It isn't the automation, it is the Pilot Monitoring, CRM and Culture

[Dugie8]

PSA allowed either crewmember to call for the abort, although the CA was the one who performed it. Current shop, only the captain can call for it.

I did one highspeed RTO (at about 120) in the RJ based off of the FO calling for an abort due to a reverser deploying. Fortunately it was a pretty long runway so it was a non event. In the debrief afterwards we talked about if it had been a much shorter runway and agreed that we probably would have taken the plane into the air at that point as the CRJ will fly (kind of) with one engine in idle reverse, at least according to the sim. After that I have become a fan of the captain being the only one that can call for the reject as there is a lot of trust and thought that goes into a go/no go decision like that. Not that the FO can't make a decision of that type but it would be difficult to convey the whole thought process of "something broke but I'm not calling for a reject because there is only a little bit of runway left and the plane will still fly". Where as how most places do it, it's simply the FO saying "reverse deployed" and the captain thinking through the whole thing and then saying "continuing" or "rejecting".

I'm torn on the idea of only one person in the front office being able to make the go/no-go decision. Statistically it may not matter and is probably more of an indicator of the culture of a company or pilot group than anything.

 

[MercFE]

Think this whole discussion is why I actually like the way we do it with our aircraft... As soon as the aircraft can safely fly, we fly unless the plane is incapable.

From what I've gathered from all the performance discussions here on JC, airliners would rather reject a takeoff if there was enough runway to safely do so. We, on the other hand, could care less how long the runway is. If we get up to Vmcg and Vcef speeds, we take it flying and come back for an emergency landing.

This way, anything that is happening prior to V1 makes the aircraft unsafe to continue. So, anyone on the flight deck that is trained in those criteria can call for the abort. There is no grey area.

After V1, if something looks wrong, we mention it and let the PIC make the call and whether we should reject of continue. Normally still runway that we could stop in. But, as others have stated already, a high speed abort is a whole new situation that might be better accomplished by a turn in the pattern and emergency landing.

Just food for thought.

 

[Seggy]

This way, anything that is happening prior to V1 makes the aircraft unsafe to continue. So, anyone on the flight deck that is trained in those criteria can call for the abort. There is no grey area.

After V1, if something looks wrong, we mention it and let the PIC make the call and whether we should reject of continue. Normally still runway that we could stop in. But, as others have stated already, a high speed abort is a whole new situation that might be better accomplished by a turn in the pattern and emergency landing.

This isn't what I (or others) am(are) saying at all.

At my place the Captain calls the abort.

Also, you better go flying after V1 unless the airplane just won't fly. No mentioning, no thought about it, after V1 you fly.

Also to be clear at my place anything 100 knots or above is considered a high speed rejected take off.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Think this whole discussion is why I actually like the way we do it with our aircraft... As soon as the aircraft can safely fly, we fly unless the plane is incapable.

From what I've gathered from all the performance discussions here on JC, airliners would rather reject a takeoff if there was enough runway to safely do so. We, on the other hand, could care less how long the runway is. If we get up to Vmcg and Vcef speeds, we take it flying and come back for an emergency landing.

This way, anything that is happening prior to V1 makes the aircraft unsafe to continue. So, anyone on the flight deck that is trained in those criteria can call for the abort. There is no grey area.

After V1, if something looks wrong, we mention it and let the PIC make the call and whether we should reject of continue. Normally still runway that we could stop in. But, as others have stated already, a high speed abort is a whole new situation that might be better accomplished by a turn in the pattern and emergency landing.

Just food for thought.

There's also the ejection seat correct? It's a little easier to be black and white when you can punch if your choice to continue doesn't work out. (If you don't have ejection seats than excuse my ignorance)

I've always been trained as a 121 FO/91 CA that an abort is not to be taken lightly and your more likely to be successful to continue in most cases. Any thing below 80kts we do abort, but after that it's only if the airplane won't fly, fire, thrust reverser deployment. You're better off to bring it around with the whole runway in front of you to stop instead do the last half. I think that's what most people have been saying here too.

Edit: Seggy beat me to it.

 

[MikeD]

There's also the ejection seat correct? It's a little easier to be black and white when you can punch if your choice to continue doesn't work out. (If you don't have ejection seats than excuse my ignorance)

Not in his jet. But don't be fooled........ejection seat is not a free ride. YOU are still responsible for where that jet goes after you decide to leave it. People tend to forget that. It's just the responsibility that comes with having that luxury.

