Thrust lever control and rejected takeoff (FO as PF)

[Rozy1]

Originally Posted by sonicbum

Once the takeoff clearance had been received, the “takeoff” call has been made and the thrust levers are advanced, then it becomes a RTO and hence has to follow the standard procedures.
If ATC orders to stop, even with engines still spooling up, the Captain will call “stop” and take controls. As said earlier on, it is quite likely and normal that at this stage the FO will reduce instinctively the thrust levers.
As You very respectfully like to say “not terribly complicated to understand”.

For RTO, follow your procedures. What standard procedures apply might vary. Are you going full reverse thrust at 10 kts GS? Are you just doing rote actions or are you able to adapt to changing conditions?

A ‘stop’ call. Stop the airplane? Stop adding thrust? My carrier has noted the need for verbalization of a change of control. “I have the aircraft” is the verbiage.

Do you fly for a European operator/airline?

[BraceBrace]

Originally Posted by richpea

As a point of interest, as a CPT are you expecting the F/O to let go of the T/L before you're making the move to take it over? I've always tended to operate on the basis of once I feel the CPT taking them after he's said "Thrust set" I'll let go, other wise I'm letting go if he says "STOP"... if none of those things happen I need to reject the T/O before 80kts so it makes sense to wait until I can feel he's actually taking control.

"Feel" is not really a good basis I think.

As a captain from the moment I say "thrust set", mentally I think am responsible for the thrust levers. This means the FO has time to move the hands, while my hands are moving as well. It's not a speedrace, it usually goes smooth and swiftly. However, if he's slow, I'll "tap" up.

However, pretty sure there are captains out there who will think "FO holds the throttles, so FO will perform the reject..." Just be ready for the unexpected. I would reject as an FO, if his hands come in after the A/T disconnect, fine, he can continue. FCOM black white always has a human reality side to take into account I guess. We ain't robots.

[richpea]

Originally Posted by BraceBrace

"Feel" is not really a good basis I think.

As a captain from the moment I say "thrust set", mentally I think am responsible for the thrust levers. This means the FO has time to move the hands, while my hands are moving as well. It's not a speedrace, it usually goes smooth and swiftly. However, if he's slow, I'll "tap" up.

However, pretty sure there are captains out there who will think "FO holds the throttles, so FO will perform the reject..." Just be ready for the unexpected. I would reject as an FO, if his hands come in after the A/T disconnect, fine, he can continue. FCOM black white always has a human reality side to take into account I guess. We ain't robots.

To be clear, I want to hear both the "thrust set" at which point I'm preparing to relinquish control, and then I want to feel the CPT replacing my hand with their's on the T/L, basically in my mind because I don't want a situation where I've let go of the T/L and he's not close to having his hand on it, if that makes sense?

[LOWI]

How I see the reject scenario is like so.

If the FO is in the process of advancing the thrust levers when ATC says stop, the FO can retard the levers closed whilst the Capt calls STOP and then takes over the thrust levers and the RTO scenario continues as standard.

If the FO is in the process of advancing the thrust levers when ATC says stop, the FO can keep the thrust levers where they are, wait for the Capt to call STOP and takeover the thrust levers, thus initiating the RTO procedure.

It really isn't a black and white scenario.

Common sense says to me for the FO to close the levers.

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by pineteam

Same as you as FO before I immediately removed my hand after setting the levers to Flex detent.. Common sense. I totally agree with you.
On the same subject one thing that annoys me is after V1, VR, a few guys will set their hand literally 1 or 2 seconds after I remove mine! The main gears are still on the ground.. Lol. I don’t see the point and it’s dangerous IMHO. I reckon hands on the levers should not be before at least 400 feet. I personally wait approaching thrust reduction altitude.

My company has in the manual that the PF should have their hands and feet on the controls below 2500'. Captain has their hands on the levers till V1, so when does the PF puts their hands back on the levers???
We take off in flex most days, and sometimes it is advisable to go TOGA if you have an engine failure, so I don't think keeping your hands off the lever till thrust reduction altitude would be the best way. Personally I use gear up as the trigger to put my hand back on. As a reminder to make sure the gear goes up, because it would be odd for me to have my hand on my leg, and to have me ready to add power, and I would not be in a position to reduce power and land after the gear is up. But that is just me, and I am definitely surprised there isn't a standard (that I am aware of!!) for this.

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by Smooth Airperator

A320 skipper. Like most, I work at a company where the captain has the thrust levers for the takeoff roll and is responsible for any rejected takeoff. Recently, during a line check, I received a remark saying I "shouldn't hover my hands above the FO's after he has set thrust and should allow him a reasonable amount of time to relinquish them". I responded that I don't normally do this but the FO held the thrust levers for far too long after setting them. FO remarked that he "didn't forget but was just waiting for a good time to give them back" (whatever that means).

