Rejected takeoff after becoming airborne...or a "Go and Touch"?
Thread Starter
Rejected takeoff after becoming airborne...or a "Go and Touch"?
An Interesting and Unique Peculiar incident...indeed.
Thankfully all ended well, for both PAX & Crew
Incident: Perimeter DH8A at Winnipeg on Nov 30th 2011, rejected takeoff after becoming airborne
Thankfully all ended well, for both PAX & Crew
Incident: Perimeter DH8A at Winnipeg on Nov 30th 2011, rejected takeoff after becoming airborne
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like it Schnowser With the type of a/c concerned and the available runway length left I'd say that this was a good call by the Captain. SOPs are all very well but there are (occasional)times when common sense has to take precedence.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I performed a similar feat 45 years ago, albeit in a Cessna 140 with a faulty cowl latch, on a 6000' runway. The alternative would have been a quick circuit with an overheating engine.
Use the resources at hand!
Use the resources at hand!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash 8… STOL. Had scads of runway to settle land and stop the plane with scads of runway to spare. Kudos to the crew! Anyone remember TWA 843 in July of 1992? Good news was that everyone lived.
TWA Flight 843 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone remember TWA 843 in July of 1992? Good news was that everyone lived. TWA Flight 843 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land as soon as practicable..when you have lots of runway to spare right in front of you, why not?
As a helicopter pilot (V/STOL
) when taking of from runways, we do it all the time; why struggle with an aircraf with problems if you can simply land safely on what happens to be the same runway you departed from?
These guys obviously knew their machine and its performance, so well done.
As a helicopter pilot (V/STOL
) when taking of from runways, we do it all the time; why struggle with an aircraf with problems if you can simply land safely on what happens to be the same runway you departed from?These guys obviously knew their machine and its performance, so well done.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Landing after V1 not that unique...
From March 1998 at Stansted involving an HS 748.
ASN Aircraft accident British Aerospace BAe-748-378 Srs. 2B G-OJEM London-Stansted Airport (STN)
From March 1998 at Stansted involving an HS 748.
ASN Aircraft accident British Aerospace BAe-748-378 Srs. 2B G-OJEM London-Stansted Airport (STN)
...The HS-748 was cleared for take-off with full dry power; At an airspeed of 111 kt the aircraft became airborne. Less than five seconds after the 'rotate' call, at an airspeed of 115 kt and a height of between 30 feet and 100 feet agl, the no. 2 engine suffered a catastrophic failure resulting in a sudden loss of power and an immediate substantial nacelle fire. The aircraft yawed 11deg to the right of the runway heading, the crew were told by the senior cabin attendant that the right engine was on fire. The aircraft was in the air for a total period of 27 seconds before it touched down. The aircraft ran off the end of the runway at 62 kt...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: South of France
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To land back on, or not
This was an identical engine failure to the HS748 at Stansted
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada report number H90001, Quebec Air F27B Rolls Royce Dart engines, CF-QBL Flight No 255
Quebec City Airport, 29 March 1979
The flight lasted 1min 12secs after lift off.
Fourteen passengers and three crew died in the crash.
"At time 36 seconds after brake release there was a loud bang from the right engine as it disintegrated and a severe fire developed. The aircraft was at approximately 103 kts and 40 feet above the runway.
At time 42 seconds, The captain started the engine failure/fire emergency drill.
At time 45 seconds, the tower controller who had noticed flames from the right engine advised flight 255 that the right engine was on fire and authorised them to land on any runway.
From time 50 seconds to 1 minute 05 seconds the crew attempted to raise the landing gear which never came up.
The aircraft climbed to about 120 feet above the runway elevation and started a right turn, apparently in an attempt to complete a short circuit, remain visual and execute an emergency on the airport.
At time 1 minute 14 seconds the captain called for the propeller to be feathered. Up to this point the crew did not know that the right engine had separated at the first stage impeller and the forward section of the engine along with the forward section of the engine along with the propeller and some cowling had fallen onto the runway
At time 1minute 24 seconds the No 1 fire bottle was fired and the aircraft continued in a right turn at about 100 feet above the terrain at a very low airspeed. The engine fire continued.
As the aircraft approached the College de Sacre Coeur, the angle of bank increased and the aircraft started to descend until impact.
Impact occured in a nose down, right wing low attitude at approximately 80 kts.
A fierce fire broke out and most of the fuselage forward of the wing was consumed by fire."
The Rolls Royce Dart engine had suffered an uncontained failure.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada report number H90001, Quebec Air F27B Rolls Royce Dart engines, CF-QBL Flight No 255
Quebec City Airport, 29 March 1979
The flight lasted 1min 12secs after lift off.
Fourteen passengers and three crew died in the crash.
