Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Kiwi B777 burst 12 tyres in aborted takeoff at NRT

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Kiwi B777 burst 12 tyres in aborted takeoff at NRT

Old 15th Feb 2010, 16:20
  #81 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by slamer
What we call an FE the Americans call a SO
What we call an SO the Americans call a cruise pilot

Maybe thats where the confusion lays
Originally Posted by JW111
Well, when I flew in the USA, we had FEs AND SOs. The FEs were professional flight engineers and the SOs were second officer pilots peforming at the FE's panel while waiting to get into the right hand seat.
Yes, that's what I meant. We had "S/O's" as well, who managed the panel at the back until we sold our DC8's, B727's, L1011's a very long time ago now and everybody got a window seat and we flew long-haul overseas with just two pilots on the B767 for the long time until the notions of "augment pilot", and "cruise relief pilot" were introduced in Canada and which were fought tooth-and-nail against by one carrier - another thread for another day. The CRP's are top-of-climb to top-of-descent certified and the Augment pilot is a qualified First Officer permitted to takeoff and land the aircraft; we use just one captain on all long-haul; some carriers use dual crews.
Originally Posted by blah blah blah
What sort of screwed up airline only lets the Skipper call an abort? Never come across that one before.
Originally Posted by blueloo
Not getting confused with - anyone can CALL the abort....but ONLY the Captain makes the decision on whether to abort or not.
Originally Posted by minimum_wage
For your own accuracy, I fly for Air NZ so I should know. I'm not a Captain and I have called a reject before.
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
I always thought that it was important for only the two guys at the controls to know who who calls the abort and unimportant/ambigous to anybody else
Interesting comments on what we probably thought was a pretty settled maneuver.

For clarification....
For me, the terminology of "calling" a reject means that the decision has been made to reject the takeoff and as such is a command not merely an alert by a crew member. In other words, it doesn't just mean that a crew member is calling out a fault which may require a reject - "calling" means "commanding" a reject, so perhaps that is one area of confusion and hopefully this will sort it out.

Obviously it is paramount that all crew members call out any fault but at the airline I retired from the actual decision to reject and carry out the actions of a rejected takeoff is the skipper's alone.

So minimum_wage and blah blah blah, does disagreement with the view that only the captain can reject a takeoff mean that in some carriers (ANZ?), the First Officer is permitted by SOPs to make the decision to reject the takeoff and then carry out the reject actions while the skipper performs the PM role? Does this obtain even if the F/O happens to be the PM on the takeoff? In other words, can the F/O reject a takeoff under all circumstances or just when he-she is the PF? In such a case, at which point does the captain take command of the situation?

Other questions arise but perhaps this is all a confusion of terms and not a confusion of actual duties and responsibilities.

I think we would all agree that regardless of how this most serious of all emergency actions is conducted, that everybody in the cockpit must understand for each takeoff, who will always do the reject, how it is to be done and what the actions for each, after stopping, will be, again, for each takeoff. For me, the SOP that keeps it the same for all takeoffs whereby only the skipper, after hearing verbal calls regarding aircraft/system faults from other crew members, can actually decide to reject the takeoff and actually perform the actions of rejecting the takeoff, is the safest SOP which ensures that everyone knows who is doing what and when and knows where to look for command direction.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 17:45
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From my old RAF days the briefing was something like:

"call all malfunctions with enough info for the captain to make a decision. Anyone may call abort for an engine fire, overheat or failure indicated by 2 parameters. The pilot flying may also abort for blocked runway or loss of control"

or something like that.

Philosophy was that if you were good enough to be operating crew you were good enough to call abort.

I've called abort a couple of times from the FE seat. Once at low speed and once quite high.
It was the FE's job to call the speeds on the Nimrod too.

The removal of this responsibility was the hardest thing to learn once I left the RAF after so many years of being able to call abort.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 18:00
  #83 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FE Hoppy
Philosophy was that if you were good enough to be operating crew you were good enough to call abort.
Yep. I understand that in the Canadian Forces, crews on the Argus, and I assume the Orion and other heavy transport aircraft, (C-17), switch seats depending upon whose leg it was, the PF always sitting in the left seat as commander.