When I was in the right seat, I would set the thrust levers and immediately release them, knowing that it's crucial for the captain to have full and immediate control in the event of a rejected takeoff. Based on simulator experiences, the importance of the captain being able to quickly and decisively cut the thrust, especially during a low-speed/high-power reject with x-wind or contamination appears to me as paramount (we practice 30 KTS cross-wind rejects from a narrow runway in the sim a lot).

I felt I was poorly understood by the checker. Anyway, not to dwell on my experience so much, but what is the consensus out there, are there folks who feel that their colleagues are taking a second or two longer than they ought to be? Does your company publish any guidance on this matter?

Coming up on 10 years as a 320 Captain. After the levers are in the detent, my hand go on the levers. Absolutely zero reason for the FO to keep his hands there.

Having said that. I flew for a company where the PF performed the abort to the full stop, and I vastly preferred that over the handover of controls while there is an emergency. If you trust the guy to fly, and land with the engine broken, you should trust him to be able to stop the plane on the runway. Just MO

[VHOED191006]

The nice thing about the 737 is that the LH only has the tiller for most operators. So there's no need to let go of the levers as their hand is already there. Quite literally, hand over control, set takeoff thrust yourself, and you're set. None of this lifting hands business. Can I suggest that perhaps the callout such as "Takeoff" should be the cue for CM2 to let go of the levers (if they've taxiied out) and for CM1 to set takeoff thrust if we go down the avenue of 'the Captain has responsibility and the authority to reject a takeoff' to prevent potential turmoil?

[JH870]

Originally Posted by hans brinker

Having said that. I flew for a company where the PF performed the abort to the full stop, and I vastly preferred that over the handover of controls while there is an emergency. If you trust the guy to fly, and land with the engine broken, you should trust him to be able to stop the plane on the runway. Just MO

I dont necessarily think stopping it on the runway is the issue as such. As captain your capacity to gauge what is a genuine stop issue vs when it might be better to continue (ie. Tyre burst at v1 -5 kts) is likely greater. Certainly at airlines where a vast number of FOs have <1000 hours and a couple of sims under their belts. I think the split second decision process is more critical than the action of stopping the aircraft.

[Rozy1]

Originally Posted by JH870

I dont necessarily think stopping it on the runway is the issue as such. As captain your capacity to gauge what is a genuine stop issue vs when it might be better to continue (ie. Tyre burst at v1 -5 kts) is likely greater. Certainly at airlines where a vast number of FOs have <1000 hours and a couple of sims under their belts. I think the split second decision process is more critical than the action of stopping the aircraft.

JH, well said. Sorry, but I have 28 years in the left seat and would be loathe to have a sub 1000 hr newbie be responsible for a high speed reject in real life.
There are many factors to consider when rolling down the runway and the risk increases when you give the reject decision to an inexperienced pilot. One example would be startle factor with a Master Caution like probe heat, door light, equip, etc. Over the years, I’ve seen things like that. Let the FO see them from the right seat first. Get seasoned as we say.

[vilas]

Follow company SOP but with situational awareness. If call STOP is made( that's made by CM1) whosoever has his hand on THR LVRS should pull them back to idle. In a low speed strong crosswind TOGA takeoff reject may not work out with all the niceties. CM1 can complete the rest.

[CaptainMongo]

At our company on a right seat T/O, the F/O pushes the TL’s to the CLB detent or TOGA. When the FO makes the “Check Thrust” call out his or her hands are to be off the TL’s and the Capt now has the TL’s. (If the FO’s hands were still on the TL’s for a second or two after the FMA’s indicated correctly, I would push his hands of the TL’s and make the “Check Thrust” call out. I have never seen that happen, even as a training Captain, but there’s always a first time I guess)

In normal circumstances, neither pilot is to have their hands on the TL’s from V1 to gear up callout to prevent an inadvertent reject above V1.

If a reason to reject presented itself during the time the F/O hands were on the TL’s the CA is to call the Reject, the FO is to perform the reject until the Captain takes over.

If the FO has their hands in the TL’s after the check thrust call out I would push them off. If the FO put his hands on the TL’s prior to the gear up call out, I would tell him to remove them.

Our SOP are clear on these points. I would ask the OP what is the SOP at his outfit?

[T54A]

I’m always amazed at how pilots (and some companies) can reinvent the wheel over simple things.

JUST DO WHAT THE FCOM SAYS

1st

”Once the thrust levers are set to the FLX or TOGA detent, the Captain maintains the hand on the thrust levers until the aircraft reaches V1”

There is no ambiguity here.

8 lines of FCOM later

”Thrust Set……….Announce.

Airbus does not connect these two events. Neither should you. You and your company are not cleverer than the people who designed the aircraft.

[CaptainMongo]

Geez, strike a nerve here? I only shared my companies SOP as it related to the op, as you shared what the FCOM states. I follow my companies SOP as you should follow your companies SOP. It’s really not hard nor up for debate, it’s what we are paid to do.

