The passenger oxy lasts for 13-15 minutes. At an average rate of descent of 6000 feet per minute in an emergency descent it takes you just under six minutes to descend from 40,000 ft to 10,000 ft. Maybe eight minutes at the worst. A gentle push over is all that is needed once you decide to get going down. There is little point in going into a 45 degree angle of bank (and risk getting into an unusual attitude in IMC) just to avoid negative G when there is no hurry to descend based upon passenger oxy time limits. If you need to turn off the airway (and watch the new en route safety altitude) it would be safer in the long run to make a level turn and when on desired heading start on down. The 45 degree angle of bank caper has been around for years but it is rarely justifiable.

"TCAS RA" is the call - it says to ATC "sorry mate, all your best efforts have failed to keep us apart, my clever TCAS thingy is busy sorting things out, I'm kinda busy at the mo, when it's all over I'll let you know and then we can sort out the shambles".

Headwind - any turn towards the wind is good, vice versa for tailwind. But... wait til you've almost stopped before making the turn.

Airways - can't remember the last time I was on a centreline in europe. As soon as you get a direct routing (most of the time) you're off the centreline. A small turn will make the entry to the descent easier.

hope this helps

DH

Turns when initiating an emergency descent depends upon environment; On an isolated airway it can make sense. Overhead London you are just compounding your problems. We have it from LATCC that they would prefer us to stay on any assigned heading unless we have someone directly below us and MUST turn to avoid them.

As A37575 says, there is no justification for deliberately overbanking into an unusual attitude to get the descent going quicker...no need whatsoever.

The most important things to do are the recall items in your QRH and then to initiate the descent if required. Once the descent is underway a very good idea is to sqwark 7700 (that came from our LATCC liason sessions too) as you light up like a disco light on the ATC screen and they will immediately start getting other aircraft out of your way (easier for them to do if you stay on your heading). This has the added benefit of flagging you up to other sectors (possibly below) whom you are not in two way comms with. They too would be initiating help on your behalf. Remember, communication with your colleague and ATC can be quite difficult with that damned oxy mask on!

Turning on the runway in the event of a fire. Well, the theory sounds good, but in practice, in the real world when RTO has kicked in you will pull up extremely briskly. 'Consider wind direction' is just that. It doesn't mean that Boeing are telling you to make a turn before you come to a standstill. My opinion is that you are potentially wasting time by looking for this suitable taxyway to turn onto or trying to position a big aircraft across the runway. Other relevant points have already been stated such as access for fire vehicles and crews, pavement strength issues etc.

It is interesting that the Manchester 737 fire incident has been quoted. They executed a stop for a perceived burst tyre or birdstrike from 125kts. The commander told the F/O 'not to hammer the brakes', so they didn't stop as quickly as they could have. They also 'intended to clear the runway to the right'. Again, more seconds whilst still moving. 'Reverse was cancelled at 70kts' and the aircraft took '45 seconds to stop'. In my book that is quite a long time for an RTO. They had some unlucky breaks in that the wing had ruptured and fire spread quickly, the R1 door wouldn't open until 1 minute and 10 seconds after the aircraft had stopped.

They were on runway 24 with a wind of 250/7. They turned onto the Dalta link in an attempt to clear the runway, with an uncontained fire in the left engine/ wing. The last survivor, a young boy, was pulled from the overwing exit by a firefighter some 5 minutes and 30 seconds after the aircraft stopped. Time was of the essence in this incident. 55 lost their lives.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Several recommendations were made, including;

1. Procedures should be developed to enable the crew to position an aircraft , when ground fire emergency exists, with the fire downwind of the fuselage.

Good idea, but non of the four airlines I have flown for have any such procedures. They assessed and decided that stopping straight ahead as quickly as possible on the runway was more suitable.

2. Research should be undertaken into methods of providing the flight deck crew with an external view of the aircraft, enabling them to assess the nature and extent of external damage and fires.

Again, good idea and easy these days, but I haven't flown a type with such a facility.

3. Operators such amend their Ops Manuals, if necesary, to direct crews on any rejected take-off or emergency landing to stop on the runway and review the situation before a decision on clearing the runway is made.

Always do this one.

Many other recommendations too, including;

4. Onboard water spray/ mist fire extinguishing systems having the capability of operating both from on-board water and from tender-fed water should be developed as a matter of urgency and introduced at the earliest opportunity on all commercial passenger carrying aircraft.

Yeah right.

So overall, I reckon pulling up expeditiously on the runway, straight ahead, and carrying out the correct drills promptly, initiating the evacuation promptly when required is the best option....just my opinion though.

PP

I agree with you, PP - I have had sim instructors advocate both options, however I have actually performed a MTOW RTO from V1-20kt in an A321, and was stationary before I had remembered what all of my memory items were. The time available for turning a few degrees into wind, let alone for remembering which way is limited to the one or two seconds or so before the full stop, when the aircraft has speed enough to turn but not too much to cause you to leave the runway.

You can consider the wind all you like but unless you compromise the stopping performance of the aircraft (why would you?), you won't have much chance to do anything about it, if my experience is representative.

Stopping as quickly as possible and accurately diagnosing the state of the aircraft are far more important than clearing the runway or turning into/out of wind.

Gary... The issues here are derived from the British Airtours accident at MAN. In that I work for the company that effectively is that one of the time, the issue is somewhat sensitive ;)

Turning v wind, even (or particularly) with light winds, might make all the difference, and some AAIB reports have recommended such turns even for mild engine problems "as a precaution". As a result, I will allow a few seconds of delayed stopping to assess and achieve that turn if I can.

However, that is me, and my company. It would be a very unfortunate combination of circumstances that saw MAN all over again... So unless you have strong convictions, whatever guidance you have in your (company) manuals surely prevails :confused:

NoD

- actually I don't believe there is any significant extension of stopping time or distance. All it takes is an awareness of the wind (head/tail), a confident mindset as to what you are going to do, and then a quick 'tweak' on the tiller at the last minute. NB All this based (thankfully) on sim only. The chances are you will get some sort of turn and any is better than none. As NoD says, memories are painful.

And if it is an engine fire warning that is the cause of the rejected take off, don't use reverse thrust on the engine on fire. The stopping distance on a dry runway in the 737 with reverse on one engine is practically (ten feet) the same as with two engine reverse. In the case of the Manchester accident, the use of reverse on the engine which lost the turbine blade and which punctured the fuel tank (big fire), atomised the released fuel and increased the conflagration.

I recall after the JL Manchester fire trying diligently in the simulator to follow the new official line about turning according to the wind after an RTO. I am sure I wasn't alone in concluding that, with Auto-RTO brakes set, the window of opportunity to turn before grinding to a halt was very small if you wanted to avoid exiting the side of the runway. To give yourself a chance of achieving the new goal you would have to get rid of the autobrake at a higher speed, but this seemed to me a poor trade off, autobrake making it so easy to steer without tap dancing on the rudder and brake pedals.

There is nothing wrong in considering the wind direction, after all the fire could occur in much less extreme circumstances, in which case, by all means pirouette as much as you like, but in an RTO, stop straight ahead as quickly as possible and don't let anything get in the way of that. The AAIB recmmendations gave an unfortunate balance; they put the turning top of the list which gave it more importance than it needed. They did mention stopping on the runway first, but it was third on the list and didn't mention 'As fast as possible'. The reissued CAA FODCOM redresses the balance a bit.