Would you abort after V1?

[rcl7700]

I would hate to be the captain who aborts after V1 and ends up off the end with hurt pax and a damaged ship. Start typing up a new resume, for a non-flying position, somewhere else.

I aborted a CRJ200 T/O 10 KIAS before V1, at about 48,000 lbs take off weight (53,000lbs max) at an airport with a 13,123ft long runway and 5,000ft MSL elevation and got the BTMS squares from green to white. This was using up all of the remaining runway and normal braking. I was shocked at how much runway we used and still got the brakes hot enough to require a cool down period. Had it been hotter and had we been heavier I think it would've been a more memorable experience. V1 is there for a reason. Once I decided to abort thought I would make it off the runway way before I reached the end.

rcl

[airfoilmod]

Language

The more people misunderstand eachother (or feign ignorance to push the discussion), the longer the potential world record length of the thread. For my purpose (which I hope and pray is consistent with the regs) V1, at acquisition, means fly. The alternatives offered so far have to do with circumstances that would preclude flight, regardless. If one has no choice, it is not an "abort", which is a conscious decision, informed by circumstance. V1 is a decision that has been made prior to Brakes off.
Ignoring it is most likely the first blunder in an unfortunate outcome.

[international hog driver]

For us V1 is the go number irrespective

The only time that would differ is when you have lost one (no thrust) and the other is about to vibe itself into orbit and airspeed is decreasing even after hitting the go buttons cancelling any de-rate after collecting a whole squadron of birds.

If I had runway available then yes I will put it down and hope for the best, because its probably better to overrun on a flat area than …….. houses/terrain/water…… pick your poison

[airfoilmod]

IHG

The decision is no longer yours, it was made for you by Starlings, Wrens, etc. You are now not Rejecting anything except a high speed Taxi. If it won't fly, don't fly. Now you are a truck driver.

"If I had runway available, yes I would put it down...." Now you are trying to regain "choice". Your posit was clear, you cannot get airborne, then you claim discretion over runway availibility. Maddening. Clear, Out.

Airfoil

[Right Way Up]

Always entertaining when someone with no airline experience & what looks like about 3 years jet experience tells the airlines with over 50 years of operating heavy jets how the job should be done.

I guess thats why the Alaskan interview didn't go so well....

[ssg]

To think or not to think as a pilot, that is the question...

I find it interesting how many guys in here have just chosen not to think, just do what the company tells them...

Flex Power: I did some research....not all airlines think it's safe, not all airlines think the cost in safety is worth the hopefull engine life extension years down the road. Read Johns T. post for starters. So this isn't 'how it's done' and 'seeing the red lights at the end' is not standard procedure. I knew it was boloney. Derating take off power, purposely burning up more runway, turning every take off into a 'right to the edge nail biter' is a choice...your doing it with people's lives...to save a buck...besides a plane crash is worth about a million engines....

Now I have no problem, if you have a ten thousand foot field with rated power, balanced field is 4000 ft, Flex would be 6000...big deal...but using it to fly to the fence?

Secondly, Airline pilots don't see the engine overhaul and hot section bills, I have been through all that..the bid process, boroscope reports, seen the pics,fod, bearing failures, sufidation, test cell issues...so if you want to beat me up for not being an airline pilot please don't come back and tell me you know anything about engine overhaul and hotsection costs. Getting an email or memo from corporate doesn't count.

Secondly if you go after V1 in all cases in all scenarios, best case is you will get back safely, worst case you don't. Conversely, if you abort, you will stop safely or you will use up the overun, and or/some grass beyond this.

It's simple as pie, not all planes will fly that day, but all planes can stay on the ground and plow through the grass. Do you think a decelerating plane still on the ground, plowing through the grass is more dangerous then a plane, that can't be flown that crashes is more safe?

If you are flying a disabled aircraft around the pattern, screw it up and don't make it...people die...if you do an RTO in a disabled aircraft...screw it up, you're still on the ground, plowing through the grass.

Now we can sit here and talk about airport after airport where you don't plow through the grass at the end, it's a cliff, it's the ocean, it's a burning lake of lava, whatever...we are talking about a right after post V1 cut where you have excess runway...

Time after time I see all these planes that tried to fly it off only to crash..and who knows maybe the plane was heavy, the pilots weak, they screwed up...we all know the results...in that flight, they should have aborted....

All I have ever said is that the situation warrants judgement. Like Pace stated, there are situations where you don't fly a wreck up in the air, and that decision has saved lifes...it's saved mine as well.

We can sit here and debate this ad nauseum, but judgement, or lack there of, and inability to adapt to a situation, especialy if it's not on the check list, seems to catch a pilot or two(and the passengers) every year.

If you guys just hope that all the problems in a plane are in the Sops manual...well that would be nice wouldnt it...how comforting...

