747 Crash At Brussels
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a 747 pilot, but is V1 not the mark where you go anyway and do not abort?
V1 is a decision speed.Before it you can stop.After V1 you have to continue.
However, and I am not saying they had "lost" 2 engines, but V1 as a Go Speed only relates to failure of 1 engine. If you have 2 engines fail, or even one and a bit
just post V1, then the ensuing accident is likely to be far worse / higher speed by continuing rather than attempting to stop 
The press quote above appears to indicate failure / malfunctioning / problems with 2 engines post V1. That would not be in the book, so quotes such as the above from the book also do not apply
IMHO!
NoD
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
In wich "press quote" you read this ?
Not in this one I suppose ? (or you make a missinterpretation ...)
followed by another couple of seconds before decision
It's time ... no a other engine trouble.
So decision to abort was made after 4 + 2 = 6 seconds after V1 ... it's very long ... 6 seconds in term of distance at this speed.
Regards.
The press quote above appears to indicate failure / malfunctioning / problems with 2 engines post V1.
Not in this one I suppose ? (or you make a missinterpretation ...)
Acording to the Belgian press this evening, the investigation board has conluded to the ingestion of a prey bird by engine nr 3, about 4 sec after V1 followed by another couple of seconds before decision was made to abort with the known consequences.
It's time ... no a other engine trouble.
So decision to abort was made after 4 + 2 = 6 seconds after V1 ... it's very long ... 6 seconds in term of distance at this speed.
Regards.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NotPilotAtALL
Yes that was the "press quote", and I did caveat my post with "appears" etc.
As you say, it might be I misinterpreted the post and it means 2 "problems" with a single engine, or it could still mean 2 engines. It is after all a summary / leak of a much fuller report, so probably not worth extensively discussing without seeing that report.
Interesting this part of the statement
if it was made for a perceived single engine problem? It would then appear an "interesting" decision to say the least... An alternative issue could be confusion between cockpit crew members over 2 identified problems (e.g. surges?), but unsure if they related to the same or different engines?
If it was 2 engines, then 2 seconds to decide to reject after the second is a PDQ decision, given the exceptional circumstances...
NoD
Yes that was the "press quote", and I did caveat my post with "appears" etc.
As you say, it might be I misinterpreted the post and it means 2 "problems" with a single engine, or it could still mean 2 engines. It is after all a summary / leak of a much fuller report, so probably not worth extensively discussing without seeing that report.
Interesting this part of the statement
before decision was made to abort with the known consequences.
If it was 2 engines, then 2 seconds to decide to reject after the second is a PDQ decision, given the exceptional circumstances...
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sultan
That is a totally different issue. What is being discussed here is the decision making processes involved in rejecting a takeoff.
You have chosen to discuss an accident where 2 engines actually detached in flight causing structural damage to the wing.
That is a totally different issue. What is being discussed here is the decision making processes involved in rejecting a takeoff.
You have chosen to discuss an accident where 2 engines actually detached in flight causing structural damage to the wing.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: moonbase
Age: 55
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Swordsman,
V1 definition if my memory serves me correct is different between Boeing and Airbus.
Airbus says it's descision speed, Boeing on the other hand say it's the speed at which the first actions of a rejected take-off have already comenced (not sure about the exact wording), in other words the sh*t happening speed.
Stand to be corrected.
AUH
V1 definition if my memory serves me correct is different between Boeing and Airbus.
Airbus says it's descision speed, Boeing on the other hand say it's the speed at which the first actions of a rejected take-off have already comenced (not sure about the exact wording), in other words the sh*t happening speed.
Stand to be corrected.
AUH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to me the crew made the right decision.
The Sultan
The Sultan
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 54
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remind me how many died in this incident? How many died in the El Al crash at Schipol?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impractical reality
"It appears to me the crew made the right decision." The Sultan.
For some reason there is an alarming trend of RTOs after V1. Ditto the Tradewinds B742 abort at Rio Negro, Colombia; TWA L1011 at JFK, among others .
Perhaps due to a lack of training or lack of comprehension of demonstrated jet airplane performance over the past 48 years: These so called "experienced" captains who shouldn't be anywhere near an airplane to begin with, are trying to justify aborts after V1.
One of the universal training criteria practiced over and over in the simulator is for the captain to remove his paw from the thrust levers by V1 and to not even think about attempting to stop.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the universal training criteria practiced over and over in the simulator is for the captain to remove his paw from the thrust levers by V1 and to not even think about attempting to stop.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North America
Age: 43
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys and dolls, Ive got to chime in here. I not only have lots of experience flying the 747-100/200 but am also experienced in the 747-400. Also I have personal knowledge of 704CK as I have logged time in that very airframe.
This is the quick and dirty on "747 V1". Those of you who have defined V1 are mostly correct. However, there are a few items that need expanded on. First, a rejected takeoff is permitted after accelerating past V1 if in the opinion of the pilot that the aircraft is unable to fly. The issue with this is not can the aircraft be stopped it is can the aircraft be stopped on the runway. Most of the time the answer is no. As far as when the rejected takeoff procedure was begun during this accident, yes, it was slightly after V1 but I do believe that had the proper rejected takeoff procedure been applied that the a/c would have stopped.
