AA RTO TPA

Ian_J said:
Anyone have thoughts about pulling off the runway vs. just stopping straight ahead for a situation like this?
Click to expand...
Fire services will have an easier time getting to us when at a dead stop on the runway with the brakes set as well, and we paid for the whole damn thing and in my book we're going to use it until we're sure we don't need it anymore. "Sorry, Southwest, you'd better run data for the other runway; we just RTO'd."

Semi related re: RTOs, an EMAS, should it be needed (along with any available stop- or clearway) is "dead ahead" too.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Fire services will have an easier time getting to us when at a dead stop on the runway with the brakes set as well, and we paid for the whole damn thing and in my book we're going to use it until we're sure we don't need it anymore. "Sorry, Southwest, you'd better run data for the other runway; we just RTO'd."

Semi related re: RTOs, an EMAS, should it be needed (along with any available stop- or clearway) is "dead ahead" too.
Click to expand...

That was my thought as well. And you don’t really know the status below the wing and what turning forces might induce.

And this is not all Monday morning-ing the crew…. Just a discussion topic.
 
Answer: it depends. Depends how much braking had to be done, any potential FOD issues, any problems showing or indicating. Taking a high speed exit or even a fairly slow RTO to a standard exit, isn’t generally an issue if there are no other apparent issues. If any doubt or any indications of a problem, stop straight ahead. At least until the aircraft can be checked. Or above all of that, comply with any directives on the matter that your operation may have.
 
For the 737 drivers out there, what do the abort criteria look like for a tire failure? On the 757 it's only recommended to abort if it's below 80kts but we also have a few more of them per truck. They looked to be going quite a bit faster than that, which is why I'm curious if it's different on the 737.
 
luke3 said:
For the 737 drivers out there, what do the abort criteria look like for a tire failure? On the 757 it's only recommended to abort if it's below 80kts but we also have a few more of them per truck. They looked to be going quite a bit faster than that, which is why I'm curious if it's different on the 737.
Click to expand...
At my shop it’s not an abort item above 100 unless it falls into the “not safe/ unable to fly” category.
 
luke3 said:
For the 737 drivers out there, what do the abort criteria look like for a tire failure? On the 757 it's only recommended to abort if it's below 80kts but we also have a few more of them per truck. They looked to be going quite a bit faster than that, which is why I'm curious if it's different on the 737.
Click to expand...
We brief the same Aborts brief y’all do…I’m only aborting above 80kts, if it’s “unsafe/unable”…otherwise stop straight ahead, make PA and evaluate if we need to all get off the plane/get to see what a runway looks like.
 
luke3 said:
For the 737 drivers out there, what do the abort criteria look like for a tire failure? On the 757 it's only recommended to abort if it's below 80kts but we also have a few more of them per truck. They looked to be going quite a bit faster than that, which is why I'm curious if it's different on the 737.
Click to expand...

Same exact abort criteria as most jets I would assume. 80 and below abort for anything and everything. 80 to V1 is engine fire, failure, loss of directional control, red scary lights, and any perception the aircraft won't fly.
 
Based on the time it took to travel a 800-length (124.75 ft; minus 4 ft just because), these frames in the video are from offsets 0.31 to 0.81.

Uh-errr, that works-out to 241.5 ft/sec or 143 knots.

Looks like 19R with the tire failing between W5 and W4 (closer 4). That is roughly 5700 ft from the arrival end, and not counting the overrun, a slightly less than that remaining.

OyFjrlE.png
 
Ian_J said:
At my shop it’s not an abort item above 100 unless it falls into the “not safe/ unable to fly” category.
Click to expand...

Ours is refreshingly simple: master caution/warning WITH aural alert OR "airplane may no fly". I can (and am expected to) "say something if I see something", but it's El (or La?) Capitan's decision to make. They just added a "continue" call from The Boss (if they so determine) to further reduce confusion. But I think it's a good way to do it. What you really don't want is one guy saying "abort!" and another guy saying "No, it's fine...wait, is it?" Split-second decisions are pretty rare, but this is exhibit A of their continued existence.

