RTO At Schipol 26/05/05
Would the KLM pilots operating the flight care to explain?
You are very naive if you believe that all professional pilots sit around chatting on PPRuNe everyday. A lot of pilots have either never heard of it or simply are not interested in taking part in it. The chances of the KLM crew involved reading this thread are very slim.
SW
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The go/no go decision based on a calculated V1 is a solid certainty. If you take it in to your own head that you can do better at evaluating the stopping performance of a medium or large airliner after V1 than the aircraft manufacturer then surely you must all have brains the size of planets. Ok so you have a long runway and there is plenty of it left what criteria are you now going to use to decide how late you can land back on and stop? Just the fact that it still "looks" ok? What happens when you get it back on the deck with less than landing flap at greater than max landing mass. Will the speedbrake work automatically? will the autobrakes work? You'd have to have a cast iron reason for believing your jet won't fly if you continue.
If you continue after V1 and it all goes pear shaped then at least you will have followed a pre thought out practiced, trained for and legal course of action. If you act counter to all your training and approved procedures and it all goes wrong then the personal consequences don't bear thinking about. By the time they had finished with you, you would wish you had died in the accident. And if you had died in the accident then your familly would forever curse your memory.
If you continue after V1 and it all goes pear shaped then at least you will have followed a pre thought out practiced, trained for and legal course of action. If you act counter to all your training and approved procedures and it all goes wrong then the personal consequences don't bear thinking about. By the time they had finished with you, you would wish you had died in the accident. And if you had died in the accident then your familly would forever curse your memory.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if you have a double engine failure - would you continue? Or a gear failure? I am sure the manufacturer has not taken the performance of the wing dragging along the runway into consideration.
Stopping from V1 is NOT a cast iron certainty, it does not take into account a number of things that might happen. It is a calculated speed based on a number of factors and is a best guess. The Emerald guy got away with it by landing back after V1, others haven't. V1 is a great tool, but it is just that, a tool. There is sometimes no certainty at all and the obvious descision is not always the best. Almost all of the time continue after V1, just occasionally, stopping is the safest option.
I absolutely hate the "must cover my back" attitude. My attitude is "must do what is safe and sensible", the arguing in court comes much later. I don't think of lawyers and management, I think of my little pink body and those behind me.
Stopping from V1 is NOT a cast iron certainty, it does not take into account a number of things that might happen. It is a calculated speed based on a number of factors and is a best guess. The Emerald guy got away with it by landing back after V1, others haven't. V1 is a great tool, but it is just that, a tool. There is sometimes no certainty at all and the obvious descision is not always the best. Almost all of the time continue after V1, just occasionally, stopping is the safest option.
I absolutely hate the "must cover my back" attitude. My attitude is "must do what is safe and sensible", the arguing in court comes much later. I don't think of lawyers and management, I think of my little pink body and those behind me.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tightcircuit...
Thank you for the holier than thou attitude
There are many potential Emergencies or situations one might face... and only some of them are practiced in the Sim, or even listed in the QRH / ECAM.
V1 is applicable to one and only one of those emergencies - that of a single engine failure. At and above V1 and with EO you can continue according to Perf Calcs. Below and at V1 you can stop.
Nothing says that below V1 you cannot continue (alright, VMCG), and nothing says that above V1 you cannot stop (OK - below VMBE). You might be able to do this, you might not...
An L1011 at JFK "landed back on" after getting airborne. All walked away, but not the jet
A totally untrained for and unpracticed scenario, but the crew did what they felt was right. In the event, a false stick shaker / stall warning - but as I say, untrained for.
If you the automaton you sound like, what would you have done? The equally trained response to a stick shaker which was to push out of the stall?
I am quite clear that it is very unlikely that I will act "outside" of the conventional V1 approach. I am also quite clear that there are certain situations where a different course of action might be required.
Now, can you just confirm, that for a lighweight A319 at LHR (12,000'!) at 120K (V1 118K) you would "continue" for any problem(s), including catastrophic damage? Aircraft refusal to rotate (full backstick)?