Now, as far as "heavy jet" flying, I include in all of my departure briefings that once we accelerate above 80kts that we will only reject for an engine fire/failure or the failure of an outward opening door. The simple truth of heavy jet flying is that in most situations once you are above 80kts or the ( high speed ) part of the takeoff, that trying to stop the airplane is much more dangerous that attempting to takeoff.
A high speed rejected takeoff is in my opinion the single most dangerous maneuver we face as pilots. It puts the aircraft right up to its max. performance and unless the pilot executing the rejected takeoff is exactly perfect in every movement he makes, they usually do not end well.
As far as training for this, well we do it all the time. It is a corner stone of flying multi engine airplanes. This situation was not an issue of training or currency. It was a situation of bad judgment. We all train for these things for years and most of us go a career without ever experiencing a real life high speed reject. Every pilot and every person uses different criteria during their desicion making. In this case the Captain in his judgement made what he felt was the best choice at the time. Was it the wrong one? some may say yes but what he truly failed at was not following the correct reject procedure. ( Thrust reversers were NOT used).
This experience needs to be considered by all who fly such type aircraft. Consider what you would do in such a situation and try to learn from this. Fortunatly nobody was killed.
This is the quick and dirty on "747 V1". Those of you who have defined V1 are mostly correct. However, there are a few items that need expanded on. First, a rejected takeoff is permitted after accelerating past V1 if in the opinion of the pilot that the aircraft is unable to fly. The issue with this is not can the aircraft be stopped it is can the aircraft be stopped on the runway. Most of the time the answer is no. As far as when the rejected takeoff procedure was begun during this accident, yes, it was slightly after V1 but I do believe that had the proper rejected takeoff procedure been applied that the a/c would have stopped.
Now, as far as "heavy jet" flying, I include in all of my departure briefings that once we accelerate above 80kts that we will only reject for an engine fire/failure or the failure of an outward opening door. The simple truth of heavy jet flying is that in most situations once you are above 80kts or the ( high speed ) part of the takeoff, that trying to stop the airplane is much more dangerous that attempting to takeoff.
A high speed rejected takeoff is in my opinion the single most dangerous maneuver we face as pilots. It puts the aircraft right up to its max. performance and unless the pilot executing the rejected takeoff is exactly perfect in every movement he makes, they usually do not end well.
As far as training for this, well we do it all the time. It is a corner stone of flying multi engine airplanes. This situation was not an issue of training or currency. It was a situation of bad judgment. We all train for these things for years and most of us go a career without ever experiencing a real life high speed reject. Every pilot and every person uses different criteria during their desicion making. In this case the Captain in his judgement made what he felt was the best choice at the time. Was it the wrong one? some may say yes but what he truly failed at was not following the correct reject procedure. ( Thrust reversers were NOT used).
This experience needs to be considered by all who fly such type aircraft. Consider what you would do in such a situation and try to learn from this. Fortunatly nobody was killed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''The failure of an outward opening door''
Would you care to expand on that statement as to why you think that it's worthy of a full monty RTO for you? Given that the a/c flies perfectly well in this condition?
Would you care to expand on that statement as to why you think that it's worthy of a full monty RTO for you? Given that the a/c flies perfectly well in this condition?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add my two pence worth...
AUH is spot on - The stopping actions MUST have been initiated by V1 (See Boeing 747 training manual)
Glueball spot on - anyone who rejects a takeoff after V1 is stupid (The only exception being if there is absolutely no way it will fly!! Very rare indeed)
Cessna 120 - I agree with the exception that however "slightly" after V1, with all the will in the world you will not stop on the paved area on a balanced field departure (Basic rules of Performance A) 6 seconds, or whatever it might have been, is a lot of runway behind you!
Best regards
CL747 (current 747 jockey)
AUH is spot on - The stopping actions MUST have been initiated by V1 (See Boeing 747 training manual)
Glueball spot on - anyone who rejects a takeoff after V1 is stupid (The only exception being if there is absolutely no way it will fly!! Very rare indeed)
Cessna 120 - I agree with the exception that however "slightly" after V1, with all the will in the world you will not stop on the paved area on a balanced field departure (Basic rules of Performance A) 6 seconds, or whatever it might have been, is a lot of runway behind you!
Best regards
CL747 (current 747 jockey)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North America
Age: 43
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Id be happy to explain a little more. On the frieghter 747 we have three outward opening doors. The two lower lobe doors on the right lower side of the fuselage. ( these are the old "baggage compartment" areas from when it was a PAX airplane. There is also a very large outward opening door on the left rear side of the main deck. Per my aircraft flight manual this door is 120" (H) by 134" (L). These are classic numbers, oddly enough my -400 manual dosent say. I assume they are the same. Either way, its a pretty big door. When this door is in the open position it would be right in the midst of the airflow coming from the wing/wing root area. Should this door depart inflight I have no doubt it would contact the tail. Its size would be enough to render the aircraft un-flyable. I would much perfer to slide off the end of a runway (even in EBBR) then to fall out of the sky.
