one question about the 737 aborted take off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one question about the 737 aborted take off
hi all, could anyone tell me that during take off, the speed is between 80kts and V1, a engine overheat light and master caution light illuminates, what will u do, abort or continue the taking off?
thanks a lots~
thanks a lots~
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Above & Beyond
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QRH says abort the take off if any of the following conditions occur after 80kts prior to V1.
1. Engine failure
2. Engine fire
3. predictive windshear
4. The aircraft is unsafe to fly.
1. Engine failure
2. Engine fire
3. predictive windshear
4. The aircraft is unsafe to fly.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pre-dep area
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let's put that into certain scenarios:
warning at 100kts, you reject.
very long runway, you reject.
around 10kts to V1, runway not as long, you can continue, sort out the thing at 400ft (mostly retard T/L) and return to land w the whole length of the runway avbl to you.
you can add more scenarios to that.
lesson is, safer to continue the takeoff and come back for a landing rather than betting on being able to stop w/in the ASDA w high energy and w/o any other incident (ex: blown tires)
warning at 100kts, you reject.
very long runway, you reject.
around 10kts to V1, runway not as long, you can continue, sort out the thing at 400ft (mostly retard T/L) and return to land w the whole length of the runway avbl to you.
you can add more scenarios to that.
lesson is, safer to continue the takeoff and come back for a landing rather than betting on being able to stop w/in the ASDA w high energy and w/o any other incident (ex: blown tires)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continue. After 80kts and prior to V1, the Boeing QRH states that you should reject the takeoff for the reasons stated by Punk666 above. Except it states "fire or fire warning" that statement is not engine specific. In other words it could be an APU, cargo or other fire warning. As an engine overheat does not fall within any of these categories, then you continue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you punk666~
here then comes my cofusion, is a engine overheat is a kind of unsafe situation for the flight?
according to the QRH refers to the engine overheat , it`s a memorized checklist: disengage the A/T ,reduce the throttle, if the overheat light does not extinguish, then perform the engine fire severe damage or seperated checklist. so I am thinking if you don`t retard the throttle back during take off ,is there any protential for a engine fire or something（that is a NO GO situation)?
then what is the correct decision for this situation?
here then comes my cofusion, is a engine overheat is a kind of unsafe situation for the flight?
according to the QRH refers to the engine overheat , it`s a memorized checklist: disengage the A/T ,reduce the throttle, if the overheat light does not extinguish, then perform the engine fire severe damage or seperated checklist. so I am thinking if you don`t retard the throttle back during take off ,is there any protential for a engine fire or something（that is a NO GO situation)?
then what is the correct decision for this situation?
The idea is that the risk of the overheat developing into a fire - and that fire giving you any real problem (ie loss of thrust) is less than the risk of skidding off the end of the runway in a high speed abort.
With modern, pod-mounted engines, an engine fire without a catastrophic failure (which you would abort for) isn't a great risk.
Besides - keep going and you make the local news!
With modern, pod-mounted engines, an engine fire without a catastrophic failure (which you would abort for) isn't a great risk.
Besides - keep going and you make the local news!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could develop into an engine fire, however it is not a reason for an aborted take off and no action to be done below 400ft.
Aborting a take off because something could happen is a recipe for disaster, we only abort a take off because something did happen (one of the 4 cases posted above).
Aborting a take off because something could happen is a recipe for disaster, we only abort a take off because something did happen (one of the 4 cases posted above).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hoho~~
thanks checkboard,
i dont want to show up on the newspaper~~
here comes my another question during take off for you guys: between 80kts and V1, one of the cabin door open light illuminates and definately the master light will turned on, are you going to continue or abort?
thanks checkboard,
i dont want to show up on the newspaper~~
here comes my another question during take off for you guys: between 80kts and V1, one of the cabin door open light illuminates and definately the master light will turned on, are you going to continue or abort?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well , if one of the door is opened, and you continued, a pax was suck out of the cabin in the air and 
. after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
. after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: in the mix muff
Age: 44
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the take-off briefing says:
We'll abort for any Master caution below 80 knots,after 80 knots we'll abort only for engine fire,failure or loss of directional control.
We'll abort for any Master caution below 80 knots,after 80 knots we'll abort only for engine fire,failure or loss of directional control.
well , if one of the door is opened, and you continued, a pax was suck out of the cabin in the air and 
. after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
. after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
Somebody will always ask afterwards, "what if"
You can't go wrong if you protect the aircraft first. It's sure to save more lives that way.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by citizensun
well , if one of the door is opened, and you continued, a pax was suck out of the cabin in the air and . after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you all for your helps!
and i have one more question
(endless qyestions)
recently,our company had two rejected take-offs,the cause was take off configuration warning at speed of 75kts and 90kts, they all rejected.
what`s your opinions then~~
thanks ~~
and i have one more question
(endless qyestions)recently,our company had two rejected take-offs,the cause was take off configuration warning at speed of 75kts and 90kts, they all rejected.
what`s your opinions then~~
thanks ~~
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah,i also doubt about that, the takeoff configuration warning should sound when the TLA is more than 52° and some configurations incorrect,
but it really happened, after the rejected takeoff, they found that all the configuration needed were correct, it`s only a false alarm.
the key question is, are you guys will continue the takeoff or abort when you are not sure the warning is true or not ,even the speed is between 80kts to V1?
i want to know your ideas, very appreciated~~
but it really happened, after the rejected takeoff, they found that all the configuration needed were correct, it`s only a false alarm.
the key question is, are you guys will continue the takeoff or abort when you are not sure the warning is true or not ,even the speed is between 80kts to V1?
i want to know your ideas, very appreciated~~
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS - Nothing wrong with "asking endless questions".