Maybe you guys are trained to do what makes sense 80% of the time, they don't want you guys to think...If I was running an airline, I might feel the same way, especialy if my pilots were weak, the FO had 500 hours, the capt was new, the take offs were always derated, so the capt could add power on the last good engine...whatever..basicaly set sops so no one had to think and hire accordingly..

But when I fly I have a choice...Still here....

The fact is...Pace and I, curiously being corporate pilots...seem to be in disagreement with the airline pilots that having chosen to simply go or not go, at V1, without any consideration to all the possibilites seems silly.. Gee whiz it's a good thing I didn't give a 'would you go before V1 thread' because I could, and there are situations that would warrant this decision as well...anyone ever been commited to a take off?

Hey if you get to V1, the wing falls off, are you going to pull it up?...what if you lose a nose tire, and the plane won't accelerate, what about a catastrauphic controll failure(hard to keep on straight on the runway)...I mean I could sit here and give a hundred situations where your barreling down the runway, and the situation is so violent and nasty, you know you don't want to take it up in the air...or at least this pilot wouldn't. But you guys would and that flight would be doomed.

Personaly, V1 is a start for me...and yes...I stop before V1, and go after V1...untill the situation warrants otherwise...and have done so in both cases.

But one thing is for sure...I won't purposely limit my options by extending my take off roll, V speeds, and rotation, as far down the runway, to try to save a buck...simply put I will have less time to discern the problem, less time to react, I will be closer to those obsticles, and closer to overrunning if I have to stop...I like as much of a margin of safety that I can get...

Here's one for you guys...before deciding to use flex power...address the passengers with this...

'Hey guys, how would you feel if I pulled it off at the fence today, trying to save corporate a buck on engines?'

[GeorgEGNT]

I'm no airline pilot, I'm barely a third through my PPL but was still fairly startled by that question.
There has been some interesting points in this thread but they're still overshadowed by the question. What is V1 there for? There are 2 sides to it, one side you take off and one you don't. Thats my understanding of it anyway.
So I'm fairly shocked a question like this has been asked but still, I'm only a wannabee lol I'll leave the debate to the drivers of the rune.

[Right Way Up]

SSG,
Its not a big issue. You fly your aircraft as you want & we'll fly ours as we want.

Not wanting to upset your disposition too much, but many Captains I flew with on the 747 , took their hand off the thrust levers at V1-10.

BTW have you ever seen what happens on a lightly loaded 747-400 on a full power takeoff which suffers an outboard engine failure. Another good reason for derated takeoffs.

[international hog driver]

Actually foils, in the sim you would not believe how many people try to fly out of the situation and try to keep hope alive rather than accept the reality and close the levers and plant it.

We have conducted this as an advanced loft, with they guys who have got all the competency and boxes ticked and there is a bit of time left in session.

About 70% try to fly it and just relocate the scene of the accident 30% put it back down---- 10% intentionally and its those who manage to plant it call for full flap, brake brake brake, thud, evacuate.

Occasionally we get one starter who manages to pull off a low level circuit on min power and its all hands flying, don’t change a thing in the configuration and turn finals < 100ft…… then select landing flap.

These guys are one offs and all to date come from a rigorous hands on flying environment

[Wizofoz]

ssg,

So, just out of interest, do you calculate the speed you CAN reject at for every takeoff? If you are two feet in the air do you know how much runway is needed to put it down again? You berate Airline pilots for following the rules laid down for us, so what ARE your rules? Do you brief your FO that "V1 is 112 but I KNOW that we can reject at 135".

Or do we just use the "That looks about right" rule....


You're right, we fly hundreds of people around and work for companies who lay down practices, usually in consultation with the people who BUILT the aircraft (do Cessna say to abort above V1? But then, what do they know!).

Do what you like with your coporate toy, we fly commercial aeroplanes for a living.

[airfoilmod]

Hmm

That is very compelling, IHG. I'd be interested to know what the parameters are for the challenge. Are you saying 70% try to fly as if busting the Sim was the Risk? Or are they just having a go, attempting to launch to return? Because at the bottom of the matter is the need to contain whatever badness happens on the Aerodrome. It's one thing to risk Pax on an ego driven ride (not to mention A/C), quite another to gamble the lives of the people who complain about your sonic footprint at political meetings. Especially if the proposition definitely includes two failed powerplants. (One cold, the other full of feathers and bones.)
(We're speaking Twinops, here, OK?)

Airfoil

[Screwballs]

ssg, please givethe link to at least one accident report where an aircraft crashed after contining a take-off after V1, with a failure AFTER V1.

youTube and Google images don't count. Facts please.

Also, you have some weird obsession with "right up to the fence". Where does this come from? Tell me an commercial operator that rotates right up at the fence. You really have no knowledge of Flex or Reduced Thrust ops.