Unfortunately, I don't think the philosophy you describe would be the safest in today's commercial environment where even the left seat sometimes has minimum experience and training.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 18:02
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep. I understand that in the Canadian Forces, crews on the Argus, and I assume the Orion and other heavy transport aircraft, (C-17), switch seats depending upon whose leg it was, the PF always sitting in the left seat as commander.

Unfortunately, I don't think the philosophy you describe would be the safest in today's commercial environment where even the left seat sometimes has minimum experience and training.
Concur. Not sure even the skipper should be allowed sometimes!!
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 18:38
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nairn
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The military machines were not handicaped like todays commercial fleet, nether were the flight crewe.

For starters military crewe are trained how to fly..not double guess what the computer is planning..in other words the pilot input gets a reaction.

Cannot compare military to civila aviation today.
SiriusTheDogStar is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 18:57
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the Old Folks' Home
Posts: 420
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
PJ2:
Yep. I understand that in the Canadian Forces, crews on the Argus, and I assume the Orion and other heavy transport aircraft, (C-17), switch seats depending upon whose leg it was, the PF always sitting in the left seat as commander.
I can't speak for the USAF but many decades ago when I was flying the P-2 (Neptune) and P-3 (Orion) for the Navy, there was no such thing as "your leg" and "my leg". The Co Pilot might get a takeoff or landing occasionally but just occasionally. The only time you got a landing was when there was a flight specifically designated for training. Then, the pilot making the takeoff or landing moved to the left seat. I went on a full five-month deployment without making a single landing because the squadron commanding officer decreed it. Training be damned, "safety" came first and only designated plane commanders (PC) could make landings. Apparently there was no thought as to how to handle a situation where the PC became incapacitated.

Some years later, after transitioning to attack jets, I was project officer on a weapon system which was also going to be installed in P-2s. I flew as co pilot and observer on one flight and the PC, knowing that I had P-2 experience, offered to let me make the landing. I elected to stay in the right seat and the PC was astonished. Apparently no one in his experience had ever done so. Subsequently, we were able to use the aircraft again so it must have been a really good landing.

I don't think we can make any broad assumptions about military philosophy on who is allowed to actually fly the aircraft. It varies from unit to unit.
Smilin_Ed is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2010, 19:17
  #87 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Smilin_Ed
I don't think we can make any broad assumptions about military philosophy on who is allowed to actually fly the aircraft. It varies from unit to unit.
Interesting...thanks.
Originally Posted by SiriusTheDogStar
Cannot compare military to civila aviation today.
I would agree in terms of training, knowledge, standards and experience given the way the commercial aviation industry has unfolded since de-regulation and especially over the last twenty years, but in flight safety work human factors are human factors; neither the military nor civilian aviation are immune or without key examples which have resulted in accidents. The C-5 accident at Dover is perhaps a case in point which has some commonalities with recent accidents.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 00:54
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In Air NZ.

The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the takeoff...... end of story
slamer. is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 01:41
  #89 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
slamer, thanks much - I thought so but the post by minimum_wage is slightly confusing. Probably the meaning of the word, "call" the reject vice "decide" to reject (and action it).
PJ2 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 06:13
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: .
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PJ2

On the military types I flew either pilot could call "Abort, Abort". This would be in response to red lights (master warning) or control malfunctions. These were the only items that were to be aborted for (excepting of course those weird situations that cant be planned for, the cow running onto the runway, the ied going off at the end of the runway etc etc). If either pilot called "Abort, Abort" the abort was carried out immediately. PF would carry out the actions to stop the aircraft with control handed to the skipper (if he was acting as PM) at a set point as per every landing.

On the civilian types I have flown it is exactly the same situation.

Quite simply if a pilot calls the abort it is actioned immediately and any discussion can happen afterwards. I haven't operated in a company that has a skipper making a decision based on input from the crew. The closest I got to this was in the military where other crew members (in the back of the aircraft) could announce a problem they have spotted. It was then up to the pilots to decide whether to abort or not. In reality back end crew would keep quiet, quite sensibly reasoning that anything they saw that wasn't already indicating to the pilots could probably wait until cleaned up and climbing away.

How does it work in your experience where you are at V1 and a problem arises that would demand an abort? The FO spots the problem, announces it, waits for the skipper to acknowledge and then make a decision? Surely this process takes the crew past V1 and so forces the take off to continue. What could have been a safe and prudent abort (admittedly at V1 we are getting towards limits, but that doesnt mean they aren't safe) becomes you getting airborne with a problem you really don't want to be dealing with in the air. The FO cant rotate due a jammed control column, the plane is never going to get airborne, but he waits for the skipper to say its ok to stop, all the while getting faster and closer to the fence.

