Air France high speed RTO due to missing baggage

[TBSC]

Incident: France A343 at Fort de France on Apr 16th 2017, rejected takeoff due to ATC instruction (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a7c4013&opt=0)

Quite a strange story. 130 kt RTO, 25 hours delay, a two days long AOG and an extra B-777 run because the company called ATC to instruct them to wait for some baggage. Why not cancelling their flight plan and/or sending them an ACARS message instead?

[atakacs]

It is indeed a strange story - what would ATC request a takeoff abort for missing luggages ?

Also from the quoted article

The flight status of the airline confirmed the destination was Moscow Sheremetyevo

Does AirFrance fly direct from Martinique to Moscow ?! Maybe a some charter operation ?

[ceeb]

Could it possibly be for luggage that was about to depart without an owner and they needed to offload it?

[DaveReidUK]

Does AirFrance fly direct from Martinique to Moscow ?! Maybe a some charter operation ?

Although not mentioned in the Avherald report, the flight number involved (AF4001) is not a scheduled service but is used for ad-hoc charters.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out not to have been bound for Moscow at all.

[KiloB]

And V1 speed was?

[Tarq57]

131 or higher, one assumes.

Pretty darn fast.

[RAT 5]

Could an engineer or knowledgeable person please inform us: Was there any damage to wheels or brakes? What would render the a/c non-flyable for >20hrs? I would expect an engineering inspection is required, and that one was available.

[esreverlluf]

Is it possible that there was a loading error resulting in an incorrect (and possibly dangerous) C of G detected by the company after pushback?


:ooh:

[DaveReidUK]

The flight was a charter Orly-Martinique-Cayenne and v.v. according to this article:

Un avion d'Air France freine brutalement juste avant le décollage (http://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/martinique/avion-air-france-freine-brutalement-juste-decollage-464637.html)

which seems much more likely than the suggested destination of Moscow.

The article reports a landing gear issue detected during the takeoff run, with the resulting RTO necessitating multiple wheel changes (hence presumably the delay at FDF).

[birmingham]

Makes much more sense than the luggage argument! Much better to stop if you still can

[FrontRunner]

Stop on the runway at (M?)TOW or continue the flight and land at destination at a much lower weight? Most airlines and FCTM's recommend the crew to continue the take-off with a landing gear issue (chimmy, tire failure) rather than reject, because of a) possible reduced braking effectiveness because of that very landing gear issue, and b) virtually no time to trouble shoot during the take-off run.

Better to continue the take-off and then have 9-10 hours to trouble shoot, ask the tower for example if they found debris on the runway, and burn off the trip fuel in order to arrive at the destination at 1) a significantly lower weight and 2) have possible the emergency services standing by.

The whole "landing gear issue" (very hot brakes, possibly warped brakes due to the fire brigade spraying cold water on them, and perhaps some melted fuse plugs) was probably as a result of the RTO and not the reason why they rejected, and that story sounds like either a cover-up, bad journalism or both. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif

[blind pew]

And what about the total loss where a wheel fire caused the main spar to fail?...bet they wished they had aborted.

[FrontRunner]

20/20 hindsight. One can come up with 100's of "what-if" scenarios where it would be better to reject, and one could come up with 100's of "what-if" scenarios where it would be better to continue.

However, during the split second one generally has available during a take-off run >100 kts and close to V1, as far as I remember most airplane manufacturers recommend to; continue the take-off run, get airborne, assess the gear problem, burn off (i.e. continue to DEST) or dump fuel, and then land.

[DaveReidUK]

The whole "landing gear issue" (very hot brakes, possibly warped brakes due to the fire brigade spraying cold water on them, and perhaps some melted fuse plugs) was probably as a result of the RTO

Nobody is disputing that things get very hot when you RTO at approaching V1.

But that fact doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there was a landing gear issue that necessitated the RTO in the first place.

[suninmyeyes]

That's not a high speed rejected takeoff compared to Air France's RTO in Lagos in 2010. In the Lagos one the V1 was 138 knots and the speed on the runway during the rejection reached 155 knots indicated due to being unable to rotate. This was because they had inadvertently engaged the autopilot instead of the autothrottle on the takeoff roll and thought the flight controls had jammed (Same size square button for autothrottle and autopilot.I do miss the old Boeing autopilot paddles!)


