Would you abort after V1?

[airfoilmod]

Abort or Reject

Both are conscious, informed decisions made at a predetermined point in the takeoff Roll. Volition (option, choice) disappears at V1, by Statute. (Read: Regulation). Just past (actually just before according to Boeing), The pilots first attempts are to initiate aerodynamic flight, no mealy mouthed maybe. If, by misadventure or chance, the A/C will not fly, and no recourse is available to alter that fact, the crew now must immediately find every resource to erase all their acquired energy, and mitigate to their best ability any harm or damage. Do I understand the question? Because I'm happy with my answer and will fly with anyone who agrees with me.

[ssg]

Hang in there Pace....

Pace your right on track...Look ..here is what I see that is going on..

First of all we are asking opinions of guys that were hired to read a checklist and follow the SOPS that someone else gave them...we might as well debate this with thier chief pilots because these guys will spew the same blather over and over to keep thier jobs.. These guys weren't hired for thier experience, but to what the company wanted and to be trained the way they wanted. If you want thier opinion, they go to the SOPS manual...

Secondly..your right the videos were all minimun runway deals..so yeah, in a 747, on a 5000 ft field, with a lake of burning lava at the end..Boeing wants us to go...and I think they make it pretty clear the real problem with this whole scenario is the pilots, thier reaction times, ect...pilots making bad decisions...so if they can just have an easy thing...V1, go or not go...easy...just like EGWS...pull up, pull up...TCAS...traffic traffic..climb climb..they are trying to 'pilot proof' all these aircraft...

So if you tell 10000 pilots to go after V1, then when that Concorde can't climb or the tire blows out in Goma and the plane doesn't accelerate, ect ect...that's acceptable...because if you gave all these guys too much lattitude, they would probably crash more often..and they are probably right...especialy from what I am hearing on these threads.. I don't want these guys to think, just do...while I go find a pilot that can...

So it's make it simple for these guys... don't let them make a decision...V1 go or dont. And it works...right up untill they have to deal with plane out of paint that was rigged wrong, or bad gas, or nose wheel blew...a situation where these guys would just crash...

A one size fits all approach is easy, people will crash because one solution won't fit all these problems..., but maybe the powers that be understand that you can't teach judgement as well, but you can cull the heard for guys that can read a checklist and take orders...and do what thier told...reminds of the military...

You and I are independent thinkers, capts of our own jets, the responsibility lies on your shoulders and we set the tempo...safe, safer, safest.....

Thirdly: You and I know that the difference between 95 kts and 110kts for stopping distance in a Citation is minimal, so yeah if we have 6000 ft of runway left after a post V1 cut at 110 kts...I won't fly the burning wreck through the 00 layer, into the ice, onto the SID, over the mountains, fight the fire and what ever problems are developing, while trying to shoot the ILS coming back down..

They will go, it's how they were trained, they will lose thier jobs if they don't, and if the plane doesn't fly?...so be it...they did what they were told...and they died,, along with 200 people.

To thier credit, stopping an Airbus at 135kts is not the same as a Citation at 95, but then again, if I operated out of 10,000 ft international runways all day long, I might get real comfortable understanding just how fast one of those can stop. So I just don't know...but for every guy that tells me that a 737 takes 7000 ft of runway to get off...I find a link to the Boeing site where GOL is operating the new 737s out of a 4200 field and I am pretty sure they use balanced field numbers...not just fly it to the fence.. I see some posters pulling my leg, mixed in with some rationale...welcome to the internet..

Fourthly - We have this Flex / Reduced power thing...allowing them to make every take off similar to a short field, low performance, right to the edge, pull it up at the lights type of deal. Now while I know that everyone doesn't do this, some do...as indicated by a poster here, seemingly up on flex issues...
So if a guy on a ten thousand foot field had a balanced field of 5000 ft, he could RTO right after V1, but he wont...again because of training and also because he will use Flex, burn up more runway then max power would have...minimal stopping distances again...and what seems to be what they are all hoping for is that one good engine left will be able to be brought up to save the day...

Well now how many end of the runway crashes have we seen where the airliner hobbled down the road a little bit then crashed?..don't you think the pilot's firewalled whatever they had to keep it out of the dirt? You know they did, and it didn't save them...which gets us back to whether some airliners are overgross, or the pilots are putting in bogus numbers to make it look legal..or they did add that extra flex power, and it didn't work..something as simple as a blown tire took out the whole aircraft.

