Trust levers during F/O take-off
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eggplantwalking - I've always believed (and still do) that when one of the protaganists in an argument resorts to unwarranted abuse he has lost the case.
For the record, I use the word argument in the sense of "discussion of opposing pints of view" rather than "verbal fight".
Again, why should it be wrong because it is different from YOUR point of view? Quidnunc actually makes a very valid point.
You must remember that BA is not based in America, but in Britain. This is a nation where (thankfully) commonsense still prevails in the main and we don't sue MacDonalds because the coffee is hot but wait for it to cool down.
For the record, I use the word argument in the sense of "discussion of opposing pints of view" rather than "verbal fight".
Again, why should it be wrong because it is different from YOUR point of view? Quidnunc actually makes a very valid point.
You must remember that BA is not based in America, but in Britain. This is a nation where (thankfully) commonsense still prevails in the main and we don't sue MacDonalds because the coffee is hot but wait for it to cool down.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: United states
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moggie
I really don't comprehend Quidnunc's analogy of the placement of furniture in his house and how this relates to SOPs in aircraft. However, if you do, then that is really cool. I would suggest that you go back and re-read what the contributers to this thread have said and make a quanitative analysis of their comments. You will then most likely ascertain that BA stands alone in their SOPs. Right or wrong in your opinion, it appears that the vast majority of operators favor the manufacturer's procedure of having the guy in the left seat make the decision to abort. Your observation that BA is not based in America is a very keen one. Perhaps you have also noticed that other foreign carriers, ones that are not "N" registered, are not based there either. Interestingly, and perhaps more important though, it does appear that most of the opinions in the aviation community disagree with your SOPs no matter what their nationality.
I really don't comprehend Quidnunc's analogy of the placement of furniture in his house and how this relates to SOPs in aircraft. However, if you do, then that is really cool. I would suggest that you go back and re-read what the contributers to this thread have said and make a quanitative analysis of their comments. You will then most likely ascertain that BA stands alone in their SOPs. Right or wrong in your opinion, it appears that the vast majority of operators favor the manufacturer's procedure of having the guy in the left seat make the decision to abort. Your observation that BA is not based in America is a very keen one. Perhaps you have also noticed that other foreign carriers, ones that are not "N" registered, are not based there either. Interestingly, and perhaps more important though, it does appear that most of the opinions in the aviation community disagree with your SOPs no matter what their nationality.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On a park bench near an airport
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tamalai, you stated earlier:
I'm afraid I have to ask, how long since you did your CAD Perf T exam?
Can you recall that V1 must be < Vmbe?
A short or limiting runway will have a V1 that takes account not only of the physical length of tarmac available, the temp, the aircraft weight & thrust setting but also Vmbe - and if a stop could not be made without a guarenteed fire & evacuation/ going off the end, then the scheduled MTOM would have to be reduced.
That's the point of doing a T/O performance calculation in the first place.
I have to say I'm VERY alarmed to think our training (ok checking) department have somehow confused you into believing that it would be OK to continue a T/O (even on your limiting runway) with an engine failure BELOW V1.
I can see in my mind a beautiful 744 reduced to burning rubble just outside the airfield boundry after failing to become airbourne, and leaving the paved surface at 130+ knots with you pulling back on the control yolk wondering why she wouldn't fly.
Anyway, enough about performance, on the subject of who guards the T/L's during an F/O's take off I feel I am somewhat qualified to comment.
I've flown large jets for a number of airlines in the past, some of whom used BA's SOP's, and I have to say I agree completly with moggiee that with appropriate training (note I said training not checking), this is a perfectly safe way to operate.
Before critising another operators SOP's it helps to consider that the underlying goal of SOP's is to create an airline specific (tailored to its own environment/ equipment & culture) set of operating guidlines.
Some operators choose to use generic Boeing/ Airbus SOP's, which are fine - others form their own. Provided everybody receives training in an open environment & the SOPs are reviewed & matured it really dosen't matter who specifically positions what control, or what word is said when!
what an absolute load of Bo##ox, anyone who aborts a 390 ton 747 on a limiting runway around V1 wants their head examining !!! at V1 you maybe have 4500 feet of runway remaining and a max energy stop will undoubtably result in a wheel fire/evacuation and all that entails...................
Can you recall that V1 must be < Vmbe?
A short or limiting runway will have a V1 that takes account not only of the physical length of tarmac available, the temp, the aircraft weight & thrust setting but also Vmbe - and if a stop could not be made without a guarenteed fire & evacuation/ going off the end, then the scheduled MTOM would have to be reduced.
That's the point of doing a T/O performance calculation in the first place.
I have to say I'm VERY alarmed to think our training (ok checking) department have somehow confused you into believing that it would be OK to continue a T/O (even on your limiting runway) with an engine failure BELOW V1.
I can see in my mind a beautiful 744 reduced to burning rubble just outside the airfield boundry after failing to become airbourne, and leaving the paved surface at 130+ knots with you pulling back on the control yolk wondering why she wouldn't fly.
Anyway, enough about performance, on the subject of who guards the T/L's during an F/O's take off I feel I am somewhat qualified to comment.