Thank you for the holier than thou attitude
There are many potential Emergencies or situations one might face... and only some of them are practiced in the Sim, or even listed in the QRH / ECAM.
V1 is applicable to one and only one of those emergencies - that of a single engine failure. At and above V1 and with EO you can continue according to Perf Calcs. Below and at V1 you can stop.
Nothing says that below V1 you cannot continue (alright, VMCG), and nothing says that above V1 you cannot stop (OK - below VMBE). You might be able to do this, you might not...
An L1011 at JFK "landed back on" after getting airborne. All walked away, but not the jet
A totally untrained for and unpracticed scenario, but the crew did what they felt was right. In the event, a false stick shaker / stall warning - but as I say, untrained for.If you the automaton you sound like, what would you have done? The equally trained response to a stick shaker which was to push out of the stall?
I am quite clear that it is very unlikely that I will act "outside" of the conventional V1 approach. I am also quite clear that there are certain situations where a different course of action might be required.
Now, can you just confirm, that for a lighweight A319 at LHR (12,000'!) at 120K (V1 118K) you would "continue" for any problem(s), including catastrophic damage? Aircraft refusal to rotate (full backstick)?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky Wave - do note however that some pilots who operate these flights do look on here ... in Dec 03, I got a PM from the pilot who operated my flight to RAK, on which we had an emergency landing in Nantes ... he answered some of my points in my post, so you never know if they are reading this or not.
Jordan
Jordan
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the words Jetsteam Rider. "You'd have to have a cast iron reason for believing your jet won't fly if you continue" seems to cover your point of view. Cover my back doesn't come in to it. The philosophy behind using a V1 is that the consideration about whether it is safe to stop or continue takes place when you have the time and capacity to do it properly. It was introduced precisely to prevent the dangerous sort of actions you seem to be advocating. It is primarily concerned of course with the failure of one power unit but covers most other eventualities as well, apart from as mentioned above. Stopping for any other reason above V1 would constitute negligence. IE not safe and defiinitly not sensible
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Age: 43
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there seems to be some confusion as to what V1 actually is.
It is the speed that if exceeded, and the critical engine is lost, the aircraft will be capable of climbing.
Any failure other than engine loss which will result in an RTO is only referenced to V1.
It is the speed that if exceeded, and the critical engine is lost, the aircraft will be capable of climbing.
Any failure other than engine loss which will result in an RTO is only referenced to V1.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel I seem to have been posting at the same time as you. No I am not an automaton and your examples seem to be covered by my other posts too.
What would you opinion of the L1011 crew been if all the passengers had been badly damaged as well as the ship? It could have gone either way and they would all have died for the sake a false warning! Yes you can pull out examples where you would obviously get away with it but for those of us who rarely have the luxury of 13000ft of runway it is just a foolish notion. I stand by my argument that the concept of V1 was introduced precisely to sheild us from having to make dodgy decisions at an inappropriate time. For any eventuality, except perhaps fire, where the aircraft will fly then it is better to get it airbourne so that the eventual arrival can be in a properly considered and planned fashion having taken time to work out all the possible implications.
OK so now I will get bombarded with a pile of unlikely scenarios trying to prove the opposite but just consider that far greater minds than ours have already worked through all this sort of stuff and the principle of V1 is the result of their deliberations.
What would you opinion of the L1011 crew been if all the passengers had been badly damaged as well as the ship? It could have gone either way and they would all have died for the sake a false warning! Yes you can pull out examples where you would obviously get away with it but for those of us who rarely have the luxury of 13000ft of runway it is just a foolish notion. I stand by my argument that the concept of V1 was introduced precisely to sheild us from having to make dodgy decisions at an inappropriate time. For any eventuality, except perhaps fire, where the aircraft will fly then it is better to get it airbourne so that the eventual arrival can be in a properly considered and planned fashion having taken time to work out all the possible implications.
OK so now I will get bombarded with a pile of unlikely scenarios trying to prove the opposite but just consider that far greater minds than ours have already worked through all this sort of stuff and the principle of V1 is the result of their deliberations.
