BBC Journos in Celtic scare
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: somewhere
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure theorising of course, but isn't there the possibility the foreign object (I understood it was an insect not a bird) actually lodged in the tube as the aircraft reached that speed?
However, as we all know different, I'd like to know how the insect managed to get lodged in the pitot tube, considering the speed the aircraft was going at.
IF the insect were to become lodged in the tube whilest the aircraft was in motion - how would this be possible ? What are the chances ? Although, it cannot be ruled out.....
and also see this post too....
A 'high speed' abort, yes, but if it was a Britannia 757 or any other Boeing, surely there is the '80 kts' call, to cover incapacitation and ASI failure?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Far East
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a reader rather than a poster (normally), I am a little hacked off by the constant deriding of journalists, I am not one, and I do not mean to defend them as I also have been p*ssed off with various reporting styles. It seems however that ANY report of an air incident or accident is treated with so much criticism by you guys that I begin to think you must have contempt for the rest of humanity. This has been dealt with in great depth on another forum. You Professional pilots spend so much time bickering at each other and the world at large. C'mon guys lighten up a bit.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: somewhere
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Professional pilots spend so much time bickering at each other and the world at large. C'mon guys lighten up a bit.
Most people don't have a clue when it comes to aviation - and quite a lot of people believe nearly everything they read/see on the news.
Now, ok, the Daily Record and Evening Times (local newspaper) might not be the most renowned publications
, but I'd expect more accurate information than that from the BBC, who like to call themselves a world news agency.Well, there is BBC World TV and the BBC World Service as well. Suerly an organisation as large as the BBC's could have a specialist aviation corrospondant that does what they are talking about ?
But it is an important subject..... if the passengers are scared off flying any more then there may just be some passengers that will never fly again - something the industry can do without.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon guys lighten up a bit.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lofty50,
The reason some journalists receive such contempt on these forums is because their standard of journalism is contemptible. This is not to suggest that all journalists are hopelessly incompetent. Some actually take time to research their subject, including the odd one or two who use these forums.
Aviation is unfortunately a cheap target for these people, and sensational headlines are ten a penny for "incidents" which are non events in professional aviation terms. I know for sure, from personal experience that the Daily Record "makes up" at least some of it's copy. In my case it was a "quote" attributed to a source who had never seen a reporter, far less talked to one. I believe this is also known as "Lying".
Note I say this freely and openly on a public forum without any caveats such ŇallegedlyÓ without fear of being sued by the Daily Record. ÉTHE DAILY RECORD MAKES THINGS UP WHICH IT THEN PUBLISHES AS FACTÉ The moderators know who I am. CŐmon Daily Record. If you think you are hard enough.
(Caveat!!! I single out the Record because I can prove that one. Not because they are the only tabloid that makes thing up)
In my view, when we read/listen to the "media" for news, we should be able to expect fair, accurate, unbiased and truthful reporting, whatever the subject matter. (How na•ve am I?)
In practice, what we are often subjected to are puerile attempts to sell as much copy as possible with sensationalist rubbish, which bears little if any resemblance to the facts.
If "Aircraft carrying football team rejects take-off. No injuries or damage." isn't interesting enough, then the story isn't interesting enough.....so don't bother publishing. Surely there's enough going on in Corrie and Big Brother to fill up the front page.
As Andrew M says, it is particularly worrying when the BBC falls into this category of gutter journalism as "due to the special way it's funded" it doesn't have to do this and shouldnŐt be allowed to. I donŐt have to buy the Sun and Record. But I am compelled to pay for the BBC whether I watch it or not
There are a lot of good journalists out there. They just donŐt seem to work for the tabloid press. And the tabloid press influences the opinion of large sections of the public way beyond the level of either their ability or their morals or their accountablity.
The reason some journalists receive such contempt on these forums is because their standard of journalism is contemptible. This is not to suggest that all journalists are hopelessly incompetent. Some actually take time to research their subject, including the odd one or two who use these forums.
