure after failure in the sim, where flying it off, is a death sentence for you and the passengers.I think some of you need to get out of your airline sims and go to another sim facility: When you get there say 'sock it to me' then you will see what I am talking about. Smart pilots recognize if they have a flying aircraft or not, and don't just default to SOPS, checklists and canned responses to all scenarios..

[Right Way Up]

Hi SSG hows it going? ;)

[SNS3Guppy]

That's crazy...a canned 'let's go' regardless of the circumstances..I wonder how many airliners tried to fly it off, only to crash somewhere down the road vs even the very worst of overruns where everyone walked away.Sorry guys, sometimes the plane doesn't want to fly, and I could sit here and come up with failure after failure in the sim, where flying it off, is a death sentence for you and the passengers.I think some of you need to get out of your airline sims and go to another sim facility: When you get there say 'sock it to me' then you will see what I am talking about. Smart pilots recognize if they have a flying aircraft or not, and don't just default to SOPS, checklists and canned responses to all scenarios..


Ssg reborn again indeed.

Most of us here fly real airplanes. Perhaps you should stick to your microsoft simulator world.

[PicklePilot]

Well Guppy, I guess on your PC, after V1 the plane always flies..is that how it works on Microsoft Flight Sim?

[Junkflyer]

Actually he's a 747 classic pilot, and yes they do always fly after v-1. We'll keep you posted if that changes.

[SNS3Guppy]

We'll keep you posted if that changes.


:eek:

V1, or my job? :uhoh:

Well Guppy, I guess on your PC, after V1 the plane always flies.


On my Proficiency Check...the airplane had better fly, or I'm out of a job.

[PK-KAR]

SSG version X (I've lost count) continues to blabber on about how many have said "go" and crashed. He has yet to provide any numbers of:
% of a Go after a failure after V1, where they ended up with fatalities.
% of a a stop after failure after V1, where they ended up with fatalities.

Until then, I will not stop laughing everytime I see SSG or his derivatives online here.

PK-KAR

[lomapaseo]

Thank you PK:ok:

SSG version X (I've lost count) continues to blabber on about how many have said "go" and crashed. He has yet to provide any numbers of:
% of a Go after a failure after V1, where they ended up with fatalities.
% of a a stop after failure after V1, where they ended up with fatalities.

Until then, I will not stop laughing everytime I see SSG or his derivatives online here.

PK-KAR

That's the essence of the whole argument within this thread.

If you follow the SOPs you will save more passengers than if you don't.

If you are inclined to try and stop it ad-hoc, then please try this in a qualified sim and take the knuckle raps by the instructors pointer stick.

[SNS3Guppy]

It's not even an arguement over which will save more passengers. One choice is right, one isn't. If one "saves" passengers by making the wrong choice, one is lucky; one hasn't actually saved anything. One has been saved from one's own foolishness.

Barring something that prevents the airplane from going airborne, there's no reason to reject at high speed, and as most all of us agree, it's with good reason. It's not a matter of playing the odds or leveling risk, or weighing where the most survivors will occur. It's a matter of making the correct choice, and in most all cases, that's going airborne.

[tarik123]

I looked at some numbers today and would like explenation if possible
please.

In the performance A320 book I picked a sea level runway with zero slope,
3800 meters length and checked the Take off speeds

115/ 119/ 122 Are the V1,VR, V2 flex 68 for 54000 kg take off weight.
149/ 149/ 152 flex 68 are the speeds for 63000 kg take off weight.

Now If I abort at 116 V1 for the 54000 kg weight, the plane will over
run the runway? but if I abort at 148 speed and weight 63000 kgs
The plane will stop before the end of the runway, although I would have
used more runway in the second case as the flex is the same.

This really does not make sense, as I had less speed, less weight
and more runway for the 54000 kg take off.

Any explanation please.

[Dont Hang Up]

Whilst this thread has been concentrated on safe stopping, what those V1 figures actually mean are:

At 54000kg at 115Kt the aircraft will accelerate and take off in the remaining runway even if you lose an engine.

At 63000kg you need to be at 149Kt for that to be true.

[tarik123]

My Question is very simple speed 115, less weight and more runway ahead
is more critical than 144 speed more weight and less runway, this really
does not make sense.

[lomapaseo]

My Question is very simple speed 115, less weight and more runway ahead
is more critical than 144 speed more weight and less runway, this really
does not make sense

Really :confused:

Any graphics available to make sense out of this?

