RTO At Schipol 26/05/05
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTO At Schipol this afternoon
Wondering if anybody has any information on KLM 737 rejected takeoff at Schipol this afternoon. My dad was on the flight and said everybody was pretty scared, but no reason other than "technical fault" was given. Sounds like they got the nosewheel off but then chopped the power and hit the brakes.
Anybody know anything more?
Cheers
ETC
Anybody know anything more?
Cheers
ETC
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Work associated address
Age: 41
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they got the nose wheel off then SURELY they would have been passed V1?? 
After which do the problems not get taken into the air and dealt with?
Regards
After which do the problems not get taken into the air and dealt with?Regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeh, i did try to argue with my dad about this one, that at that speed they would have had to get it up and sort it out later, but he seems convinced that the nosewheel was lifted.
Mind you, hes not a pilot, so perhaps he was mistaken?
Would the KLM pilots operating the flight care to explain?
ETC
Mind you, hes not a pilot, so perhaps he was mistaken?
Would the KLM pilots operating the flight care to explain?
ETC
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
There have been examples of a/c rejecting t/o after V1 where there is an over-abundance of runway left but I've never heard of one after Vr.
Was the observation about the nosewheel from outside or inside the a/c? Unless you have a very strong visual reference, accelleration gives a compelling feeling of rotation. Try not looking out of the window next time you're a pax and feel what your semi-circular canals are doing to you!
Cheers,
The Odd One
Was the observation about the nosewheel from outside or inside the a/c? Unless you have a very strong visual reference, accelleration gives a compelling feeling of rotation. Try not looking out of the window next time you're a pax and feel what your semi-circular canals are doing to you!
Cheers,
The Odd One
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No major revelation from me, but as a KLM pilot I can only state that a rejection after V1 is counter to everything that we cover in our training. Doing so on any sim session gives you a ticket home until retraining.
This RTO was apparently at high speed, this is rare in itself. The tremendous deceleration that you experience could give the impression that the nose is being put “back” onto the runway. This might be what gave the sensation of a pitch down, and the conclusion that the nose had lifted-off. I am sure that we will hear more in the coming days.
Regards O.
This RTO was apparently at high speed, this is rare in itself. The tremendous deceleration that you experience could give the impression that the nose is being put “back” onto the runway. This might be what gave the sensation of a pitch down, and the conclusion that the nose had lifted-off. I am sure that we will hear more in the coming days.
Regards O.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree that nosewheel off the ground was unlikely in this case (as with 99.99% of RTOs) but don't forget the commander can still use his absolute discretion to go outside the standard procedures in any event he sees fit (with the natural accountability attached).
In the case of RTO after V1/Vr this would clearly have to be an extreme situation; the commander would have to be certain that continuing the takeoff was the less safe (or impossible) option.
Apart from failure of all engines or nil flight control response, I can't think of a reason it would be justified.
Again in this particular situation I doubt anything like that happened, the sensation was probably what suggested the nosewheel had left the ground.
In the case of RTO after V1/Vr this would clearly have to be an extreme situation; the commander would have to be certain that continuing the takeoff was the less safe (or impossible) option.
Apart from failure of all engines or nil flight control response, I can't think of a reason it would be justified.
Again in this particular situation I doubt anything like that happened, the sensation was probably what suggested the nosewheel had left the ground.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge, the only successful re-land immediately after airborne was the HS748 at Stansted in 1998. I have stopped in a jet at about 2 knots before V1 and can confirm that the pitch sensation in your ears doesn't necessarily match what you can see (and I was looking forward out the window at the time!)
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cm...pdf_502888.pdf
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cm...pdf_502888.pdf
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone taken the time to consider that, if the nosewheel had indeed left the ground as suggested, it could have been a trim/loading issue and therefore does not have to be anywhere near V1.
If not looking outside, or on instruments, acceleration can fool one's inner into believing that one is rotating or climbing. I don't remember the name for this illusion . 
A (US) Part 135 aircraft, such as a light twin, is not required to maintain a positive climb after rotation, following an engine failure+gear retratcion etc.