Aviation is unfortunately a cheap target for these people, and sensational headlines are ten a penny for "incidents" which are non events in professional aviation terms. I know for sure, from personal experience that the Daily Record "makes up" at least some of it's copy. In my case it was a "quote" attributed to a source who had never seen a reporter, far less talked to one. I believe this is also known as "Lying".
Note I say this freely and openly on a public forum without any caveats such ŇallegedlyÓ without fear of being sued by the Daily Record. ÉTHE DAILY RECORD MAKES THINGS UP WHICH IT THEN PUBLISHES AS FACTÉ The moderators know who I am. CŐmon Daily Record. If you think you are hard enough.
(Caveat!!! I single out the Record because I can prove that one. Not because they are the only tabloid that makes thing up)
In my view, when we read/listen to the "media" for news, we should be able to expect fair, accurate, unbiased and truthful reporting, whatever the subject matter. (How na•ve am I?)
In practice, what we are often subjected to are puerile attempts to sell as much copy as possible with sensationalist rubbish, which bears little if any resemblance to the facts.
If "Aircraft carrying football team rejects take-off. No injuries or damage." isn't interesting enough, then the story isn't interesting enough.....so don't bother publishing. Surely there's enough going on in Corrie and Big Brother to fill up the front page.
As Andrew M says, it is particularly worrying when the BBC falls into this category of gutter journalism as "due to the special way it's funded" it doesn't have to do this and shouldnŐt be allowed to. I donŐt have to buy the Sun and Record. But I am compelled to pay for the BBC whether I watch it or not
There are a lot of good journalists out there. They just donŐt seem to work for the tabloid press. And the tabloid press influences the opinion of large sections of the public way beyond the level of either their ability or their morals or their accountablity.
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'...the Britannia Airways captain pulled out almost on the point of take-off. The plane slewed across the runway before shuddering to a halt at such force that everything inside the cabin was tossed around as the passengers were jolted backwards viciously by the impact of the brakes.'
Poor journalism really p1sses me off!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gulp! Deep breath. Here goes.......I think you guys are wrong on this one!
I haven't been in a plane aborting takeoff but I have been in a car which t-boned another vehicle (his fault, honest!) and the decelleration effect is that you lurch forward against the strain of the seatbelt, then are thrown backwards against the seat. It's a 2-step thing. So the description is probably not inaccurate.
See 'Hot Shots', the Top Gun spoof, for a simple demo of this effect - complete with comedy sound effects. (The scene where the planes are landing on the carrier and snagging the arrestor cables)
I haven't been in a plane aborting takeoff but I have been in a car which t-boned another vehicle (his fault, honest!) and the decelleration effect is that you lurch forward against the strain of the seatbelt, then are thrown backwards against the seat. It's a 2-step thing. So the description is probably not inaccurate.
See 'Hot Shots', the Top Gun spoof, for a simple demo of this effect - complete with comedy sound effects. (The scene where the planes are landing on the carrier and snagging the arrestor cables)
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have been in a few aborted takeoffs, albeit on the flight deck with shoulder harness fastened and also a couple, sitting in the cabin with lapstrap fastened. I have never experienced any forces that would have thrown me into the back of the seat. An aborted takeoff is nothing like the sudden stop of back ending another car where you get a rebound. The worst one ever I experienced when we had an uncontained failure of No3 engine at the call of V1 at about 145 knots at Haneda Japan. Admittedly it happened a long time ago but I can not recall any passenger panic or sensational journalism in the aftermath. Maybe Japanese passengers are more stoic and their reporters a bit more switched on?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew M - as for bugs in the pitot tubes, here's a thought.
If the bug lodged in there before start up there is no way that the crew would have noticed until they started the take off run. Typically, ASIs do not read the first 30, 40, 50 kts etc (the one I use has a scale that starts at 60kt although the needle starts to move at 30). This is to stop the needle thrashing around on the ground in gusty conditions and wearing out the instrument.
I have never taxied fast enough to cause an ASI to read (although the Ryanair 737s taxiing at Prestwick may well do so!) and so that is the whole point of the ASI check during the take-off run (60, 80, 100kt depending upon the airline). If the ASIs do not match you reject - as seems to be the case here.