Incident: Air France B773 at Lagos on Jan 12th 2010, rejected takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=428c9bdd/0000)

[blind pew]

Whilst I accepted the odd guy being go minded with a eng failure before V1 when the take off calculation included a clearway ( meaning we were going cross country) tyre failure was a bigger worry as the three hydraulic lines were routed in both gear bays on the DC10 ..as they were around eng2..hence Souix city.

[framer]

Suninmyeys, pretty sure AirNZ did the exact same thing when they first got 777's .
Japan somewhere I think.

[memories of px]

on the 777 you would set the trim from the load sheet, and on the aircraft theres some fancy gizmos that detect the loading on the nose wheel to cross check, damn clever.

[stilton]

I don't think the most important question has been answered here.


How many of you would perform a high speed reject if requested by ATC
without a really good reason ?


And why on earth did the controller make that request at that moment
even if requested by company operations ?


I doubt i'd be stopping even if before V1.

[DaveReidUK]

Another article, this time from the local Martinique press:

Cayenne-Paris : les passagers sont repartis hier soir - Toute l'actualité de la Martinique sur Internet - FranceAntilles.fr (http://www.martinique.franceantilles.mobi/actualite/economie/cayenne-paris-les-passagers-sont-repartis-hier-soir-410883.php)

Again, no mention of an instruction from ATC, but a reference to a problem with the gear "a few seconds before takeoff".

[atakacs]

@Dave - thanks for that article, it finally gives a "reasonable" routing (wasn't a direct flight to Moscow nor a charter between Martinique and Guyane but a Cayenne - Fort de France - Orly flight, which makes a lot more sense !). And there was a significant number of Russian paxes on board (maybe code sharing ?).

As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out... it might very well end up being a pilot initiated one having detected some trouble during the roll out.

[wiggy]

As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out... it might very well end up being a pilot initiated one having detected some trouble during the roll out.

quite possibly but FWIW (and it's the media so pinch of salt time .) the French language article DR linked to starts with the comment that (roughly translated): "the pilots braked heavily after having detected a problem with the landing gear a few seconds before lift off"

[RAT 5]

As for the ATC instructed RTO the jury is still out..

The tapes must exist and thus the jury should have black & white evidence to return a verdict.

[simmple]

I don't think the most important question has been answered here.


How many of you would perform a high speed reject if requested by ATC
without a really good reason ?


And why on earth did the controller make that request at that moment
even if requested by company operations ?


I doubt i'd be stopping even if before V1.

Before V1 would stop, after wouldn't.
Do you really have time to diagnose why you were being told to reject and I would hope it didn't sound like a request.
At that moment you have no idea why you were being "given the order" but maybe better to have hot brakes!

[Herod]

IIRC, most modern aircraft have an inhibit after 80 knots for everything except engine fire or failure, and the SOP is between then and V1 the stop would only be for those warnings or something that would suggest the aircraft would be unable to fly. Unless the undercarriage was shaking itself to bits, a simple tyre failure would be taken into the air. As has been said, touching down at the correct point, much slower (lighter) and better prepared is better than trying to stop from some point further down the runway, faster and heavier. But, we don't know the whole story in this case, so that's just a two cent's worth.

[Ian W]

Simple and Stilton

Most tower controllers would not cancel take off unless there was an extremely urgent reason - such as a runway incursion. Even if something is seen wrong with the aircraft the crew are very likely to already know and calls from ATC are unlikely to be welcome. Unless it is very early in the takeoff roll say the first 1000ft it is best to wait till the aircraft is airborne.


A call from airline ops that the flight has left some bags would definitely not be cause for canceling takeoff.

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if this will be followed up by the BEA ?

[stilton]

Exactly my point IW !

[DaveReidUK]

Does anyone know if this will be followed up by the BEA ?

I'd be surprised, it doesn't really fit the Annex 13 criteria for an accident or serious incident.

If there were to be any repercussions, they would more likely come from the DGAC.

[AviatorDave]

Is it possible that there was a loading error resulting in an incorrect (and possibly dangerous) C of G detected by the company after pushback?


:ooh:

If this was the case, the load sheet should have raised suspicion with the crew right away, at the latest when trying to set some unusual stab trim value for T/O.
Except when the paperwork did not reflect the actual load distribution. In that case, this could get quite interesting

[esreverlluf]

That was precisely what I was thinking, and the TWR guy put in the awful position of "Do I say something, or possibly live with the consequences . . . "

[simmple]

My point also IW.
If you getting that sort of call from tower it must be urgent. I expect them to filter the need, baggage filtered out
I wouldn't want to be hearing a request with reason, no time for that, would expect an "order"

[overhere]

Agree with some posts above - if ATC instructs me to stop and I'm under V1 I'll stop - I don't know why they've asked me to stop in that split second and nor do I have time to ask. It's no different to the FO saying stop, I'd stop.

