TAKEOFF ABORT = NL (Lp COMPRESSOR FLUCTUATION)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tarmac
Age: 39
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was an abort below 60kts and company has 60Kts as it's significant speed parameter.
Dear BOAC, there was no argument regarding aborting, Capt n first officer had the same In mind.
Thanks all, still would appreciate any references including incidents with shaft breaks etc.
Dear BOAC, there was no argument regarding aborting, Capt n first officer had the same In mind.
Thanks all, still would appreciate any references including incidents with shaft breaks etc.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good - a bit of clarification then.
I cannot see the relevance of a 'shaft break' since N1 will not "fluctuate" surely? It has to be instrument?
Do your SOPs allow a stop at Captain's discretion below 60kts for 'any failure or warning'?
Do we now read into your query that the company think you should have continued? In which case see number 3) post#20.
I cannot see the relevance of a 'shaft break' since N1 will not "fluctuate" surely? It has to be instrument?
Do your SOPs allow a stop at Captain's discretion below 60kts for 'any failure or warning'?
Do we now read into your query that the company think you should have continued? In which case see number 3) post#20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tarmac
Age: 39
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it was an indication problem, never reported before n never expected by the crew. Company still has the investigation under process. But, I don't have very good vibes.
SOP doesn't really clearly define it for Lp compressor. So, I just need to get my homework done.
SOP doesn't really clearly define it for Lp compressor. So, I just need to get my homework done.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP doesn't really clearly define it for Lp compressor
"The Captain's decision should recognise that up to xxkts, the takeoff may be rejected for any significant malfunction. At or above xxkts the take-off should be rejected only for major malfunctions."
As it seems to be a 'first time' event I reckon most of us would have stopped. The old adage (modified) applies "Better to be on the ground wondering if you should have stopped than in the air wishing you had".
20/3 still applies.... if there are problems, get it in writing and go from there, bringing in the regulatory body 'for advice' if you feel the need. Good luck.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1jz,
From an Engineering perspective I would have agreed with the abort.
Similar case would then park and run up the engine and confirm what is seen. If the crew are happy and after consultation with ops/maintenance control/MEL for guidance then be free to depart, monitoring those other engine parameters..or return to the bay for positive fix.
it is being investigated and the engineering team geniuses are opposing the decision to abort.
Similar case would then park and run up the engine and confirm what is seen. If the crew are happy and after consultation with ops/maintenance control/MEL for guidance then be free to depart, monitoring those other engine parameters..or return to the bay for positive fix.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tarmac
Age: 39
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really grateful to every1 for their valued comments over the matter. This is not only going to help me but, any1 who goes through it. Seriously I am feeling overshadowed by some top notch professionals at this forum.
And now learn to type as an adult , grow some balls to stand up to those techies or even worse, all those accountants running the show, and one day you'll be a mighty fine aviator calling all the shots yourself