Im amazed that airlines are operating like this. Obviously they are though, and Im sure justifications can be made for this, but for me, hearing of this for the first time, it still sounds crazy.

Blah
blah blah blah is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 06:27
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
These days most companies are operating purely from the manufacturers guidelines. (Presumably with the odd change here and there).

This is verbatim from the Boeing 767 QRH. (And would guess that due to boeing standardisation the 777, 737 and 747 are the same)

Rejected Takeoff
The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the takeoff. The decision must be made in time to start the rejected takeoff manoeuvre by V1.
blueloo is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 07:55
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,116
Received 497 Likes on 135 Posts
Man it would be messy if the Captain was incapacitated then....bloody thing would plow a trail into the maize paddock.
framer is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 08:21
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
blueloo

You may find that the "Boeing" documentation is Airline Specific. Look at the front of most Boeing Manuals and you should find that they have been produced for your airline with Airline/State requirements incorporated.......but I could be wrong
Sir Richard is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 10:07
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sir Richard - yes no doubt. (Which was why I mentioned the odd change here or there).

....but my understanding was that boeing went through an alignment of procedures for all Boeing fleets (in so far as possible for standardisation), and additionally many airlines now use Boeing standardised documentation (subject to the Airline requirements) in an effort to (what I would guess) prevent/minimise litigation in the event of a prang.

As to whether the Boeing promulgated RTO procedure varies amongst airlines - (or Air NZ in this instance) - who knows - but I would suggest it is the same.

And realistically, lets not get confused (as has been mentioned a few times) between calling a reject, and the person who actually makes the decision to reject. Only 1 person on the flight deck is the person in charge.


[I would love to see an extract from a Boeing 737/767/747 mainstream Commercial Airline - not military or other odd ops - just to see if it is different and how it varies - just out of curiosity]
blueloo is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 14:24
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PJ2

I came from the connector side of the other airline in Canada, and on one of those aircraft, the FO could call the rejected takeoff with the verbal call "Reject" and the closing of the thrust levers. Captain's aircraft after that.
jurassicjockey is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 14:37
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Can we hear from those that have been in real rejected takeoffs (not training) as to how the situation was handled.

was the responsibility discussed in the cockpit beforehand?

Did the captain perform the reject without consultation (e.g. PNF response)?

Did the PNF call out abort?

Was the right seat flying the aircraft and if so performed the abort on his decision or only via the captains command?

To me it makes no difference (subject to reading further posts) as long as it is agreed beforehand.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 15:48
  #97 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
blah, blueloo;
Re your comments, enquiries:

Boeing 777 Flight Crew Training Manual
Rejected Takeoff Maneuver
The decision to reject the takeoff is the responsibility of the captain, and must be made before V1 speed. If the captain is the PM, he should initiate the RTO and announce the abnormality simultaneously. NOTE: If the decision is made to reject the takeoff, the flight crew should accomplish the rejected takeoff non-normal maneuver as described in the Maneuvers chapter of the QRH.


Rejected Takeoff, Maneuvers Chapter, QRH:

The captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the takeoff.

The decision must be made in time to start the rejected takeoff maneuver by V1. If the decision is to reject the takeoff, the captain must clearly announce “STOP”, commence the stopping action, and assume control of the airplane.

If the first officer is making the takeoff, the first officer must maintain control of the airplane until the captain makes a positive input to the controls.

During the takeoff, the crew member observing the non-normal situation will immediately call it out as clearly as possible.


blah;
Im amazed that airlines are operating like this. Obviously they are though, and Im sure justifications can be made for this, but for me, hearing of this for the first time, it still sounds crazy.
Understand that comment very well now because I must admit to the same impressions hearing that in some operations rejects can be initiated by any crew member. As I mentioned above, I think in much of today's civilian operation where training and experience is not nearly what it used to be that would be a flight safety issue - whole 'nuther thread! However the procedures outlined above work well and do not present the problems described in your post in terms of transfer of control, time to decision, etc. I've never done a high-speed reject except in the sim but have used these procedures (as Captain & F/O) for the entire career without issue. "Normal" is many things. When something works in aviation we are reluctant to change and when we encounter procedures that are contrary to all our "instincts" (as historically learned and relied upon), we can't see how they can possibly be as good or even work as well. Hopefully lomapaseo's questions will provide some sense of the "success" rate for rejects using either way. Perhaps fortunately, the data-set is relatively small. I'm sure there is searchable literature.