As already said "Do what you like with your coporate toy, we fly commercial aeroplanes for a living."

[Denti]

If you are flying a disabled aircraft around the pattern, screw it up and don't make it...people die...if you do an RTO in a disabled aircraft...screw it up, you're still on the ground, plowing through the grass.

The question is though, where do YOU decide if to abort or fly it around the pattern? Because at some point you have to decide it, one way or another.

And exactly to give us a formalised tool for that decision process we have a V1, a decision speed at which we have to have allready startet with the stopping process or take it into the air (except if the plane is unflyable, but in that case there is nothing to decide).

Simply put, in a balanced field calculation if you abort your take off 2 seconds after V1 with all engines at full reverse thrust you will depart the runway at 70 kts and come to rest around 600 ft past the end. Not all that bad if there is enough space. Now think of having only one engine and not using reverse on the other as assumed for certification, well you will run over at aroun 90kts and come to rest around 1000ft behind the end. If you decide to abort only one second later it will be around 1100 ft with all engine reverse thrust and around 1800ft for the certification case. You still have enough space to do that? Not to mention that the brakes will overheat considerably and the tires explode shortly after you came to rest puncturing the fuel tanks and making even more of a mess out of it (all values 733).

The alternative is to take it around on a pattern, do the immediate return checklist and plonk it down with a much lower speed at the beginning of the runway.

[mini-jumbo]

if you do an RTO in a disabled aircraft...screw it up, you're still on the ground, plowing through the grass.

And people still die!

then a plane, that can't be flown that crashes is more safe?

If the plane couldn't fly, you wouldn't have got airborne, thus there would be no choice but to abandon the takeoff.

In the majority of cases, the aircraft is flyable, therefore if above V1 you continue.

Time after time I see all these planes that tried to fly it off only to crash..and who knows maybe the plane was heavy, the pilots weak, they screwed up...we all know the results...in that flight, they should have aborted....

Care to provide a list? a/c type, country, airline nationality. You seem to think you know the reason these crashes happened, but yet you keep failing to provide any factual information.

Hey if you get to V1, the wing falls off, are you going to pull it up?

That would likely end up in a fireball and loss of life whatever happens, so really is irrelevant.

ssg, you fly biz jets? correct? Has it occured to you, that they are light compared to most airliners and accelerate far quicker, rotate at lower speeds, therefore use less runway.

[Pace]

differences between corporate and airline pilots

I wonder how much the difference between attitudes of corporate jet pilots and Airline trained pilots comes more from where our backgrounds are different.

A corporate light jet pilot often comes from the route of flying light twins, often single pilot, often off airways down in the weather. He is used to dealing with situations on the hoof and on his/her own.

Airline trained pilots often progress through training straight into the controlled invironment of the airline where the pilot does not think but has to fly to set rules and procedures.

The light jet pilot again tends to have more hands on experience often from having flown dated equiptment which requires more involvement by the pilot.

Then there is the nature of the two animals/or birds. A light jet like a citation is still a light aircraft with slow takeoff and landing speeds.
A heavy has to be different as you are driving tons of hardware down the runway with tons of power.

So maybe the difference in attitude expressed here says more about where we come from and what we fly.

Pace

[Screwballs]

Pace, I think that is the correct conclusion.

I take offense at the comment "where the pilot does not think but has to fly to set rules and procedures." Either you mis-spoke or are just trying to be rude.

One could say the differing experience and attitudes are reflected in the number of fatalities in the commercial airline industry and the corporate jet, bizjet environment.

[Junkflyer]

I think the differences come from corporate pilots not understanding that flying large jets is different than smaller ones. Many lighter jets are capable of fl500 or near it. Large jets are not at any weight. Acceleration/decceleration take longer in large a/c and v-speeds tend to run higher. The v-1 decision is made by the time you reach that speed not when you reach that speed. It is already a go at that point.

[ssg]

Very interesting...

Hog driver..

I was Dallas Simulfite..Citation Ultra Sim..(single pilot).end of session, passed ride, time left on sim...I said 'sock it to me, something devious'

The instructor sat back and said...'ok, here's one for ya...we get alot of guys in here that don't run the numbers right, they like to come in on fumes, so I am going to put you over Missoula, you just missed, you have 500 lbs of fuel'...you see if you can make it back around, 200 overcast, 1/4 mile vis, snow"

Well I knew he was trying to teach me lesson, that 500 lbs wouldn't make it, I would crash the plane trying, lesson learned: "carry more reserve fuel'

He gave a smile, blanked out the screen, and said 'ready?'

"Ready' I said...

The Missoula missed was set up to depart the runway environment, fly to a VOR, do a turn, come back around for the ILS...