Years ago, A Skyways Metro (II, or III?) Captain reportedly lost an engine during rotation at LIT, jerked both throttles to idle and lowered the nose to the ground. That plane would not have climbed near max takeoff weight, even with the failed engine's prop feathered and gear up at V2, according to former Swearingen Metro pilots. A (US) Part 121 plane is assumed to be able to maintain a required climb gradient of about 2.4% on runway heading, after gear retraction, assuming that the takeoff weight is accurate (within climb limit weight) with either flex or full thrust and with the correct takeoff flap settings at minimum speed of V2 etc .
A (US) Part 135 aircraft, such as a light twin, is not required to maintain a positive climb after rotation, following an engine failure+gear retratcion etc.
Years ago, A Skyways Metro (II, or III?) Captain reportedly lost an engine during rotation at LIT, jerked both throttles to idle and lowered the nose to the ground. That plane would not have climbed near max takeoff weight, even with the failed engine's prop feathered and gear up at V2, according to former Swearingen Metro pilots. A (US) Part 121 plane is assumed to be able to maintain a required climb gradient of about 2.4% on runway heading, after gear retraction, assuming that the takeoff weight is accurate (within climb limit weight) with either flex or full thrust and with the correct takeoff flap settings at minimum speed of V2 etc .
Last edited by Ignition Override; 27th May 2005 at 04:23.
Psychophysiological entity
but don't forget the commander can still use his absolute discretion to go outside the standard procedures in any event he sees fit (with the natural accountability attached).
If you take a sick airplane into the air–with a mile of clear concrete ahead of you–just cos of a paragraph in a book, it is questionable who is the commander.
I expect a lot of flack.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wont get any from me Loose Rivets. My company procedures say for the single engine case ( for example) 'land as soon as practicable'.
I like the idea of doing it on the runway in front of me if I can see it..........
I like the idea of doing it on the runway in front of me if I can see it..........
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an incident at Pisa a few years ago, think it was a GB 737 which aborted takeoff after V1.
Apparently the cause was the Captain calling 'Stop' instead of 'Rotate', for no apparent reason, which the F/O duly did. It was actually pretty dangerous and there was very little runway left by the time they stopped.
A friend was pax on this flight and they were told there had been a 'warning light' in the cockpit.
Apparently the cause was the Captain calling 'Stop' instead of 'Rotate', for no apparent reason, which the F/O duly did. It was actually pretty dangerous and there was very little runway left by the time they stopped.
A friend was pax on this flight and they were told there had been a 'warning light' in the cockpit.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another case I know, a long long time ago, a Sabena 737-200, taking-off 25R in BRU,
VR+..., immediate stick shaker, commander chopped the trust levers, brakes and vacated end of runway.
Inquiries showed slats/flaps not deployed
Altough brilliant RTO technique, crew had some hard time explaining
VR+..., immediate stick shaker, commander chopped the trust levers, brakes and vacated end of runway.
Inquiries showed slats/flaps not deployed
Altough brilliant RTO technique, crew had some hard time explaining
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside a major Airbus (A319/A320) operator out of LHR regularly has V1/Vr splits when using its automated performance calculation software. Whilst I am fully aware of the meaning of V1 - I would be amazed if a normally laden A319/320 couldn't complete a full stop from almost any speed up to Vr! (out of LHR) The scary thing is - if you ask anyone about this, the usual answer is 'Airbus performance - I've never understood it!' 
Last edited by Sean Dell; 27th May 2005 at 20:11.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopping after V1 is light aircraft stuff
99% in SH Ops a "stop V1" would be VR + 30K/40K/50K... but as alluded to above, in a "certain" LHR operator, the same aircraft will have a V1/VR split of, say 115K/122K one day, and for identical conditions no split at 145K the next day....
It's a pretty poor pilot who would fail to understand that, and would in every circumstance "continue" at 118K having used up about 3000' of a dry 12000' runway.
Even LH Ops rarely operate to a Genuine Balanced Field... Flt Crew, esp LHS, are paid to take the odd decision for situations the book does not cover