BA aborted takeoff at Pisa?
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA aborted takeoff at Pisa?
I think this happened last night, T/O aborted close to V1 due to warning light.
Apparently hard braking was necessary and a tyre punctured. Any further info? Thanks
The flight to Gatwick was delayed by 12 hours.
Apparently hard braking was necessary and a tyre punctured. Any further info? Thanks
The flight to Gatwick was delayed by 12 hours.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Pub
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke to Purser today.
Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.
Nothing amazing.
Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.
Nothing amazing.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sanket_Patel
This is probably not the most newsworthy item in the world right now. However, this particular incident IS OF INTEREST to the individuals who made the posting (perhaps they have a personal interest in either the airport, aircraft, company..........).
Therefore, no need for you to be so sarcastic, my friend. This is an open public forum for those involved in the industry to air their views as they consider necessary.
You read the headline, and clearly then went to the thread to see what it was about............why then post a ridiculous reply?
If aborted take-offs are of no interest to you, why not just ignore the thread and go to the next one.
Guys........what was the aircraft involved. I assume a 737-400? It wasn't G-DOCX by any chance, was it?
A300Man
This is probably not the most newsworthy item in the world right now. However, this particular incident IS OF INTEREST to the individuals who made the posting (perhaps they have a personal interest in either the airport, aircraft, company..........).
Therefore, no need for you to be so sarcastic, my friend. This is an open public forum for those involved in the industry to air their views as they consider necessary.
You read the headline, and clearly then went to the thread to see what it was about............why then post a ridiculous reply?
If aborted take-offs are of no interest to you, why not just ignore the thread and go to the next one.
Guys........what was the aircraft involved. I assume a 737-400? It wasn't G-DOCX by any chance, was it?
A300Man
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T/O aborted close to V1 due to warning light - you sure ?!
A typical briefing prior to departure would include something like:
"...... above 80Kts and prior to V1 we only will stop for the following: any fire warning, an engine failure identified by at least two parameters, a configuration warning, a control difficulty, a blocked runway, a predictive windshear warning, or anything that the Captain thinks might jeopardise safety"
Now three of those stop items (fire, configuration, windshear) generate an aural warning, and engine failures tend to generate a rather noticeable yaw (i.e. and as such it is covered by the 'engine failure' and 'control difficulty' reasons to stop).
Normally above 80Kts, one doesn't stop for 'Master Caution' annunciations - unless, in the Captains judgement, it is preferable to do so - i.e. the closer you get to V1 the more orientated one becomes towards 'Going' rather than stopping.
So one would imagine that it was a bit more than just a 'warning light' that prompted them to stop if indeed they were close to V1 as has been suggested.
Veritably, one of life's great debates is the stop / go decision process.
"...... above 80Kts and prior to V1 we only will stop for the following: any fire warning, an engine failure identified by at least two parameters, a configuration warning, a control difficulty, a blocked runway, a predictive windshear warning, or anything that the Captain thinks might jeopardise safety"
Now three of those stop items (fire, configuration, windshear) generate an aural warning, and engine failures tend to generate a rather noticeable yaw (i.e. and as such it is covered by the 'engine failure' and 'control difficulty' reasons to stop).
Normally above 80Kts, one doesn't stop for 'Master Caution' annunciations - unless, in the Captains judgement, it is preferable to do so - i.e. the closer you get to V1 the more orientated one becomes towards 'Going' rather than stopping.
So one would imagine that it was a bit more than just a 'warning light' that prompted them to stop if indeed they were close to V1 as has been suggested.
Veritably, one of life's great debates is the stop / go decision process.
Last edited by Devils Advocate; 24th Sep 2002 at 07:02.
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate, thanks, that's exactly what I thought. Thanks A300 man for your post also, as you rightly point out I do have a particular interest in this case.
Sanket_patel, I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was pretty s**tted up by it in order to allay their fears and explain that it is a standard procedure. I realise it is not the end of the world but many of the pax were quite worried and I think pilots sometimes would do well to remember that a lot of the people down the back don't know much about aviation.
Now my information came from a passenger so it may well be wrong, but he said that they were 'about two seconds from takeoff' when T/O was aborted and the only reason given was that they had a warning light in the cockpit.
Sanket_patel, I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was pretty s**tted up by it in order to allay their fears and explain that it is a standard procedure. I realise it is not the end of the world but many of the pax were quite worried and I think pilots sometimes would do well to remember that a lot of the people down the back don't know much about aviation.
Now my information came from a passenger so it may well be wrong, but he said that they were 'about two seconds from takeoff' when T/O was aborted and the only reason given was that they had a warning light in the cockpit.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, two things here ;
i) 'about two seconds from takeoff' - does that mean they'd been going for two seconds, or, in the opiuon of the passenger they were going quite fast.
ii) In my experience whatever the reason, the reason the pax are told is similar to 'a warning light in the cockpit', unless it was something serious such as eng failiure. They are hardly likely to say 'something broke and lots of bells and lights went off' are they ???