Defenition of V1:
If you decide to stop the airplane before you have reached V1, you will succeed, since you have enough runway ahead of you for the deceleration.
If you are going faster than V1 and you decide to continue despite the fact that you have lost one engine, you will succeed and not crash...
In this case, with one engine, you will have reached at least:
a.) 15 feet clearance at the end of the runway if it is wet,
b.) 35 feet clearance at the end of the runway if it is dry, or
c.) more than 35 feet if you have all engines operating.
Keep in mind that as an airplane approaches V1, you have to become more and more go-minded as your speed increases. In other words, you need a @*&X* good reason to stop at or just before V1. In most cases it is safer to continue and start flying and sort it out later....
And for these split second decisions pilots are paid what they are paid....
If you decide to stop the airplane before you have reached V1, you will succeed, since you have enough runway ahead of you for the deceleration.
If you are going faster than V1 and you decide to continue despite the fact that you have lost one engine, you will succeed and not crash...
In this case, with one engine, you will have reached at least:
a.) 15 feet clearance at the end of the runway if it is wet,
b.) 35 feet clearance at the end of the runway if it is dry, or
c.) more than 35 feet if you have all engines operating.
Keep in mind that as an airplane approaches V1, you have to become more and more go-minded as your speed increases. In other words, you need a @*&X* good reason to stop at or just before V1. In most cases it is safer to continue and start flying and sort it out later....
And for these split second decisions pilots are paid what they are paid....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tightcircuit...
I suspect we are not too far apart...
I am not saying the L1011 crew acted "correctly" - there are such situations where they acted in a "reasonable manner" but with 20:20 hindsight it wasn't the best decision.
I cannot recall the exact events, but not only were they getting, as they got airborne, the full stall warnings (more than just a light, but probably some of lights, hooters, stick shakers even pushers!), put the HP felt the aircraft was "not performing". I think he was incorrect, but the incorrect assessment, in light of the warnings, is understandable. Funny old thing - much publicity and a Sim check incorporating a false stall warning introduced after the accident...
Now, a few of the infamous flaps not selected accidents might not have resulted in the same level of fatalities had the guys "aborted"...
A debate that can go on and on...
I suspect we are not too far apart...
What would you opinion of the L1011 crew been if all the passengers had been badly damaged as well as the ship? It could have gone either way and they would all have died for the sake a false warning!
I cannot recall the exact events, but not only were they getting, as they got airborne, the full stall warnings (more than just a light, but probably some of lights, hooters, stick shakers even pushers!), put the HP felt the aircraft was "not performing". I think he was incorrect, but the incorrect assessment, in light of the warnings, is understandable. Funny old thing - much publicity and a Sim check incorporating a false stall warning introduced after the accident...
Now, a few of the infamous flaps not selected accidents might not have resulted in the same level of fatalities had the guys "aborted"...
A debate that can go on and on...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tightcircuit - so tell me how it is negligent to continue with an undercarriage failure. Or blocked elevator. Would you shout continue as the first offier shouted stop and you sailed off the end of the runway?
Blocked elevator is not that hard to imagine, perhaps with inadequate de-icing (in which case a low V1 is likely due to conditions), or re frozen deice fluid. What about undercarriage failure on one side? These are not beyond the realms of possibility.
Far greater minds than us? What, like the physicists in the 20th centurary who were adamant about the structure of the atom until they changed their minds.
If you are not concerned about lawyers, who do you mention "legal course of action".
I cannot understand how you cannot see that SOME, albeit rare emergencies require you to stop.
What if the passengers in the L1011 had died - would the crew be critiscised for continuing? Or would they be at fault like the crew of the 737 that went into the Potomac who in hindsight should have stopped. At the time we do not have the luxury of time for making the descision, but saying NEVER stop after V1, is in itself negligent and totally misunderstands the job we have.
I am not advocating stopping above V1 unless the circumstances really do mean it is better. What I am not saying, is NEVER stop after V1. They are different things.
Blocked elevator is not that hard to imagine, perhaps with inadequate de-icing (in which case a low V1 is likely due to conditions), or re frozen deice fluid. What about undercarriage failure on one side? These are not beyond the realms of possibility.