[Dont Hang Up]

And the answer is equally simple as I stated above.

There is a fundamental difference between "good-to-go minus one engine" and "committed to take off".

Strictly speaking V1 is the first one. However as the aircraft weight goes up or the runway length comes down the two parameters converge.

Yes, at 54000kg and 116Kt you may have the luxury of a second or three to decide whether your problem was really so bad that the aircraft wont fly and still stop with runway to spare. At 63000kg and 149kt you almost certainly would not.

It is the deadly grey area inbetween that has been exercising the contributors to this thread.

[IFLY_INDIGO]

I would not care what the statistics and the number says..
I would go by the SOP rather than creating new definition of V1 at the most critical time of my life...
Personally, my strategy is : as I sense entering the high speed area (>100kts), I keep telling my self " This would be a 'go' "
by the way, does anyone know how many times the engines of airliners have failed above 100kts or closer to actual V1...

cheers

[airfoilmod]

How many times engine failure after V1? If I read you right, what difference does it make? You don't like stats. "What would I have gotten for Christmas if I had gotten something more?"

Airfoil

[IFLY_INDIGO]

Yes, I don't like to give blind importance to stats and I am not going to abort close to V1.. I just wanted to draw attention of the readers to the point that rarely engines fail close to V1 (excluding possibility of bird strike)..


cheers

[tarik123]

The issue is not SOP or what whoever will do, it is about available
distance to stop if an abort takes place at speed that is above V1
AT 54000 KG??

IF AT 64000 KG , LESS RUNWAY AND 30 KTS MORE SPEED AND STILL
ON PAPER THEIR IS ENOUGH RUNWAY TO STOP THEN at 54000kg
I should be able also to stop at 149 kts safely.

[SNS3Guppy]

Tarik,

You did specify flex thrust, right?

[FE Hoppy]

Tarik,(ssg)
Whenever you are not at the runway limited max take off weight there will be a range of v1 speeds available.

Think of the lowest v1 as the lowest speed you could safely continue the take off after an engine failure and the highest v1 as the highest speed from which you can stop.

Some one decides on a policy of which speed to use and you use it. It may be that the decision is to use "Balanced" speeds in which case if the engine failure occurs at the exact Vef speed used in the calculation then the distance to continue to screen height would be the same as the distance taken to stop.

For all other v1s the distances required are unequal.

Your question about different speeds at different weights makes no sense! Now if you were to ask why can't i stop after a V1min of 119 when the V1max at the same weight is 150 then that would make for an interesting discussion.

as it is you need to study the concept a little more then get back to us.

[ask26]

Our company uses the flex+derate for Take-Off where possible. However I am interested as to whether there any any operators who use some sort of software package which would give you all 3 V1's in preflight calculations for some kind of situational awareness.

For instance you are light as in Tarik's example with a low V1 go, but your company gives a balanced field V1 slightly higher. Is there anywhere you could obtain a high V1 stop for the same take-off criteria.

I ask as lets say for instance you get to the V1 low, and soon after get some kind of manfunction (jammed controls, etc...), if you knew what the higher V1 was, lets say the 149 as from the previous example - you might be in a postion to consider the option of relanding/or aborting if still on the ground and not at Vr if say your speed was not at V1 high.

Not sure if such a scenario is accurate or even desirable as it would add a grey area to the idea of V1 being a stop/go concept but I thought I'd ask.

[galaxy flyer]

My 2 pfennig:

Look at the charts (table?) for the highest TOGW under the existing conditions (assuming full power, no derates/flex which would change everything) and use that V1 as the V1max. It is a rough approxiamation, but the real answer is to get out the charts, probably unavailable to most of us, and compute all the numbers for the TODA, TORA, and ASDA. Compute Vmcg, Vcefs, Vrefusal, accelerate-go, etc. A 20 minute process, if you have the charts and not very useful in an airline environment.

GF

[lomapaseo]

Think of the lowest v1 as the lowest speed you could safely continue the take off after an engine failure and the highest v1 as the highest speed from which you can stop

Agree

but... the issue in most overrun accidents is the timing of the effective actions to stop relative to intersecting the critical speed.

To continue requires much less motor skills.

[ask26]

Thanks galaxy, I was thinking that myself. Putting in MTOW into the laptop to see a max V1 speed for the runway conditions - just really so that you have a mental idea of what you have remaining in terms of your balanced field speed reduction from a V1 stop situation. For instance at a light weight, v1 = 116, and the same at MTOW would be for example V1 = 149, but would you really want to delay VR to 149 in a ferry flight!

