BA aborted takeoff at Pisa?

[Wedge]

I think this happened last night, T/O aborted close to V1 due to warning light.

Apparently hard braking was necessary and a tyre punctured. Any further info? Thanks

The flight to Gatwick was delayed by 12 hours.

[Shadowpurser]

Spoke to Purser today.

Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.

Nothing amazing.

[sanket_patel]

Oh my god! an aborted take off! disaster!

[A300Man]

Sanket_Patel

This is probably not the most newsworthy item in the world right now. However, this particular incident IS OF INTEREST to the individuals who made the posting (perhaps they have a personal interest in either the airport, aircraft, company..........).

Therefore, no need for you to be so sarcastic, my friend. This is an open public forum for those involved in the industry to air their views as they consider necessary.

You read the headline, and clearly then went to the thread to see what it was about............why then post a ridiculous reply?

If aborted take-offs are of no interest to you, why not just ignore the thread and go to the next one.


Guys........what was the aircraft involved. I assume a 737-400? It wasn't G-DOCX by any chance, was it?

A300Man

[Devils Advocate]

A typical briefing prior to departure would include something like:

"...... above 80Kts and prior to V1 we only will stop for the following: any fire warning, an engine failure identified by at least two parameters, a configuration warning, a control difficulty, a blocked runway, a predictive windshear warning, or anything that the Captain thinks might jeopardise safety"

Now three of those stop items (fire, configuration, windshear) generate an aural warning, and engine failures tend to generate a rather noticeable yaw (i.e. and as such it is covered by the 'engine failure' and 'control difficulty' reasons to stop).

Normally above 80Kts, one doesn't stop for 'Master Caution' annunciations - unless, in the Captains judgement, it is preferable to do so - i.e. the closer you get to V1 the more orientated one becomes towards 'Going' rather than stopping.

So one would imagine that it was a bit more than just a 'warning light' that prompted them to stop if indeed they were close to V1 as has been suggested.

Veritably, one of life's great debates is the stop / go decision process.

[Wedge]

Devils Advocate, thanks, that's exactly what I thought. Thanks A300 man for your post also, as you rightly point out I do have a particular interest in this case.

Sanket_patel, I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was pretty s**tted up by it in order to allay their fears and explain that it is a standard procedure. I realise it is not the end of the world but many of the pax were quite worried and I think pilots sometimes would do well to remember that a lot of the people down the back don't know much about aviation.

Now my information came from a passenger so it may well be wrong, but he said that they were 'about two seconds from takeoff' when T/O was aborted and the only reason given was that they had a warning light in the cockpit.

[expedite_climb]

Okay, two things here ;

i) 'about two seconds from takeoff' - does that mean they'd been going for two seconds, or, in the opiuon of the passenger they were going quite fast.

ii) In my experience whatever the reason, the reason the pax are told is similar to 'a warning light in the cockpit', unless it was something serious such as eng failiure. They are hardly likely to say 'something broke and lots of bells and lights went off' are they ???

Also, if they were really two seconds from lift off, they must have been almost at v1, very unlikely to stop for a predicative windshear (may not be enough rwy left to stop in a windshear situation).

An engine failure, would perhaps have been a little more obvious, and a config warning ( no flaps etc), would have sounded as soon as the 'epr' button is pressed (probably 2 secs after the start of the take off roll ???????).

Devils advocate is correct with the reasons to stop - so there arent many others left are there ?? I agree - it is a little puzzling what happened.

[The Controlller]

I think you may find that the warning light equates to a misunderstanding between the Captain and co-pilot. The powers that be are looking into the incident????

[citrus200]

Controlller

A warning light would not equate too a misunderstanding between captain and copilot!

May have been Copilots takeoff - we dont know!

However we brief that up to 80kts a master caution warning will be assessed and the decision will be made to stop based on the commanders assessment of the problem!

After 80kts the T/O will only be aborted due to a major failure i.e engine fire/failure e.t.c - after 80kts it is deemed safer to take a minor problem into the air, than it is to carry out an RTO at high speed!

After reading the reports posted ( we do not know the accuracy of these) prob seems to be that RTO was carried out, depending on weight and ambient temp, cooling schedule would have to be consulted and time would have to be given in order to let breaks cool otherwise you may have the prob of brakes catching fire or brakes fusing! this may have then escalated the prob!

Please people do not jump to conclusions! CAN WE AGAIN, NOT CRITICISE THE CREW CAN WE GIVE THEM A PAT ON THE BACK AND SAY JOB WELL DONE FOR CARRYING OUT A SAFE RTO after all that is what we are trained for!:mad:

[The Controlller]

Read between the lines.....rotate and brake sound alike ?

[Shadowpurser]

Dunno aircraft involved - if speak to ops in next few days will ask and let you know.

If I see the people involved will let them know to come on here and give you all the lowe down on the ho down for you.

Failing that will get the story myself - sound good?

[Captain Airclues]

The Controlller

The command to reject a take-off is "STOP".

"Rotate" sounds nothing like "Stop".

