Two aborted takeoffs in a row on the same flight!
 

First of all, I am not a pilot. Let me describe what I experienced yesterday as a passenger.

AirBaltic flight FRA - RIX, 6.30 pm at Frankfurt airport, dense fog.

We come to the runway and start our takeoff roll.

After about 4 secs, the plane starts braking, and soon stops.

Captain: "Ladies and gentlemen, we were actually cleared for takeoff, yet another plane had to go around, therefore the controller has stopped our takeoff. My apologies. We will try again in about 20 seconds".

After about 20 secs, another try. This one lasted a second shorter... with the same result - braking and stopping.

"Captain again... Once again the controller has stopped our takeoff due to bad weather conditions..."

The third attempt (again from the last position on the runway, without any turning back) was successful.

Anyone knows what could have caused this?

Thank you,
nothrills

ATC should not have cleared the aircraft for take-off if there was a possibility of a go-around that would result in a confliction. :=

S... happens.

I had to goaround twice in marginal CATI weather there 'cause both planes vacated very late, looking for a taxy way.

I'm afraid there was some disbelief on my 2nd PA:\

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Other traffic going around on parallel runway, standby for take-off clearance in 1 minute"
Engines spooling down

"Prepare for immediate take-off"
Engines spool-up
"Cleared for takeoff"

Odds are that you didn't actually move anywhere during those 4 seconds of take off, it takes that long or longer to start rolling, you probably just heard the engines spool up felt a bit of vibration.
At 3 miles per hour, you move about 4 feet per second, at 5 miles an hour, 7 feet per second, and when first starting the takeoff roll you don't get past 3 to 5 miles an hour for several seconds, so even if you were actually rolling for 4 seconds, you might have gone all of 30 feet (10 meters).
Odds are that runway was more than 6000 feet long (2000 meters), so a 4 second roll would not require turning back.

in 'bad' weather (foggy), an airplane that can't see the runway soon enough will 'go-around', the controller is supposed to keep a large area of the sky cleared for this go-around, so if the plane had landed on the runway, it would be safe to take off, but with it doing a go-around it's no longer safe to take off.

That plane was not landing on the same runway as the one you were taking off from, guaranteed, but now there's another plane in the same area that the one you're on wants to use...

Thanks for your replies guys!

Believe me, we DID move. I start counting seconds from the moment the plane started moving, rather that from the engine spool. Of course, I did not count the seconds, so it is my estimation. The (first) braking itself took much more than 10 or 20 meters...

I would believe that this was not a normal situation, as there should have been better coordination between the control and the captain. But I am not a professional, that's why I wanted to hear your comments.

Prepare for immediate take off does not mean "spool your engines up"!

I think it is actually normal.
The thing is, if every flight had to wait until every parallel runway landing was 'on the ground' rather than 1 mile out, the capacity of airports would be cut in half.
The lower the clouds, the higher the chance of a go-around. (you have to have the runway environment in sight within a certain distance of the ground, or you are required to do a go-around)

The way he described it certainly doesn't sound "normal" to me.
I certainly hope the takeoff data was valid starting the roll down the runway?!!

Yes, but pulling forward with more than idle thrust a few 10 meters to the displaced threshold is something that is necessary on this particular runway if you want to be in line with the local regulations.

Then you would apply take-off power at the displaced threshold, once cleared for take-off.

Another option is: take-off warning went off

which is it?
4 seconds and start braking, or take 20 meters to stop?
because physics would require going significantly faster than you could achieve after 4 seconds of acceleration if it required 20 meters to stop.

I am quite sure some extra margin was available as in low vis no reduced thrust is allowed(no ass,derate ok).

From top of my head,if its a 738 at max takeoff weight,it needs about 2400 m of TORA.
Quite sure no intersection take off are allowed in low vis and that FRA runway is longer than 2400 M plus line up distance.
No problem there...

Three Take-off attempts in a row
 

Happened to me on 7th Feb 1979 when flying as a passenger from FRA / HMB. Lufthansa D-ABUL B 707-330B 'Duisburg'
Lined up on one of the Westerly runways, spooled up, commenced T/O run,
only to spool down and shudder to a halt after about 20 secs. This happened again after we had taxied back to the terminal, carried out some checks, lined up again - full power, commence take off and then after 20 secs full brakes T/O aborted.
Feeling very nervous by now. Plane taxied back to the terminal. Pilot announced he would make some checks, and then try again.
All aborad now apprehensive but no one dared ask to disembark.
On tghird attempt we were airborne. Never did get a satisfactory answer to the two earlier aborted attempts, but it was our plane, not other traffic to blame.
Steve

Takeoff runways in EDDF are 4000m.
Intx takeoff would not be allow during LVP.

Aahh, Frankfurt :rolleyes:

NO intersection, NO flex takeoff in LVO, well that's something new. I most certainly disagree with that. :ok:

How about 3 RTO and T/O on fourth try !!
 

Incident: Egypt B738 at Milan on Nov 10th 2012, rejected takeoff thrice

I would probably jumped out of that Aeroplane..:p

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Nov 13th 2012 16:33Z, last updated Tuesday, Nov 13th 2012 16:33ZAn Egypt Air Boeing 737-800, registration SU-GCZ performing flight MS-706 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Cairo (Egypt) with 83 passengers, was accelerating for takeoff with the engines spooling up when the crew rejected takeoff at low speed due to an engine anti ice failure indication. The aircraft returned to the gate to have maintenance rectify the fault.

Following maintenance activities the aircraft attempted another departure, upon accelerating the engines for takeoff the crew received the same fault indication again and rejected takeoff at low speed again. The aircraft returned to the apron for maintenance action.

Following another attempt to repair the aircraft maintenance signed the aircraft off again and the crew attempted another departure, however the same fault occurred again and the takeoff was rejected at low speed a third time.

The third attempt to repair the aircraft finally succeeded, the aircraft departed on the fourth takeoff and reached Cairo with a delay of 5.5 hours.

What is it with some controllers and this 'Be Ready Immediate - spool up your engines' thing??
Mostly only heard in the US these days....homeland of dodgy non-SOP controlling.

who the heck spools up their engines just because the controller says be ready immediate. first time i've heard of it