[aterpster]

To me, there is huge difference from the F/O and from ATC.

[ATC Watcher]

Lots of BS as usual from the press ( and as a consequence here ) .

1) ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ATC primary task is to ensure separation .
2) an RTO is not an incident.
3) after a high velocity RTO is is essential to check / eventually replace brakes or tyres. ., hence delays... nothing unusual...

[OldLurker]

ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ...Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" – even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind – and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?

[lomapaseo]

Lots of BS as usual from the press ( and as a consequence here ) .

1) ATC will only interrupt the Take off an aircraft having started to move if there is a runway incursion, e.g. by a vehicle or an aircraft. ATC primary task is to ensure separation .
2) an RTO is not an incident.
3) after a high velocity RTO is is essential to check / eventually replace brakes or tyres. ., hence delays... nothing unusual...

I agree about the press and it wasn't worth my time to post while awaiting confirmed facts.

I accept your item #1 above. (the others are subsets based on "what if")

In the subject event the major question I have is who and why was the RTO called and at what speed?

any tower tapes to forestall more BS from the uninformed?

back to lurking :)

[Basil]

Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" – even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind – and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?
Sounds believable.
I don't think I'd have carried out a high speed RTO just because ATC said "Stop!"

I've had two runway incursions on the t/o roll and ATC didn't notice; or didn't mention it. One was an Alpha Jet turning on for opposite direction take-off; pilot noticed L1011 @ 100kn+ and continued 180 and exited. It was at far end of runway and, so long as he didn't start his t/o roll wasn't a problem.
The other was Luton van crossing. I assessed that he was going to continue and so did we. If the tvat had turned onto the runway it would have been messy.

[ATC Watcher]

Old Lurker , you said :
Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" – even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind – and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots? So he calls "Stop" and the pilots stop. Whatever the outcome, the controller did what he was ordered to do and he won't be in trouble with the Big Man. Is that a plausible scenario?

Quick answer : No , absolutely not. Martinique is a French Department, so part of France DNSA, same controllers as you will find in CDG or ORY ( often coming from there for a few years)

[Hotel Tango]

I don't think I'd have carried out a high speed RTO just because ATC said "Stop!"

Interesting statement. Have you considered that it might be because of something you can't see? Just thinking out loud. I'm not talking post V1 of course.

[aterpster]

Interesting statement. Have you considered that it might be because of something you can't see? Just thinking out loud. I'm not talking post V1 of course.

Where "pre V1" would it be okay?

Where is it okay for ATC to issue such urgent instructions during takeoff roll?

It doesn't compute for me.

[simmple]

To me, there is huge difference from the F/O and from ATC.

There is
Many ATC have experience 😜

[Meester proach]

I was told to stop by ATC at BIKF years ago, after we started the TO. Fortunately this was only at about 75 kts.

My first concern was that they had screwed up and launched someone off the cross runway as well, but in fact it had come to light that we had a bag on board whose passenger wasn't .

[Herod]

Further to my earlier post, between 80 knots and V1, "anything that would make the aircraft unable to fly". If ATC have knowledge of such a thing, and I'm not talking about smoke from a tyre, but more likely a runway incursion, then yes, "Stop" is valid.

[Basil]

Expanding my previous:
"Basair 13, aircraft on the go-around right above you - stop!" If below V1 I'd stop; if over, I'd continue, keep it low and turn away.
"Basair 13, stop!" Depending upon speed I'd probably continue.

Most runway incursions would be clear to you anyway.

[Hotel Tango]

Where "pre V1" would it be okay?

Where is it okay for ATC to issue such urgent instructions during takeoff roll?

It doesn't compute for me.

Your call, but as I said, it could be because of something you can't see, or which you are not aware of. I have no argument with the fact that the final decision is yours of course. Just hope it's the right one.

[stilton]

MP,

That wasn't remotely close to being a good reason to tell you to stop.


Controllers should only transmit such a request with an aircraft at high speed if
there is an immediate threat to the aircraft, a runway incursion being one
of the few good reasons.


