Aborted Take-Off

[MrLeisure757]

I was curious how many CFI's on the board here teach actual aborted take-off's to their students. When I was training for my PPL last year, my instructor had briefed me on them and then had permission from the tower. The first was just before rotation, coming to a complete stop and then we taxing back. The second was after rotation and starting the climb out. I brought the plane back down and applied braking as necessary. I specifically remember the tower saying something along the line of "That was impressive to watch!" Although I did the training for this over a year ago, I was recently thinking about it and was curious how many other instructors out there teach this? I think it was a great experience for me as a student.

Adam

 

[DCApilot2006]

I teach it in a round about way. I dare you to remove your paws off the throttle while rolling down the runway. I'll abort the takeoff in a heartbeat.
It's hilarious to see what objects students will try to grab when trying to find the throttle! (disclaimer: Careful if doing this in a complex aircraft)

 

[jrh]

I don't teach them.

I know instructors who do teach them, and that's fine, but I don't think the small amount of risk is worth the small amount of benefit.

In a single, if the engine fails prior to rotation, the decision to abort is made automatically--there's no power to get airborn, therefore it's just a matter of hitting the brakes. I don't want to waste the student's time in simulating this...it would amount to doing a high speed taxi, then slowing down again. Kind of boring and pointless, in my opinion.

The reason I don't simulate an engine failure after rotation is because of the risk of either breaking the nosewheel off or running off the end of the runway. When you're at full power, climbing out at a low airspeed, then chop the power, the nose will pitch down dramatically. Do that too close to the ground and I'd be concerned that we'd go in nosewheel first before I could do anything about it. On the other hand, if you chop the power after climbing for a hundred feet or so, to get the plane down and stopped in the remaining runway would be difficult, if not impossible.

Of course, my views are based largely on seeing a 172RG that broke it's nose gear off from a student and instructor doing this, as well as watching a close call from the ground. I was watching a C-152 doing touch and goes when the instructor pulled the power at about 20 feet. They pitched down about 20 degrees and all I could think was "Oh crap, there goes the nosewheel!" only to see them pull back and flare at the last second.

It's just an area that I'm not sure I could stay 100% in control of, as an instructor.

 

[subpilot]

Go to a long runway airport, even better if it is uncontrolled. I simulate high density airport takeoffs by using 50% power for takeoffs. I also pull the throttle when they get about 200 feet off the ground. It is amazing how a student will just freeze and not react to this, even if you just briefed what to do if an engine goes out before you began the takeoff. When at our homebase, I still pull the throttle back on the climbout just to see their initial reaction and then I give the power back. Once again, this is an eye opener for both myself and for my students. One even got mad because I did not warn him first that I would do this. I mentioned that the plane will probably not warn him either if you had a real engine failure. He got the point.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Of course, my views are based largely on seeing a 172RG that broke it's nose gear off from a student and instructor doing this, as well as watching a close call from the ground.

Playing "Devil's Advocate", I once saw a student and instructor strike a wingtip doing a slip to a landing - should we not practice those, either?

 

[jrh]

Playing "Devil's Advocate", I once saw a student and instructor strike a wingtip doing a slip to a landing - should we not practice those, either?

Strike a wingtip?? Wow...I'd like to see a video of that one. I don't think I could strike a wingtip if I tried.

What were they flying? A Warrior?

 

[Ralgha]

In a single, if the engine fails prior to rotation, the decision to abort is made automatically--there's no power to get airborn, therefore it's just a matter of hitting the brakes. I don't want to waste the student's time in simulating this...it would amount to doing a high speed taxi, then slowing down again. Kind of boring and pointless, in my opinion.

Many students will freeze when they lose the engine during the takeoff run, not apply the brakes. This could lead to running off the side or the end of the runway if they didn't have an instructor. Someone else already addressed the same thing when an engine failure after takeoff. Although the decision is made for you when the engine dies, the response is not. It is the response that training such things addresses, not the decision.

Strike a wingtip?? Wow...I'd like to see a video of that one. I don't think I could strike a wingtip if I tried.

What kind of slips do you do? Some of my slips had enough bank to easily strike the wingtip of a 120, 152, 172.

However, as with all things when instructing, if you don't feel that you could maintain control of the situation, then don't do it.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Strike a wingtip?? Wow...I'd like to see a video of that one. I don't think I could strike a wingtip if I tried.

Oh, it's a piece of cake in a DA-20!!

 

[jrh]

What kind of slips do you do? Some of my slips had enough bank to easily strike the wingtip of a 120, 152, 172.

