The last three pilots who did an aborted takeoff while working for BA CityFlyer, at London City Airport- were sacked. :eek:

I'm not going to derail this thread, but unless there is a linkage to a series of performance shortcomings of which an abort was "the last straw" once the company investigated it ... :confused:

What is it about an abort, itself, that was so critical at BA CityFlyer? (Maybe fodder for a different thread?)

Lonewold_50, If the last three guys were sacked it would be good to hear the context of that, whether justified or not. I'm sure it's not quite as straight forward as your text implies.

Back to the article; I thought this was a very accurate statement by Psychologist Brene Browne who says:

‘Men walk this tightrope where any sign of weakness elicits shame, and so they’re afraid to make themselves vulnerable for fear of looking weak.’ I would argue that this is the same problem that women deal with, why wouldn't it be.

I think we've all read the crash comics where you can read between the lines that the guy in the left seat perhaps felt the loss of his own SA or feeling shame for some other failing on his part. It is these times when the cockpit gradient often suddenly becomes very steep perhaps as a perverted means of compensation.

Some famous countering lines to this I remember in successful incidents that have occurred are when the captain has said in one instance of a fire in the flight deck now successfully extinguished while in the middle of the pacific 'Can you guys see any reason why we shouldn't divert to XXXX?'

Or Captain Sullenberger once lined up with the Hudson on short final 'Is there anything I've missed?' (or words to that effect).

Nobody perceived these guys as weak for implying their SA may be lacking.

At the same time us captains are all too aware of the need not to be too deferential to the FO but rather 'bring him along with us'.

Some people are naturally better than others at this but it's a skill I think would can all learn and improve on as we go.

I always highlight to new FO's that their job is to find my mistakes and mine is to politely return the favour, this keeps us out of head office. I also like to add that should there be doubt in a critical phase of flight as to the correct procedure we will make best endeavours to do what is most conservative and talk about it later, not always possible but worth mentioning.

Seriously ?



An aborted take off in a Cessna 206 requiring 'notification of authorities'



Do they call out the forensic chaps and take tire samples as well ? :eek:

Stilt,

It's an example of how Euro-centric PPRUNE is- most of these guys wouldn't have the first clue what a C206 looks like, let alone the realities of operating one commercially in the outback.

Wiz,

I'm from Germany, I'm not even a pilot (yet), however I thought having a rejected takeoff was part of the training for becoming a pilot?

To me, something smells quite fishy from that story.

Please enlighten us, why was this considered a big deal in Oz? Maybe the story doesn't present all the facts and is a try to spin something. I think I have an idea what a C206 looks like, however at least at an airport, a rejected takeoff for one shouldn't be a big deal. (On a dirt strip it's probably another story, at least if he hit something...)

I imagine that the author of the article is feeling a little bit frustrated that the major talking point has been around the aborted take-off and not what happened to the pilot afterwards on social media:
The incident itself was minor but it was the unleashing of the social media cowards which was the point, and the negative effects it can have on an individuals state of mind.

That should ensure cordial cockpit relations. You get me and I'll get you.
Surely this is taking political correctness too far. A bit yukky, IMHO

RealUli,

My point is that rejecting a take-off in a c206 ISN'T a big deal. The thing lifts of at around 70 knots, so any reject is in what could only be described as low speed, the aircraft has a tough fixed gear and you are not even likely to unduly wear the brakes.

People whose sole experience of Aviation is heavy, fast jets are implying an RTO is always a big deal. In a C206 it just isn't.

I highly doubt that there was criticism of this crew for aborting a takeoff for a valid reason. So what was the reason for this RTO?

The Australian reporting requirements - Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003

Aircraft operations other than air transport operations

(2) For the purposes of the definition of routine reportable matter in subsection 3 (1) of the Act, the following investigable matters, in relation to an aircraft operation (other than an aircraft operation mentioned in subregulation 2.1 (2) or an air transport operation), are prescribed:

(a) an injury, other than a serious injury, to a person on board the aircraft;

(b) a flight crew member becoming incapacitated while operating the aircraft;

(c) airprox;

(d) an occurrence in which flight into terrain is narrowly avoided;

(e) the use of any procedure for overcoming an emergency;

(f) an occurrence that results in difficulty controlling the aircraft, including any of the following occurrences:

(i) an aircraft system failure;

(ii) a weather phenomenon;

(iii) operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope;

(g) fuel exhaustion;

(h) the aircraft’s supply of useable fuel becoming so low (whether or not as a result of fuel starvation) that the safety of the aircraft is compromised;

(i) a collision with an animal, including a bird, on a licensed aerodrome.

Just to be clear, is the whole thread in question was about a pilot who did an RTO for some reason in a small aircraft and didn't report it to the authorities?

It's about how the internet turns into a lynchmob, when sometimes not all facts are known. It has infected the aviation world along with other parts of the world. That seems to have been the point of the thread/discussion being opened.

I would think that if you did a RTO because of
(g) fuel exhaustion;
You would not want to tell anybody.

Judd,

I know what you're saying Judd, this is where your people skills come in to it and you're discretion to know which battles to fight. Not every little error is going to have going for tea and biscuits but your experience will inform you as to where you need to show leadership. If they're comfortable in speaking up it will hopefully be because you have fostered such and environment by not bringing a glass jaw in to the flight deck. A simple 'good pick up' goes a long way. When I've spoken up I haven't always got it right that's true enough however my F/O's seem to walk away getting along well more often than not.

Well, ATC would probably like to know your intentions after you've stopped on the runway (are you going to taxi off the runway? backtrack and try again? would you like the fire engine?), but I can't see anyone else being interested.

Either there's more to this than reported or it's utterly weird.

Great article.

I suspect it was a bit more than pull the throttle and stand on the brakes....he may have been airborne an put it back down hard.,,,damaging the firewall due to heavy nose wheel loads.....that would explain it... He looked and couldn't see any damage but if he really did have such a heavy landing he should have fessed up..., All my speculation of course but you can see how a forum could make the same assumptions and then carry on to crucify the guy...