More Finnair woes
Thread Starter
More Finnair woes
Looks like they are having a bad month or two...
One of their ERJ-190-s weeded out a few runway edge lights in OSL recently, then merrily continued the takeoff.
Incident: Finnair E190 at Oslo on Oct 23rd 2010, struck runway edge lights during takeoff
One of their ERJ-190-s weeded out a few runway edge lights in OSL recently, then merrily continued the takeoff.
Incident: Finnair E190 at Oslo on Oct 23rd 2010, struck runway edge lights during takeoff
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest that if this happened at or after V1 they were committed to fly anyway. Once airborne and in the absence of any indications of anything seriously amiss, it made just as much sense to continue the short flight to HEL (their maintenance base) than returning to OSL.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a nonsense.
The initial take-off run is certainly before V1.
So something even damaged the fan. OSL-HEL anything else but a short flight.
A Finnair Embraer ERJ-190, registration OH-LKL performing flight AY-658 from Oslo (Norway) to Helsinki (Finland) with 31 passengers, struck three runway edge lights during the initial takeoff roll from Oslo's runway 01L.
The left hand main gear tyres and the nose gear tyres received minor damage (scratches and cuts), the right hand engine received three dents in the fan, the engine was removed from the airframe for an inspection.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
There are some big questions here. Did they "cut the corner" whilst lining up? If so they must have been going a fair speed to throw debris into the right engine! If they moved off the centre line to the extent that the nose gear was "scratched" ....... That's a 22.5m deviation if they were on the centreline at the start.
Anybody have any FACTS regarding this one?
They knew they'd done it because they told ATC. If it was in the initial part of the take off, why didn't they stop? Would you want to bring the gear up having gone off piste
I don't know much about the culture in Finnair but this incident does not inspire confidence.
A4
Anybody have any FACTS regarding this one?
They knew they'd done it because they told ATC. If it was in the initial part of the take off, why didn't they stop? Would you want to bring the gear up having gone off piste
I don't know much about the culture in Finnair but this incident does not inspire confidence.
A4
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your frank response three miles. I have no idea what happened as I wasn't there. I simply made a suggestion. It may well be wrong, but I didn't base my suggestion purely on the Aviation Herald report. As to what I perceive as a short flight: OSL-HEL is about 70 minutes flying. In my book that is a short haul, and thus a relatively short, flight. For all we know the crew elected to continue after discussing the matter with engineering and on the basis of no indicated malfunctions.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a long, short flight.
Was it an early morning departure? Rather foggy at the time:
Display metars
Was it an early morning departure? Rather foggy at the time:
Display metars
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Tango:
Without dwelling on the specifics of this incident V1 is not the decision speed for all circumstances.
May I suggest that if this happened at or after V1 they were committed to fly anyway. Once airborne and in the absence of any indications of anything seriously amiss, it made just as much sense to continue the short flight to HEL (their maintenance base) than returning to OSL.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"V1 is not the decision speed for all circumstances."
It is not the decision speed under any circumstances. The decision (to stop) must have already been made, and the first stopping action carried out by then, otherwise there is no decision to be made. That's the point of having it.
But I don't think that's the point you were making. Are you saying there are situations where you would call "stop" after V1? I can assure you every training department I have worked for/with will give you an argument on that..
It is not the decision speed under any circumstances. The decision (to stop) must have already been made, and the first stopping action carried out by then, otherwise there is no decision to be made. That's the point of having it.
But I don't think that's the point you were making. Are you saying there are situations where you would call "stop" after V1? I can assure you every training department I have worked for/with will give you an argument on that..
16024,
There are circumstances, rare, I admit. Check Northeast Trident in Bilbao in the 70's. Abandoned after V1 due aircraft stopped accelerating and was never going to reach VR. No-one injured and investigations showed undeclared puddles on RWY had compromised TO performance.
Never say Never
There are circumstances, rare, I admit. Check Northeast Trident in Bilbao in the 70's. Abandoned after V1 due aircraft stopped accelerating and was never going to reach VR. No-one injured and investigations showed undeclared puddles on RWY had compromised TO performance.
Never say Never
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
We had a Fokker 100 stop after V1. The controls had reverted to full manual, with no alert. Admittedly, a pull force of about five times normal would have got the thing airborne, but who thinks of that at the time (and who would want to take a full-manual aircraft into the air anyway?). Luckily it was on a nice long runway.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what I think about V1
Herod,
V1 means V1.