If they notice something wrong with your aircraft they should call out the problem
clearly, the reject / continue decision always belongs with the Captain.

[FrontRunner]

Yes, in first world. I don't know Martinique. Is it the sort of murky place where a Big Man (political, military, airline, whatever) can shout "stop that plane!" – even for a frivolous reason such as, maybe, something left behind – and be obeyed without question down a hierarchy of frightened officials and up to the man in the tower, who can see that the aircraft is rolling and has a split second to decide whether to defy the Big Man's order at some risk to himself, or effectively to pass the buck to the pilots?


Quick answer : No , absolutely not. Martinique is a French Department, so part of France DNSA, same controllers as you will find in CDG or ORY ( often coming from there for a few years)

...and that's exactly why I would not rule out any 'non-standard' screw-up from ATC. :bored:

[PersonFromPorlock]

If a responsible person (I assume ATC controllers qualify) starts yelling ABORTABORTABORT!, why wouldn't you? It's not likely they're having their little joke.

[gearlever]

Here is a similar case, from AvHerald

A TAP Portugal Airbus A319-100, registration CS-TTI performing flight TP-558 from Lisbon (Portugal) to Munich (Germany), was on final approach to Munich's runway 26L when the crew reported a nose wheel steering problem. In response tower instructed the aircraft to go around, the aircraft climbed to 5000 feet and positioned for another approach. Tower advised emergency services had been put on stand by by the tower, the crew advised that they were able to resolve the problem and expected normal operations. The aircraft landed safely on runway 26L about 18 minutes after the go around and taxied to the apron with emergency services in trail.Would you go around ?

[pax britanica]

Surely an ATCO is exactly that an ATCo whether on ground or in the air a pilot would be taking an immense legal risk by ignoring what that say since it is an instruction.
I know TCAS is in the picture now but not for light aircraft so would some of the people here who say well i wouldn't listen to the ATCo ignore a call of ABC 123 immediate right turn to XXX degrees traffic just say -well I can't see anyone so Ill just carry on.

As has been proven many times flight deck windows do not give the greatest view in the world and on take off I imagine one set of eyes are focussed inside and the others s very much straight down the runway ahead and have nothing like the view from the tower of potential hazards just outside the pilots field of vision.
I kow RTOs are tricky at high speed but as a view from the back I would prefer to stop with smoking brakes even evacuation than have the pilot press on into

Animals running onto runway
vehicles on runway
helicopters wandering off an orbit near the flight path
erring light aircraft
flocks of big birds
drone incursions
etc etc

[Avenger]

The cancellation of a take-off clearance after an aircraft has commenced its take-off roll should only occur when the aircraft will be in serious and imminent danger should it continue. Controllers should be aware of the potential for an aircraft to overrun the end of the runway if the take-off is abandoned at a late stage; this is particularly so with large aircraft or those operating close to their performance limit, such as at maximum take-off mass, in high ambient temperatures or when the runway braking action may be adversely affected. Because of this risk, even if a take-off clearance is cancelled, the commander of the aircraft may consider it safer to continue the take- off than to attempt to stop the aircraft.

As the aircraft accelerates, the risks associated with abandoning the take-off increase significantly. For modern jet aircraft, at speeds above 80kt flight deck procedures balance the seriousness of a failure with the increased risk associated with rejecting the takeoff. For example, many system warnings and cautions on the flight deck may be inhibited during the take-off roll, and between 80kt and V1 most aircraft operators define a limited number of emergency conditions in which the take-off will be rejected. Consequently, at speeds above 80kt, the take-off clearance should normally only be cancelled if there is a serious risk of collision should the aircraft continue its take-off, or if substantial debris is observed or reported on the runway in a location likely to result in damage to the aircraft.
The critical speed will be dependent on the aircraft type and configuration, environmental conditions and a range of other factors but, as a general rule, for modern jet aircraft, it will be in the region of 80kt airspeed.

The typical distance at which a jet aircraft reaches 80kt is approximately 300m from the point at which the take-off roll is commenced. The unit MATS Part 2 shall contain further guidance on the likely position on the runway at which those aircraft types commonly using the aerodrome typically reach 80kt.

16.5 Controllers should also be aware of the possibility that an aircraft that abandons its take- off may suffer overheated brakes or another abnormal situation and should be prepared to declare the appropriate category of emergency or to provide other suitable assistance.