Fifthy - If I was to simply give these guys the benefit of the doubt, ok ...airliners are different then corporate jets...different animals, the laws of aerodynamics, physics, regs, and logic just don't apply to each other...then I am left with this very un easy feeling...that it just isn't safe to fly on the airliners....to risky...it's all right to the edge, the pilots are robots that don't think, and they can't cope with anything outside of what's on the checklist...

I mean some of these guys have slammed me for comming up with scenarios that because it's screws up thier program I am paranoid...or unrealistic...I don't think a blow tire, bad gas, or the inside of my engines are now a pet store, is a big stretch...

This isn't a slam on airline pilots some are really good...but I always thought that a pilot should be ready for the unexpected, not just sit there towing the company line, just happy to be there up in the air...waiting for something to happen and when it does, they run to thier checklist and hope the problem is on it.

So I got all the airline pilots in here upset with me again...so here's a story that should make you robots happy...

Remember the pilot who's airliner blew it's top off in Hawaii...ex F4 pilot...he had an unpressurized plane, unknown flight charateriticss...he slowly changed configurations, speeds ect to see the edge of the envelop of his 'new' aircraft...if he used company ref speeds plane would have stalled...he basicaly flight tested his aircraft, came up with a new envelope and landed safely...now that's who I want flying my airlier....

Conversely, the Alaska guys that kept fiddling with thier trim for an hour, definate worsening flight control problem...ample opportunities to land in LA, San Fran, ect...kept playing with it untill they put it in the ocean....they kept calling ops to ask what to do...

-Lastly...you can hire 1000 guys to do a basic one skill job description or you hire one guy to do it all...I tend to see a bigger picture...they see what they are told...and sit in a plane...they don't maintain it, they don't do the engines, they don't buy fuel, they don't plan the trips, ....and they are given about zero lattitide in what they do...V1 is probably the biggest decision they make all day, besides what the want in thier coffee..

Don't get bugged by someone's idea of who becomes an airline pilot, I made it to the very end with two airlines...sitting in front of the chief pilots...it's an attitude thing...not an experience thing, not a safety thing...your either a robot or not...I'm not...it's not a slam...we need drones...and we need leaders...to many chiefs and not enough indians is a problem...I'm a chief pilot, it works for me...and I have a reall problem with someone telling me to do something stupid or unsafe, inorder just to go along with the flow...don't let someone in here intimidate you into thinking they have credentials and you don't I have been dealing with 18000 hour legends for years...I stand up to them, and while I may not make alot of friends doing it..it's funny how when they get sick...I get the call from thier boss to do the trip....

You know, many of these guys don't want to be 'pilot's' but they want the seat, the title and the paycheck...

Honestly, I see some sparks of hope in here...I know guys are sitting back shaking thier heads at these posts, but they don't want to rock the boat...just fly thier planes safe...it's been a learning experience for me...I learned from all this...

So Pace...are you going to take off with 50% power, pull it up at the end, and then yell back...'hey boss, just trying to save you some money!"



Over and out....

[SNS3Guppy]

If they are assumptions in ignorance then I suggest you remove that ignorance by feeding in some information about what you do for a living??

No, that's really the point. It was you who asserted that the airline pilot couldn't possibly understand the vast knowledge acquired by the light airplane pilot or the corporate pilot who has flown freight...there you make false and ignorant assumptions just as you assumed regarding what I or anyone else here does. Those who disagree with you the vast majority, of course) couldn't possibly understand because none of us have your overwhelming experience. Truth is, most of us do, plus our own additional training and experience. Your statement was made in ignorance. It really doesn't matter what I do for a living, nor can you simply assume that I couldn't possibly understand the mystical world of corporate flying. Many of us have flown or do fly corporate aircraft.

What any of us do for a living isn't nearly so important as sticking to true and correct information here. It was you that introduced the idea that many of us here couldn't understand you, couldn't understand a light jet, and of course you're wrong. We can, based on our own experience. Many of us have the additional benifit of multiple aircraft types from big to small, and many different kinds of aircraft operations.

It really doesn't matter; in a Part 25 transport category airplane, rejecting the takeoff after V1 is a bad idea. Transport category aircraft have the performance and capability to fly off the runway when an engine is lost at or after V1, and meet specific minimum climb gradient criteria...which makes it the reason that V1 exists.