Airclues

[Wedge]

Apparently it was the Captain himself who told the pax they were about two seconds from takeoff so it seems they were indeed close to V1 and therefore something relatively serious had happened.

[airrage]

shadowpurser;
"Spoke to Purser today.
Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.
Nothing amazing."

I hope for the flight crew's sake that they had already identified a Serious enough Problem(which would have prevented a quick trunaround anyway) otherwise why would they have chosen to RTO near V1 in the first place ? Unless they are so dedicated they and thought they could recover the Sector with one Engine ?

[A300Man]

Thanks ShadowPurser. Would appreciate your feedback.

The only reason that I ask if it was G-DOCX was that same aircraft appears to have a slight "history" in aborted departures and emergency landings. A friend of mine is BA Engineering at Glasgow, where the 734 fleet were most recently maintained. Charlie X-Ray was hated amongst the teams there because of repetitive avionics and instrumentation whinges.

Anyway - it may not even have been a 734 at all. Anyone able to confirm type?

[The Controlller]

Exactly, the command is STOP to abort take off but the P2 appears to have mistaken BRAKE for ROTATE !

[Crack]

****te, Man leave it alone.
At the end of the day it is what we,re trained to do,
and no one is hurt , the A/C is safe, and the crew can learn from it.(and industry)

Here's to flying safe, and no hero's, it always makes me think about the motive of some people, like they are not happy unless it involves tons of burning, mangled machinary, and body parts strewn everywhere,?.

What do people like the original author of this want?.
Pi-- off mate and get a life.:eek:

[Wedge]

For f**ks sake Crack. Read the thread you utter moron. It seems you can't raise any topic on here without it turning into a slangin match because of sad idiots like you: "Pi-- off mate and get a life". That's really mature isn't it?

I have already said I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was on the flight. At any rate it seems that this was more that an average RTO as they were I think close to V1.

There could be many reasons why someone would want to get more information on this, I'm not going to go over them again. Read the thread next time before wading in with ill-informed rubbish. As has already been said, if you are not interested in this subject why the hell did you click on the thread and reply??? I think you are the one who needs to get a life!

You are supposed to be a professional, start behaving like one.

[A300Man]

Crack and Wedge


Crack
I think you have perhaps clicked on the thread and scanned the points too quickly to have really understood the details of what Wedge was asking and why. As I said in my previous post here, if the subject doesn't interest YOU, it doesn't mean that it does not interest SOMEONE ELSE.

This being the case, think what you will privately and skip onto the next thread. But, by default, you have visited the thread and have made a comment. Why did you do that, if you felt that the whole subject was crap and sensationalism?


Wedge
I still agree with you 100% with your comments above. BUT, don't get too hot under the collar mate. Comments like those above (Crack's) are best laughed at and ignored, rather than playing into his hands. Take it easy, huh?

It continually amazes me how passionate people become about their subject.......but that is nothing more than testament to the fact that we are all involved in one of the best and most interesting industries around!!!

In conclusion, an aborted take off is NOT AT ALL a sensational piece of news for most of us. However, for a passenger in the back of the aeroplane (I could be that passenger - I am not a pilot), an aborted take off is a scary and frightening experience. Don't you agree Crack? If Wedge is just trying to use this Forum to obtain some info to put a passengers mind at ease (remember that passengers are our EMPLOYERS!!!), then why the hell not? It's not a crime.

Anyway - enough of my spouting forth - I am off now to have a G&T.

A300Man

[Landing_24R]

Wedge,

Have you got a flight number and an approximate time of arrival in London? I might be able to get you the reg if so.

Cheers
Landing_24R

[Wedge]

Think it was A300man who was interested in the flight number but thanks anyway 24R.

Have since found out this happened on Saturday (21st Sept) - BA2601 1240 dep. Presume Arr time about 1340 BST.
Cheers

[mrsmaryhinge]

Hello all,

Can confirm aircraft was a 737-300. Registration was G-LGTH or G-LGTI, can't remember which one.

Can also confirm RTO was performed but there was nothing wrong with the aircraft at all. No warning or caution was received in the flight deck. If that has been reported, then it was probably told to pax to keep them quiet.

I am crew at LGW, and from what I have heard, there was a mix up between crew at V1, resulting in a very high energy RTO. Not very pleasant.

Consequently, BA flew a B777 to Pisa with parts and engineers.

Definately tea no biscuits for the Captain, who is 'well known' amongst crew at LGW.

[Wedge]

Very interesting, seems you had heard right Controlller!

Thanks mrsmaryhinge for the info.

[Hand Solo]

With the greatest respect I would attach no credence whatsoever to any reports by cabin crew on this matter. They don't have the technical expertise to understand the situation, they are unlikely to have been on the flight deck at the time and so rely on dumbed-down info from flight crew, chinese whispers and second hand gossip.

As for the character assasination of the captain in question, I suspect if this incident did occur in the bizarre and unlikely fashion claimed here then the captain is entirely free of blame. Having called 'rotate' one would question why the FO chose to reject the take off without the standard instruction being issued.

