V1, Rotate- and the jet won't. You're the FO..

MikeD said:
Would be interesting to know what the rationale is behind that method of op. Probably not something that can be publically stated, I figure.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need a security Clearance to read it, but publicly copying and posting the cfm/fom is prohibited.

Often, the captain is the only one with both rudder and tiller. In the interest of ground control he will be the most able to control the plane in the event of a rejected takeoff. He also usually has the best access to the emergency brake.

Usually the captain is on the power levers to initiate the abort if needed, but it will be his call to abort. If he doesn't think he will be able to stop/control it on the ground. For example, in our plane, if you lose the #1 hyd. System right before v1, you lose normal and anti skid brakes. Manipulating the emergency brake from the right seat is "hard" to do at best. The captain would have a much easier time manipulating it, and would hopefully know that it's prob. Better to take that one airborne on a short runway.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I don't think you need a security Clearance to read it, but publicly copying and posting the cfm/fom is prohibited.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I figured, hence my comment. I didn't want the poster thinking I was telling him to post something........was more just thinking out loud myself. I figure most ops procedures, while not "classified", are at least considered FOUO.
 
MikeD said:
Would be interesting to know what the rationale is behind that method of op. Probably not something that can be publically stated, I figure.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly a secret. We had this discussion a bit on the *other* forum, but my outlook on it was that even though we're all typed, a high-speed reject at a high weight will require replacement of all the wheels/brakes/tires. It can also cause a brake fire. I'd prefer to leave the decision to cause that level of damage to the person in charge. Also, it's not uncommon when heavy to see a V1/Vr around 170 KIAS; a reject from that speed can be hazardous.

777 RTO test (skip to about 2:00):

 
dasleben said:
It's not exactly a secret. We had this discussion a bit on the *other* forum, but my outlook on it was that even though we're all typed, a high-speed reject at a high weight will require replacement of all the wheels/brakes/tires. It can also cause a brake fire. I'd prefer to leave the decision to cause that level of damage to the person in charge. Also, it's not uncommon when heavy to see a V1/Vr around 170 KIAS; a reject from that speed can be hazardous.

777 RTO test (skip to about 2:00):

Click to expand...

odd that they did the test flaps up... I would figure that they would have to do it simulating actual take off config.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Ok, that sounds much better. :) That's what we did when I first started at Pinnacle, and I think it's the safest procedure.
Click to expand...

They have changed it since you left then.

All takeoffs, regardless of seat, are briefed as either pilot calls abort, CA decides to execute it or continue. So, in an FO flying situation, I would move the thrust levers first to around 70%, allow them to stabilize, then push them up to the FLX or TO carats. At that point I say "set thrust" and CA fine tunes them (before 60 IAS), and leaves his hands on the TLs. Assuming no abortable criteria, PM (CA) says 80, V1 (at which point his hand leaves the TLs), rotate. PF is not allowed to touch TLs until PM finishes climb check and sets climb thrust.

If we assume an abort, somewhere between 80 and V1 (we don't discuss above V1 for some reason), regardless of who sees the potential abort criteria, the CA states, "Abort, I have the controls", and does the procedure. I call TWR and announce.

An aside to CA only abort: buddy of mine going through 200 FO initial from SF3 FO got yelled at for performing the abort because he called for it and CA didn't respond. Can't remember what the abort was for, but it was definitely warranted.
 
MikeD said:
Would be interesting to know what the rationale is behind that method of op. Probably not something that can be publically stated, I figure.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, it makes sense to me, and reduces/eliminates indecision. The person calling for the maneuver will be the person executing it, and you can do it as one continuous motion (blurt "Abort Abort Abort" while closing the thrust levers and watching the autobrakes work/mashing on the brakes/extending the speedbrakes/etc.).

Where I work, either crewmember may call, but the Captain both makes the final decision and executes the maneuver.
 
cencal83406 said:
They have changed it since you left then.
Click to expand...

No, it was changed right around the time I was in upgrade training. I tried to convince some checkairmen that it was unsafe, but didn't get anywhere. I always told my FOs that if either of us called abort, then I was aborting. This captain wasn't going to be second guessing an FO's judgment at 120 knots when he thinks he sees something serious enough to say "abort." The idea that you can ponder a decision and figure out whether the FO's suggestion is correct at such a speed and nearing the end of the runway is absurd. It's policy based on captain ego, not on safety, as far as I'm concerned.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it was changed right around the time I was in upgrade training. I tried to convince some checkairmen that it was unsafe, but didn't get anywhere. I always told my FOs that if either of us called abort, then I was aborting. This captain wasn't going to be second guessing an FO's judgment at 120 knots when he thinks he sees something serious enough to say "abort." The idea that you can ponder a decision and figure out whether the FO's suggestion is correct at such a speed and nearing the end of the runway is absurd. It's policy based on captain ego, not on safety, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

What's the policy at AirTran?