They got it stopped, no one died, and no one went flying unnecessarily wondering just what was wrong with the appliance. I think they did just fine.
 
Inverted said:
80 and below abort for anything and everything.
Click to expand...
My program(s) is (are) trying to get away from this specifically as a briefing point because dropping your Apple Pencil might be a bad reason to "discontinue" the takeoff; evidently there have been some "dumb" RTOs, though I don't disagree with the sentiment for "eh, not sure about taking X flying, let's just stop." The party line is "if the Master Caution comes on."

SurferLucas said:
We brief the same Aborts brief y’all do…I’m only aborting above 80kts, if it’s “unsafe/unable”…otherwise stop straight ahead, make PA and evaluate if we need to all get off the plane/get to see what a runway looks like.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to have an objective assessment of the airplane's acceleration compared to that which is nominal or expected, regarding "unsafe/unable to fly," though as far as I know only the 350 is equipped with such a thing and that is inhibited above 90 kt, the logic being it may well be "safer" to struggle into the air.

I really think this is a slick thing:

Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 22.22.48.png


I dunno what Boeing want, offhand, on that airplane, on the topic of tire failures, but Airbus want you to continue for a single tire failure which isn't accompanied by other immediately and clearly evident problems from about V1-20kts.
Boris Badenov said:
Ours is refreshingly simple: master caution/warning WITH aural alert OR "airplane may no fly". I can (and am expected to) "say something if I see something", but it's El (or La?) Capitan's decision to make. They just added a "continue" call from The Boss (if they so determine) to further reduce confusion. But I think it's a good way to do it. What you really don't want is one guy saying "abort!" and another guy saying "No, it's fine...wait, is it?" Split-second decisions are pretty rare, but this is exhibit A of their continued existence.

They got it stopped, no one died, and no one went flying unnecessarily wondering just what was wrong with the appliance. I think they did just fine.
Click to expand...
I like this, with the note that it was quite a lot of energy to dissipate considering the speed calculated above on only three working feet as opposed to four. Those brakes were...working.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
...
It would be nice to have an objective assessment of the airplane's acceleration compared to that which is nominal or expected, regarding "unsafe/unable to fly," though as far as I know only the 350 is equipped with such a thing and that is inhibited above 90 kt, the logic being it may well be "safer" to struggle into the air.

I really think this is a slick thing:

...
Click to expand...
Not only is it slick, it is something I would love to have in GA aircraft, and expect that we probably will sooner than later.

Even without FAA waivers I've had to make up my own numbers, I have had enough takeoffs that didn't perform the way the book said they should. But by the time that was clear, continuing was the better choice (might make it over the trees or building is usually better than definitely impacting them). The proxies we have now (MP, static RPM, torque, etc.) aren't really all that great, and the data in the Garmin/Dynon/etc. ecosystem is there to have real numbers and alerts computed. Guessing it will be another $199/year subscription someday. :)
 
Minuteman said:
A four-hour flight from TPA-PHX, yep.
Click to expand...
I thought one of the purposes of the "three, two, one, now" on Concorde was for time-to-V1, but the performance manual actually has that as, no kidding, time to noise abatement, which I suppose is also useful, just not for the immediate survival of anyone aboard. In fact, there's no time-to-V1 data, merely time-to-noise, in this one:
Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 22.49.20.png


Or this (I can imagine modern Kennedy ATC pooping their pants at 'consider 22L' - "eh Speedbird you want what?!"):
Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 22.51.44.png


Anyway, I had a "wait a minute" thought re: degraded acceleration and wondered if someone other than Super Mega Fifi had 'done' that already and it turns out not as far as I know.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Anyway, I had a "wait a minute" thought re: degraded acceleration and wondered if someone other than Super Mega Fifi had 'done' that already and it turns out not as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it for a minute, GPS and weight are all that you really need to compute acceleration, which is probably the only number we care about anyway. Time to write another iPhone app prototype on vacation tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top