I am not advocating anything here, more that I want to know what margins we have been given when presented with a V1. I wonder if operators do not make this kind of data available in an easy format so that the stop/go decision is clear cut - rather than make it a 'greyer' area at lower weights as people could have 2 values to consider.

Interesting quote from that 'Pilot Guide to Takeoff Safety':
"By far, the most likely takeoff scenario for the
line pilot is the case where the actual airplane
weight is less than any limit weight, especially
the Field Length Limit Weight. It also is possibly
the most easily misunderstood area of takeoff
performance since the fact that the airplane is
not at a limit weight is about all the flight crew
can determine from the data usually available on
the flight deck. Currently, few operators provide
any information that will let the crew determine
how much excess runway is available; what it
means in terms of the V1 speed they are using;
or how to best maximize the potential safety
margins represented by the excess runway."

And another one w.r.t. tyre failure:
"McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
in an All Operator Letter4, has addressed this
dilemma by recommending a policy of not
rejecting a takeoff for a suspected tire failure
at speeds above V1−20 knots."

Is this out of date or used in any other type/fleet?

[FE Hoppy]

Quote:
Think of the lowest v1 as the lowest speed you could safely continue the take off after an engine failure and the highest v1 as the highest speed from which you can stop
Agree

but... the issue in most overrun accidents is the timing of the effective actions to stop relative to intersecting the critical speed.

To continue requires much less motor skills.

Totally agree!!

[Bartholomew]

From all the heated discussions, points, examples, etc offered on this thread... I think one thing has become obvious. It doesn't matter what you fly, when it comes time to think outside the box, I think most pilots do just that! In a Caravan, a bang above V1 means stop. In a Navajo, it depends where your decision point was, your weight, speed, incline, etc. In a Citation, I'm guessing the same would apply. In a 747, one bang is not serious, however 2 bangs would make you think "same engine, or 2 on the same side?".

All of these decisions depend on so many factors, it is unfair to try and compare airline pilots with anyone else.... it all depends on the factors relative at the time.

I think all SSG was trying to point out (initially) was this fact, but then got involved in a mud-slinging session with a whole bunch of people from other fields.

Bottom line is.... we all do what we think is correct at the time, according to the situation at the time. Our training does teach us different things, but we aren't just machines... we're humans, who assess things quite fast (normally), and, because we are humans, we are sometimes prone to making mistakes.

For me, V1 means "go". But that isn't true for every take-off... and my fellow crew-members know that, because I tell them... everytime, when it's relevant. Every take-off is different... no-one can dispute that.

SOME DAYS YOU'RE THE BUG... SOME DAYS YOU'RE THE WINDSHIELD

[Dont Hang Up]

A great deal of informed and erudite comment on this thread has been of considerable interest to a mere PPL like me (if I lose an engine my command decisions are pretty limited).
However one thing shines out very clearly from the discussion. V1 is being used for two different things - 'good-to-go minus one engine' and 'committed to take-off'. For low take-off weights and long runways these are often nowhere near the same value. Why has it evolved this way? Why can there not be an extra parameter in the take-off litany?
'V1' - 'Commit' - 'Rotate'
Then someone asks 'would you ever stop after 'commit' and the arguments go on ;-)

[lomapaseo]

V1 is being used for two different things - 'good-to-go minus one engine' and 'committed to take-off'. For low take-off weights and long runways these are often nowhere near the same value. Why has it evolved this way? Why can there not be an extra parameter in the take-off litany?


V1 is not a rule, it's a guideline for judgements.

It makes little difference in how hard you set it. The outcome is subjective (statistical)

As an example the incident/accident rates for takeoff aborts are typically calaculated for anything over 100kts, since the data gathering is unsure exactly when the pilot decided to start the abort.

[Wizofoz]

Dont Hang,

The reason is that, particularly in large aircraft, a go decision has proven to be the safer option for almost all emergency situations even if, theoretically, you COULD stop on the available runway. High speed rejects are very serious manoeuvers. If the aircraft will fly it is virtually always safer to takeoff, circle, and land thus having the WHOLE runway to stop on, rather than just the bit left after V1.

lomapaseo-

V1 is not a rule, it's a guideline for judgements.