Boeing has no doubt studied the safest way possible to do this. I don't think it has to do with an untrustworthy FO (like I said, all of us here are PIC typed, and had to demonstrate a reject to the FAA on our type rides), but rather, a way to mitigate mistakes in the cockpit. I personally prefer calling out the malfunction, and having one person decide the best course of action to take. Some people have said that they believe there would be a delay between the callout and the action; in my experience, this hasn't been the case. Calling out "generator off" filters through and won't trigger a reject decision, assuming the criteria are solidly in your head. On the other hand, if I see the EICAS flicker off momentarily as a generator kicks offline, jump the gun and assume there's been an engine failure and call for the reject myself, I might have just destroyed the wheels on the main gear for nothing.

JMO.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it was changed right around the time I was in upgrade training. I tried to convince some checkairmen that it was unsafe, but didn't get anywhere. I always told my FOs that if either of us called abort, then I was aborting. This captain wasn't going to be second guessing an FO's judgment at 120 knots when he thinks he sees something serious enough to say "abort." The idea that you can ponder a decision and figure out whether the FO's suggestion is correct at such a speed and nearing the end of the runway is absurd. It's policy based on captain ego, not on safety, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Dot know if it was covered earlier in this thread, but Pinnacle is specifically looking into modifying the abort training, from what I heard. Not to allow FO aborts, but because we apparently lead the airlines in high speed aborts. And since we specifically train for an airspeed stagnation abort...
 
cencal83406 said:
Dot know if it was covered earlier in this thread, but Pinnacle is specifically looking into modifying the abort training, from what I heard. Not to allow FO aborts, but because we apparently lead the airlines in high speed aborts. And since we specifically train for an airspeed stagnation abort...
Click to expand...
I did one of those (in the sim) at my employer. We train them too.
 
Why in the world would you abort for airspeed stagnation? I can understand if your airspeed indicators don't crosscheck properly at 80 knots, but getting to like 110 and then aborting because the airspeed isn't going up? If the power is set, the aircraft is going to go flying in a few seconds, and it'll takeoff and fly just fine with known pitch and power settings. Heck, you don't even need to know airspeed on final in this thing, you just set 65% N1 with flaps 45 and the thing will generally nail your target speed.
 
dasleben said:
What's the policy at AirTran?
Click to expand...

The better question would be "what was the procedure at Eastern in 1985." :) Seriously, the manuals are basically the same. Very few changes from what they used to do way back then. Therefore, the captain is the only one with any authority. FOs don't even make PA announcements here, so the idea of an FO calling an abort is anathema.

As far as Boeing, I'm not sure that they even recommend one way or the other, since different carriers do it different ways.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The better question would be "what was the procedure at Eastern in 1985." :) Seriously, the manuals are basically the same. Very few changes from what they used to do way back then. Therefore, the captain is the only one with any authority. FOs don't even make PA announcements here, so the idea of an FO calling an abort is anathema.

As far as Boeing, I'm not sure that they even recommend one way or the other, since different carriers do it different ways.
Click to expand...

Funny, FOs don't make PAs here either. They call it a "Captain's airline," which is mildly funny. Thankfully, very few CAs let it go to their heads, so CRM problems are pretty rare.

Maybe the 717 is a bit different since it was originally a McDonnell Douglas design. Boeing lays it out pretty clearly in the FCTM for the 757/767, which my company simply abides by.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Because it's a great indication of a microburst. If it's just a comparator error, that's different, but if both airspeed indicators have stalled, then that's probably bad juju.
Click to expand...

Yup. When I worked at FSI in the sims, the instructors loved the airspeed stagnation right before V1. A couple of guys tried to take it flying and it didn't end well.
 
If the plane isn't rotating past V1 I'll troubleshoot......and troubleshoot.....and troubleshoot......and then probably approaching 190kts I'll start wondering if those approach lights are going to turn me into a human shish-ka-bob.
 
jtrain609 said:
Why in the world would you abort for airspeed stagnation? I can understand if your airspeed indicators don't crosscheck properly at 80 knots, but getting to like 110 and then aborting because the airspeed isn't going up? If the power is set, the aircraft is going to go flying in a few seconds, and it'll takeoff and fly just fine with known pitch and power settings. Heck, you don't even need to know airspeed on final in this thing, you just set 65% N1 with flaps 45 and the thing will generally nail your target speed.
Click to expand...

Windshear
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Windshear
Click to expand...

Do you guys brief it on your side of the company? Because I've never had this brought up before.

I HAVE gotten windsheer in the sim right after rotation, which can get a bit sporting. You guys have a windsheer warning system in that thing, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top