If the bug lodged in there before start up there is no way that the crew would have noticed until they started the take off run. Typically, ASIs do not read the first 30, 40, 50 kts etc (the one I use has a scale that starts at 60kt although the needle starts to move at 30). This is to stop the needle thrashing around on the ground in gusty conditions and wearing out the instrument.
I have never taxied fast enough to cause an ASI to read (although the Ryanair 737s taxiing at Prestwick may well do so!) and so that is the whole point of the ASI check during the take-off run (60, 80, 100kt depending upon the airline). If the ASIs do not match you reject - as seems to be the case here.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britannia is like every other carrier that has SOP’S. The only difference is that in Brits there seems to be a call for everything.
The ASI needle gets off the stop at 60kts. The speed tape is too small to use in the rapidly changing situation on takeoff. The majority of departures use a de-rate takeoff using assumed temp method and its usually around the 50+ mark.
The PF presses the N1 button and the PNF fine-tunes the thrust levers. PNF checks primary engine indications and calls thrust set. (The captain always does the reject and always covers the thrust levers until V1 is called) By now we’re at around 75 kts if there was a bit more tweaking with the thrust levers we may already be at 80 kts. The call is 80 kts; the PF checks his ASI and that THR HOLD is enunciated and replies “check” This call will sometimes be made at 90 kts if the 80 kts call is missed for any reason.
From now on we only reject for serious malfunctions that will or might impair the aircrafts ability to get airborne and fly safely i.e. an engine failure up to the V1 call and then we go whatever the situation.
So in this incident it probably went like this, the PNF called 80kts, the PF looks at his ASI and sees what? 0kts or maybe 65 kts if the blockage is not complete. He checks the STBY ASI and might even check the IRS groundspeed readout. The captain decides to reject. The speed is now through 90 kts and they’re going like a train. The thrust levers are closed and the auto brake RTO function kicks in and a max effort to stop is made using full reverse.
You will be thrown forward against your harness. Stopping an aircraft that was probably around 92000kg + and getting on towards 100kts by the time all the braking effort was applied is going to be memorable. The aircraft can do the same thing at much heavier weights and much higher speeds. The wheel brakes are very powerful and you will notice it. The aircraft will stop with a bounce of the nose gear oleo and you are returned to your seat.
In retrospect the crew did well. You need to understand how fast these aircraft accelerate and the decision is easier when its not you making it and you know its coming.
The ASI needle gets off the stop at 60kts. The speed tape is too small to use in the rapidly changing situation on takeoff. The majority of departures use a de-rate takeoff using assumed temp method and its usually around the 50+ mark.
The PF presses the N1 button and the PNF fine-tunes the thrust levers. PNF checks primary engine indications and calls thrust set. (The captain always does the reject and always covers the thrust levers until V1 is called) By now we’re at around 75 kts if there was a bit more tweaking with the thrust levers we may already be at 80 kts. The call is 80 kts; the PF checks his ASI and that THR HOLD is enunciated and replies “check” This call will sometimes be made at 90 kts if the 80 kts call is missed for any reason.
From now on we only reject for serious malfunctions that will or might impair the aircrafts ability to get airborne and fly safely i.e. an engine failure up to the V1 call and then we go whatever the situation.
So in this incident it probably went like this, the PNF called 80kts, the PF looks at his ASI and sees what? 0kts or maybe 65 kts if the blockage is not complete. He checks the STBY ASI and might even check the IRS groundspeed readout. The captain decides to reject. The speed is now through 90 kts and they’re going like a train. The thrust levers are closed and the auto brake RTO function kicks in and a max effort to stop is made using full reverse.
You will be thrown forward against your harness. Stopping an aircraft that was probably around 92000kg + and getting on towards 100kts by the time all the braking effort was applied is going to be memorable. The aircraft can do the same thing at much heavier weights and much higher speeds. The wheel brakes are very powerful and you will notice it. The aircraft will stop with a bounce of the nose gear oleo and you are returned to your seat.
In retrospect the crew did well. You need to understand how fast these aircraft accelerate and the decision is easier when its not you making it and you know its coming.