Apologies for the cut and paste in an attempt to clear muddied waters

[aterpster]

If a responsible person (I assume ATC controllers qualify) starts yelling ABORTABORTABORT!, why wouldn't you? It's not likely they're having their little joke.

The crew might not even know that call was for them.

[Hotel Tango]

The controller would use the aircraft call sign. However, it could of course be clipped or stepped on. Always lots of if this and if that in any scenario.

[costalpilot]

I don't think the most important question has been answered here.


How many of you would perform a high speed reject if requested by ATC
without a really good reason ?


And why on earth did the controller make that request at that moment
even if requested by company operations ?


I doubt i'd be stopping even if before V1.


depending on the runway, I would, since I would not know WHY ATC wanted the stop. no doubt. unless I was in a dc 9 -30 on a hot day in memphis.

on those hot days, in that underpowered 9, the closer we got to lift-off, the more I felt the fragility of life. kudos to pratt and whitney.

in the heavier than dc-10 class: there always seemed plenty of get up and go. AS I think it over, one time just b4 the onset of dawn in Natchez Mississippi, we rotated just over a deer that stood frozen on the runway and I was told someone once did the same over a person out for a pre dawn stroll...in a WW2 class Martin 404. one never when knew when THOSE old Pratt and whitneys would give out (in the late 60's. everyone knew they were never far from it).

[JW411]

In my experience the DC-10 was a bloody good goer but not such a good stopper.

[DaveReidUK]

Here is a similar case, from AvHerald

The similarities aren't immediately obvious.

At a busy airport, go-arounds happen regularly. RTOs most certainly don't.

Would you go around ?You mean as opposed to ignoring a controller's GA instruction and landing regardless ?

[gearlever]

I understood it that way, they had a NLG steering fault but decided to land without the brigade.

The tower though didn't like it and wanted the brigade on standby before they land. Therefore instructed to go around...

Maybe I should alter my question to: Do you think it was appropiate to order a go around ?

[lomapaseo]

The controller would use the aircraft call sign. However, it could of course be clipped or stepped on.

that makes me have visions of all aircraft on the frequency hitting the brakes

[aterpster]

The similarities aren't immediately obvious.

At a busy airport, go-arounds happen regularly. RTOs most certainly don't.

Agree. Huge difference. A go-around is typically a routine procedure. An RTO, especially above 80-100 knots, is an emergency procedure.

The analogy of an ATC instruction to go-around to a takeoff would be, "Acme 123, cancel takeoff clearance, remain in position (or taxi clear of the runway at taxiway Alpha.)"

[RAT 5]

All will be revealed when someone hears the tapes and publishes them.

[andrasz]

Just like on the UA thread I find it astonishing that a debate is forming on a clear-cut professional issue. To me it is simples:

Both PM and ATC are monitoring the take-off with a pair of MkI eyeballs (in case of ATC possibly more). Both are qualified professionals, if either of them calls for reject/abort below V1 the only appropriate action by the PF is to reject takeoff, slow to a safe speed and start asking questions afterwards (and asking questions about the reason for the reject call is what this thread is supposed to be about). At/above V1 again clear, continue takeoff and ask questions later. The only difference between PM and ATC in this regard is that ATC has no access to the speed info, I would not expect a PM to make a reject call above V1.

Of course being a professional also involves being accountable, I would expect any such call to be backed up with a good story, and definitely some missing bags would not count as such. As RAT 5 mentioned above, without knowing exactly what ATC said and why, it is very hard to judge.

This being said I do agree with those posters who suggest that at some airports around the world the fundamental assumption that 'both are professionals' may be called into question, but Martinique is French teritory with corresponding standards, and the charming habit of French ATC to speak in French to F regstered aircraft could not have been a factor in this case.

[Right Way Up]

I think this is a slippery slope.

We as a crew brief the "why" we would stop but now you are adding a another voice that is not briefed in this and may or may not have the skill/knowledge to make the decision. Over the years the RTO has been simplified to try and avoid unnecessary rejects in the dangerous high speed regime.

What if the ATC mark 1 eyeball sees a tyre burst at 140 kts and reacts by calling "stop" on a runway with little stopping margin.

I would like to see ATC able to call stop but only for definite issues such as runway incursion. Something like "abc123 runway incursion, stop i say again stop". That way at least the Captain has the chance of overruling if he thinks it safer.

It is a good point previously made about the different standards of ATC. For years PMI tower had the unhappy knack of giving you instructions during rollout above 100 kts. Not sure that that standard of ATC SA or prioritisation would make me happy that they can tell you to stop.

