Two aborted takeoffs in a row on the same flight!

[Nothrills]

First of all, I am not a pilot. Let me describe what I experienced yesterday as a passenger.

AirBaltic flight FRA - RIX, 6.30 pm at Frankfurt airport, dense fog.

We come to the runway and start our takeoff roll.

After about 4 secs, the plane starts braking, and soon stops.

Captain: "Ladies and gentlemen, we were actually cleared for takeoff, yet another plane had to go around, therefore the controller has stopped our takeoff. My apologies. We will try again in about 20 seconds".

After about 20 secs, another try. This one lasted a second shorter... with the same result - braking and stopping.

"Captain again... Once again the controller has stopped our takeoff due to bad weather conditions..."

The third attempt (again from the last position on the runway, without any turning back) was successful.

Anyone knows what could have caused this?

Thank you,
nothrills

[Spitoon]

another plane had to go around..................

[rennaps]

ATC should not have cleared the aircraft for take-off if there was a possibility of a go-around that would result in a confliction. :=

[hetfield]

S... happens.

I had to goaround twice in marginal CATI weather there 'cause both planes vacated very late, looking for a taxy way.

I'm afraid there was some disbelief on my 2nd PA:\

[threemiles]

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Cleared for takeoff"

[darkroomsource]

Odds are that you didn't actually move anywhere during those 4 seconds of take off, it takes that long or longer to start rolling, you probably just heard the engines spool up felt a bit of vibration.
At 3 miles per hour, you move about 4 feet per second, at 5 miles an hour, 7 feet per second, and when first starting the takeoff roll you don't get past 3 to 5 miles an hour for several seconds, so even if you were actually rolling for 4 seconds, you might have gone all of 30 feet (10 meters).
Odds are that runway was more than 6000 feet long (2000 meters), so a 4 second roll would not require turning back.

in 'bad' weather (foggy), an airplane that can't see the runway soon enough will 'go-around', the controller is supposed to keep a large area of the sky cleared for this go-around, so if the plane had landed on the runway, it would be safe to take off, but with it doing a go-around it's no longer safe to take off.

That plane was not landing on the same runway as the one you were taking off from, guaranteed, but now there's another plane in the same area that the one you're on wants to use...

[Nothrills]

Thanks for your replies guys!

Believe me, we DID move. I start counting seconds from the moment the plane started moving, rather that from the engine spool. Of course, I did not count the seconds, so it is my estimation. The (first) braking itself took much more than 10 or 20 meters...

I would believe that this was not a normal situation, as there should have been better coordination between the control and the captain. But I am not a professional, that's why I wanted to hear your comments.

[fmgc]

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Cleared for takeoff"

Prepare for immediate take off does not mean "spool your engines up"!

[darkroomsource]

I think it is actually normal.
The thing is, if every flight had to wait until every parallel runway landing was 'on the ground' rather than 1 mile out, the capacity of airports would be cut in half.
The lower the clouds, the higher the chance of a go-around. (you have to have the runway environment in sight within a certain distance of the ground, or you are required to do a go-around)

[nitpicker330]

The way he described it certainly doesn't sound "normal" to me.
I certainly hope the takeoff data was valid starting the roll down the runway?!!

[threemiles]

Prepare for immediate take off does not mean "spool your engines up"!

Yes, but pulling forward with more than idle thrust a few 10 meters to the displaced threshold is something that is necessary on this particular runway if you want to be in line with the local regulations.

Then you would apply take-off power at the displaced threshold, once cleared for take-off.

Another option is: take-off warning went off

[darkroomsource]

We come to the runway and start our takeoff roll.

After about 4 secs, the plane starts braking, and soon stops.

Believe me, we DID move. I start counting seconds from the moment the plane started moving, rather that from the engine spool. Of course, I did not count the seconds, so it is my estimation. The (first) braking itself took much more than 10 or 20 meters...

which is it?
4 seconds and start braking, or take 20 meters to stop?
because physics would require going significantly faster than you could achieve after 4 seconds of acceleration if it required 20 meters to stop.

[de facto]

I certainly hope the takeoff data was valid starting the roll down the runway?!!


I am quite sure some extra margin was available as in low vis no reduced thrust is allowed(no ass,derate ok).

From top of my head,if its a 738 at max takeoff weight,it needs about 2400 m of TORA.
Quite sure no intersection take off are allowed in low vis and that FRA runway is longer than 2400 M plus line up distance.
No problem there...