So far as a "V1 go" and a V1 stop...no, V1 is established as the point at which stopping is no longer part of the program, no longer in the cards. That being the case, it really doesn't matter if the profile is being flown by Joe Corporate Pilot or Joe Airline Pilot. Flight Safety International, CAE Simuflite, and other well known and recognized training facilities don't teach it differently, and it's not practiced differently by knowledgeable and professional flight departments.

There are always a few characters who think they can reinvent the wheel, however, as demonstrated in this thread.

[rcl7700]

Wow, so pilots are only checklist readers. Must be pretty scary for some of you to be on an aircraft with two guys like that who are in charge of your safety.

The purpose of removing analysis from such a delicate instant like V1 go/no go is so that precious seconds are not wasted wondering what's best choice.

These procedures are not coming from our "cheif pilot", they come from decades of commercial aviation accident research.

I suppose going around when we reach minimums on an ILS without the runway environment in sight is just another expression of our mindless procedures.

rcl

[ssg]

Heres a post V1 cut...

Narrative:
Spantax Flight BX995 departed Madrid-Barajas at 09:36 on a charter flight to Málaga and New York. The DC-10 arrived at Málaga at 10:20 where 251 passengers embarked. The crew then taxied to the threshold of runway 14. Takeoff clearance was received at 11:58. During takeoff the copilot called out the 80 knots and 100 knots speeds. A short time before reaching V1 (162 kts), pieces of tread of a nose wheel tire started to detach. At or close to V1 a vibration was felt. The airplane continued to accelerate through VR. As the captain tried to rotate by applying up elevator, the vibration was of such magnitude that he feared that the plane might become uncontrollable after takeoff. He decided to abort the takeoff. At that point, with a maximum speed attained of 184 kts, there was 1295 m (4,250 feet) of runway left. The captain retarded the throttles and tried to select reverse thrust. The nr. 3 throttle slipped from his hands, causing a power asymmetry. The airplane veered slightly to the left. The Dc-10 overshot the runway at a speed of 110 kts, colliding with an ILS building, causing engine number 3 to separate. The airplane went through a fence and crossed a highway were it damaged three vehicles. It then collided with a farming construction, causing three quarters of the right wing to break off, as well as the right horizontal stabilizer. The aircraft stopped 450 m (1,475 feet) past the end of runway 14. A fire erupted in the rear of the fuselage.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The Commission determines the cause of the accident to be the fractional detachment of the retread of the right wheel of the nose gear, originating a strong vibration which could not be identified by the captain, leading hime into the belief that the aircraft would become uncontrollable in flight, and thus deciding to abandon the take-off over VR.
The decision of aborting the take-off, though not in accordance with the standard operation procedure, is in this case considered reasonable, on the base of the irregular circumstances that the crew had to face, the short period of time available to take the decision, the lack of training in case of wheel failure and the absence of take-off procedures when failure other than that of the engines occurs."
Sources:
» Technical Report - Accident occurred on September 13th, 1982, to McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30CF aircraft, reg.n. EC-DEG, at Malaga Airport

[Farrell]

"So in that situation would you rather stop on the ground or land with all blown tyres? You can hardly go into a holding pattern and blow them all up again :-)"

Come on Pace......get your brain in gear.

The tyres would have blown in an attempt to get the aircraft stopped after V1.....READ what I am posting FULLY

[ssg]

Ferrel,

V1 is there to say...go or don't go...if you reject, then you have a finite amount of runway to stop the aircraft...and this is the time to do it, so you can stop while there is still pavement under you..

Posters in here seem to negate the understanding that V speeds are related to runway length and position

If you were taking off on a 10 mile deserted highway...adhering to the V speed argument is just academic....You could stay on the runway, untill limitations such as tire speed issues came into effect before lifting off...

V speeds would hardly exist without the presence of a finite amount of runway...at the core V speeds represent the concept of 'assured flight'...if you take off here, your assured of flight..if you stop here, your assured of still having pavement under you....

This where my concern with flex numbers start..that some operators will take a nice safe ten thousand foot field and bascialy fly as close to the end of it, reducing all that margin, in order to save on overhaul costs 5 years from now...with 200 people in back...