[Tarq57]

andraz has it. It's not a slippery slope. ATC has always had the right to call for an abort. The circumstances that would require that have already been well discussed, and pertain to an ATC awareness of a dangerous situation that has developed/is developing since the aircraft commenced to roll.

Missing bags, notified by the operator, are not going to meet that criterion.

It is totally the pilots decision as to whether to stop or not, once the stop call has been made by ATC. Below 80 kt or thereabouts, I'd expect the pilot to stop. Above that speed, maybe, maybe not, depending on the nature of the dangerous situation, and how lucidly it was communicated and understood. Above V1 (which in the tower, we have no way of knowing, but I'd guess is typically about 2/3 runway remaining) definitely not.

[suninmyeyes]

Many years ago at Chicago taking off in a 747 ATC ordered us to stop at about 140 knots. My Captain who was handling pilot did not recognise the call was for us (our callsign bore no relation to our flight number) and by the time I had said "that was for us" it was too late. As we were rotating we could see the reason for the call was a helicopter that was slightly closer than you would like but not close enough to take evasive action for and we climbed away normally. Had we rejected takeoff we would have had overheated brakes, flat tyres, a blocked runway or taxiway and 24 hours extra at the hotel. We were very glad we had not rejected.

Pax Britanica gave his opinion that as a passenger he would rather abort takeoff even if it risked an evacuation if there were certain events that included a nearby helicopter. I respect your right to your opinion but if you were an airline pilot approaching V1 you would have a very different view. Years ago the Trident crews were not allowed to reject the takeoff for an APU fire below V1.

A couple of interesting rejected takeoffs below

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8UPEfO1Oo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SweTB8I9V2E

[pax britanica]

Sun In My eyes

My comment was relaly aimed at the 'I am not going to stop if ATC tells me' attitude some people seemed to take/ I am a regular user of aviation and grew up next door to LHR . I also have the every highest regard for airline crews who doa job that can suddenly become extremely difficult and whose actions will be subject to greater scrutiny than any other profession .

I do very definitely recognise that while the V1 process appears cut and dried there are circumstances , exactly as you describe, where the moment is passed in the blink of an eye or where a judgement call is made literally as the speed is reached , I am aware you are not just moving fast but accelerating fast. So in know there can be times when judgement, experience or just the lack of times to recognise and process something means aborting right on V1 might not be wise. As i said what concerned me was the ATC can't tell me to stop attitude that some, clearly not you, have demonstrated. Iwas also concerned that the crew might get hung out to dry if the controller had a good reason and it was not complied with but had serious consequences.

[aterpster]

Most FAA controllers I have met have no clue about how airplanes are flown.

[suninmyeyes]

pax britanica

Fair enough and every circumstance is different. I do take your points.

In Denver a few years ago an aircraft was ordered to refect his takeoff by ATC and did so at high speed (Denver being a high elevation airfield one inevitably has high ground speeds on takeoff even if significantly below V1) This resulted in a brake overheat and flat tyres and an unexpected night stop. The cause was a Lufthansa doing a goaround on the parallel runway. Had the aircraft known the reason for the ATC call he would have continued but he didn't. I believe ATC there have reviewed the case and it would not happen again in the same situation.

[JumpJumpJump]

Has it been established if this was passenger bags left behind at the airport, or the bags of passengers that were offloaded at the airport?

[RoyHudd]

Usual suspects....incompetent local ATC,..plus the French state airline with a vey poor safety record.

But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.

(Having flown A320's for AF from CDG and ORY for quite a while, I believe I know what I am talking about, mais les expertes sont toujours francais )

[lomapaseo]

Usual suspects....incompetent local ATC,..plus the French state airline with a vey poor safety record.

But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.


I don't blame them, You need some facts before you can even assign criticism

[andrasz]

Has it been established ...


So far nothing confirmed except that there was indeed a high speed RTO. Everything else, including whether it was prompted by an ATC call, is just hearsay.

[whiterock]

In reading this fascinating topic I am reminded of AF 4590 and would ask the professionals on here whether an early call from ATC might have mitigated the tragic outcome. Apologies if this is considered thread drift too far but the question seems appropriate in this instance.

[DaveReidUK]

AF4590 was already past V1 and about to rotate when the damage was sustained, so there was no possibility of an "early call" from ATC.