To my knowledge, ( someone correct me if im wrong) there are no cases of a 747 with a main deck cargo door open, flying. Lower lobe, perhaps but I could be wrong.
Would the aircraft fly with this door open? well consider that a fully loaded -400 is tipping the scales at around 870,000 pounds which would give us takeoff and climb speeds even with flaps at the takeoff position of around 200-220. ( assuming after takeoff we maintain what ever our flaps 10 or flaps 20 speed is) These speeds are different for each takeoff, current airport conditions and other variables. Would it fly? maybe, maybe not. I dont want to find out over a crowded city in europe. It all comes back to that judgement thing. Of the 747 operators on this board, what would each person do in this situation? I bet we would get alot of different ideas. For me? I dont want to be guessing during the moment of truth. If a door opens, I stop. Robotic perhaps but in my judgement, its correct. Just to be a bit more clear, if I have already rotated or was about to, well ****, I guess we are going flying and hope boeing makes a good strong door.. Each takeoff is different, the V1 - Vr spread may be 15 knots or better, Im going to think about this spread each time before we aver start engines. Having a plan in this kind of situation or at least having considered it is a far better way to play then to just wing it and hope.
Also, on some 747 freighters we have nose loading doors, in this case the entire nose of the aircraft is hinged and swings up to open. The system is virtually impossible to fail and open on takeoff but if it ever did, total catastrophy.
Just something to think about.
Cheers
Id be happy to explain a little more. On the frieghter 747 we have three outward opening doors. The two lower lobe doors on the right lower side of the fuselage. ( these are the old "baggage compartment" areas from when it was a PAX airplane. There is also a very large outward opening door on the left rear side of the main deck. Per my aircraft flight manual this door is 120" (H) by 134" (L). These are classic numbers, oddly enough my -400 manual dosent say. I assume they are the same. Either way, its a pretty big door. When this door is in the open position it would be right in the midst of the airflow coming from the wing/wing root area. Should this door depart inflight I have no doubt it would contact the tail. Its size would be enough to render the aircraft un-flyable. I would much perfer to slide off the end of a runway (even in EBBR) then to fall out of the sky.
To my knowledge, ( someone correct me if im wrong) there are no cases of a 747 with a main deck cargo door open, flying. Lower lobe, perhaps but I could be wrong.
Would the aircraft fly with this door open? well consider that a fully loaded -400 is tipping the scales at around 870,000 pounds which would give us takeoff and climb speeds even with flaps at the takeoff position of around 200-220. ( assuming after takeoff we maintain what ever our flaps 10 or flaps 20 speed is) These speeds are different for each takeoff, current airport conditions and other variables. Would it fly? maybe, maybe not. I dont want to find out over a crowded city in europe. It all comes back to that judgement thing. Of the 747 operators on this board, what would each person do in this situation? I bet we would get alot of different ideas. For me? I dont want to be guessing during the moment of truth. If a door opens, I stop. Robotic perhaps but in my judgement, its correct. Just to be a bit more clear, if I have already rotated or was about to, well ****, I guess we are going flying and hope boeing makes a good strong door.. Each takeoff is different, the V1 - Vr spread may be 15 knots or better, Im going to think about this spread each time before we aver start engines. Having a plan in this kind of situation or at least having considered it is a far better way to play then to just wing it and hope.
Also, on some 747 freighters we have nose loading doors, in this case the entire nose of the aircraft is hinged and swings up to open. The system is virtually impossible to fail and open on takeoff but if it ever did, total catastrophy.
Just something to think about.
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North America
Age: 43
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"slightly over V1" yep your correct, stopping on the usable runway is now an after thought but had this crew performed the correct procedure they wouldnt have almost parked at the train station.
I should have been more clear about what I meant.
I should have been more clear about what I meant.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this particular end of runway not seem ideal for an arresting bed? I'm not familiar with this airport, is there not room off of the departure end? It seems to me like if you were going to build one anywhere, this would be a prime candidate, it's not a field you're ploughing a furrow into.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North America
Age: 43
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never really thought about that, I dunno? They are installed at JFK and some over the over runs are very very short so I would think it could be done there too. All it takes is tax money!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Hearded on belgian TV RTBF (5 March 19H30 news)
Report to be delivered soon
From RTBF:
Pilot error main cause of the crash
Bird ingestion in one engine confirmed
Take off aborted with too much speed
6 seconds before maximum brake force
Reverser not used
Cockpit voice recorder shows pilots not concentrated on the take off duty.
Note: Same pilots have some problems with same plane week ago (engine problem)
Stdby for the release of a official report of investigation
Cheers.
Hearded on belgian TV RTBF (5 March 19H30 news)
Report to be delivered soon
From RTBF:
Pilot error main cause of the crash
Bird ingestion in one engine confirmed
Take off aborted with too much speed
6 seconds before maximum brake force
Reverser not used
Cockpit voice recorder shows pilots not concentrated on the take off duty.
Note: Same pilots have some problems with same plane week ago (engine problem)
Stdby for the release of a official report of investigation
Cheers.