It most certainly IS a rule according to the Ops Manual I am LEGALLY REQUIRED to operate in accordance with. As Captain, I do have the right to work outside the laid down procedures if it is necessary, but that means something has happened so that I CAN'T continue the takeoff.

[lomapaseo]

Wizofoz

Sweeping, emotive statement not based in reality. It most certainly IS a rule according to the Ops Manual I am LEGALLY REQUIRED to operate in accordance with. As Captain, I do have the right to work outside the laid down procedures if it is necessary, but that means something has happened so that I CAN'T continue the takeoff, not that I don't fell like it! In your many guises you continually tell us your judgement is superior to the rulemakers, aircraft manufacturers and procedure designers whose job it is to give us data and procedures to safley fly.

No wonder you didn't get past those airline interviews.

A trifle quick on the retort aren't we

You can express your own statements quite nicely and they will stand on their own. But please don't mess with mine, I'll be happy to back mine up anytime I feel it's necessary.

If it makes you feel any better I agree with what you said, but I do not retract my statements.

[Wizofoz]

lomapaseo,

I apologize. I've only been dipping into this thread, and thought, wrongly, that you were another manifestation of SSG. Shows how one fool can muck it up for everyone!

Having read your posts in there entirety, I see you have a very firm grasp of the realities of the whole concept of V1 and Go/No go.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Wizofoz---Ssg has gotten everyone a bit stired up---;)


PA

[I'm still in therapy from the reduced thrust thread:}]

[airfoilmod]

(That's espanish). Now that the cattle are off the runway, I'll drop the gear and squat. Observation. There is a sense here, and it isn't just because it's the "net", that way too many posters have skin thin enough to read the Guardian through. The quickest and loudest are usually the people who have the least to offer. I've done that, that's how I know to recognize it when I see it. So easy to angrily condemn a post, and then push one that wasn't worth the wait.

Maybe people are just too shy to begin new threads; I think that would help. More subjects, better venue, more thread integrity.

V1? Coffin Corner? Pilot's who pack? It's all good.

Airfoil

[lomapaseo]

lomapaseo,

I apologize. I've only been dipping into this thread, and thought, wrongly, that you were another manifestation of SSG. Shows how one fool can muck it up for everyone!

Having read your posts in there entirety, I see you have a very firm grasp of the realities of the whole concept of V1 and Go/No go.

No worries.

I'm inclined to accept my limitations in communicating and prefer instead to let all posters express themselves and then take for myself the best of the communication.

I learn a lot from this, including to temper my own opinions.

[Richard2008]

Why try to stop on 20 or 30 or 40 percent of a runway when you can take it in the air and come back and use nearly 100 percent of the runway to stop? There is a very good reason as to the WHY we train to GO after V1.

[rleungz]

Ok. I'm no pilot but isn't it abit stupid for a pilot to try and stop the plane with only 50 percent of the runway left?
I mean the speed of the plane will require more runway to stop and wouldn't the plane just simply go off the runway and crash?

[PITingres]

Ok. I'm no pilot but isn't it abit stupid for a pilot to try and stop the plane with only 50 percent of the runway left?
I mean the speed of the plane will require more runway to stop and wouldn't the plane just simply go off the runway and crash?Only if you assume that acceleration and deceleration rates are identical. They aren't. Most vehicles (of any sort) can brake at a higher rate than they can accelerate.

[grooves]

All aircraft manufacturers assume that the person reading the procedure is an average pilot, not a hotshot. That is to say they try to cover the whole community and not just a gifted few.
Almost all of the cases where a reject has been carried out after v1 have resulted in an overrun.
How would you decide in a matter of a couple of secs whether it would be safe to reject t.off after v1 on one rwy and not the other.
All a/cs are certified to fly on one eng and there are fire extinguishers to put out the fire.
And if it is possible to reject t.off and stop the a/c with the remaining length of the rwy then the calculation of the v1 is obviously incorrect, maybe the aerodynamics of the a/c do not permit to control the a/c at that speed for a reject.
So please, it is prudent as a community to have a procedure which in this case is to continue after v1. Maybe one will successfully reject the t.off and stop after v1, but it will be your last t.off i promise you , the training department will sack him without blinking.

[Junkflyer]

Welcome back SSG.

[galaxy flyer]

SSG or whatever name you go by......