Also, if they were really two seconds from lift off, they must have been almost at v1, very unlikely to stop for a predicative windshear (may not be enough rwy left to stop in a windshear situation).
An engine failure, would perhaps have been a little more obvious, and a config warning ( no flaps etc), would have sounded as soon as the 'epr' button is pressed (probably 2 secs after the start of the take off roll ???????).
Devils advocate is correct with the reasons to stop - so there arent many others left are there ?? I agree - it is a little puzzling what happened.
i) 'about two seconds from takeoff' - does that mean they'd been going for two seconds, or, in the opiuon of the passenger they were going quite fast.
ii) In my experience whatever the reason, the reason the pax are told is similar to 'a warning light in the cockpit', unless it was something serious such as eng failiure. They are hardly likely to say 'something broke and lots of bells and lights went off' are they ???
Also, if they were really two seconds from lift off, they must have been almost at v1, very unlikely to stop for a predicative windshear (may not be enough rwy left to stop in a windshear situation).
An engine failure, would perhaps have been a little more obvious, and a config warning ( no flaps etc), would have sounded as soon as the 'epr' button is pressed (probably 2 secs after the start of the take off roll ???????).
Devils advocate is correct with the reasons to stop - so there arent many others left are there ?? I agree - it is a little puzzling what happened.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controlller
A warning light would not equate too a misunderstanding between captain and copilot!
May have been Copilots takeoff - we dont know!
However we brief that up to 80kts a master caution warning will be assessed and the decision will be made to stop based on the commanders assessment of the problem!
After 80kts the T/O will only be aborted due to a major failure i.e engine fire/failure e.t.c - after 80kts it is deemed safer to take a minor problem into the air, than it is to carry out an RTO at high speed!
After reading the reports posted ( we do not know the accuracy of these) prob seems to be that RTO was carried out, depending on weight and ambient temp, cooling schedule would have to be consulted and time would have to be given in order to let breaks cool otherwise you may have the prob of brakes catching fire or brakes fusing! this may have then escalated the prob!
Please people do not jump to conclusions! CAN WE AGAIN, NOT CRITICISE THE CREW CAN WE GIVE THEM A PAT ON THE BACK AND SAY JOB WELL DONE FOR CARRYING OUT A SAFE RTO after all that is what we are trained for!
A warning light would not equate too a misunderstanding between captain and copilot!
May have been Copilots takeoff - we dont know!
However we brief that up to 80kts a master caution warning will be assessed and the decision will be made to stop based on the commanders assessment of the problem!
After 80kts the T/O will only be aborted due to a major failure i.e engine fire/failure e.t.c - after 80kts it is deemed safer to take a minor problem into the air, than it is to carry out an RTO at high speed!
After reading the reports posted ( we do not know the accuracy of these) prob seems to be that RTO was carried out, depending on weight and ambient temp, cooling schedule would have to be consulted and time would have to be given in order to let breaks cool otherwise you may have the prob of brakes catching fire or brakes fusing! this may have then escalated the prob!
Please people do not jump to conclusions! CAN WE AGAIN, NOT CRITICISE THE CREW CAN WE GIVE THEM A PAT ON THE BACK AND SAY JOB WELL DONE FOR CARRYING OUT A SAFE RTO after all that is what we are trained for!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Pub
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a300 man
Dunno aircraft involved - if speak to ops in next few days will ask and let you know.
If I see the people involved will let them know to come on here and give you all the lowe down on the ho down for you.
Failing that will get the story myself - sound good?
If I see the people involved will let them know to come on here and give you all the lowe down on the ho down for you.
Failing that will get the story myself - sound good?
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently it was the Captain himself who told the pax they were about two seconds from takeoff so it seems they were indeed close to V1 and therefore something relatively serious had happened.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shadowpurser;
"Spoke to Purser today.
Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.
Nothing amazing."
I hope for the flight crew's sake that they had already identified a Serious enough Problem(which would have prevented a quick trunaround anyway) otherwise why would they have chosen to RTO near V1 in the first place ? Unless they are so dedicated they and thought they could recover the Sector with one Engine ?
"Spoke to Purser today.
Had to wait while brakes cooled down - then a problem was identified due to the aborted take off.
Nothing amazing."
I hope for the flight crew's sake that they had already identified a Serious enough Problem(which would have prevented a quick trunaround anyway) otherwise why would they have chosen to RTO near V1 in the first place ? Unless they are so dedicated they and thought they could recover the Sector with one Engine ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks ShadowPurser. Would appreciate your feedback.
The only reason that I ask if it was G-DOCX was that same aircraft appears to have a slight "history" in aborted departures and emergency landings. A friend of mine is BA Engineering at Glasgow, where the 734 fleet were most recently maintained. Charlie X-Ray was hated amongst the teams there because of repetitive avionics and instrumentation whinges.