I've flown large jets for a number of airlines in the past, some of whom used BA's SOP's, and I have to say I agree completly with moggiee that with appropriate training (note I said training not checking), this is a perfectly safe way to operate.
Before critising another operators SOP's it helps to consider that the underlying goal of SOP's is to create an airline specific (tailored to its own environment/ equipment & culture) set of operating guidlines.
Some operators choose to use generic Boeing/ Airbus SOP's, which are fine - others form their own. Provided everybody receives training in an open environment & the SOPs are reviewed & matured it really dosen't matter who specifically positions what control, or what word is said when!
Last edited by banana head; 13th Jul 2005 at 15:03.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has on average 6 - 9 rejected takeoffs per month.
All handled as per SOPs. No Incidents, no accidents. All as per the book.
Like it or not, the system works for BA.
As ever, I hate to tempt fate.. keeping fingers crossed.
L337
All handled as per SOPs. No Incidents, no accidents. All as per the book.
Like it or not, the system works for BA.
As ever, I hate to tempt fate.. keeping fingers crossed.
L337
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eggplantwalking
I'll try to explain quidnunc's analogy for you, by narrowing it down a little.
Your house probably has a toilet (WC, John, Dunnie) in it. These devices come with a number of possible locations for the flush handle/button. Normally it will be left, right or centre.
Now, after using the toilet you may choose to operate that flushing mechanism with your left or right hand as you choose (or indeed any other part of your anatomy that works). If the flush is centre mounted than either hand can be used relatively conveniently. If it is mounted on the left then it is probably easiest to use your left hand, but there is no law which states that just because W C Boggs and Son (inc.) chose to place it there that you must use your left hand - after all, it may be busy holding onto something else. If it was unsafe for you to use the "wrong" hand, then there would probably be laws prohibiting you from doing so. However, if asked, W C Boggs and Son (inc.) would suggest a way that they thought was appropriate.
However, if you happened to be Donald Trump or Her Majesty the Queen and wished to employ someone to operate the flush for you and briefed them when you wanted it done then, I am sure, with the appropriate training they could operate the flush with no more risk of wet trousers than if you did it yourself.
Now it is unlikely that you would take this course of action but the point is that it is safe, feasible and above all legal.
Now, Airbus and Boeing build airliners - and both do a very good job. They place the thrust levers in the middle so that they are easily reached by both pilots, and the control column/sidestick is placed in such a way that the Pilot's outside hand can operate it effectively. They will suggest a way of operating the aeroplane that is safe, feasible and legal - as they must because as the manufacturer they are required so to do. That said, just like your toilet flush, there are a number of different ways to operate the aeroplane and I am sure that the Airbus/Boeing manuals do NOT specifically state that commandment number 11 reads: "Thou shall not allow the FO to touch the thrust levers during the take-off roll up to V1".
However, if an airline decides that the Airbus/Boeing way of operating does not suit it's particular circumstances then that is fine - as long as the procedure is safe, feasible and legal. The SOP is scrutinised by the FAA/CAA/JAA and other relevant authority and if not appropriate then the authority will require it to be changed. It would be madness to try to fly cross handed and I am sure that if anyone tried to write an SOP that required such an action the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority would come down upon them like a ton of bricks (Tonne of bricks for Airbus!).
So there it is - W C Boggs and Son (inc.) provide you with a toilet flush and may, if asked, suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of using said toilet flush. Airbus/Boeing provide you with an aeroplane and suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of so doing and provided that the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority is happy with the airline's alternative style then that is fine.
All clear?
Your house probably has a toilet (WC, John, Dunnie) in it. These devices come with a number of possible locations for the flush handle/button. Normally it will be left, right or centre.
Now, after using the toilet you may choose to operate that flushing mechanism with your left or right hand as you choose (or indeed any other part of your anatomy that works). If the flush is centre mounted than either hand can be used relatively conveniently. If it is mounted on the left then it is probably easiest to use your left hand, but there is no law which states that just because W C Boggs and Son (inc.) chose to place it there that you must use your left hand - after all, it may be busy holding onto something else. If it was unsafe for you to use the "wrong" hand, then there would probably be laws prohibiting you from doing so. However, if asked, W C Boggs and Son (inc.) would suggest a way that they thought was appropriate.
However, if you happened to be Donald Trump or Her Majesty the Queen and wished to employ someone to operate the flush for you and briefed them when you wanted it done then, I am sure, with the appropriate training they could operate the flush with no more risk of wet trousers than if you did it yourself.
Now it is unlikely that you would take this course of action but the point is that it is safe, feasible and above all legal.
Now, Airbus and Boeing build airliners - and both do a very good job. They place the thrust levers in the middle so that they are easily reached by both pilots, and the control column/sidestick is placed in such a way that the Pilot's outside hand can operate it effectively. They will suggest a way of operating the aeroplane that is safe, feasible and legal - as they must because as the manufacturer they are required so to do. That said, just like your toilet flush, there are a number of different ways to operate the aeroplane and I am sure that the Airbus/Boeing manuals do NOT specifically state that commandment number 11 reads: "Thou shall not allow the FO to touch the thrust levers during the take-off roll up to V1".