As noted here:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/dead-stick-leads-to-a-dead-end.113095/#post-1560527

 

[MercFE]

There's also the ejection seat correct? It's a little easier to be black and white when you can punch if your choice to continue doesn't work out. (If you don't have ejection seats than excuse my ignorance)

I've always been trained as a 121 FO/91 CA that an abort is not to be taken lightly and your more likely to be successful to continue in most cases. Any thing below 80kts we do abort, but after that it's only if the airplane won't fly, fire, thrust reverser deployment. You're better off to bring it around with the whole runway in front of you to stop instead do the last half. I think that's what most people have been saying here too.

Edit: Seggy beat me to it.

No... No ejection seats in the 707.

I think we're misunderstanding each other however. From past discussions, I have gathered that V1 in most airliners is based off a refusal speed to stop within the runway available. Anything prior to that point, a stop is possible. However, if this is the case, you may have already reached the speed, Vmcg or Vcef, where the plane is still capable of flight and may not need the abort. It all sounds like the airliners front load the possibility of aborting as the choice to be made available for as long as possible.

If this is true, I can understand the need for the captain to decide the need to abort because of the grey area you would be in.

In our flights, we lean toward the "go" mentality. We accept the aircraft to fly as soon as the speed allows... Even in the case of fire or engine malfunction. Our mentality is that it is safer to let the engine burn for one circuit around the pattern, rather than subject the airframe to the high speed abort. No decision to be made, we go fly unless we have a catastrophic failure (i.e. Lose two engines same side).

If I'm wrong on any of the airliner assumptions, I apologize and welcome the correction. Trying to understand the different philosophies is interesting.

 

[MikeD]

After V1, if something looks wrong, we mention it and let the PIC make the call and whether we should reject of continue. Normally still runway that we could stop in. But, as others have stated already, a high speed abort is a whole new situation that might be better accomplished by a turn in the pattern and emergency landing.

Just food for thought.

An accident example here:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/when-mr-murphy-rides-in-your-jumpseat.91792/#post-1238803

 

[BobDDuck]

From past discussions, I have gathered that V1 in most airliners is based off a refusal speed to stop within the runway available. Anything prior to that point, a stop is possible. However, if this is the case, you may have already reached the speed, Vmcg or Vcef, where the plane is still capable of flight and may not need the abort. It all sounds like the airliners front load the possibility of aborting as the choice to be made available for as long as possible.

Kind of. The theory is that the airplane WILL stop on the runway (or in the stopway) if you attempt a reject anytime prior to V1, but at both shops I've been at, the decision to initiate a reject is on a sliding scale that, once you hit 80 knots, rapidly moves towards a "go" decision. V1 is simply the point where the no go decision is no longer on the table (except of course if the plane won't fly at all), but long before you get to V1 most reasons to stop have been tossed and it takes something serious (fire, engine failure, lack of control) to go down the "no go" path.

For me, when I was still in the left seat I'd brief myself right before I pushed the throttles up (or watched the FO push them up) as to what sort of things I'd be willing to reject at a high speed for, or more commonly, what sort of things I would ignore as soon as I heard or made an 80 knot call out. Once that call was made, I was pretty much primed to go flying.

 

[PositionAndHold]

No... No ejection seats in the 707.

I think we're misunderstanding each other however. From past discussions, I have gathered that V1 in most airliners is based off a refusal speed to stop within the runway available. Anything prior to that point, a stop is possible. However, if this is the case, you may have already reached the speed, Vmcg or Vcef, where the plane is still capable of flight and may not need the abort. It all sounds like the airliners front load the possibility of aborting as the choice to be made available for as long as possible.

If this is true, I can understand the need for the captain to decide the need to abort because of the grey area you would be in.

In our flights, we lean toward the "go" mentality. We accept the aircraft to fly as soon as the speed allows... Even in the case of fire or engine malfunction. Our mentality is that it is safer to let the engine burn for one circuit around the pattern, rather than subject the airframe to the high speed abort. No decision to be made, we go fly unless we have a catastrophic failure (i.e. Lose two engines same side).

If I'm wrong on any of the airliner assumptions, I apologize and welcome the correction. Trying to understand the different philosophies is interesting.

For some reason I was thinking you were on EA6-B or something, I'm a tard. My bad.
Edit: Just looked it up. Never realized the navy had EA-6B's and E-6B's. You think they would've used another number. E-7 or some thing like that.

