Emirates B777 of the runway in Singapore
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must admit it does seem to be a habit of Air France pilots to play the awkard bugger card.
Of the GA'a I have seen at Man about 70% of them have been due to Air France not clearing 24R when crossing it.
And I have also seen them (a few times) accept a line up clearance and TO clearance to then sit there for 2 mins and when asked what they were doing say they haven't got cabin secured yet.
Of the GA'a I have seen at Man about 70% of them have been due to Air France not clearing 24R when crossing it.
And I have also seen them (a few times) accept a line up clearance and TO clearance to then sit there for 2 mins and when asked what they were doing say they haven't got cabin secured yet.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hotazel
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strepsils and Turtleneck hit the nail on the head.
In some places the ATC cannot give a land-after due to Gov. restrictions , even with high speed exits. The preceding aircraft must have vacated the active runway beyond the runway holding point of that specific taxiway before the next landing aircraft may be given a landing clearance. (I hope this is now clear enough for certain readers) AND my apologies for the spell error on the word "MOAN". It was late and I slipped.
Fact is, when given a take-off clearance, an aircraft is expected to line-up and take-off without delay. The same after landing. When slowed to controllable speed, an aircraft is expected to vacate a runway as soon as possible. In both cases however, the pilot must ascertain utmost caution to be in full control of his aircraft. If he/she cannot comply, he/she must inform ATC. But on so many occasions I have seen the aircraft comming to a virtually walking pace on the runway and hundreds of meters from the next exit. Being of the same frequency as all the other aviators, he/she then is "unaware" of what he/she is doing wrong by such a long runway occupancy. When aircraft is spaced 7nm appart on final, landing clearance can normally be given to the 2nd aircaft at 3-4nm final. If the spacing is reduced to 5nm, and the first aircraft over-utilize the runway, the 2nd aircraft will only receive the landing clearance at 1-2nm on final. Prefered distance is 3nm minimum.
I hope Rockhound will understand what I mean this time.
Regards
RE
PS. SAFE FLYING GUYS
In some places the ATC cannot give a land-after due to Gov. restrictions , even with high speed exits. The preceding aircraft must have vacated the active runway beyond the runway holding point of that specific taxiway before the next landing aircraft may be given a landing clearance. (I hope this is now clear enough for certain readers) AND my apologies for the spell error on the word "MOAN". It was late and I slipped.
Fact is, when given a take-off clearance, an aircraft is expected to line-up and take-off without delay. The same after landing. When slowed to controllable speed, an aircraft is expected to vacate a runway as soon as possible. In both cases however, the pilot must ascertain utmost caution to be in full control of his aircraft. If he/she cannot comply, he/she must inform ATC. But on so many occasions I have seen the aircraft comming to a virtually walking pace on the runway and hundreds of meters from the next exit. Being of the same frequency as all the other aviators, he/she then is "unaware" of what he/she is doing wrong by such a long runway occupancy. When aircraft is spaced 7nm appart on final, landing clearance can normally be given to the 2nd aircaft at 3-4nm final. If the spacing is reduced to 5nm, and the first aircraft over-utilize the runway, the 2nd aircraft will only receive the landing clearance at 1-2nm on final. Prefered distance is 3nm minimum.
I hope Rockhound will understand what I mean this time.
Regards
RE
PS. SAFE FLYING GUYS
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZZY AIRBORNE
Hot rumour is that this one was a high speed reject due to config warning. If so, this makes for an interesting debate. On one hand you shouldn't normally get the config warning coming on so late in the takeoff roll and on the other hand at 150 kts you don't have long to analyse the problem and act. I know everyone tries to be "go minded" these days but I reckon it would be hard to rip off someones epaulettes for stopping. Any views chaps and chapesses?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it all depends when v1 was. If V1 was 145kts then questions would have to be asked, 155kts and they made the right call.
This is complete speculation mind you, no idea what V1 actually was, if they rejected due to a fault would the fault have rendered the aircraft unflyable, did the fault affect their ability to stop? Hard to comment without more facts, but an RTO with an overrun has to fall mainly into two possible scenarios : 1) fault affecting performance or (2) Error or misjudgement.
Will be interesting to find out which it was in this case.
This is complete speculation mind you, no idea what V1 actually was, if they rejected due to a fault would the fault have rendered the aircraft unflyable, did the fault affect their ability to stop? Hard to comment without more facts, but an RTO with an overrun has to fall mainly into two possible scenarios : 1) fault affecting performance or (2) Error or misjudgement.
Will be interesting to find out which it was in this case.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth are you speculating that the take off may have been rejected above V1.
There was no overrun.
Shame on you for attempting to bring the crew into disrepute by suggestion.
There was no overrun.
Shame on you for attempting to bring the crew into disrepute by suggestion.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is always a good idea to mentally rehearse the RTO manoeuvre shortly before Take Off.
If you are fast enough on a dry runway, and use the space available to you, you walk away from it.
Taken into account that the performance boys did their job correctly
If you are fast enough on a dry runway, and use the space available to you, you walk away from it.
Taken into account that the performance boys did their job correctly
Last edited by Streamline; 27th Feb 2006 at 11:44.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plovdiv - Sorry, had been some days since I read the first page of posts, got side-tracked by the heading and thought the aircraft had run-off. Forgot this had been corrected on previous pages.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: AMS
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors to Automatic wrote:
"I wonder what the statistical probability is of experiencing an aborted take-off and a go-around in two consecutive flights?"
happened to me couple of years back...
KLM 737-800 landing in FCO from AMS aborted landing due to late vacating of A/C on RWY... as stated by the captain
two hours later...
Alitalia A321 FCO to ATH aborted T/O due to "faulty instrument reading caused by passengers using mobile phones" as stated by the captain...
"I wonder what the statistical probability is of experiencing an aborted take-off and a go-around in two consecutive flights?"
happened to me couple of years back...
KLM 737-800 landing in FCO from AMS aborted landing due to late vacating of A/C on RWY... as stated by the captain
two hours later...
Alitalia A321 FCO to ATH aborted T/O due to "faulty instrument reading caused by passengers using mobile phones" as stated by the captain...