[KayPam]

Have we talked about AF' A340 near missing their takeoff in Bogota ?
On at least one occurrence, they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.

[Herod]

they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.

So says the man on the spot with a ruler

[neila83]

Have we talked about AF' A340 near missing their takeoff in Bogota ?
On at least one occurrence, they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.

No, do tell? I live in Bogotá, it's a fun take off given the altitude but hard to see how they'd manage that.

[KayPam]

So says the man on the spot with a ruler

Say the guys who have decoded the black boxes :
https://www.bea.aero/en/investigation-reports/notified-events/detail/event/incident-grave-de-lairbus-a340-immatricule-f-glzu-exploite-par-air-france-le-11032017-a-bogota-e/
You can google translate this :
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/tourisme-transport/0212009840928-air-france-et-le-bea-enquetent-sur-un-incident-grave-a-bogota-2082073.php

[edmundronald]

Have we talked about AF' A340 near missing their takeoff in Bogota ?
On at least one occurrence, they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.

According to Les Echos it is 1.5m which translates into 5 feet give or take an inch or two. An airplane issue is suspected, as similar incidents have been reported before, in particular with the same airframe.

[DaveReidUK]

The BEA are currently involved in three investigations of serious incidents involving takeoffs at Bogota.

The first is the aforementioned Air France A340's "abnormally long takeoff run".

The second is another similar incident, date unknown.

The third is an Avianca Peru A330 which rotated beyond the end of 13L last July and took out one of the lights, the runway having a reduced TODA due to work in progress.

[peekay4]

From AvHerald:

The airline reported a similiar occurrence happened also on Apr 4th 2017 to the same aircraft. As an immediate safety action the airline reduced the maximum takeoff weight permitted for Bogota by 5 to 8 tons, either less cargo or less fuel perhaps requiring a fuel stop at Guadeloupe as suitable. It is being considered to use the Boeing 787 in the future should the A340-300 available performance turn out as the cause.

[DaveReidUK]

From AvHerald:
The airline reported a similiar occurrence happened also on Apr 4th 2017 to the same aircraft.

If the April 4th incident involved the same aircraft as the 11th March one, it wasn't at Bogota, or if it was at Bogota, it wasn't the same aircraft.

Unless Avherald simply meant the same aircraft type (A343) and not the same aircraft.

[ACMS]

Any of you blokes remember Tenerife in March 1977?
I suspect a call to stop to KLM might have been a good idea had the controller realised.

If an ATC controller yells at me to stop before V1 I'm going to have to give it very serious thought.

[Herod]

Ref my post no.76, I didn't know the full story. Please ignore

[Basil]

Any of you blokes remember Tenerife in March 1977?
I suspect a call to stop to KLM might have been a good idea had the controller realised.

If an ATC controller yells at me to stop before V1 I'm going to have to give it very serious thought.
On that occasion it was foggy so one of the very good cases to comply.
Not that this particular captain who took off without clearance would have been likely to have done so.

[simmple]

Mentioning Tenerife, didn't klm have an incident in Basel a few years ago where they entered the runway as another aircraft took off over them?
Did a report ever get published?
Maybe I am wrong it's a while ago.
Should the controller have issued a stop there?
No one answer fits all on this topic, well apart from a stop shouldn't be called for baggage

[DaveReidUK]

March 16th last year, so not that long ago.

Departing Skywork Airlines D328 passed over a KLM E190 which had entered the runway to take off in the opposite direction.

Incident grave d'un Dornier 328 immatriculé HB-AEO et d'un Embraer 190 immatriculé PH-EXB survenu le 07/03/16 à Bâle (https://www.bea.aero/les-enquetes/les-evenements-notifies/detail/event/incursion-dun-avion-sur-la-piste-quasi-collision-lors-du-decollage-1/)

[A Squared]

Any of you blokes remember Tenerife in March 1977?
I suspect a call to stop to KLM might have been a good idea had the controller realised.

His FO and FE were both telling him he didn't have takeoff clearance*. I'm not sure that adding another voice to the chorus would have mattered.


*ok, a little hyperbole, but they were both questioning whether they had takeoff clearance, IIRC.

[Hotel Tango]

I'm not entirely sure why Tenerife has crept into this thread. There's absolutely no comparison since no one transmitted or said "abort" or "stop". My recollection is that only the F/E weakly questioned if the Pan Am was clear of the runway. The tower could see bugger all and hadn't got any visual clues as to what was happening. They also had no ground radar at the time.