Air France high speed RTO due to missing baggage
Just like on the UA thread I find it astonishing that a debate is forming on a clear-cut professional issue. To me it is simples:
Both PM and ATC are monitoring the take-off with a pair of MkI eyeballs (in case of ATC possibly more). Both are qualified professionals, if either of them calls for reject/abort below V1 the only appropriate action by the PF is to reject takeoff, slow to a safe speed and start asking questions afterwards (and asking questions about the reason for the reject call is what this thread is supposed to be about). At/above V1 again clear, continue takeoff and ask questions later. The only difference between PM and ATC in this regard is that ATC has no access to the speed info, I would not expect a PM to make a reject call above V1.
Of course being a professional also involves being accountable, I would expect any such call to be backed up with a good story, and definitely some missing bags would not count as such. As RAT 5 mentioned above, without knowing exactly what ATC said and why, it is very hard to judge.
This being said I do agree with those posters who suggest that at some airports around the world the fundamental assumption that 'both are professionals' may be called into question, but Martinique is French teritory with corresponding standards, and the charming habit of French ATC to speak in French to F regstered aircraft could not have been a factor in this case.
Both PM and ATC are monitoring the take-off with a pair of MkI eyeballs (in case of ATC possibly more). Both are qualified professionals, if either of them calls for reject/abort below V1 the only appropriate action by the PF is to reject takeoff, slow to a safe speed and start asking questions afterwards (and asking questions about the reason for the reject call is what this thread is supposed to be about). At/above V1 again clear, continue takeoff and ask questions later. The only difference between PM and ATC in this regard is that ATC has no access to the speed info, I would not expect a PM to make a reject call above V1.
Of course being a professional also involves being accountable, I would expect any such call to be backed up with a good story, and definitely some missing bags would not count as such. As RAT 5 mentioned above, without knowing exactly what ATC said and why, it is very hard to judge.
This being said I do agree with those posters who suggest that at some airports around the world the fundamental assumption that 'both are professionals' may be called into question, but Martinique is French teritory with corresponding standards, and the charming habit of French ATC to speak in French to F regstered aircraft could not have been a factor in this case.
Last edited by andrasz; 24th Apr 2017 at 06:26.
I think this is a slippery slope.
We as a crew brief the "why" we would stop but now you are adding a another voice that is not briefed in this and may or may not have the skill/knowledge to make the decision. Over the years the RTO has been simplified to try and avoid unnecessary rejects in the dangerous high speed regime.
What if the ATC mark 1 eyeball sees a tyre burst at 140 kts and reacts by calling "stop" on a runway with little stopping margin.
I would like to see ATC able to call stop but only for definite issues such as runway incursion. Something like "abc123 runway incursion, stop i say again stop". That way at least the Captain has the chance of overruling if he thinks it safer.
It is a good point previously made about the different standards of ATC. For years PMI tower had the unhappy knack of giving you instructions during rollout above 100 kts. Not sure that that standard of ATC SA or prioritisation would make me happy that they can tell you to stop.
We as a crew brief the "why" we would stop but now you are adding a another voice that is not briefed in this and may or may not have the skill/knowledge to make the decision. Over the years the RTO has been simplified to try and avoid unnecessary rejects in the dangerous high speed regime.
What if the ATC mark 1 eyeball sees a tyre burst at 140 kts and reacts by calling "stop" on a runway with little stopping margin.
I would like to see ATC able to call stop but only for definite issues such as runway incursion. Something like "abc123 runway incursion, stop i say again stop". That way at least the Captain has the chance of overruling if he thinks it safer.
It is a good point previously made about the different standards of ATC. For years PMI tower had the unhappy knack of giving you instructions during rollout above 100 kts. Not sure that that standard of ATC SA or prioritisation would make me happy that they can tell you to stop.
andraz has it. It's not a slippery slope. ATC has always had the right to call for an abort. The circumstances that would require that have already been well discussed, and pertain to an ATC awareness of a dangerous situation that has developed/is developing since the aircraft commenced to roll.
Missing bags, notified by the operator, are not going to meet that criterion.
It is totally the pilots decision as to whether to stop or not, once the stop call has been made by ATC. Below 80 kt or thereabouts, I'd expect the pilot to stop. Above that speed, maybe, maybe not, depending on the nature of the dangerous situation, and how lucidly it was communicated and understood. Above V1 (which in the tower, we have no way of knowing, but I'd guess is typically about 2/3 runway remaining) definitely not.
Missing bags, notified by the operator, are not going to meet that criterion.
It is totally the pilots decision as to whether to stop or not, once the stop call has been made by ATC. Below 80 kt or thereabouts, I'd expect the pilot to stop. Above that speed, maybe, maybe not, depending on the nature of the dangerous situation, and how lucidly it was communicated and understood. Above V1 (which in the tower, we have no way of knowing, but I'd guess is typically about 2/3 runway remaining) definitely not.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago at Chicago taking off in a 747 ATC ordered us to stop at about 140 knots. My Captain who was handling pilot did not recognise the call was for us (our callsign bore no relation to our flight number) and by the time I had said "that was for us" it was too late. As we were rotating we could see the reason for the call was a helicopter that was slightly closer than you would like but not close enough to take evasive action for and we climbed away normally. Had we rejected takeoff we would have had overheated brakes, flat tyres, a blocked runway or taxiway and 24 hours extra at the hotel. We were very glad we had not rejected.
Pax Britanica gave his opinion that as a passenger he would rather abort takeoff even if it risked an evacuation if there were certain events that included a nearby helicopter. I respect your right to your opinion but if you were an airline pilot approaching V1 you would have a very different view. Years ago the Trident crews were not allowed to reject the takeoff for an APU fire below V1.