However, if an airline decides that the Airbus/Boeing way of operating does not suit it's particular circumstances then that is fine - as long as the procedure is safe, feasible and legal. The SOP is scrutinised by the FAA/CAA/JAA and other relevant authority and if not appropriate then the authority will require it to be changed. It would be madness to try to fly cross handed and I am sure that if anyone tried to write an SOP that required such an action the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority would come down upon them like a ton of bricks (Tonne of bricks for Airbus!).
So there it is - W C Boggs and Son (inc.) provide you with a toilet flush and may, if asked, suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of using said toilet flush. Airbus/Boeing provide you with an aeroplane and suggest a way of using it. However, there are a number of safe, feasible and legal ways of so doing and provided that the FAA/CAA/JAA or other relevant authority is happy with the airline's alternative style then that is fine.
All clear?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread, with reasoned discussion from all sides. Have used both in the past and both work if properly trained. I would tend to the Captain Abort decision from personal experience. A few incidents come to mind. Me as junior F/O, called abort for what turned out to be an N1 gauge failure (tail mounted engines, so little noise or swing indications), aborted for an ASI fail around V1 on an F27., in retrospect handover might have been better! On the F27 one, 'Ground test found satis.' , so to his credit the CP went with the skipper for a test circuit before reboarding pax. As I sat in the crewroom contemplating a dismal, if any, future, the sweetest sound was the 'Whoosh ' of the props going into Ground Fine as they aborted! There is an Aviation God.
On a wider note, on the larger A/C, a sort of two stage V1 was the norm, bearing in mind that performance figures are based on concrete, and not on rubber covered wet concrete. I and my 747 very nearly beat QF1 to his golfing expedition in Bangkok a few months previously, in only a moderate crosswind, adhesion 0. Remember at least 1500 Ft. of your last ditch stopping attempt will be on the other end's touchdown zone, which will be covered in rubber. Landing in Athens in a 737, I had insufficient wheel spinup for spoiler deployment, days after the runway had been declared serviceable to iCAO standards, and 2 Swissair pilots sent to jail for sliding off the end in their DC8!
That said, a wise man once told me that you should always look beyond V1. In some places that come to mind, the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong, Naples, Kaoshiung in Taiwan, it may be better to take your chances with the brake fires, evacuation and the bushes at 80Kts, rather than a rock at 220! Anyway that's what the stripes and the money are for, so good luck with the split second decision, just accept, someone will have plenty of time to decide you were wrong!
Who's got my coat?
On a wider note, on the larger A/C, a sort of two stage V1 was the norm, bearing in mind that performance figures are based on concrete, and not on rubber covered wet concrete. I and my 747 very nearly beat QF1 to his golfing expedition in Bangkok a few months previously, in only a moderate crosswind, adhesion 0. Remember at least 1500 Ft. of your last ditch stopping attempt will be on the other end's touchdown zone, which will be covered in rubber. Landing in Athens in a 737, I had insufficient wheel spinup for spoiler deployment, days after the runway had been declared serviceable to iCAO standards, and 2 Swissair pilots sent to jail for sliding off the end in their DC8!
That said, a wise man once told me that you should always look beyond V1. In some places that come to mind, the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong, Naples, Kaoshiung in Taiwan, it may be better to take your chances with the brake fires, evacuation and the bushes at 80Kts, rather than a rock at 220! Anyway that's what the stripes and the money are for, so good luck with the split second decision, just accept, someone will have plenty of time to decide you were wrong!
Who's got my coat?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having experienced the 'BA way' I had no problem with it, and it seened to work ok, and the only 'wrong call' I know of was from the F/O with the Captain handling anyway! The ONLY difference I can put forward to Quidnunc's analogy is that it is extremely unlikely that I would require Flying Lawyer's help to defend the use of the wrong bit of my anatomy to flush the toilet, but the Captain is, in law, RESPONSIBLE for the safety of the blah blah blah and I have never been certain that just 'following orders' would be a complete defence for me when the F/O slammed the throttles shut at VR on a short runway. I can now understand to some extent why one of my 'Mr Grumpy' Captains always used to put his hand behind the throttle levers on an F/O take-off! I guess his hand could have been hurt, however
I now operate to 'Boeing'. No big deal. In reality, why should the F/O handle the throttles on reject? Is it a 'status/image' thing, like the RHS tiller, provided at significant expense in cost and weight, and never used AFAIK in anger?
I now operate to 'Boeing'. No big deal. In reality, why should the F/O handle the throttles on reject? Is it a 'status/image' thing, like the RHS tiller, provided at significant expense in cost and weight, and never used AFAIK in anger?
Many years ago, a major Australian domestic airline operating DC9's had a policy of the first officer conducting the take off with hands on throttles all the way to V1. However, the company operations manual stated that any abort would be executed by the captain while the first officer resumed a monitoring role during the abort. It worked fine for a couple of years.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 30 West
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the BUS u train for it in the sim to abort a T/O but on the line its always the Capt . who actually does the action of aborting ! this is also clearly mentioned in the briefing by the F/O to the Capt no matter whose PF .