lomapaseo;
Bearing in mind comments regarding today's standards of training, experience and SOPs, I think your comment is valid that it doesn't matter who does the maneuver so long as everyone has a clear understanding of who does the reject and why. The special case may be during captain upgrade training where again a clear understanding as to who will do the reject is required.

framer;
Incapacitation procedures apply during takeoff as well as during other ops. The one or two verbal challenge-response calls (regarding speed, timings and/or power) during the takeoff are not only intended for situational awareness but as a check for incapacitation. The chances of an incapacitation occurring right at V1, forcing the takeoff are possible but very small.

Last edited by PJ2; 16th Feb 2010 at 15:59.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 17:03
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 625
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
G’day lomapaseo,

I had a medium speed, around 80kts, RTO recently due to a takeoff config warning which turned out to be spurious and caused by a faulty leading edge slat proximity sensor.

It was the FO’s sector and in the normal course of events he would set the initial thrust level and let it stabilise before engaging the autothrottle which would then apply takeoff thrust. As soon as he removes his hand from the thrust levers to engage the auto throttle I follow through on them with my right hand as the thrust is set and until V1 is called when I remove my hand.

This action has me primed and ready for a reject if necessary and after V1 with my hand away from the thrust levers less likely to attempt a RTO on the high side of V1.

So this is what we were doing when the TO config warning occurred, I had my right hand on the thrust levers and the FO had both hands on the control column. The weather conditions at the time were day VMC.

I immediately closed the thrust levers, took over and called STOP. The FO after an initial startle moment made the appropriate radio call and continued to monitor the RTO actions. It all worked as per the books even though the circumstances of this particular RTO were unusual and one not practiced in the sim.

In my airline it is always the Captain’s decision to carry out an RTO regardless of who announces the problem or how the problem is announced and always his responsibility to actually carry it out.

Pre-flight I always give the RTO brief regardless of whose sector it is.

I think that answers your queries though if you have any others feel free to ask.

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 18:59
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting discussion this. Surely the most important thing is that everyone is clear who can say what during the t/o roll. In my airline (I believe on every fleet) the FO can call STOP (whoever is handling) for 5 reasons.

Any fire
Confirmed engine failure - 2 parameters
T/O config warning
WINDSHEAR AHEAD warning
MONITOR RADAR DISPLAY warning

Additionally, when handling pilot, the FO can call STOP for a blocked runway or significant handling difficulty. If they are handling, the FO carries out the reject and the Captain takes control as the aircraft comes to a stop.

If there is a P3 on the jumpseat, he can call what he sees but is not supposed to call STOP.

If unable to rotate the aircraft at Vr when handling, it's surely safer for the FO to reject than to advise the Captain and wait for him to make the inevitable decision. IMHO
solitaire is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2010, 19:20
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: .
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lomapaseo,

I have had two RTOs, one as an FO the other as a skipper.

The one as a skipper was simple as I was PF and I stopped well prior to V1 because "something" didnt feel right through the controls. Turns out there was a problem with a wheel bogey that probably would have meant control issues at higher take off speed and during landing.

The RTO as an FO was different as I was PM. Two things happened at once, a master warning and a rwy incursion. I called the abort, the skipper only saw the master warning and called continue (against SOPs, though I understood his reasoning, there was background to that particular warning). However, I still wanted him to stop as I didnt particularly want to hit what was now well onto my side of the rwy. I called abort again and took control of the throttles, closing them. Skipper continued the RTO procedure from there as PF. Either of these issues should have meant a stop. The problem here was the skipper going against SOPs. To those that would say I should have stated what the problem was, well that wasnt in our SOPs, but which problem do I announce? Or which one do I announce first?

Surely these things should be kept as simple as possible, and there is nothing more simple than a qualified pilot calling an abort in accordance with the SOP requirements, carrying out the appropriate actions, and then discussing it on the taxi.

Blah
blah blah blah is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.