Anyway - it may not even have been a 734 at all. Anyone able to confirm type?
The only reason that I ask if it was G-DOCX was that same aircraft appears to have a slight "history" in aborted departures and emergency landings. A friend of mine is BA Engineering at Glasgow, where the 734 fleet were most recently maintained. Charlie X-Ray was hated amongst the teams there because of repetitive avionics and instrumentation whinges.
Anyway - it may not even have been a 734 at all. Anyone able to confirm type?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aborted T/O's.
****te, Man leave it alone.
At the end of the day it is what we,re trained to do,
and no one is hurt , the A/C is safe, and the crew can learn from it.(and industry)
Here's to flying safe, and no hero's, it always makes me think about the motive of some people, like they are not happy unless it involves tons of burning, mangled machinary, and body parts strewn everywhere,?.
What do people like the original author of this want?.
Pi-- off mate and get a life.
At the end of the day it is what we,re trained to do,
and no one is hurt , the A/C is safe, and the crew can learn from it.(and industry)
Here's to flying safe, and no hero's, it always makes me think about the motive of some people, like they are not happy unless it involves tons of burning, mangled machinary, and body parts strewn everywhere,?.
What do people like the original author of this want?.
Pi-- off mate and get a life.
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For f**ks sake Crack. Read the thread you utter moron. It seems you can't raise any topic on here without it turning into a slangin match because of sad idiots like you: "Pi-- off mate and get a life". That's really mature isn't it?
I have already said I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was on the flight. At any rate it seems that this was more that an average RTO as they were I think close to V1.
There could be many reasons why someone would want to get more information on this, I'm not going to go over them again. Read the thread next time before wading in with ill-informed rubbish. As has already been said, if you are not interested in this subject why the hell did you click on the thread and reply??? I think you are the one who needs to get a life!
You are supposed to be a professional, start behaving like one.
I have already said I was trying to get some information for a passenger who was on the flight. At any rate it seems that this was more that an average RTO as they were I think close to V1.
There could be many reasons why someone would want to get more information on this, I'm not going to go over them again. Read the thread next time before wading in with ill-informed rubbish. As has already been said, if you are not interested in this subject why the hell did you click on the thread and reply??? I think you are the one who needs to get a life!
You are supposed to be a professional, start behaving like one.
Last edited by Wedge; 25th Sep 2002 at 09:20.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crack and Wedge
Crack
I think you have perhaps clicked on the thread and scanned the points too quickly to have really understood the details of what Wedge was asking and why. As I said in my previous post here, if the subject doesn't interest YOU, it doesn't mean that it does not interest SOMEONE ELSE.
This being the case, think what you will privately and skip onto the next thread. But, by default, you have visited the thread and have made a comment. Why did you do that, if you felt that the whole subject was crap and sensationalism?
Wedge
I still agree with you 100% with your comments above. BUT, don't get too hot under the collar mate. Comments like those above (Crack's) are best laughed at and ignored, rather than playing into his hands. Take it easy, huh?
It continually amazes me how passionate people become about their subject.......but that is nothing more than testament to the fact that we are all involved in one of the best and most interesting industries around!!!
In conclusion, an aborted take off is NOT AT ALL a sensational piece of news for most of us. However, for a passenger in the back of the aeroplane (I could be that passenger - I am not a pilot), an aborted take off is a scary and frightening experience. Don't you agree Crack? If Wedge is just trying to use this Forum to obtain some info to put a passengers mind at ease (remember that passengers are our EMPLOYERS!!!), then why the hell not? It's not a crime.
Anyway - enough of my spouting forth - I am off now to have a G&T.
A300Man
Crack
I think you have perhaps clicked on the thread and scanned the points too quickly to have really understood the details of what Wedge was asking and why. As I said in my previous post here, if the subject doesn't interest YOU, it doesn't mean that it does not interest SOMEONE ELSE.
This being the case, think what you will privately and skip onto the next thread. But, by default, you have visited the thread and have made a comment. Why did you do that, if you felt that the whole subject was crap and sensationalism?
Wedge
I still agree with you 100% with your comments above. BUT, don't get too hot under the collar mate. Comments like those above (Crack's) are best laughed at and ignored, rather than playing into his hands. Take it easy, huh?
It continually amazes me how passionate people become about their subject.......but that is nothing more than testament to the fact that we are all involved in one of the best and most interesting industries around!!!
In conclusion, an aborted take off is NOT AT ALL a sensational piece of news for most of us. However, for a passenger in the back of the aeroplane (I could be that passenger - I am not a pilot), an aborted take off is a scary and frightening experience. Don't you agree Crack? If Wedge is just trying to use this Forum to obtain some info to put a passengers mind at ease (remember that passengers are our EMPLOYERS!!!), then why the hell not? It's not a crime.
Anyway - enough of my spouting forth - I am off now to have a G&T.
A300Man