View Full Version : More Finnair woes

6th Dec 2010, 08:00
Looks like they are having a bad month or two...

One of their ERJ-190-s weeded out a few runway edge lights in OSL recently, then merrily continued the takeoff.

Incident: Finnair E190 at Oslo on Oct 23rd 2010, struck runway edge lights during takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=433013ef)

Hotel Tango
6th Dec 2010, 08:40
May I suggest that if this happened at or after V1 they were committed to fly anyway. Once airborne and in the absence of any indications of anything seriously amiss, it made just as much sense to continue the short flight to HEL (their maintenance base) than returning to OSL.

6th Dec 2010, 09:07
What a nonsense.

A Finnair Embraer ERJ-190, registration OH-LKL performing flight AY-658 from Oslo (Norway) to Helsinki (Finland) with 31 passengers, struck three runway edge lights during the initial takeoff roll from Oslo's runway 01L.

The initial take-off run is certainly before V1.

The left hand main gear tyres and the nose gear tyres received minor damage (scratches and cuts), the right hand engine received three dents in the fan, the engine was removed from the airframe for an inspection.

So something even damaged the fan. OSL-HEL anything else but a short flight.

6th Dec 2010, 12:12
There are some big questions here. Did they "cut the corner" whilst lining up? If so they must have been going a fair speed to throw debris into the right engine! If they moved off the centre line to the extent that the nose gear was "scratched" ....... That's a 22.5m deviation if they were on the centreline at the start.

Anybody have any FACTS regarding this one?

They knew they'd done it because they told ATC. If it was in the initial part of the take off, why didn't they stop? Would you want to bring the gear up having gone off piste :=

I don't know much about the culture in Finnair but this incident does not inspire confidence.


Hotel Tango
6th Dec 2010, 17:58
Thank you for your frank response three miles. I have no idea what happened as I wasn't there. I simply made a suggestion. It may well be wrong, but I didn't base my suggestion purely on the Aviation Herald report. As to what I perceive as a short flight: OSL-HEL is about 70 minutes flying. In my book that is a short haul, and thus a relatively short, flight. For all we know the crew elected to continue after discussing the matter with engineering and on the basis of no indicated malfunctions.

6th Dec 2010, 19:48
It's a long, short flight.

Was it an early morning departure? Rather foggy at the time:

Display metars (http://www.ogimet.com/display_metars.php?lang=en&lugar=engm&tipo=SA&ord=REV&nil=SI&fmt=html&ano=2010&mes=10&day=23&hora=06&anof=2010&mesf=10&dayf=23&horaf=10&send=send)

7th Dec 2010, 14:29
Hotel Tango:

May I suggest that if this happened at or after V1 they were committed to fly anyway. Once airborne and in the absence of any indications of anything seriously amiss, it made just as much sense to continue the short flight to HEL (their maintenance base) than returning to OSL.

Without dwelling on the specifics of this incident V1 is not the decision speed for all circumstances.

Green Guard
7th Dec 2010, 15:04
"If you had 2 glasses before driving you may see 2 roads and have a problem"

One glass may be OK, but 3 may be a problem as well, unless you choose a middle road or a MIDDLE CenterLine (CLL)********:uhoh:

Hotel Tango
7th Dec 2010, 17:51
Yep, well aware of that thank you aterpster. Seems I just plum forgot how pedantic some PPRuNe members want to become. My error entirely.

14th Dec 2010, 17:03
"V1 is not the decision speed for all circumstances."

It is not the decision speed under any circumstances. The decision (to stop) must have already been made, and the first stopping action carried out by then, otherwise there is no decision to be made. That's the point of having it.

But I don't think that's the point you were making. Are you saying there are situations where you would call "stop" after V1? I can assure you every training department I have worked for/with will give you an argument on that..

14th Dec 2010, 18:57

There are circumstances, rare, I admit. Check Northeast Trident in Bilbao in the 70's. Abandoned after V1 due aircraft stopped accelerating and was never going to reach VR. No-one injured and investigations showed undeclared puddles on RWY had compromised TO performance.

Never say Never:ok:

14th Dec 2010, 19:14
Undeclared puddles.

The DH GroundGripper couldn't cope with that?

14th Dec 2010, 19:39
We had a Fokker 100 stop after V1. The controls had reverted to full manual, with no alert. Admittedly, a pull force of about five times normal would have got the thing airborne, but who thinks of that at the time (and who would want to take a full-manual aircraft into the air anyway?). Luckily it was on a nice long runway.

14th Dec 2010, 21:08
The AAIB report on the Bilbao Trident overrun is here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/8_1977_g_avyd.cfm). Interesting reading.

Quote from the findings: "The take-off would have been successful had it not been abandoned"

15th Dec 2010, 06:28
Link doesn't seem to work. The hill at the end of the rwy was a consideration and if you felt you weren't accelerating you were also expecting to hit that.:rolleyes:

Iron Skillet
15th Dec 2010, 06:45

V1 means V1.