Sure, it's physically possible. I was just saying I don't think I could force myself to hold a hard slip like that all the way to the ground. It's that self-preservation instinct in all of us. Kind of like playing chicken with the ground. I always come out of forward slips at least 15 or 20 feet off the ground because it feels unnatural to take them much lower.

And good point about the aborted takeoffs training a response, not a decision. I'm still not sure how necessary it is to train for that response, but maybe I'd be more convinced if I saw a student freeze.

Just wondering, has anybody ever found an accident report in which a pilot with an emergency had time to stop on the runway, yet overran the end because they froze?

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Saw a guy do it in a CRJ at LGA one windy day. No serious damage fortunately, but my FO and I were saying "eewww, that's gonna leave a mark!"

Left a nice scrape

 

[Ralgha]

Sure, it's physically possible. I was just saying I don't think I could force myself to hold a hard slip like that all the way to the ground. It's that self-preservation instinct in all of us. Kind of like playing chicken with the ground. I always come out of forward slips at least 15 or 20 feet off the ground because it feels unnatural to take them much lower.

So you don't hold a sideslip for crosswind correction in to the ground? All it would take in some cases is a poorly timed gust of wind to flip a wing into the ground. Not everybody has that self-preservation instinct, others don't have enough experience to correctly act out that instinct. People do strange things. That's where all those great stories from CFIs come from.

And good point about the aborted takeoffs training a response, not a decision. I'm still not sure how necessary it is to train for that response, but maybe I'd be more convinced if I saw a student freeze.

You'll never see it if you don't put them in that situation. I did aborted takeoffs with every one of my students, and just about all of them froze to some degree the first time, especially when I did it when they weren't expecting it.

Just wondering, has anybody ever found an accident report in which a pilot with an emergency had time to stop on the runway, yet overran the end because they froze?

It would be one of those reports that said something like "pilot failed to maintain directional control" or "pilot failed to stop in the remaining runway". They're not going to put a technical phrase like "the pilot froze" in the report.

 

[jrh]

So you don't hold a sideslip for crosswind correction in to the ground? All it would take in some cases is a poorly timed gust of wind to flip a wing into the ground. Not everybody has that self-preservation instinct, others don't have enough experience to correctly act out that instinct. People do strange things. That's where all those great stories from CFIs come from.

I didn't mean to get into a discussion on accidents during crosswind landings.

I was just responding to Lloyd's original post that made it sound like the student and instructor were practicing forward slips. During practice, I don't like taking forward slips so low that I have any question whatsoever of striking a wing. It feels very unnatural, and I don't understand how you can't see it coming. It's sort of like driving your car towards a brick wall...it's obvious something bad will happen if you don't turn away. The closer you get to the wall, the stronger the urge to swerve.

So I just made the comment that I'd like to see what happened. It seems odd that somebody would practically fly a plane into the ground in a forward slip. That's all I'm saying.

You'll never see it if you don't put them in that situation. I did aborted takeoffs with every one of my students, and just about all of them froze to some degree the first time, especially when I did it when they weren't expecting it.

Fair enough. I've never flown with any instructors that thought it was that big of a deal to practice aborts in a single.

Do you pull the mixture or the throttle? If you pull the throttle, how do you catch the student off guard? With the student's hand on the throttle already, I would have to pull it out of their hand...and that wouldn't really catch them off guard.

It would be one of those reports that said something like "pilot failed to maintain directional control" or "pilot failed to stop in the remaining runway". They're not going to put a technical phrase like "the pilot froze" in the report.

Haha...of course. I wouldn't expect the report to actually say "the pilot froze."

Even so, you can tell if the brakes were applied, because I lot of reports I've read talk about skid marks. I've read a lot of accident reports and haven't seen much to indicate that a lack of braking was a significant factor. Maybe I should browse around some more and see what I find.

 

[Ralgha]

I didn't mean to get into a discussion on accidents during crosswind landings.

I was just responding to Lloyd's original post that made it sound like the student and instructor were practicing forward slips. During practice, I don't like taking forward slips so low that I have any question whatsoever of striking a wing. It feels very unnatural, and I don't understand how you can't see it coming. It's sort of like driving your car towards a brick wall...it's obvious something bad will happen if you don't turn away. The closer you get to the wall, the stronger the urge to swerve.

So I just made the comment that I'd like to see what happened. It seems odd that somebody would practically fly a plane into the ground in a forward slip. That's all I'm saying.

The original intent of the slip discussion was to point out that the argument for not training aborted takeoffs because of the risk is not inherently a good argument. Doing a touch-and-go is just as risky as an aborted takeoff, if not more. I rarely did touch-and-gos with students, although I did have them do go-arounds after touchdown/as touching down, which is a completely different animal.