Far greater minds than us? What, like the physicists in the 20th centurary who were adamant about the structure of the atom until they changed their minds.
If you are not concerned about lawyers, who do you mention "legal course of action".
I cannot understand how you cannot see that SOME, albeit rare emergencies require you to stop.
What if the passengers in the L1011 had died - would the crew be critiscised for continuing? Or would they be at fault like the crew of the 737 that went into the Potomac who in hindsight should have stopped. At the time we do not have the luxury of time for making the descision, but saying NEVER stop after V1, is in itself negligent and totally misunderstands the job we have.
I am not advocating stopping above V1 unless the circumstances really do mean it is better. What I am not saying, is NEVER stop after V1. They are different things.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel I do not believe we are far apart at all.
Jetstream on the other hand, cannot get to grips with the idea that his examples are exactly the sort of cast iron reasons where I agree you would have no choice but to stop. Banging head and brick wall springs to mind!
Oh and by the way, in hindsight you could argue that the 737 Ptomac crew should have stopped but it would have been from a speed well below V1 Vr. They could also have recognised the lack of power, applied more of it and continued. If I remember correctly they didn't know how much snow they had on the wings or didn't understand the effect it would have. They should certainly have understood the effect of trying to get airbourne with insufficient power and they had bags of it to spare if only they had pushed the thrust levers forward. It works both ways.
Jetstream on the other hand, cannot get to grips with the idea that his examples are exactly the sort of cast iron reasons where I agree you would have no choice but to stop. Banging head and brick wall springs to mind!
Oh and by the way, in hindsight you could argue that the 737 Ptomac crew should have stopped but it would have been from a speed well below V1 Vr. They could also have recognised the lack of power, applied more of it and continued. If I remember correctly they didn't know how much snow they had on the wings or didn't understand the effect it would have. They should certainly have understood the effect of trying to get airbourne with insufficient power and they had bags of it to spare if only they had pushed the thrust levers forward. It works both ways.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 28th May 2005 at 18:51.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so it seems we are saying the same things. Forgive me though for being confused where you wrote:
"[V1] was introduced precisely to prevent the dangerous sort of actions you seem to be advocating"
"Stopping for any other reason above V1 would constitute negligence."
Especially the last sentence. I was not advocating dangerous actions either, I was advocating safe ones. IE stop when it is safer than to continue. Bog standard engine failure - keep going!
Its true what you say about Potomac, but the point is there - critisiscm is not always as objective as we would like. The DC-10 where the pilot reduced to V2 and lost control is another example of where following strict rules actually hindered. As is the Comet accident where the nose was raised unknowingly too early. Rules are for our guidance, on the day things may well dictate another course of action.
"[V1] was introduced precisely to prevent the dangerous sort of actions you seem to be advocating"
"Stopping for any other reason above V1 would constitute negligence."
Especially the last sentence. I was not advocating dangerous actions either, I was advocating safe ones. IE stop when it is safer than to continue. Bog standard engine failure - keep going!
Its true what you say about Potomac, but the point is there - critisiscm is not always as objective as we would like. The DC-10 where the pilot reduced to V2 and lost control is another example of where following strict rules actually hindered. As is the Comet accident where the nose was raised unknowingly too early. Rules are for our guidance, on the day things may well dictate another course of action.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, yes sorry Jetstream if my original post was not clear. I was just becoming frustrated at people apparently challenging a well established tried and tested principle because it seems they think they know better. Yes I believe in the end we agree but I still think you need to keep half an eye on those lawyers. They'll get you if they can you know!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fair enough. Tried and tested principle it is and very powerful too. We must be careful to be guided rather than bound though.
I know (some) lawyers are out to get us - my philosophy remains that I do things for the right reasons though. Just because I could get away with something in court doesn't mean its right!
I know (some) lawyers are out to get us - my philosophy remains that I do things for the right reasons though. Just because I could get away with something in court doesn't mean its right!
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be very difficult to prove a pilot negligent for taking off with a problem after V1, ie following the standard safety procedures drilled into them time and again in training.
