Rejected Takeoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: iNDIA
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rejected Takeoff
While on the take off roll by day at speed around 100 kt with V1 as 143 kt, a large bird was seen crossing the aircraft's path. Immediately thereafter, a thud was heard followed by loud rumbling sound from the No.2 engine. The captain rejected the takeoff safely. Post flight inspection showed damamge to one blade which had to be changed. Was it right for the captain to have rejected the takeoff without checking the engine parameters?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: iNDIA
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Ya I feel the same but the air safety guys feel other wise. They feel unless the engine showed any signs of damage, no cognizance must be taken of the rumbling sound
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where ever the roster tells me.
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an ideal world we would only use the cockpit indications to make a decision.
So lets look at the other indications, large bird seen, a thud and then a rumbling. I think it would be a reasonable assumption that you had got the bird.
But if you are below V1 and your not happy then why not abort if you suspect that you have problem, better than getting away and having to come back one engine down.
So lets look at the other indications, large bird seen, a thud and then a rumbling. I think it would be a reasonable assumption that you had got the bird.
But if you are below V1 and your not happy then why not abort if you suspect that you have problem, better than getting away and having to come back one engine down.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YGBSM!!!
"The air safety guys" are yet again second-guessing the Captain's decision -- a decision very specifically left to him alone by regulators and the company policies. He makes that split-second decision, avoids further damage or injury, yet is still questioned on the decision.
Thta's why I have essentially NO FAITH AT ALL in corporate "air safety guys" -- they are puppets for bean counting mismanagers!
"The air safety guys" are yet again second-guessing the Captain's decision -- a decision very specifically left to him alone by regulators and the company policies. He makes that split-second decision, avoids further damage or injury, yet is still questioned on the decision.
Thta's why I have essentially NO FAITH AT ALL in corporate "air safety guys" -- they are puppets for bean counting mismanagers!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pondy - why not get the "air safety guys" to issue an instruction to all crew that "in the event of a suspected (large) bird strike before V1 with audible engine vibration but no instrument indications, the take-off is to be continued?"
That should sort the men from the boys and interest your insurers too
That should sort the men from the boys and interest your insurers too
Bottums Up
A large hawk flew into No4 on a BAe146 I was PF & PIC of a few years ago. It was the loudest bang I've heard in an aeroplane. The takeoff was rejected from about 80ish kts.
F/O Bloggs (not to be confused with Dunnunda's F/O Bloggs) said during the taxi back, "I checked the engine perameters and there was nothing abnormal. I would have continued."
On inspection one fan blade was bent through 90 degrees, blood & guts everywhere.
Our flight was to have been about 3.5 hours over the GAFA (Great Australian F&$% All) with very few close range alternate strips available.
IMHO, the human brain is not all that good at hearing a bang, scanning a swathe of instruments and making a determination that its go or no go, in the time available in your scenario. And, there's no time for a committee meeting to decide on the next course of action. There is no shame in rejecting a take-off
Big bang, I'm < V1 & can stop, stop.
F/O Bloggs (not to be confused with Dunnunda's F/O Bloggs) said during the taxi back, "I checked the engine perameters and there was nothing abnormal. I would have continued."
On inspection one fan blade was bent through 90 degrees, blood & guts everywhere.
Our flight was to have been about 3.5 hours over the GAFA (Great Australian F&$% All) with very few close range alternate strips available.
IMHO, the human brain is not all that good at hearing a bang, scanning a swathe of instruments and making a determination that its go or no go, in the time available in your scenario. And, there's no time for a committee meeting to decide on the next course of action. There is no shame in rejecting a take-off
Big bang, I'm < V1 & can stop, stop.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in the USA it is standard practice with most company SOP's to ALWAYS abort t/o for ANY "significant abnormality" under V1, especially given the circumstances of your scenario. In the time that it takes to evaluate engine instrumentation changes you could be much closer to your V1 speed resulting in a rejected t/o at a much higher speed. With adequate runway remaining, this would not be a problem. However, with a shorter accelerate/stop distance available, you could impose a very significant strain on the passengers (which of course is a high priority with most company SOP's). As I see it...your Captain made the right decision, he was thinking of the passengers, and did not break any regulatory guidlines in not waiting around for changes in the engine instrumentation.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Over there.
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lear35A_Jockey
Here in the USA it is standard practice with most company SOP's to ALWAYS abort t/o for ANY "significant abnormality" under V1,
why not get the "air safety guys" to issue an instruction to all crew that "in the event of a suspected (large) bird strike before V1 with audible engine vibration but no instrument indications, the take-off is to be continued?"