As an aside, we don’t use Boeing or Airbus’ manufacturer supplied aircraft operation manual for a variety of very good reasons which have worked quite well for a company which operates nearly 1000 aircraft with 17,000 pilots changing seats or aircraft as often as some change underwear.

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

Originally Posted by CaptainMongo

Geez, strike a nerve here? I only shared my companies SOP as it related to the op, as you shared what the FCOM states. I follow my companies SOP as you should follow your companies SOP. It’s really not hard nor up for debate, it’s what we are paid to do.

As an aside, we don’t use Boeing or Airbus’ manufacturer supplied aircraft operation manual for a variety of very good reasons which have worked quite well for a company which operates nearly 1000 aircraft with 17,000 pilots changing seats or aircraft as often as some change underwear.

A very pertinent point - what your company FCOM states is likely to be your company’s SOP (assuming the company has paid airbus to what we used to call a “Customer Orientated Change” at Boeing - no idea what the airbus equivalent is). That or you have your OMB and the standard FCOM as a supplementary document with a lower priority SOP wise and there for the systems and limitations sections primarily.

Hence 2 people can be arguing “but the FCOM states….” and both be correct. As you quite rightly point out, most airlines don’t use the off the peg manufacturer’s FCOM. I have flown the 737 for two operators, for example, and their FCOMs were different in terms of the procedures described inside… because the airlines in question had paid for Boeing to adapt the FCOM. I’ve no doubt some cracking arguments could result. The same is of course true of Airbus - just said FCOM is harder to understand .

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by safetypee

"… 30 KTS cross-wind rejects from a narrow runway …"

hmm, perhaps more an issue as to whom keeps the aircraft on the runway, and in what time scale between calls and action to retard the thrust.

Correct but unnecessary there, @safetypee. In the context of A320 a narrow runway (less than nominal 30 m) will require special crew training and is CAPT tkof only as a result (effectively). Not for the first time, it's the questions here that are wrong, not the answers.

[FlightDetent]

@CaptMongo, since XX yrs ago I only flew AB and that's with FCOM guidance on this topic only.

Provided directly via FCOM, or copied verbatim into company books, or re-written with their own wordings (usually due local language requirement from the CAA and then back-translated to English for expat crews).

Your #31 fits my experience and the standards required as per above. Sometimes it is not the choice of wording, but the choice of people. Happy skies to you, sir.

~~~

In a nitpicking fashion, on FBW Airbii only (no back driven throttles):

There could be a tiny bit of a delay between TLs reaching the TOGA/FLX detent and N1s / EPR coming to the target (doughnut), if PF shoves them up as if this was FED/ECB printing money. In such that case, I personally enjoy seeing the hands go off once the N1/EPRs catche up - i.e. when the desired action (TO N1/EPR) is completed not in the middle of the activity.

N.b. that is not the same as "thrust set" verification.

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

Correct but unnecessary there, @safetypee. In the context of A320 a narrow runway (less than nominal 30 m) will require special crew training and is CAPT tkof only as a result (effectively). Not for the first time, it's the questions here that are wrong, not the answers.

Out of topic but just to clarify..

Narrow runway is less than nominal 45m down to a minimum of 30m.

Who can conduct takeoff and landing is based on the operator policy.
You can have both Cpt and FO qualified and hence allowed to operate To and Ldg (that’s the case at my operator, EASA flag).

[Centaurus]

[QUOTE=hans brinker;11719244]My company has in the manual that the PF should have their hands and feet on the controls below 2500'.
I am amazed that procedure is mandatory in your company and would be firmly against it. On a takeoff especially, having had the experience where the PNF has his hands and feet on the controls and I could see his arms and legs moving out of the corner of my eye as well as feeling the pressure of his feet, I found that both distracting and annoying and furthermore quite unnecessary.

Worse still is at the landing flare where I have experienced the PNF unconciously override my control inputs during a crosswind landing. . Presumably this SOP is in place to cater for the sudden incapacitation of the PF. As the captain there has been rare occasions where it was necessary to take control during final approach from new F/O's who have not coped. I simply say "Taking over" and it me takes less than a second for me to take my hand off my knees or to place my feet on the rudders.

[deltahotel]

Hans does say PF should be on the controls, not PNF/PM. Seems reasonable to me.

[alf5071h]

Hands, feet, on the controls.

Procedures may be type specific, relating to the certification. e.g. the BAe 146 autopilot used 4 sec pilot reaction for non approach modes, thus hands-free; for coupled approaches(< 1000 ft), certification required hands-on to meet a 2 sec reaction time down to min use ht.
The Avro RJ with a different autoflight system did not have the same requirements - auto approach certified to Cat 3.

Some pilots liked to fly hands-on with autoflight to provided feel of aircraft control reactions and anticipate later manual take over.

For the take off scenario, any calls or change in control should consider likely time lags and how these relate to the assumptions in certificated performance; from memory the margins for a rejected takeoff are very low in comparison with other performance assumptions.