1,2.3 go....

What I did..I cleaned up the plane, reduced power and climbed up to the GS intercept alt for the ILS in an immediate banking left turn, staying in the protected runway enviromnet (RE-TERPS)...I stayed in tight, turned Base at the GS intercept alt hitting the FAF as the GS was coming in...glided down the ILS staying a little fast incase the engines flamed out, kept the plane clean untill the last minute to keep power reduced to mininum...landed and rolled off on the taxiway...the engines flamed out...

He said 'I've never seen anyone do that before'

------------------------------------------------

I don't remember any prize that a pilot get's for reading the checklist and still crashing the plane...Yeah Hog, I was a handflyer...flew alot of junk up here in the Pacifc NW before I got into decent aircraft...

To the other posters...you can either be ahead of the aircraft and have situational awareness or not...but one thing is for sure...there isn't a SOPS manual or checklist big enough for all the things that can happen in a plane...very fluid environent. Your either ready for the unexpected or you do what others told you what to do, and hope that it fits the situation.

If you wanna believe that V1 go no go, is all there is to it, I can think of a ton of examples where going after V1 will kill you dead...every situation requires judgement...what makes sense...

[Right Way Up]

OK SSQ,

Lets have your ton of examples then!

[SNS3Guppy]

I wonder how much the difference between attitudes of corporate jet pilots and Airline trained pilots comes more from where our backgrounds are different.

A corporate light jet pilot often comes from the route of flying light twins, often single pilot, often off airways down in the weather. He is used to dealing with situations on the hoof and on his/her own.

Airline trained pilots often progress through training straight into the controlled invironment of the airline where the pilot does not think but has to fly to set rules and procedures.

The light jet pilot again tends to have more hands on experience often from having flown dated equiptment which requires more involvement by the pilot.

Where do you suppose airline pilots come from?

Over the course of my career I've flown more than my share of corporate and charter turbojet flights, special missions flights, utility flights, cargo flights, freight flights, fractional flights, etc. I find that training received from the airline flight training department meets the same standards and procedures and logic that is received from FSI or Simuflite. I was never trained at FSI or simuflite in a type course or recurrent to reject a takeoff after V1, nor would I do so.

Of course, how could a pilot flying for an airline or cargo freight company possibly have the advanced wealth of understanding of how to take an airplane off the ground like a corporate pilot could, right? I started flying ag airplanes and crop dusting as a kid, before finishing high school...and yet by your own assertion, that's probably all been washed away by the evils of the airline training I may or may not have received. You make assumptions aplenty...assumptions which aren't founded in experience to know the difference, or to even know one's target audience.

The truth is that most airline pilots come from one of two routes; military, or civillian. Military training and experience is well known, well documented, and a known quantity. Civillian backgrounds vary, but most civillian trained airline pilots have come up through the ranks instructing, flying freight, some corporate, generally charter, and eventually ended up where they are now.

Among those posting in this thread, for example, are pilots with varying backgrounds including military and civillian. You have experts on performance, aerodynamics, maintenance...all of whom have a very in-depth background in their field as well as a good grasp of aviation knowledge and experience. You have somewhat of a tainted image based on your own imaginings, and your expert background as a Cessna Citation pilot. What you seem to lack is a broad background or experience level. You may find that as your experience and background grows, your attitudes may change. You may also come to realize the ignorance of the statement quoted above.

The light jet pilot again tends to have more hands on experience often from having flown dated equiptment which requires more involvement by the pilot.

I don't know about you, but I learned to fly in a 1947 piper cub. I've flown 60 year old airplanes in a hard, working environment, and brand new airplanes with but fifteen hours on the airframe. Again, as you gain more experience you may find that your statement somewhat smacks of ignorance.

Then there is the nature of the two animals/or birds. A light jet like a citation is still a light aircraft with slow takeoff and landing speeds.

Perhaps your citation. A Lear, for example, uses speeds very near that of most Boeing equipment. It's not slow, it doesn't behave like a light airpalne, and it doesn't simply settle down and land like a 172. I flew the Piaggio Avanti...which lands and takes off at similiar speeds to the lear or other corporate aircraft...not a 172 either. Your straightwing citation doesn't necessarily equate to other corporate and business swept wing equipment. Never the less, it's time to learn to fly it like a jet, and not a 172; this includes coming to understand V1 marks the boundary between driving the car and flying the airplane.

A heavy has to be different as you are driving tons of hardware down the runway with tons of power.

Tons of power is relative. Slow acceleration, more mass. A comparison you might understand is the difference in a Cessna 206 between empty, and full. A large airplane when heavy, like most airplanes when heavy, can go from being quite capable to somewhat of a dog. Flying a light airplane is about mass management...which should be the same philosophy applied to a 18,000 lb learjet, too.