How many 800,000 pound limiting runway take-offs have you done where 8000 feet of runway remaining is available. I'll bet you would have no doubt as to what to do at, or past, V1 in heavy weight widebody aircraft with a problem. Stopping is not an good idea, trust me. Yes, a Citation on a typical 8000 foot runway has a oodles of space and stopping is a possible, if uncalculated, outcome. But put it on 3500 feet, cliff at the end and a summer day and I doubt you would advocate stopping past V1 either.

GIVE IT UP!

[Flintstone]

What's that whining noise in the background? Ah, ssg is back :rolleyes:

[john_tullamarine]

derfecty may/may not be ssg ... so long as he/she posts appropriately, he/she can stay ... we are not in the business of conducting Salem trials ..

However, if folk are of the view that his/her posts represent only nuisance value, there remains the option of ignoring them .....

If, on the other hand, his/her posts stray into areas of unacceptable behaviour .. the outcome will be a programmed decision ...

[Flagon]

Hmm!. Isn't there something about 'walking like a duck and talking like a duck'......?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/safety-crm-qa/325450-need-some-advice-2.html#post4226822

Nice to know you are watching, Mr Mod:ok:

[john_tullamarine]

While I may have (and am perfectly entitled to) my view on the matter .. the mod role ought not to be coloured by presumption and prejudice .. really we are here to facilitate, not rule.

Hence I give a lot of rope .. just that some folks use it up quicker than t'others...

[SNS3Guppy]

I find it interesting that an airline op manual will tell a pilot to fly, when in fact the plane may not fly...in general and biz aviation, it's fairly clear when a plane won't fly...but evidentely in the airlines when you hit a certain speed, that seems to magicaly guarantee that a plane will fly around the patch...interesting...Also since general aviation doesn't purposely burn up 80% of our runways using flex/derate on purpose...many times we could find ourselves past V1 with 8000 ft of runway left..on fire...why fight a fire up in the air, in the soup, trying to fly a SID to get over those mountains, when all you have to do is pull the power back, tap the brakes, and hit the bottles?I am glad I have the discretion in my flight dept......rather then a book under the seats telling me what to do...


Your department? You're a microsoft sim pilot, you're ssg, the banned poster...your tune hasn't changed on iota, and like your other multiple personalities, you'll manage to get yourself banned before long too.

SSg has single handedly managed to turn what's long been an excellent technical forum into a worthless laughing stock because of posts just such as this, as well as each of the threads he's ruined just to get his little teenage jollies.

Certainly another persona to put on the ignore list, until it too gets banned in a day or so.

[powerstall]

sometimes i really do wonder, how come it's stuck to his head... and up to now... he's still at it. :E

[MushinPilot43]

Post V1, any number of things can happen to a plane to make it un-flyable...to persist in the concept that all planes fly after V1, no matter what is quite silly....None the less, I have been admonished for stopping a plane on the runway (sim) in a post V1 cut, plenty of runway, but got the 'debate' from the sim instructor. I simply reply that in the real world, saving lives is what it's about. On that note, I find it funny, that the guys that fly the plane off in the sim, only to hit that mountain, because as they were fighting the fire, they forgot to make the turn...simply got to do it over again...I like how another poster put it...' with a burning lake of lava at the end, using up 90% of my runway for balanced field, sure, it's a go after V1...but with another 5000 ft left, a 1000 ft stopway at the end, and a thousand miles of Nebraska corn fields beyond, why would I fly a burning wreck up through the air and become a test pilot with a planeload of people?'

[FE Hoppy]

Mush,
You only become a test pilot when you operate an aircraft outside of its scheduled performance.

i.e. stopping above V1

[MushinPilot43]

FE Hoppy...If balanced field is 5000ft and the runway is 10000 ft, I am not being a test pilot...by stopping post V1, Pre VR, braking distances are easy to calculate...Flying a plane that just clipped a fuel truck, got hit by an RPG, had a tire go through the fuel tank, just lost one side of slats and flaps from the car that it ran over, is being a test pilot.....

[FE Hoppy]

Show me where you can find the stopping distance required for a speed above scheduled V1?

[MushinPilot43]

Hoppy, I put on the brakes the same way 6 billion people do every day when driving thier cars...I look out side, and decide if I have enough pavement to stop or not...how do you know if your plane will accelarate to VR with those busted tires with in the given runway distance?...do you have the new calcs for that?.

[testpanel]

If I think i can save my life (and that of my crew and pax) taking off a 2500meter runway in a turboprop; yes, i may abord after V1......