[SteveHobson]

Happened to me on 7th Feb 1979 when flying as a passenger from FRA / HMB. Lufthansa D-ABUL B 707-330B 'Duisburg'
Lined up on one of the Westerly runways, spooled up, commenced T/O run,
only to spool down and shudder to a halt after about 20 secs. This happened again after we had taxied back to the terminal, carried out some checks, lined up again - full power, commence take off and then after 20 secs full brakes T/O aborted.
Feeling very nervous by now. Plane taxied back to the terminal. Pilot announced he would make some checks, and then try again.
All aborad now apprehensive but no one dared ask to disembark.
On tghird attempt we were airborne. Never did get a satisfactory answer to the two earlier aborted attempts, but it was our plane, not other traffic to blame.
Steve

[threemiles]

Takeoff runways in EDDF are 4000m.
Intx takeoff would not be allow during LVP.

[Basil]

Aahh, Frankfurt :rolleyes:

[9.G]

NO intersection, NO flex takeoff in LVO, well that's something new. I most certainly disagree with that. :ok:

[Melax]

Incident: Egypt B738 at Milan on Nov 10th 2012, rejected takeoff thrice (http://avherald.com/h?article=458f6c78&opt=4096)

I would probably jumped out of that Aeroplane..:p

Incident: Egypt B738 at Milan on Nov 10th 2012, rejected takeoff thrice

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Nov 13th 2012 16:33Z, last updated Tuesday, Nov 13th 2012 16:33ZAn Egypt Air Boeing 737-800, registration SU-GCZ performing flight MS-706 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Cairo (Egypt) with 83 passengers, was accelerating for takeoff with the engines spooling up when the crew rejected takeoff at low speed due to an engine anti ice failure indication. The aircraft returned to the gate to have maintenance rectify the fault.

Following maintenance activities the aircraft attempted another departure, upon accelerating the engines for takeoff the crew received the same fault indication again and rejected takeoff at low speed again. The aircraft returned to the apron for maintenance action.

Following another attempt to repair the aircraft maintenance signed the aircraft off again and the crew attempted another departure, however the same fault occurred again and the takeoff was rejected at low speed a third time.

The third attempt to repair the aircraft finally succeeded, the aircraft departed on the fourth takeoff and reached Cairo with a delay of 5.5 hours.

[Meccano]

What is it with some controllers and this 'Be Ready Immediate - spool up your engines' thing??
Mostly only heard in the US these days....homeland of dodgy non-SOP controlling.

[InSoMnIaC]

who the heck spools up their engines just because the controller says be ready immediate. first time i've heard of it

[ATC Watcher]

Jeeesus ! Controllers and Pilots are taking good Safety decisons and passengers think it is dangerous ? I think some here should take the train...

Frankfurt: with the introduction of the 3rd runway , the 2 "old" ones are used simousteanously , one for take off one for landing, in case of go around, it is absolutely normal and safe for the dep controller to cancel a take off clearance on the other . That is the opposite that would be very dangerous. ( as it happenned last year Incident: Lufthansa A388 and Aeroflot A320 at Frankfurt on Dec 13th 2011, loss of separation (http://avherald.com/h?article=44b67c7b)


Procedures too tight ? try Boston and their "land and hold short" one.

[pakeha-boy]

Quote ATC Watcher..."Procedures too tight ? try Boston and their "land and hold short" one."

Not sure of your point here......land and hold short procedures here are simple....you either accept them or you dont......they have a requirement than you inform the app controller as to whether u can accept the hold -short requirement......if not ...you are sequenced so that it is not an issue...I have refused the hold short requirement many times,mostly due to weather conditions and weight....

[sky jet]

Hmmm. Frankfurt in November in heavy fog. I am guessing that each takeoff required a 30 second static engine run before commencing takeoff roll to clear any potential engine icing. Why must we make such drama about what another PROFESSIONAL crew did. They most likely know what they are doing and none of us where there.

Jet

[ATC Watcher]

pakeha-boy :Not sure of your point here
I was talking about "tight" not "unsafe" procedures.
On introduction of the 4th runway in FRA the procedures were " tight" they have been revised since, but you land less a/c per hour.

LAHSO :these are very tight procures. so tight that some (e.g BALPA and BA,just to name 2 ) refuse them on principle. Does not mean they are unsafe.