[international hog driver]

For the benefit of SSG

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ps/737sec3.pdf

Page (PDF) 121 = Document 203

Fig 3.3.100

B737800, Winglets, Isa+15 (Brasil), Sea Level, 27.3K engines, NO DERATE

Now run the lines and have a look where the MTOW is for a balanced field 4300ft.

Maybe a smidge over 130K lb using F25.

So the answer is 59T nowhere near 79T MTOW?

130k lb Field Limited MTOW will let you fly the Sao Paulo-Rio De Janeiro sector as Boeing salesman talk...."max payload" ie bums on seats. However you are going to be going no further.

Now using the same figures a 7000ft BFL will give a 77T takeoff and you will go about 2500NM further.

So yes the 737 drivers who tell you they need 7000ft to go anywhere meaningful are correct

[Pace]

"So in that situation would you rather stop on the ground or land with all blown tyres? You can hardly go into a holding pattern and blow them all up again :-)"

Come on Pace......get your brain in gear.

The tyres would have blown in an attempt to get the aircraft stopped after V1.....READ what I am posting FULLY <

Farrel my post to you was humorous :-) Why though would you blow all the tyres applying the brakes at 135kts?

I have never suggested that in 999 out of 1000 problems that you do not continue the takeoff after V1 nor have I stated that you try and stop with 100 metres of runway remaining or any other length of inadequate runway Left. I have suggested that in certain rare conditions you have to go out of the envelope of your training and restrictions to save the day as in the Stanstead to Leeds fire where the Captain aborted with such a severe fire that the wing was in flames too.

His actions in ignoring V1 saved all the passenegers on board.

Pace

[Right Way Up]

that some operators will take a nice safe ten thousand foot field and bascialy fly as close to the end of it, reducing all that margin, in order to save on overhaul costs 5 years from now

and by looking after the engines makes it less likely to have an engine failure in the first place.

You seem to have the wrong idea about airline pilots. We make procedural decisions based on risk assessment made by manufacturers and authorities over many years, often learning from other peoples misfortunes. When the situation is out of the box we will make the best call to safeguard our aircraft and passengers.

[Pace]

>I suppose going around when we reach minimums on an ILS without the runway environment in sight is just another expression of our mindless procedures.<

rcl actually yes there are even rare occasions when that has to be done too.

I refer to one example of a KingAir 350 on a USA UK ferry where the destination and alternate went down in unforecast sea fog after passing the point of no return.

The pilots landed safely in 300 metres of fog flying the Ils to the ground and using the bug on the radar altimeter for a flare point.

There have been plenty of critical fuel situations where just that has occurred

What would you have done? sat up there till you ran out of fuel waiting for the minima to reach legal limits? Just my point.

Pace

[ssg]

.................

Hog..thanks for the numbers and link.....yeah 7000 ft......balanced field..so rotation would be about what? 4000ft? So when I see 737s ROTATING at 7000 ft...do you think that might be a problem?

[TWOTBAGS]

when I see 737s ROTATING at 7000 ft...do you think that might be a problem?

errr no.

Have a look at figures 3.3.84

Granted that this is with CFM56-7B24 so 24K which is a standard de-rate for the larger engines. You need 9000ft BFL so being just off the ground at 7000ft ground roll is nothing new.

De-rate saves engine life, no questions there. GMI have on wing records which saves cubic $$$. Yet not all airports you can use it so no-derate for this departure, maybe you are runway or climb limited?

Boeing recommend on the NG no more than a 25% derate (Cant find the reference ATM) but given any runway contaminates or such most operators prohibit derate.

[Stan Woolley]

A couple of points FWIW.

Flex takeoffs don't have to be to the limit. Even at the limit there is a margin because of the actual temp being less than the assumed temp.

For example we can go 26k,24k,or 22k and within those thrust ratings a temperature flex is also available if the performance is available.

I'm a great believer in compromise in this area and generally don't reduce all the way. Many considerations may apply like runway surface conditions, runoff area,wind, MEL , is this a training flight with a cadet? etc,etc..

Also, as an airline pilot you get to fly with a great many interesting(and not so interesting)pilots from many a varied background. As a First Officer you will continually be fed information from the left seat, all of which can be useful (good and bad)even if the guy is a pain.

You do sim checks and line checks your whole career with different instructors, in my case with a number of different operators, all of whom will endeavour to improve your performance and pass on good experience.