All those planes off the ends of runways are from guys stopping after V1. Lots of people in offices with computers and simulators, and test pilots in planes with delays for decision and reaction times, well, they figured it out for us. Even if it takes 5 times more pull to get into the air in manual controls, it is a plane and meant to fly. It is far better to be in the air with manual controls than in a ball of flames off the end of the runway. And yes, I've flown planes with controls like this.
There is SO MUCH misunderstanding about what V1 means and how it is calculated and what is considered, it shocks me. If the well researched procedure is to continue after V1, then continue. V1 plus or minus 20 kts is not the time for pilots to start their own personal interpretations or flight test programs.
V1 is often limited at one end or the other by Vmcg or Vr, and of course there may or may not be additional performance available for the accelerate-stop or accelerate-go conditions, but that's not the point: You don't know.
What you do know for sure, in 99.999% of cases, is that before V1, there is time to stop, and at and above V1 there is time to get airborne. So why not just do that? For the 0.001% of the time it will not work when it is not obvious (tail fell off), so be it. But during take off is not the time to try to figure that out for a 0.001% chance you might be right.
You don't have to be that smart or good to do the right thing. Just follow the procedure.
V1 means V1.
All those planes off the ends of runways are from guys stopping after V1. Lots of people in offices with computers and simulators, and test pilots in planes with delays for decision and reaction times, well, they figured it out for us. Even if it takes 5 times more pull to get into the air in manual controls, it is a plane and meant to fly. It is far better to be in the air with manual controls than in a ball of flames off the end of the runway. And yes, I've flown planes with controls like this.
There is SO MUCH misunderstanding about what V1 means and how it is calculated and what is considered, it shocks me. If the well researched procedure is to continue after V1, then continue. V1 plus or minus 20 kts is not the time for pilots to start their own personal interpretations or flight test programs.
V1 is often limited at one end or the other by Vmcg or Vr, and of course there may or may not be additional performance available for the accelerate-stop or accelerate-go conditions, but that's not the point: You don't know.
What you do know for sure, in 99.999% of cases, is that before V1, there is time to stop, and at and above V1 there is time to get airborne. So why not just do that? For the 0.001% of the time it will not work when it is not obvious (tail fell off), so be it. But during take off is not the time to try to figure that out for a 0.001% chance you might be right.
You don't have to be that smart or good to do the right thing. Just follow the procedure.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron
How would you Fly your acft after a dual engine flame out after V1 (on a twin)?
Sometimes airmanship saves lifes.....
But nowaday because of criminal political decision to lower the pilots standards in order to reduce salaries we oldtimers fly alone with unexperienced bookreaders.
Once we retire nobody will be entitled to be called a PILOT and the accident rate will increase as a logical consequence.
V1 has to be applied as a maximum decision speed to abort 99,9999% of the time the other 0,0001% is what makes you enter the statistics as a hero or a criminal depending on your way to react to an unexpected to happen event.
Statistics kill sometimes and all depends of statistics. Rules are made with respect to these principle.
Wish you a long carrier
How would you Fly your acft after a dual engine flame out after V1 (on a twin)?
Sometimes airmanship saves lifes.....
But nowaday because of criminal political decision to lower the pilots standards in order to reduce salaries we oldtimers fly alone with unexperienced bookreaders.
Once we retire nobody will be entitled to be called a PILOT and the accident rate will increase as a logical consequence.
V1 has to be applied as a maximum decision speed to abort 99,9999% of the time the other 0,0001% is what makes you enter the statistics as a hero or a criminal depending on your way to react to an unexpected to happen event.
Statistics kill sometimes and all depends of statistics. Rules are made with respect to these principle.
Wish you a long carrier
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB,
Odd, the link works for me. Or just Google for "AAIB Report No: 8/1977."
Certainly a gutsy decision to turn off the runway when it became clear they weren't going to stop in time.
Odd, the link works for me. Or just Google for "AAIB Report No: 8/1977."
Certainly a gutsy decision to turn off the runway when it became clear they weren't going to stop in time.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exception to the rule
There might be one time to abort above V1. When something really dramatic has happened to change the organization of your aircraft like a "Mid-Ground", or something like AA 191 (assuming you actually see the pylon depart the aircraft and understand the nature of the failure).
. The AF Concorde fire also comes to mind.
But without special knowledge of such reconfiguration of your aircraft, you are obliged to play the odds and go with the standard V1 decision.
. The AF Concorde fire also comes to mind.But without special knowledge of such reconfiguration of your aircraft, you are obliged to play the odds and go with the standard V1 decision.