What we are talking about here is point (4) on the Punk666 list "A/c unsafe to fly". Manufacturers put this in to cover product liability claims...it enables them to look at an incorrect RTO decision after the event and blame the pilot.
To be fair it is not realistic for Boeing or anyone else to provide an exhaustive list because the crux of the matter (as Capt Solipist pointed out) is that it is situational.
Yes there are a lot of clear rights and wrongs....obvious gos or no gos...but there is also a lot of grey in the "unsafe to fly" catch all.
One key element (and there are many) is runway length...if you are taking off from a 3000 metre runway you will typically reach 80 knots in the first 10% -the rate of acceleration slows rapidly as you approach 100 knots.
My view on the scenarios you mention...
(i) Engine overheat - There are people who show relatively little concern for this warning. Bad move - the core section overheat warning triggers at 343 degrees ....this is serious heat (core fire warning is not much higher at 454).
I had to abandoned a take off at Belfast Aldergrove due to an overheat warning...the rate of increase of turbine temp was also seen to be accelerating rapidly (another variable...single or multiple indications). Cause failure of a pipe weld and mass ejection of core air into the nacelle. Even though the thrust levers were retarded immediately the engine temeprature continued to rise during the deceleration and it cooked itself. Senior engineers subsequently advised that if take off thrust had been maintained then in less than a minute the engine would have failed catastrophically.
(ii) Take off config. As has already been said this warning should have gone off as soon as the thrust levers were advanced. If vibration has just taken the the trim slightly out of the take off range no big deal. If the flaps have retracted from 5 to zero and you rotate at flap 5 speeds the aircraft will stall as soon as it leaves ground effect.
(iii) Door open...again it has been said this is not an unsafe to fly condition which would cause a high energy reject on a runway limited take off. If on 3000m strip with 15 knot headwind a door fully opens at 90 knots airspeed....you will feel it on your ears and there will be a yaw. Although in a court of law you may successfully defend continuing the take off (re. point 4) this would be a poor decision....not least because the groundspeed (which is the important number) was only 75 knots.
What we are talking about here is point (4) on the Punk666 list "A/c unsafe to fly". Manufacturers put this in to cover product liability claims...it enables them to look at an incorrect RTO decision after the event and blame the pilot.
To be fair it is not realistic for Boeing or anyone else to provide an exhaustive list because the crux of the matter (as Capt Solipist pointed out) is that it is situational.
Yes there are a lot of clear rights and wrongs....obvious gos or no gos...but there is also a lot of grey in the "unsafe to fly" catch all.
One key element (and there are many) is runway length...if you are taking off from a 3000 metre runway you will typically reach 80 knots in the first 10% -the rate of acceleration slows rapidly as you approach 100 knots.
My view on the scenarios you mention...
(i) Engine overheat - There are people who show relatively little concern for this warning. Bad move - the core section overheat warning triggers at 343 degrees ....this is serious heat (core fire warning is not much higher at 454).
I had to abandoned a take off at Belfast Aldergrove due to an overheat warning...the rate of increase of turbine temp was also seen to be accelerating rapidly (another variable...single or multiple indications). Cause failure of a pipe weld and mass ejection of core air into the nacelle. Even though the thrust levers were retarded immediately the engine temeprature continued to rise during the deceleration and it cooked itself. Senior engineers subsequently advised that if take off thrust had been maintained then in less than a minute the engine would have failed catastrophically.
(ii) Take off config. As has already been said this warning should have gone off as soon as the thrust levers were advanced. If vibration has just taken the the trim slightly out of the take off range no big deal. If the flaps have retracted from 5 to zero and you rotate at flap 5 speeds the aircraft will stall as soon as it leaves ground effect.
(iii) Door open...again it has been said this is not an unsafe to fly condition which would cause a high energy reject on a runway limited take off. If on 3000m strip with 15 knot headwind a door fully opens at 90 knots airspeed....you will feel it on your ears and there will be a yaw. Although in a court of law you may successfully defend continuing the take off (re. point 4) this would be a poor decision....not least because the groundspeed (which is the important number) was only 75 knots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: shanghai
Age: 42
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RMC,thank you~
i agree with your "Yes there are a lot of clear rights and wrongs....obvious gos or no gos...but there is also a lot of grey in the "unsafe to fly" catch all."
this phrase "unsafe to fly" is quite"grey"
it`s situational~
a proper rejected take off decision is quite difficult, because it`s unexpected, sometime complicated and the time for you to think is really tight!
i think we`d better check the QRH for the max speed for aborted take off with the brake energe acceptable before every flight. to difine another speed sector for the GO and NO GO~
i agree with your "Yes there are a lot of clear rights and wrongs....obvious gos or no gos...but there is also a lot of grey in the "unsafe to fly" catch all."
this phrase "unsafe to fly" is quite"grey"
it`s situational~
a proper rejected take off decision is quite difficult, because it`s unexpected, sometime complicated and the time for you to think is really tight!
i think we`d better check the QRH for the max speed for aborted take off with the brake energe acceptable before every flight. to difine another speed sector for the GO and NO GO~
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: FL350
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well , if one of the door is opened, and you continued, a pax was suck out of the cabin in the air and . after this happened, someone will ask you why didn`t you abort. i know the door open light most of the time is a faulse alert, but what if it`s really opened, do you think it`s a great risk?
B. Plug type doors, kinda stay closed even if not "latched", I doubt they will fully open.