"At time 36 seconds after brake release there was a loud bang from the right engine as it disintegrated and a severe fire developed. The aircraft was at approximately 103 kts and 40 feet above the runway.
At time 42 seconds, The captain started the engine failure/fire emergency drill.
At time 45 seconds, the tower controller who had noticed flames from the right engine advised flight 255 that the right engine was on fire and authorised them to land on any runway.
From time 50 seconds to 1 minute 05 seconds the crew attempted to raise the landing gear which never came up.
The aircraft climbed to about 120 feet above the runway elevation and started a right turn, apparently in an attempt to complete a short circuit, remain visual and execute an emergency on the airport.
At time 1 minute 14 seconds the captain called for the propeller to be feathered. Up to this point the crew did not know that the right engine had separated at the first stage impeller and the forward section of the engine along with the forward section of the engine along with the propeller and some cowling had fallen onto the runway
At time 1minute 24 seconds the No 1 fire bottle was fired and the aircraft continued in a right turn at about 100 feet above the terrain at a very low airspeed. The engine fire continued.
As the aircraft approached the College de Sacre Coeur, the angle of bank increased and the aircraft started to descend until impact.
Impact occured in a nose down, right wing low attitude at approximately 80 kts.
A fierce fire broke out and most of the fuselage forward of the wing was consumed by fire."
The Rolls Royce Dart engine had suffered an uncontained failure.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little different from flying a spam can from a big runway.
At Prestwick I normally take off from Mike which is half way along 13/31 (9800 Feet long) and in doing practice EFATOs I can get back down onto the same runway or cross over to 21 most times if I'm still below 300 Feet. Mind you - that has assumed that my "donkey" has "stopped" fairly soon after leaving the ground...
At Prestwick I normally take off from Mike which is half way along 13/31 (9800 Feet long) and in doing practice EFATOs I can get back down onto the same runway or cross over to 21 most times if I'm still below 300 Feet. Mind you - that has assumed that my "donkey" has "stopped" fairly soon after leaving the ground...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fangio
I don't see the releveance of your post to this thread, I think we are talking about landing straight back on here, not doing a circuit to land.
I am pretty sure the LoganAir Twotter pilots using long runways such as Campbeltown have a "committed" call on their take off checklists where they will commit to a circuit in the event of an EFATO, however if the EFATO is before the "committed" call and they are airborne they will attempt to land straight back on the remaining runway.
I don't see the releveance of your post to this thread, I think we are talking about landing straight back on here, not doing a circuit to land.
I am pretty sure the LoganAir Twotter pilots using long runways such as Campbeltown have a "committed" call on their take off checklists where they will commit to a circuit in the event of an EFATO, however if the EFATO is before the "committed" call and they are airborne they will attempt to land straight back on the remaining runway.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: South of France
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith
I think you have missed the point here.
Please refer to the HS748 post above,
Do you continue with the take off after a catastrophic uncontained engine failure or, do you continue with the take off having suffered the catstrophic failure, aware that there was still some runway available ahead.
The F27 captain chose to continue with the take off with disastrous fatal results. The HS748 captain decided to land back on the same runway with no casualties. Same situation, but different decisions.
Please refer to the HS748 post above,
Do you continue with the take off after a catastrophic uncontained engine failure or, do you continue with the take off having suffered the catstrophic failure, aware that there was still some runway available ahead.
The F27 captain chose to continue with the take off with disastrous fatal results. The HS748 captain decided to land back on the same runway with no casualties. Same situation, but different decisions.
Last edited by Fangio; 4th Dec 2011 at 12:29.
I think Fangio's point was: "Here's an example of a failure at 40', in which the crew elected to continue when perhaps a landing ahead (even with an overrun) would have realised a better outcome."
Having said that - from the little bit posted - it looks like a stall/loss of control accident rather than a direct result of engine failure.
Having said that - from the little bit posted - it looks like a stall/loss of control accident rather than a direct result of engine failure.
I knew the guy flying the QB F-27, he was in the class at QB behind me. They took off on R06, at the time 6500 feet long, and attempted a visual return to R30. The accident occurred at night in conditions of low ceiling and visibility. Debris from the disintegrating compressor had entered the DC electrical panel behind the co-pilot's seat and the electrical connection between the gear selector and the panel had been severed, thus the gear would have never come up anyway. The lower engine cowling had come unlatched and air loads had jammed it against the MLG drag strut creating even more aerodynamic drag. The final nail in the coffin came when the stewardess moved the passengers from the right front of the cabin to the left rear, putting the C of G of the airplane outside of limits. While I can see where Fangio is coming from there is very little comparison between the two.
Last edited by pigboat; 5th Dec 2011 at 00:48.