It would of course be far easier to prove negligence if a pilot rejected takeoff above V1 even though he was using his discretion in a split second judgment that he decided was likely to save lives.
I've always wondered what was going through the mind of the poor Paris Concorde Captain. It seems to me things would have been very different if he had rejected takeoff past V1, even if that meant throwing the rule book out of the window and over-shooting the end of the runway.
Swissair 111 provides another example of where rigid observance of the rules can be catastrophic, and in my view proves that pilots should be encouraged to use their discretion, and protected by their employers and the law where their actions are reasonable.
It would of course be far easier to prove negligence if a pilot rejected takeoff above V1 even though he was using his discretion in a split second judgment that he decided was likely to save lives.
I've always wondered what was going through the mind of the poor Paris Concorde Captain. It seems to me things would have been very different if he had rejected takeoff past V1, even if that meant throwing the rule book out of the window and over-shooting the end of the runway.
Swissair 111 provides another example of where rigid observance of the rules can be catastrophic, and in my view proves that pilots should be encouraged to use their discretion, and protected by their employers and the law where their actions are reasonable.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was led to believe that Swissair 111 wouldn't have made the runway even if they'd expedited an emergency descent from the very moment the smoke appeared, stand to be corrected though...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEDGE....
"Pilots should be encouraged to use their discretion...."
Yes and No....
This is dangerous thinking.... 99.9 % of the time the reaction that is required has been thought out and trained for well in advance and proved over time and experience... there will always be the exception ... and it's tough on those who experience it, but sticking to the training manual will extricate you from the problem on far more occasions than it will kill you...
when very little time is available to come up with the solution it's generally better to go the way of the manual....
"Pilots should be encouraged to use their discretion...."
Yes and No....
This is dangerous thinking.... 99.9 % of the time the reaction that is required has been thought out and trained for well in advance and proved over time and experience... there will always be the exception ... and it's tough on those who experience it, but sticking to the training manual will extricate you from the problem on far more occasions than it will kill you...
when very little time is available to come up with the solution it's generally better to go the way of the manual....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the L1011 mentioned, it was a TWA aircraft, First Officer flying, and the stick shaker started just after rotation.
The F/O handed the acft to the Commander, and he elected to land, rather than continue.
All they had to do was switch off the number two channel of the stall warning, as the acft was perfectly flyable, only a KNOWN problem with this acft, as it had been previously noted in the acft log...and not properly fixed, of course.
All pax and crew walked away, thanks to a very alert cabin crew.
Regarding stopping on the runway well after V1, an SV B737-200 experienced an engine fire warning at DOH years ago, after the acft was just airbourne.
The Commander elected to land and stop, as there was plenty of runway to do so....15,000 feet at DOH.
Management supported his decision, after discussion, of course.
The Manager Flying at the time was very understanding, it appears.
The F/O handed the acft to the Commander, and he elected to land, rather than continue.
All they had to do was switch off the number two channel of the stall warning, as the acft was perfectly flyable, only a KNOWN problem with this acft, as it had been previously noted in the acft log...and not properly fixed, of course.
All pax and crew walked away, thanks to a very alert cabin crew.
Regarding stopping on the runway well after V1, an SV B737-200 experienced an engine fire warning at DOH years ago, after the acft was just airbourne.
The Commander elected to land and stop, as there was plenty of runway to do so....15,000 feet at DOH.
Management supported his decision, after discussion, of course.
The Manager Flying at the time was very understanding, it appears.
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take your point, Mungo. That's where the problem lies I suppose, but there has to be a point where a problem after V1 is so serious that to take it into the air is suicidal, as it was sadly with the Concorde, and it really is better to throw to rule book out of the window.
Usually the decision has to be taken in a split second and it's impossible to know whether or not it's the right one, but if a pilot's action is considered reasonable under all the circumstances I think the use of discretion should be protected.
Usually the decision has to be taken in a split second and it's impossible to know whether or not it's the right one, but if a pilot's action is considered reasonable under all the circumstances I think the use of discretion should be protected.