All those planes off the ends of runways are from guys stopping after V1. Lots of people in offices with computers and simulators, and test pilots in planes with delays for decision and reaction times, well, they figured it out for us. Even if it takes 5 times more pull to get into the air in manual controls, it is a plane and meant to fly. It is far better to be in the air with manual controls than in a ball of flames off the end of the runway. And yes, I've flown planes with controls like this.

There is SO MUCH misunderstanding about what V1 means and how it is calculated and what is considered, it shocks me. If the well researched procedure is to continue after V1, then continue. V1 plus or minus 20 kts is not the time for pilots to start their own personal interpretations or flight test programs.

V1 is often limited at one end or the other by Vmcg or Vr, and of course there may or may not be additional performance available for the accelerate-stop or accelerate-go conditions, but that's not the point: You don't know.

What you do know for sure, in 99.999% of cases, is that before V1, there is time to stop, and at and above V1 there is time to get airborne. So why not just do that? For the 0.001% of the time it will not work when it is not obvious (tail fell off), so be it. But during take off is not the time to try to figure that out for a 0.001% chance you might be right.

You don't have to be that smart or good to do the right thing. Just follow the procedure.

15th Dec 2010, 07:18

How would you Fly your acft after a dual engine flame out after V1 (on a twin)?

Sometimes airmanship saves lifes.....

But nowaday because of criminal political decision to lower the pilots standards in order to reduce salaries we oldtimers fly alone with unexperienced bookreaders.

Once we retire nobody will be entitled to be called a PILOT and the accident rate will increase as a logical consequence.

V1 has to be applied as a maximum decision speed to abort 99,9999% of the time the other 0,0001% is what makes you enter the statistics as a hero or a criminal depending on your way to react to an unexpected to happen event.

Statistics kill sometimes and all depends of statistics. Rules are made with respect to these principle.

Wish you a long carrier:}

15th Dec 2010, 08:22
It's all in the numbers, as E K Gann once wrote.

15th Dec 2010, 08:24

Odd, the link works for me. Or just Google for "AAIB Report No: 8/1977."

Certainly a gutsy decision to turn off the runway when it became clear they weren't going to stop in time.

16th Dec 2010, 00:10
There might be one time to abort above V1. When something really dramatic has happened to change the organization of your aircraft like a "Mid-Ground", or something like AA 191 (assuming you actually see the pylon depart the aircraft and understand the nature of the failure).:eek:. The AF Concorde fire also comes to mind.
But without special knowledge of such reconfiguration of your aircraft, you are obliged to play the odds and go with the standard V1 decision.


16th Dec 2010, 09:25
Ok, it's time to ask a question, related to the conversation.
Let's look at a V-Speed Table of my B747-300. For example, for the weight of 250t in one of the temperature columns V1 is 124kts. Moving up in the same column we see V1 = 160kts with TOW = 360t.
RW is long, elevation is low, so we can takeoff with TOW = 360t and performance calculations guarantee that should we abort at V1 we will safely stop withing the RW limits.
Then, company changed plans, deplaned passengers, offloaded cargo and even defueled the aircraft. We are 250t now. The same day, same runway. V1 is 124kts.
The question: Why the hell it's safe to abort at 160kts in the end of the RW and NOT safe to abort at 125kts in the middle: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

16th Dec 2010, 09:59
Derated:confused: Power

16th Dec 2010, 10:31
Even with the full thrust. In my example it was full thrust TO with OAT +52.
With lower OAT the difference is a little smaller, but still huge.

16th Dec 2010, 11:20
At the lighter weight, are you not now restricted by VR? So your V1=VR as VR cannot be greater than V1

My two cents: Above V1 you go. Simples.

You can type all these extreme scenarios on your keyboard, but most of them will be so abnormal that your 'decision' to stop above V1 on the day would be more of a guess as you would not have the time to correctly diagnose the situation.

The difference between great airmanship decisions and great stupidity is often just luck.

16th Dec 2010, 11:43
I really wonder how this discussion on aborting above V1 can come up every now and then on this "P" forum.

The numbers speak fo themselves - how many overrun accidents and incidents due to some crew deciding they know better ? And how many 'heroic saves' achieved through 'superior airmanship' in one of those 0.00000x likelihood scenarios?

Btw a double engine flameout (assumed on a twin) after V1 does not apply as an example. That is a catastrophic failure that will inevitably lead to an accident, there is no choice to abort or not. Only the seriousness will depend on the remaining runway length and the terrain beyond.

Ex Cargo Clown
16th Dec 2010, 12:16
There appears to be some serious thread drift here.

From what I have read it seems as if the runway lighting was hit way below V1, so the quetion is why did they continue their T/O roll and not stop below V1.

18th Dec 2010, 09:34
Ladies and gentlemen, if I may remind you that discussion about abort above V1 on PPRuNe have so far always ended in producing so low wheat to chaff ratio that JT had no option but to lock the offending threads. Please, let's not walk the path to the thread graveyard once again, especially as we have no reliable info on the speed at the time of the occurrence.

Let's wait for Statens Havarikommisjon for Transport and/or Onnettomuustutkintakeskus to supply us with some factual information before letting our imagination run wild, please.