I made a LAHSO in BOS on a Dash 8 in the jumseat some years ago, while a DC10 was landing on a interecting runway . Great .I asked what happens if both decide to go around at same time in poor vis ? I agree the likelyhood of this happening is remote, but I could hear Murphy laughing out loud in the background.

There was a time where Safety was first, now it is number of movements per hour...Unsafe ? probably not, Tight?, yes.

[pakeha-boy]

your right ....LAHSO procedures for a Dash-8 would be tight:ugh:

[Enos]

Sounds like somethings not right here.

Cleared for take off then not, this is FRA not some third world, new world we have LVPS and we are going to be the next super power etc Delhi Belly etc.

I hate to say it but compared to lots of airports Frankfurts generally one of the good ones.

LVPs in force distance between aircraft is increased to 8nm, parallel ops in FRA I assume, they have lots of runways there, so why have departures and arrivals on the same runway.

More like as mentioned engine run up forgotten in fog or a config warning, speed brake not in the detent etc

Who am I to comment as I sit here in the comfort of my lounge.

[fmgc]

Come to think of it, what, technically, is the difference between "Cleared for TO" and Cleared immediate TO"?

I thought that the ANO/EU Ops dictated that once cleared that you must take off without delay or inform ATC anyway.

[11Fan]

.....who the heck spools up their engines just because the controller says be ready immediate?

F-18 Driver on a Cat Shot?

FDGvQHru8-o

[caber]

I made a LAHSO in BOS on a Dash 8 in the jumseat some years ago, while a DC10 was landing on a interecting runway . Great .I asked what happens if both decide to go around at same time in poor vis ? I agree the likelyhood of this happening is remote, but I could hear Murphy laughing out loud in the background.

LAHSO does have restrictions on it. If the visibility is poor LAHSO isn't allowed.

[de facto]

9.G

NO intersection, NO flex takeoff in LVO, well that's something new. I most certainly disagree with that.


It was my previous airline SOP during LVP T/0(when rvr between 400 and 125 M).
Have you ever asked for an intersection take off during LVP?
Some may argue that in low vis all aircraft taking off from the same point is a safer as it surely reduces the threat of runway incursion in areas in front of departing traffic...wouldnt you think?
Some may also argue that the use of full thrust may be safer as one would get airborne earlier and hence spend less time with limited vision(possibly nil if thicker fog) where one vision is the biggest clue to achieve a safe take off roll.

[ATC Watcher]

Caber : LAHSO does have restrictions on it. If the visibility is poor LAHSO isn't allowed.


I am aware of that, but take " in low vis" away from my remark. It was only there to reinforce my point.
So back to my question :
Is both a/c going around at same time while one is performing LAHSO a sound procedure ? even in CAVOK ?

To make sure we understand each other : I said " sound", did not say unsafe.

[Ollie Onion]

You know it does just happens sometimes. I had a situation once on the Dash where we were cleared an immediate takeoff so we started the takeoff straight from the line-up. In the mean time an A320 on final approach obviously got a little nervous and commenced a missed approach. We were then told to stop the take-off run, we did a low speed reject, taxied off and lined up again. Next time around we powered up only for the config horn to go off so had a second low speed reject. We checked everything by jiggling all the handles that needed to be set for the takeoff config. 3rd time was a charm, on the next departure we had a repeat of the takeoff config and it turned out to be a faulty flap sensor.

So it is certainly possible and no doubt made us look like real dickheads to the passengers. Sometimes though this sh*t just happens, and you get the feeling no matter how you explain it on the PA there will always be a doubting element in the cabin.

[JohnieWalker]

Captain of this airBaltic flight reported that they were cleared for T/O on 25C, the started the roll and around 60KT controller asked to reject T/O due to traffic doing missing approach on final 25L.
New clearance for T/O received, however T/O roll rejected at 40KT on request from ATC again due to A/C executing approach to 25L.

Third T/O clearance received, remaining RWY length 3200m. Executed normal.

[mebur_verce]

Come to think of it, what, technically, is the difference between "Cleared for TO" and Cleared immediate TO"?