A couple of interesting rejected takeoffs below
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8UPEfO1Oo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SweTB8I9V2E
Pax Britanica gave his opinion that as a passenger he would rather abort takeoff even if it risked an evacuation if there were certain events that included a nearby helicopter. I respect your right to your opinion but if you were an airline pilot approaching V1 you would have a very different view. Years ago the Trident crews were not allowed to reject the takeoff for an APU fire below V1.
A couple of interesting rejected takeoffs below
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8UPEfO1Oo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SweTB8I9V2E
Sun In My eyes
My comment was relaly aimed at the 'I am not going to stop if ATC tells me' attitude some people seemed to take/ I am a regular user of aviation and grew up next door to LHR . I also have the every highest regard for airline crews who doa job that can suddenly become extremely difficult and whose actions will be subject to greater scrutiny than any other profession .
I do very definitely recognise that while the V1 process appears cut and dried there are circumstances , exactly as you describe, where the moment is passed in the blink of an eye or where a judgement call is made literally as the speed is reached , I am aware you are not just moving fast but accelerating fast. So in know there can be times when judgement, experience or just the lack of times to recognise and process something means aborting right on V1 might not be wise. As i said what concerned me was the ATC can't tell me to stop attitude that some, clearly not you, have demonstrated. Iwas also concerned that the crew might get hung out to dry if the controller had a good reason and it was not complied with but had serious consequences.
My comment was relaly aimed at the 'I am not going to stop if ATC tells me' attitude some people seemed to take/ I am a regular user of aviation and grew up next door to LHR . I also have the every highest regard for airline crews who doa job that can suddenly become extremely difficult and whose actions will be subject to greater scrutiny than any other profession .
I do very definitely recognise that while the V1 process appears cut and dried there are circumstances , exactly as you describe, where the moment is passed in the blink of an eye or where a judgement call is made literally as the speed is reached , I am aware you are not just moving fast but accelerating fast. So in know there can be times when judgement, experience or just the lack of times to recognise and process something means aborting right on V1 might not be wise. As i said what concerned me was the ATC can't tell me to stop attitude that some, clearly not you, have demonstrated. Iwas also concerned that the crew might get hung out to dry if the controller had a good reason and it was not complied with but had serious consequences.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax britanica
Fair enough and every circumstance is different. I do take your points.
In Denver a few years ago an aircraft was ordered to refect his takeoff by ATC and did so at high speed (Denver being a high elevation airfield one inevitably has high ground speeds on takeoff even if significantly below V1) This resulted in a brake overheat and flat tyres and an unexpected night stop. The cause was a Lufthansa doing a goaround on the parallel runway. Had the aircraft known the reason for the ATC call he would have continued but he didn't. I believe ATC there have reviewed the case and it would not happen again in the same situation.
Fair enough and every circumstance is different. I do take your points.
In Denver a few years ago an aircraft was ordered to refect his takeoff by ATC and did so at high speed (Denver being a high elevation airfield one inevitably has high ground speeds on takeoff even if significantly below V1) This resulted in a brake overheat and flat tyres and an unexpected night stop. The cause was a Lufthansa doing a goaround on the parallel runway. Had the aircraft known the reason for the ATC call he would have continued but he didn't. I believe ATC there have reviewed the case and it would not happen again in the same situation.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usual suspects....incompetent local ATC,..plus the French state airline with a vey poor safety record.
But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.
(Having flown A320's for AF from CDG and ORY for quite a while, I believe I know what I am talking about, mais les expertes sont toujours francais )
But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.
(Having flown A320's for AF from CDG and ORY for quite a while, I believe I know what I am talking about, mais les expertes sont toujours francais )
Usual suspects....incompetent local ATC,..plus the French state airline with a vey poor safety record.
But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.
But they will ignore criticism and continue as usual.
Originally Posted by JumpJumpJump
Has it been established ...
So far nothing confirmed except that there was indeed a high speed RTO. Everything else, including whether it was prompted by an ATC call, is just hearsay.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reading this fascinating topic I am reminded of AF 4590 and would ask the professionals on here whether an early call from ATC might have mitigated the tragic outcome. Apologies if this is considered thread drift too far but the question seems appropriate in this instance.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we talked about AF' A340 near missing their takeoff in Bogota ?
On at least one occurrence, they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.
On at least one occurrence, they are reported to have overflown the opposite threshold at less than 10ft.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, do tell? I live in Bogotá, it's a fun take off given the altitude but hard to see how they'd manage that.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say the guys who have decoded the black boxes :
https://www.bea.aero/en/investigatio...17-a-bogota-e/
You can google translate this :
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-se...ta-2082073.php
https://www.bea.aero/en/investigatio...17-a-bogota-e/
You can google translate this :
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-se...ta-2082073.php
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Les Echos it is 1.5m which translates into 5 feet give or take an inch or two. An airplane issue is suspected, as similar incidents have been reported before, in particular with the same airframe.
The BEA are currently involved in three investigations of serious incidents involving takeoffs at Bogota.
The first is the aforementioned Air France A340's "abnormally long takeoff run".
The second is another similar incident, date unknown.
The third is an Avianca Peru A330 which rotated beyond the end of 13L last July and took out one of the lights, the runway having a reduced TODA due to work in progress.
The first is the aforementioned Air France A340's "abnormally long takeoff run".
The second is another similar incident, date unknown.
The third is an Avianca Peru A330 which rotated beyond the end of 13L last July and took out one of the lights, the runway having a reduced TODA due to work in progress.