Do you pull the mixture or the throttle? If you pull the throttle, how do you catch the student off guard? With the student's hand on the throttle already, I would have to pull it out of their hand...and that wouldn't really catch them off guard.

I'd pull the throttle. Most students take their hand off the throttle more than once during training, and when they do, they're not looking at or near the throttle so yanking it back catches them completely off guard. Do it a few times and they'll remember to keep their hand on it in the future. Double bonus.

I also just said "abort takeoff" during the takeoff roll, and left it all up to them, reducing power, brakes, etc. Just as unexpected (kinda like some dumbass driving out on the runway in front of you), and many students get confused trying to transition from GOGOGO! to STOPSTOPSTOP!

 

[jrh]

The original intent of the slip discussion was to point out that the argument for not training aborted takeoffs because of the risk is not inherently a good argument.

Ok, we can agree to disagree then. I think Lloyd's statement was only pointing out the flip side of the coin, not necessarily saying that my side of the coin is wrong, or that it's a flawed argument.

I admit, the argument for realistic training is a good one. I'm all for realistic training. If another instructor wants to teach aborted takeoffs after rotation, I have no problem with that. There is value in the experience. I would never go so far as to say the practice is dangerous. What I can say though, is that I don't feel comfortable doing them. I've decided that the risk involved, however small, is not worth what I think the student might gain from the experience.

To say there is no risk involved--all I can do is respectfully disagree. It's not a large risk, but there is a risk. As I've stated before, I've personally seen the results of this maneuver gone wrong (broken off nosegear, prop strike, wrecked engine) and I've personally witnessed a close call from the ground. In my mind, that's enough evidence to make me think twice before doing them. They're not required for any certificate or rating, and as an instructor, I'd rather not put myself in that spot. I think a pilot can be perfectly safe and have never practiced aborting a takeoff.

Also, please remember, I'm only talking about aborted takeoffs AFTER rotation.

Aborting prior to rotation? You have some good points. Maybe I'll start teaching a few of those. I don't see any risk in those. My only reason to not do those was that I used to think it was a waste of time and money...but you might have convinced me otherwise.

Doing a touch-and-go is just as risky as an aborted takeoff, if not more.

Oh, so you're one of those instructors, eh?

I've never thought touch and goes are any riskier than full stop landings, but I'm aware there's that school of thought out there. We'll have to save that debate for another day.

 

[Ralgha]

Ok, we can agree to disagree then. I think Lloyd's statement was only pointing out the flip side of the coin, not necessarily saying that my side of the coin is wrong, or that it's a flawed argument.

I admit, the argument for realistic training is a good one. I'm all for realistic training. If another instructor wants to teach aborted takeoffs after rotation, I have no problem with that. There is value in the experience. I would never go so far as to say the practice is dangerous. What I can say though, is that I don't feel comfortable doing them. I've decided that the risk involved, however small, is not worth what I think the student might gain from the experience.

To say there is no risk involved--all I can do is respectfully disagree. It's not a large risk, but there is a risk. As I've stated before, I've personally seen the results of this maneuver gone wrong (broken off nosegear, prop strike, wrecked engine) and I've personally witnessed a close call from the ground. In my mind, that's enough evidence to make me think twice before doing them. They're not required for any certificate or rating, and as an instructor, I'd rather not put myself in that spot. I think a pilot can be perfectly safe and have never practiced aborting a takeoff.

Also, please remember, I'm only talking about aborted takeoffs AFTER rotation.

I never said there was no risk, just that the argument that there is risk is not a good one. Aviation is risky, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. An instructor who does fail the engine just after takeoff should be able to handle the nose drop if the student does not. If they can't, then they should not do it. Any event that can be practiced safely is beneficial to the student. Whether it can be practiced safely is up to the instructor, not the inherent risk in the event itself.

Oh, so you're one of those instructors, eh?

I've never thought touch and goes are any riskier than full stop landings, but I'm aware there's that school of thought out there. We'll have to save that debate for another day.

Why save it for another day? The whole point of forums is to hijack threads!

The risk associated with a touch-and-go is a very small part of why I usually chose not to do them, however I do not hesitate to do them if conditions favor it over a stop-and-go (traffic conditions usually). In a touch-and-go, the student's attention is inside, when it should be outside. This is not a problem with a competent instructor on board, but it could become an issue when the student is alone. No other maneuver that I can think off offhand has the attention so misplaced. Doing a touch-and-go in a complex airplane raises additional safety issues that even a top notch instructor could be hard pressed to correct.

In any case, a stop-and-go consumes only marginally more time than a touch-and-go, and has benefits outside the obvious safety issues.

 

[NJA_Capt]

I rarely did touch-and-gos with students, although I did have them do go-around after touchdown/as touching down, which is a completely different animal.