[mrsmaryhinge]

Sorry you seem to have misinterpreted my reply. I am flight crew at LGW and not cabin crew.

Hand solo, I may be wrong but I believe you also work for BA, so you should be able to confirm the events from within. As you say, it was bizarre and unusual, but that's what happened. There was no master caution approaching V1, and even if one occurred, you should know BA SOP's dictate not to stop on a master caution at that speed unless it is serious serious stuff.

Anyway that's the story, discard it if you wish, but try chatting to others within the company. You'll soon be able to verify it.

Mary

[Wedge]

I was going to say I didn't know why Solo had assumed you were cabin crew Mary.

Seems to attach more credibility to that version of events, it was 'The controlller' who first voiced that rumour here.

If true sounds like a very strange incident indeed.

[Hand Solo]

Having just worked out your user name maryhinge I'm sure you're not cabin crew! The jungle telegraph has today confirmed a most bizarre turn of events. I'm off to eat a large portion of humble pie!:eek:

[Shadowpurser]

First day back today.

Well I can confirm that EVERYTHING that Mary Hinge as posted is 100% right

Hand mate...it's not always what you know...it's WHO you know. (Obviously cannot reveal my sources though)

Want a bit more "juicy" info?

Stupid company suspended pilots imeaditately as is proceedure in an incident like this - BUT - relalised they didn't have any spare pilots to fly the plane back from Pisa - SO - reinstated them so they could fly plane back - THEN - suspended them at LGW.

More stupid than the cock up that awaitted me at LGW is evening, and that was good enough the ruin a really good day!!

[Propellerhead]

Would I be right in saying that in BA the F/O is allowed to make the go/no go decision on his/her take-off? In my company only the captain can make the decision, who guards the thrust levers on every T/O until V1. I'm all for F/O's being allowed to do stuff, but I personally think our policy is better.

The Go/No Go decision is the most critical decision that can be made, and has very grave consequences for geting it wrong. Many, many accidents have been caused by RTO's above V1.

It may be the F/Os decision, but the Captain can still over-rule him/her with a verbal command or taking control, whereas if it is only the Captain's decision, there is less ambiguity and there should be less chance of a mis-understanding. An inexperienced F/O with an over-bearing Captain in particular could be suseptible to following a mis-heard call from the LHS (I'm not saying this happened here, I know nothing about it).

The report on this one could make interesting reading. Bit like the legend of the F/O under training who was told to 'chear up' on the T/O and put the gear up!

[Bumblebee]

It would appear that this was a not a case of confusion between the crew. Rather a mistaken call of 'Stop' by the Captain at V1/Vr instead of rotate . Same skipper allegedly had an embarrassing incident the week before which resulted in a slide being blown after pushback.

One of those nightmare weeks where nothing goes right for you I guess.....

But makes one wonder whether the symptoms of rock bottom morale, crap scheduling, feeling like you're banging your head against a brick wall and constant apologies for the chaos at the Gatwick operation are beginning to manifest themselves. :rolleyes:

Happy pilots = better performing pilots

[DAVROS]

I am not too sure of the 737 systems, but a red "warning" light is usually a stop item! If it was a "warning" then I would have thought they were correct to stop! I think a little confusion has crept in here between "caution" and "warning"! In my aircraft type, the brief states that you should plan to stop for any "red warning"??!!:confused:

[Hand Solo]

Prophead you are correct that in BA the FO can reject a take off, but only in a limited number of clearly defined circumstances. As most short haul aircraft generally have the same Vr and V1 theres little chance of a rejection beyond V1 as the first call will be 'rotate'. Furthermore company SOPs are such that nobody will have their hands anywhere near the throttles beyond V1 so it'll take a conscious effort to reject beyond V1. If anything I think your policy of allowing only captains to guard the thrust levers on take off is more likely to cause the confusion you speak of as it does give the captain the authority to override a 'stop' decision, leading to the confusion you want to avoid. By our SOPs it would take a quite remarkable amount of confusion to reject the reject by overriding the autobrakes and reselecting TOGA after the FO has brought the throttles to idle!

[Propellerhead]

Hand Solo, when i was talking about the Captain over-riding the F/O I was talking about the other way round! eg) F/O decides to continue, but Captain calls stop.

The Captain always guards the thrust levers, and always makes the decision whether to stop or go, regardless of who is flying. This reduces confusion and gives the most critical and dangerous decision any pilot is ever faced with to the Captain alone. An inexperienced F/O stopping for a loud bang and swing which is actually down to a tyre burst could be disasterous.

Also, I think you'll find that many people have abandoned T/O after V1 because the event has occured below V1, and by the time the assessment has been made the a/c has accelerated well beyond V1, with both pilots distracted and neither a V1 or rotate call being made. You'd be amazed how many people have stopped over V1 for loud bangs, going through water patches etc.
I've got a whole booklet full of examples which you really ought to read if you think your SOPs make it impossible for someone to end up stopping over V1.