In my short time flying a Learjet I noted that many of the Captains in that world had been so from an early stage and had not done much time in the right seat.As a result they had nowhere near such a breadth of experience and many of their ideas were self developed and guess what - nobody in the right seat was going to put them down so it must be a good idea!

I really think ssg displays these characteristics, a huge fish in a tiny bowl.

[Right Way Up]

Thing about this thread is that SSG opens the thread with a reasonable question, which unfortunately belies the fact that from his little world he already has the answer, and just wants to flame experienced pilots who answer that question. IMO this is not a technical discussion.

[bubbers44]

Most airline pilots have corporate and charter experience in their background. We are not robots but we do know how to pass a check ride. Expressing non standard ideas about V1 or experiencing a wind shift close to V1 and continuing are not going to help you pass the check ride. We all know we will use common sense when this really happens. I have been told things in the sim that are company procedures but would never do if it happened that way. If it happens, you make them believe you followed company procedures, even if you didn't. Once in a while that is difficult to do, but never in my career. 23,000 hrs and no bent metal or violations doing what made sense.

[Pace]

>In my short time flying a Learjet I noted that many of the Captains in that world had been so from an early stage and had not done much time in the right seat.As a result they had nowhere near such a breadth of experience and many of their ideas were self developed and guess what - nobody in the right seat was going to put them down so it must be a good idea!<

Stan I would go with some of what you are saying here. Before I flew as a Captain on business jets a flew with a number of Captains as a co-pilot. The ex airline ones were great to fly with some of the others were awful and expected you there as a sack of potatoes to make the flight legal.

Some were so single pilot minded that with one in particular all I got to do was to play with a second GPS and position plot on a chart. Everything else including the radio was his. It was a soul destroying experience.

I hope I have not come across as questioning the abilities of Airline pilots or their vast experience or knowledge. That was not my intention.

Having said that we operate in a different invironment. I have done a certain amount of ferry work. One business jet in particular was a wreck I brought back from India which was old and developed more problems on route than I would like to remember. The whole nature of that type of flying is that you do have to think on the hoof more.

The airline pilot works under much stricter rules into bigger airports with the added responsability of 300 odd lives in the back so how we fly and where we come from does make a difference to how we see things.

I like to try and be as professional as possible all I have said in this flame war thread is that there are rare occasions where it is better to ignore V1 especially if the runway is long enough for the aircraft you are flying and remain on the ground even if it means taking out a hedge or two than falling into the ground from a thousand feet.

As In my example of the Kingair 350 ferry above (not my ferry btw)on a rare occasion it might be better to fly an ILS to the ground in fog, breaking landing minima, than to run out of fuel.

Ie there are rare occasions when the books have to go out of the window because they do not cover every scenario.

Pace

[bubbers44]

A couple of times using their procedures probably would bent some metal.

[Stan Woolley]

Pace

I don't disagree with you - the book doesn't cover every event but one thing is for sure it's not your day if it happens to you and I'd rather be lucky than good if it does!

BTW I flew Barons/210's in South West Africa for a short while as a youngster and the subject of performance into some strips(a dry river bed for one example) was covered by the question....... 'Has anyone ever been in and out of there in a Baron?..........Yeah! OK great lets go'
No Country for Old Men.

[Wizofoz]

Yep,

Barons, Navajos and Aztecs- and part of the brief was that below a certain speed, even if airborne, land ahead.

I was very thankful when I got into jets that I KNEW would fly above V1 if I lost a donkey!!

One point about reduced thrust take-offs that ssg, Pace and even a lot of the airline guys miss:-

It's Safer!!

Why?

Because the day I have an engine failure, I'm going to feel a lot better knowing the other engine hasn't spent its' life being flogged doing unnecessary full power takeoffs!!

The failure rate of airline engines is incredibly low, BECAUSE we baby them and don't use thrust we don't need. It's there when we DO need it (did a TOGA take-off on a gusty day in Dubai a few weeks ago in a light 777-200-IMPRESSIVE!!), but it makes for a safer operation if the engines are looked after.

ssg, if you want to bandy around statistics and cast aspersions on airline guys (by the way, if you never wanted to be one, why did you apply at least twice (and I'm guessing several times more??)), simply compare the fatality rates of airliners (which carry hundreds at a time) and biz-jets (a couple.).

We robots seem to be doing something right!