Pilot Error to Blame in PHL Aborted T/O

jtrain609 said:
I'll accept that.

Then who has the superior view of what the aircraft is doing? The PF or the PM?
Click to expand...

I would say it depends.

Like on an aborted takeoff procedure it will depend who sees the problem first. So have a rigid procedure in place on who has a role.
 
Seggy said:
I would say it depends.

Like on an aborted takeoff procedure it will depend who sees the problem first. So have a rigid procedure in place on who has a role.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that we need a rigid procedure in place.

I think that, industry wide, we have the wrong procedure. Transfers of controls during critical phases of flight are dangerous, but we tell guys to do it during takeoff.
 
Seggy said:
I would say it depends.

Like on an aborted takeoff procedure it will depend who sees the problem first. So have a rigid procedure in place on who has a role.
Click to expand...

So should FOs be allowed to call for an abort if they see it first? PF or PM...
 
You don't just say 'abort' you have a defined set of items to abort for. The captain then does the procedure.
 
jtrain609 said:
I think that, industry wide, we have the wrong procedure. Transfers of controls during critical phases of flight are dangerous, but we tell guys to do it during takeoff.
Click to expand...

It's at what, 20 knots at most? Not as dangerous as confusion on who is doing what at 120 knots.
 
Seggy said:
You don't just say 'abort' you have a defined set of items to abort for. The captain then does the procedure.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm well aware. Previous airline FOs could call abort. Current airline they don't want us to. They want us to tell the captain what the problem is. Both places captain did the procedure.

Example: Rolling down runway at 6/6/6 RVR. FO is PF. FO loses their PFD on the roll at 60 - 79 kts. Captain doesn't know. Should the FO be able to call the abort or should the FO only tell the captain "I lost my PFD," and let the captain decide to abort or not?
 
B767 said:
Example: Rolling down runway at 6/6/6 RVR. FO is PF. FO loses their PFD on the roll at 60 - 79 kts. Captain doesn't know. Should the FO be able to call the abort or should the FO only tell the captain "I lost my PFD," and let the captain decide to abort or not?
Click to expand...

Tell the Captain and have him decide.
 
Seggy said:
It's at what, 20 knots at most? Not as dangerous as confusion on who is doing what at 120 knots.
Click to expand...
Well we have had some issues with this recently. Transfer of controls when directional control may be an issue is something that always got me scratching my head. In essence we all take the same check rides just from different seats. We are both qualified on the airplane and that in and of itself should allow for the flying pilot to make the decision. Now, I understand that you think that there might be confusion and premature aborts but that is why you BRIEF before you leave the gate.

Also, I have the controls taken from me waaaaaaaaay earlier than 20 kts.
 
Seggy said:
Tell the Captain and have him decide.
Click to expand...

And if he makes the wrong decision, fix the decision? I got reamed pretty hard for calling an airspeed stagnation during a sim windshear event, and the CA called continue... needless to say, because I am "NOT ALLOWED" to reject, we went into the bay. I was reamed, not for not taking the controls (which I'm not allowed to do), but not insisting, when the CA had made the decision, that the incorrect decision was made and we needed to abort.
 
Seggy said:
Tell the Captain and have him decide.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Some captains are cowboys and would want to continue. Some couldn't make a decision if their life depended on it. You could simply catch a guy having a bad day. The ntsb archives are littered with reports of experienced airmen simply ignoring, underestimating, or misinterpreting relatively mundane details with catastrophic results.

At my shop, an FO can call an abort and we abort for anything abnormal up to 80 knots. If it's 6/6/6 and my pfd quits, you best believe I don't want to take it airborne.
 
roundout said:
I disagree. Some captains are cowboys and would want to continue. Some couldn't make a decision if their life depended on it. You could simply catch a guy having a bad day. The ntsb archives are littered with reports of experienced airmen simply ignoring, underestimating, or misinterpreting relatively mundane details with catastrophic results.
Click to expand...
I can see some merit in it. Call it out and be specific and 99.9% of the time the Captain is going to make the right call, I think. But you've got a point.

I've always thought of it this way: zero to eighty for most anything; eighty-100 to V1 for engine or other fires, failures, smoke, loss of directional control, triple chimes (COFFEEPOT FORWARD INBD INOP), and aircraft unsafe or unable to fly at any airspeed, runway permitting. (Flight control failures and @MikeD nightmares.)

At my shop, an FO can call an abort and we abort for anything abnormal up to 80 knots. If it's 6/6/6 and my pfd quits, you best believe I don't want to take it airborne.
Click to expand...
...usually because (at least with the scenario I was given back in the "day" that resulted in my yelling out the magic A-word) it's not just the PFD, but the associated main DC bus that's quit too, which means a lot of OTHER stuff has quit working, and that's not something you'd like to take into the air.