We're thinking the same thing except we use V1 as the decision point. The philosophy of letting it burn for a trip around the patch rather than try to stop is still the same. I fly a Lear 45 with another captain. It's just me and him for the last 1000hrs or so. We tend to know what the other is thinking so it makes these kind of topics a little different for us. We can both call an abort but both use the same criteria and brief it the same way. Who ever is flying will be the one to perform the abort. We both call V1 about 5kts prior to allow a little bias towards the "go" decision and reaction time. We've done it that way for a while and seems to work pretty good during recurrent too. If we were all in person I think we'd all be on the same page when it comes to most of this stuff. I think a little gets lost in translation on the internets.

 

[MercFE]

Never realized the navy had EA-6B's and E-6B's. You think they would've used another number. E-7 or some thing like that.

We've taken care of that problem and decommissioned the EA-6B's.

If we were all in person I think we'd all be on the same page when it comes to most of this stuff. I think a little gets lost in translation on the internets.

Agreed. Have always loved performance discussions. Interesting that there are so many takes on what is acceptable between communities though.

 

[dasleben]

I'm all about a "team oriented" approach to CRM (to the chagrin of some of the "old guard" folks).

However, I am all about the CA calling and executing a reject. It really has nothing to do with time in type, either. It has to do with the fact that the PIC bears final responsibility, and if I'm not the one signing the release and making captain pay, I don't want to be the guy making the decision to melt a few million bucks worth of brakes and tires (one of the better outcomes of a high-speed reject, of course).

 

[MikeD]

We've taken care of that problem and decommissioned the EA-6B's. .

Did the USMC keep theirs?

 

[MercFE]

Did the USMC keep theirs?

I admit, I'm not 100% sure... However, the EF-18G is supposed to be phasing all of the Prowlers out.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

V1 doesn't always guarantee stopping on the runway and being able to taxi to the gate. The takeoff calc includes the stopway.

 

[Pépé le Pilot]

If you reject at V1 and MTOW chances are your brakes will be on fire and your tires will deflate by the time you stop...

 

[exneophyte]

If you reject at V1 and MTOW chances are your brakes will be on fire and your tires will deflate by the time you stop...

A few years ago I was a passenger on a Delta flight from ATL->MSP. We started our takeoff roll and just when I thought we were about to start climbing, the plane came to a very very quick halt. The pilot reported that they'd received a wind shear warning. We first had to wait for someone to inspect the brakes before we could taxi back to make sure they weren't on fire. Then we taxied back and had to wait for about an hour and a half to let the brakes cool down to a point that they'd be useful again because they were red hot according to the pilot.

When I got off the plane, I asked the pilot what speed they'd reached when they'd aborted and he replied 120 knots. I'd have to guess we were getting close to V1. It was without a doubt the most violent experience I've had on an airplane.

 

[Pépé le Pilot]

On a standard day, sea level, 273 tons, we get V1 at like 147kts. That's a lot of weight to bring down to a halt...

 

[inigo88]

@Polar742 - Thanks a lot for the write up (especially on a mobile device!). The more I learn about it the more I realize what a complicated human factors issue it is.

@PositionAndHold - Thanks for your take on the iPad/Foreflight sectional in the Part 91 corporate environment. I actually know several corporate pilots who fly into unfamiliar airports a lot and swear by it for SA (was pretty blown away myself when I started supplementing my flights with it), so that got me wondering whether it could be applicable in 121.

Did the USMC keep theirs?

For what it's worth, I saw one departing Miramar not too long ago.

 

[///AMG]

We've taken care of that problem and decommissioned the EA-6B's.

WHoa there.....not so fast. I'm about to partake (as a frightened bystander) in the Prowler's last CVN deployment. I'm sure those guys would like the world to know that they are still out there, hanging their pink skin out behind the ship at night in a death trap for at least the better part of the next year That said, it will be nearly the end of the road for her when we get back. And yes, they all have camo SH bags circa "Flight of the Intruder".......

The USMC will be getting our old jets (the ones that weren't irradiated beyond repair in Japan/Fukishima) and flying them for years to come.

 

[MikeD]

WHoa there.....not so fast. I'm about to partake (as a frightened bystander) in the Prowler's last CVN deployment. I'm sure those guys would like the world to know that they are still out there, hanging their pink skin out behind the ship at night in a death trap for at least the better part of the next year That said, it will be nearly the end of the road for her when we get back. And yes, they all have camo SH bags circa "Flight of the Intruder".......

The USMC will be getting our old jets (the ones that weren't irradiated beyond repair in Japan/Fukishima) and flying them for years to come.

No EA-18s for the VMAQs? And they're all east coast at Cherry Point, right?