Kalitta B747 209F overrun EBBR 2505 2008

[WhalePFE]

Whether the stop margin was 800+ feet or zero, they still did not depart with less runway than their performance calculations allowed. Even with a zero stop margin, the aircraft was still calculated to be able to lose the engine at V1 (or later) and continue the takeoff. They did not takeoff with insufficient runway.

Not true! Intersection B1 gave them about 9100'. TOLD was figured for 9800 feet. Definately a contributing factor.

[TowerDog]

Pretty much the same thing happened here:

B-747 aborts after V-1, Capt "forget" to use thrust reversers.

The # 1 engine was overhauled by Konnie's folks and came apart right at V-1.

The Tradewinds plane departed the end of the runway at 80 or 90 knots.

YouTube - Tradewinds Boeing 747 Rejected Takeoff Crash

[SNS3Guppy]

It's former title (same owner and management), American International, yup, sure do.
With a very few exceptions, I have never seen so many misfits gathered together in one company.

Old news, old company, and in other words, you know nothing about whence you speak. Further, few of those "misfits" are employed at the current company, meaning your "information" is outdated and without credibility.

Not true! Intersection B1 gave them about 9100'. TOLD was figured for 9800 feet. Definately a contributing factor.

Not at all. If the stop margin were zero, it wouldn't be a contributing factor, if the captain followed his own brief and continued the takeoff. The problem wasn't too little runway, and it certainly wasn't less runway than calculated for takeoff. Certainly there was less stop margin than calculated, but the fact is that enough runway lay ahead to either reject the takeoff or continue it...if abiding the principle of no rejects above V1.

When the calculations were made, no consideration was given (and never is) to a rejected takeoff beyond V1...consequently the additional stop margin is irrelevant in light of poor decision making and poor actions on the part of the captain. Seven seconds after the time to reject the takeoff had passed before the captain rejected the takeoff, and at that point, had he available that extra stop margin, it still wouldn't have mattered.

[411A]

...if the captain followed his own brief and continued the takeoff.

Which he did not.

...in light of poor decision making and poor actions on the part of the captain.

Looks like some of the misfits are still present.
Why are we not surprised?
The Connie leopard does not change its spots.

[SNS3Guppy]

Rather a broad brush with which you paint, given you know not whence you speak. If you had worked there recently, you might have some credence...but you speak about a company which no longer exists. Shame that you live in the past.

[Air1980]

Don't worry SNS3, old man 411A seeks to opine on everything, all the time.

[WhalePFE]

In addition to starting the T/O Roll 700' farther down, the TOLD card was figured with a full reduced setting. If you rerun the numbers minus the 700' it requires a MAX thrust setting.

[JamesA]

Towerdog,
My information is that Ck does not overhaul Q motors. They are outsourced to another company.

[CR2]

Strange one... well under MTOW. -Q motors (I always understood to be pretty powerful) "fake" 820K LBS a/c limitation (833K with gear mods). 690K actual TOW....WHY reject? I have read the report and still can't figure it out. 20/20 hindsight etc, but FFS this was a birdstrike affecting one engine after/at (+- depending on point of view) V1. Its a "GO" situation.... errr.... right????

[lomapaseo]

Towerdog,
My information is that Ck does not overhaul Q motors. They are outsourced to another company.

agree, nor would it be significant unless directly in the causal chain

hopefully we can stick to the factual report in this accident

[TowerDog]

Towerdog,
My information is that Ck does not overhaul Q motors. They are outsourced to another company.

Now perhaps, but 2 or 3 years ago I had numerous comprssor stalls on Q engines over hauled by Connie's boys.

It sure was a factor in Medein and perhaps in Bogota, not so in Brussels perhaps if indeed a bird ingestion was the primary cause of the failure.

agree, nor would it be significant unless directly in the causal chain

On the other hand the PIC was spooked from earlier engine problems or compressor stalls and decided to abort after V1..Wonder who overhauled those engines?

[sb_sfo]

Different company?

Rather a broad brush with which you paint, given you know not whence you speak. If you had worked there recently, you might have some credence...but you speak about a company which no longer exists. Shame that you live in the past.

SNS3Guppy- are you saying that since they started buying used JAL airplanes, they are going to start maintaining (not to mention flying) them correctly? They have just about run out of the ex-China airplanes, haven't they?

[SNS3Guppy]

I said nothing about JAL or China, thanks. Kindly put words in your own mouth.

[411A]

The sad fact is, sb_sfo, that although the name of the company changed, the folks in charge, and some of the misfits they hired, did not.
Connie seems to attract those who just simply do not have the professional ability to operate within the bounds of what others would consider...reasonable.
The BRU accident proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.
The sad fact is... the few rather competant folks there were totally overshadowed by those that were substandard in their operating ability.
Once again, the BRU accident proved this quite conclusively.

[SNS3Guppy]

Once again, the BRU accident proved this quite conclusively.

If you mean that the EBBR incident proved that you're going by ancient misguided information and that you don't know what it is you're talking about, then perhaps so...but an aircraft didnt' need to be lost to prove that.

The actions of one man do not a company make, and his actions are most certainly not what is taught by the company, nor is the company lax in it's teaching and application of the rejected takeoff in training. Further, it's not what the captain himself briefed.

Really you have no solid ground on which to stand, save for has-been memories of something you know not. Perhaps if your experiences were recent in any way, shape or form, and you were not living in the past, your commentary might have some relevancy. Alas, it does not.

[lomapaseo]

Tower Dog

On the other hand the PIC was spooked from earlier engine problems or compressor stalls and decided to abort after V1..Wonder who overhauled those engines?

hang in there we probably can find a link eventually

[TowerDog]

hang in there we probably can find a link eventually

Aye, don't go looking too hard, but you mentioned:

agree, nor would it be significant unless directly in the causal chain

My point, if I have to explain..Guess I do:

Poorly overhauled engines have caused accidents..

[cactusbusdrvr]

That was a very thorough report. Although the crew thought that the runway was dry they had set the numbers for a wet runway, they were still good even at the intersection.

A lot of factors should have led to a "go" decision. Rather than dwell on how the captain screwed up (or didn't, if that's what you prefer) we should take this report and reflect ourselves how we would handle this situation. Reports are there to learn lessons from, not place blame.

[Sleeping Freight Dog]

Also what can't be ignored, is the fact that the thrust reversers were
not deployed, contrary to the the stated requirements of the company
procedures??? or is there an unwritten rule some where that reversers
are not deployed with a suspected engine failure??

[TowerDog]

or is there an unwritten rule some where that reversers
are not deployed with a suspected engine failure??

NO...

Full reverse on anything before V-1.