SpiceWeasel said:
And if he makes the wrong decision, fix the decision? I got reamed pretty hard for calling an airspeed stagnation during a sim windshear event, and the CA called continue... needless to say, because I am "NOT ALLOWED" to reject, we went into the bay. I was reamed, not for not taking the controls (which I'm not allowed to do), but not insisting, when the CA had made the decision, that the incorrect decision was made and we needed to abort.
Click to expand...
I was trained and checked on RTOs on my type ride. Captain "incapacitation" is one of the times where I will stop the airplane on my own accord. "Eighty. Bueller? Bueller? Reject, my controls."

It is not a physically difficult maneuver especially if you have working autobrakes. Maintain or assume control. Retard thrust levers to idle, deploy thrust reversers, verify autobrake application or apply maximum manual braking. Stop airplane. Don't bother to clear until you've assessed the situation. Set parking brakes. "Tower, Brand Y (___), we've rejected the takeoff, (other pertinent remarks, like give me the fire trucks, if required)." Mash PA button: "Ladies and gentlemen, remain seated and follow the instructions of your flight attendants." Call FAs and issue instructions as required. If there's a fire, fight it. If there's not a fire, figure out what to do next. Evacuation required? Do that.

I mean, we have PIC type ratings over there now, so we're not quite chopped liver...
 
SpiceWeasel said:
And if he makes the wrong decision, fix the decision? I got reamed pretty hard for calling an airspeed stagnation during a sim windshear event, and the CA called continue... needless to say, because I am "NOT ALLOWED" to reject, we went into the bay. I was reamed, not for not taking the controls (which I'm not allowed to do), but not insisting, when the CA had made the decision, that the incorrect decision was made and we needed to abort.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you had an interesting instructor viewpoint. But since we don't train that scenario, you would get WIDE variation from instructor to instructor.

If I had been your instructor that day I would've debriefed the captain pretty heavily for decision making since that scenario IS one that we train for and talk about in the brief ahead of time specifically. I would've asked you why you let the captain crash the plane, and left it at that. If you had taken control and rejected, I wouldn't have debriefed it as inappropriate. If the captain makes a bad decision, there's no time to get into a discussion about it. Take control, save the day, and prepare for the CPO carpet dance. If you can articulate your decision process, you'll be fine. That's a super gray area, in my opinion.

I did a little informal poll before posting this, and there's a lot of variability so YMMV. The guys I respect the most in the department agree that at some point somebody has to fly the damn plane (or not fly it, in this case).


Disclaimer---- This is my opinion, not procedure. I'll ask my boss tomorrow what his take on it is.
 
Last edited:
We have a set standard of what we can and can't abort for below 100 knots and (more importantly) above. Takes a lot of guesswork out of it.

Also this attitude that "I'm qualified in the airplane yadayadayada" I get, but if you want to hypothetically play scenarios here....is it better to have a captain do the abort or a high mins FO who is the PF in a 6/6/6 takeoff? What about an FO off high mins but first time dealing with ice/snow? The list can go on and on of scenarios.

Just having the Captain doing it and making the decision takes a lot of these scenarios out of play and just sets a standard.
 
Seggy said:
We have a set standard of what we can and can't abort for below 100 knots and (more importantly) above. Takes a lot of guesswork out of it.

Also this attitude that "I'm qualified in the airplane yadayadayada" I get, but if you want to hypothetically play scenarios here....is it better to have a captain do the abort or a high mins FO who is the PF in a 6/6/6 takeoff? What about an FO off high mins but first time dealing with ice/snow? The list can go on and on of scenarios.

Just having the Captain doing it and making the decision takes a lot of these scenarios out of play and just sets a standard.
Click to expand...

So what's your take on the example above. FO calls situation. Captain makes the wrong decision. What then?
 
This thread just proves perfectly why, even while corporate America is trying to devalue the professional and replace him/her with the "cost unit employee," that approach will not work in our business. There are a lot of scenarios in our jobs where anybody trained could perform a task, yet just as many or more scenarios exist where that approach just simply doesn't work.
 
roundout said:
This thread just proves perfectly why, even while corporate America is trying to devalue the professional and replace him/her with the "cost unit employee," that approach will not work in our business. There are a lot of scenarios in our jobs where anybody trained could perform a task, yet just as many or more scenarios exist where that approach just simply doesn't work.
Click to expand...

At some point you just have to be a pilot, and rely on your experience. Hopefully your experience is adequate, and hopefully none of us ever get pushed into that corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top