Quoting from Doc 4444 (para 7.9.3.4):

"In the interest of expediting traffic, a clearance for immediate take-off may be issued to an aircraft before it enters the runway. On acceptance of such clearance the aircraft should taxi out to the runway and take off in one continuous movement"

Then, of course, an aircraft may well be taxiing out at 3 kts, line-up at 3 kts and take-off, all a in a single continuous movement, and still fall within the definition of an 'immediate' takeoff...but that's not exactly what I'm looking forward to, when I ask for one :E

[Nothrills]

Thanks for confirming my info. At least now I won't get comments that I am inventing things...

I do understand that sh*t happens, and would like to believe that everyone acted professionally in this case. On the other hand, probably this could be (and should have been) avoided. So far we only know the captain's perspective - would be interesting to hear more comments from ATC side.

[nitpicker330]

The takeoff data isn't just calculated to get you airborne in the TODA, its also pretty damn important to clear obstacles as well in the takeoff path Engine out.:ok:
Therefore if I'm commencing my third attempt to takeoff someway down the runway with now invalid data I'm going to:-

1/ Vacate the runway and taxy back to the holding point
and 2/ re do the before takeoff checklist.

We are not paid to "guess"

[9.G]

d.f. It was my previous airline SOP during LVP T/0(when rvr between 400 and 125 M). SOP of an airline isn't a regulation. Let's be clear there's no restriction as per regs to conduct a intersection takeoff in LVO.

To answer your second question: YES and I've been asked for acceptance of intersection takeoff in LVO not to be delayed, etc. As long as performance is calculated from the intersection, don't see a problem there.

During LVO t/o directional control is the most important factor thus less thrust equates to weaker yaw moment in case of EO at low speed. Simple logic. How much less time will you spend on the rwy with TOGA? 5 secs. This is a discussion for a tech thread anyway. :ok:

[de facto]

During LVO t/o directional control is the most important factor thus less thrust equates to weaker yaw moment in case of EO at low speed

Subjective view I think.

If ATC asks you to use an intersection,if all perf is ok,sure do it but as a general rule i believe wiser to use same entry point for all aircraft.

[40&80]

AS GF F/o I was trained by BA on the L1011 in 1975/6...
For a LV takeoff... We were to use full thrust to increase and enhance centre line light visual reference streaming effect..if fog thickened during the take off roll then pilot visual reference distance naturally shortened and pilot reference distance became reduced and eventually was naturally inside the cockpit.
Now the HSI heading reference and localiser were scanned... plus centreline guidance was also available from the displayed PVD streamers previously tuned to the runway ILS and displayed by pushing the Toga switch.
For a rejected take off the sequence of scanning was reversed from inside the cockpit to outside the cockpit and runway centre line lights used as speed was lost. I never saw any pilot loose the centreline by very much during a below V1 speed rejected take off with a wing engine problem or a problem that required stopping the take off.

[fmgc]

The takeoff data isn't just calculated to get you airborne in the TODA, its also pretty damn important to clear obstacles as well in the takeoff path Engine out.

Exactly right. There is way more to TO Performance than just runway length that most pilots don't understand (myself very much included).

If I don't have intersection data I don't take off from the intersection, as pilots we just don't know what else is a factor.

What I do know is that you are changing your net take off flight path bring in factors that might not be relevant with a full length take off, therefore specific figures for the intersection should be used.

mebur_verce, thank you for that. Good to get some cold hard facts around here!

[bubbers44]

The Boeing 727 had compressor stall procedures on cross wind take offs which allowed you to try again by first spooling up into the wind and then taking off. We did the two low speed aborts and went back to the gate following company procedure.

[Calmcavok]

The takeoff data isn't just calculated to get you airborne in the TODA, its also pretty damn important to clear obstacles as well in the takeoff path Engine out.
Therefore if I'm commencing my third attempt to takeoff someway down the runway with now invalid data I'm going to:-

1/ Vacate the runway and taxy back to the holding point
and 2/ re do the before takeoff checklist.

We are not paid to "guess"


What if the pilot had used intersection data, taken full length, and at the time of the final power application was still at or before the intersection that the takeoff perf had been calculated from?

[fmgc]

What if the pilot had used intersection data, taken full length, and at the time of the final power application was still at or before the intersection that the takeoff perf had been calculated from?

You are still changing your net take off flight path as you will be rotating earlier than you would have been.

So obstacles that are closer might now be in the net take off flight path that were not there if you had used the full length take off data.

http://www.skybrary.aero/images/100960-2.jpg

I am no performance expert but I know enough to know that you should use the appropriate take off performance for the intersection that you are going to take off from.