Sorry Ralgha. By definition that IS a touch and go and is exactly the same animal. Doing it right at touchdown is even more dangerous than rolling a few hundred feet and taking off again.

 

[Ralgha]

Sorry Ralgha. By definition that IS a touch and go and is exactly the same animal. Doing it right at touchdown is even more dangerous than rolling a few hundred feet and taking off again.

Yes, technically, it is a touch-and-go. However, they differ in that in the "traditional" touch-and-go, you land, roll for awhile at low or idle power, reconfigure for takeoff whilst cruising down the runway, and at some point add power again and takeoff, more or less as normal. In a go-around, the first thing you do is add power, the goal is to stop the descent and start a climb as quickly as possible. Whether this happens before or after touchdown is irrelevent, the technique is the same. Getting in the habit of performing a "traditional" touch-and-go conditions the pilot to stop flying after touchdown (getting reset for a normal takeoff in a situation that is anything but normal) instead of continuing to fly the airplane (getting the hell off the ground as quickly as possible).

Granted, it would be pretty rare that the decision to go-around is made AFTER touchdown, more likely the decision is made (or made for you) just before touchdown and the airplane touches the ground in the process. Regardless the procedure is the same. Set power, flaps set, positive rate, gear up. To hell with the other pre-takeoff details.

 

[NJA_Capt]

What I can say though, is that I don't feel comfortable doing them. I've decided that the risk involved, however small, is not worth what I think the student might gain from the experience.

I can never fault a person for having personal limitations and knowing their comfort level.

I've personally seen the results of this maneuver gone wrong (broken off nosegear, prop strike, wrecked engine) and I've personally witnessed a close call from the ground.

This has more to do with the instructor than the maneuver. If a student was allowed to progress far enough to damage the aircraft, the instructor would have some serious questions to answer. They should have not allowed an aircraft to exceed a parameter that he/she cannot recover for the student.

I've never thought touch and goes are any riskier than full stop landings, but I'm aware there's that school of thought out there.

I don't think they are that dangerous either. One thing that is dangerous is a go around from low altitude with full flaps. In some aircraft it is VERY easy to get into trouble.

 

[NJA_Capt]

I guess our definition of "traditional" is different. To me, the traditional go around is one in which you merely touch the mains (I mostly fly taildraggers) and immediately takeoff again and reconfigure on the climbout. The "rolling" touch-n-go is more of a lazier version used in training with students. I do agree with you (Ralgha) on your analysis of a go around.

I would get used to the aborted takeoffs. Every simulator training event and type rating ride for the rest of your life will include one (or five).

 

[jrh]

I never said there was no risk, just that the argument that there is risk is not a good one. Aviation is risky, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. An instructor who does fail the engine just after takeoff should be able to handle the nose drop if the student does not. If they can't, then they should not do it. Any event that can be practiced safely is beneficial to the student. Whether it can be practiced safely is up to the instructor, not the inherent risk in the event itself.

I think we're saying the same thing in different words. I'm not saying it's a terrible exercise that should never be performed. I'm just saying why I choose not to do aborted takeoffs. I may be able to handle it, or there might be a time when it gets away from me and something bad happens. I'm not sure. I don't want to find out the hard way.

Why save it for another day? The whole point of forums is to hijack threads!

Ok, if you insist!

The risk associated with a touch-and-go is a very small part of why I usually chose not to do them, however I do not hesitate to do them if conditions favor it over a stop-and-go (traffic conditions usually). In a touch-and-go, the student's attention is inside, when it should be outside. This is not a problem with a competent instructor on board, but it could become an issue when the student is alone. No other maneuver that I can think off offhand has the attention so misplaced. Doing a touch-and-go in a complex airplane raises additional safety issues that even a top notch instructor could be hard pressed to correct.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the attention inside versus outside has to be as big of a deal as you say it is. In a C-152 the cleanup is just, "Flaps up, carb heat off" and you're powering up again. In an Arrow it's just "Flaps up." Those actions can be performed mostly by feel, with a quick visual glance to verify them.

I always stress keeping control of the plane is number one priority. For instance, on a gusty day with strong crosswinds, I would tell a student to focus on flying and slow down before touching anything. On a nice, calm day I'd be more inclined to let them clean up while we're still rolling quickly. As long as they prioritize properly, they should be fine.

Of course, I do feel like a bit of a hypocrite when a student says, "We clean up the plane during every touch and go, so why shouldn't I clean up the plane before exiting the runway?" That line of thought has a point. My response is that cleaning up during a touch and go is necessary for a proper takeoff, while it's not necessary until clear of the runway during a full stop landing. I say to only do the minimum amount necessary.