[safetypee]

Hoppy “You only become a test pilot when you operate an aircraft outside of its scheduled performance”.
Nope, :) ;) but I agree that you should not stop above V1.

MushinPilot43 “… is being a test pilot.....” Definitely not! :( t.p’s avoid doing stupid things. The point is that the circumstances which you ‘dream-up’ are extremely unlikely to occur, and then not exactly at the critical time of an RTO ‘decision’. The basis of safety in our industry is probability, minimising risk by dealing with known or foreseeable hazards in the safest way. The definition of foreseeable in certification involves probability; about 10e-6 IIRC.

The weakest component in an RTO (and in most other operations) is the human element. The hypothesising of extreme scenarios does little to strengthen well proven procedures and guidance at critical time.
Safety is not absolute, it is not perfect, and we strive to improve our standards. But in seeking to cover all extremes there is a risk that you will introduce opportunity for error (situation assessment, judgement), or with situation/procedural complexity you change established habits formed in training and exacerbate an already hazardous situation.
Remember that ‘we are what we think’ - we do what we think, thus those with hazardous thoughts (risk taking) have no place in the industry.

The stop/go decision should be one of the easier clear-cut decisions in aviation.
The process normally starts with a trigger event (before V1), where the situation has to be assessed against predetermined parameters or conditions (SOPs). You should not have to consider the nature of the condition – tire, surge, or mentally debate the severity or effect; this is done before flight and covered by procedure and training detailing how they might be identified etc, even if relevant.
Where the aircraft is not flyable (normally established after V1), then there isn’t a go decision; you will stop sometime, all you can hope to do is minimise the damage. It will not be an RTO, but it will be an accident, as will in all probability, be an RTO after V1.

[SNS3Guppy]

FE Hoppy...If balanced field is 5000ft and the runway is 10000 ft, I am not being a test pilot...by stopping post V1, Pre VR, braking distances are easy to calculate...Flying a plane that just clipped a fuel truck, got hit by an RPG, had a tire go through the fuel tank, just lost one side of slats and flaps from the car that it ran over, is being a test pilot.....


This happens to you often in your daily operations as a professional pilot, does it? You see a lot of airplanes running over cars on the runway and attempting to continue the takeoff? You've seen this, ever? Do you know what an RPG looks like? Do you have any records of aircraft continuing takeoff after being hit by one, or any being hit by one during takeoff, for that matter, or are you tossing idiotic scenarios wildly in the air for any purpose other than to cloud an issue in which you have no place nor debate, ssg?

You're the same guy who posts under all the other names, gets called out, and eventually banned, with the same stupid agenda, as always. Mushinpilot43 is ssg is tankdriver is...same banned poster under a different login. Again. Nothing to see here but stupidity in action, folks.

[bubbers44]

At balanced field length you legally must abort before V1 or go past V1 to be safe. If you don't do that you are not legal. However if logic says I have extra runway today and I have leeway then think about what is more important, being legal, or being safe. I have briefed many departures with cliffs at the end of the runway differently than departing with an obstacle. My most critical airport was Tegucigalpa, Honduras. It had a 4 ft fence and a 70 ft drop off at the end. How would you like to overshoot an abort on that short runway? Taca just did a demo on that one on landing.

[Junkflyer]

Well according to Mushin we'd better study our hit by an rpg or run into a fuel truck checklists. At least you are consistent in your ignorance.

[SNS3Guppy]

Oh, lookee. No Mushin to respond (banned, of course), but here is Fisssle, suddenly having appeared...with one post. One name disappears, next appears, brand new poster, with the same story. Imagine that.

Such a surprise.

[Kerosine]

Do it now! :mad:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm111/ds00kg/unsubscribe.jpg

[Pugilistic Animus]

I'm starting a new thread-as this one may have run its course:}

"would you abort after V2?---I'm sure I'll get plenty of rational responses:ouch:---well time to practice my Vmc/stall/spins in the face of of TS---with a sick pax so I have a reason under 91.3 para c.---to go below minimums on an IAP:}

[AirRabbit]

ooouuuu.... now I know why you chose that screen name ....

[Junkflyer]

So SSG #5 (or 6 by now), the recent overrun in BRU is apparently an abort after V1, (Only a preliminary report, not the final) and the outcome while not fatal, may have been much worse with pax on board.

[JAVICREW]

Just always consider your partner with that answer, and fly like a real crewmember with good judgement and good CRM......