ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
That dramatically changes my opinions about V1, thanks! Do you know where I can find some more info on this sort of thing?
You're the FO
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
That dramatically changes my opinions about V1, thanks! Do you know where I can find some more info on this sort of thing?
Orange Anchor
New Member
First, the R-2800 is not attached to a pod but is attached to the wing itself. And engine fires in recips is a different animal than fires on a jet engine. Recips tend to eat themselves when they start coming apart. For example, when the B-29 was introduced, they had a HUGE problem with the engines and more airplanes were being lost to engine problems than combat.
Jet engines are on pods as PCL has noted. If you ever get into an engine shop you will see the engines are held onto the pod with thin bolts which will shear if there is a catastrophic seizure of the engine. It will torque itself free and there have been more than just a few events where the engine has left the airplane. Fellow in my 76 class had one drop off a 737-200 on takeoff. So, the fire is in the pod and somewhat isolated from the wing.
I've shut a few engines down for fire warnings and none were actual fires. This is not to say you can get complacent but for example, on takeoff, our procedures were to just let the engine run until you got cleaned up and then you began the engine fire checklist. This is especially important because the engine is still producing thrust and if you are real heavy you may want that thrust to get clean and stable for shutting down the engine.
Although it is what they were taught, when Concorde had the first engine fire, the F/E immediately shut that engine down. When the second engine failed, they didn't have enough thrust to accelerate and remained in a very high drag situation. There are studies which show had they had that first engine back, they may have made it. Without it, they ran out of energy and descended into the ground.
Recip fire.. get on it quickly and shut it down. jet engine fire.. not the same.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The applicable AFM would be the only place I can think of.
To show an example of just how uneventful an engine fire is, in the 717, the only memory item for an engine fire is "throttle (affected engine) - idle." You don't even have to shut it down before pulling out the checklist. It's just not a huge priority. In fact, if we get an engine fire at V1, we continue the climb, accelerate, and clean up before we even do the memory item. Engine fires just aren't that serious in modern jets. Other fires are a very different story, but engine fires are nothing to get excited about.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I've heard that the current trend is to get rid of immediate action items entirely.
Orange Anchor
New Member
The old complaint of 'we have to read what we do every day and memorize what we do once in a year' was finally heard.
Emergency checklists are designed in a specific order and because of that, it is best to slow down and read it to ensure the sequence is followed. Jacked with a bit of adrenaline and trying to remember a sequence you looked at maybe six months ago is not the best path to success.
Not only are more airlines leaving memory items, many are going with the Capt doing checklist items and the F/O flying or using the autopilot to control the airplane. This specifying who does what produces better crew coord and doesn't create interruptions.
For example, if the Capt flies and the F/O reads the checklist, the F/O has to question the Capt for specific events, yes or no or whatever. The Capt is trying to fly and this is an interruption.
The other way, the F/O flies, the Capt comes to a point in the checklist and tells the F/O what s/he is doing. The F/O stays in the loop, the Capt is free to use brain cells to survey the situation and use his/her judgment.
Note too that the Captains in the shipping industry find it odd that airline Capts even touch the controls. On big ships, the Capt just issues instructions and commands.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
The ship Captain's world moves in only two dimensions and considerably slower too. Nothing a subordinate can do will have immediate and catastrophic results to a large ship.
I agree that PIC reading/doing while the SIC flies in such situations works much better.
Orange Anchor
New Member
You might want to go to the NTSB records and read a few of the accident reports. Thinking you are in TRACK and being in HEADING can happen on a ship also and while you may be moving slow, you have an incredible mass that takes MILES to stop. The fact that it is not immediate does not mean it will not be catastrophic.
You may want to read about how the Herald of Free Enterprise left the dock with the bow unlocked.
And this one.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2008/MAR0801.htm
And you may remember the sub out of Pearl that collided with the Japanese ship.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/MAB0501.htm
And of course, Capt Kirk seldom touched the controls of his ship either.
Better distribution of workloads. It also slows the Capt down a bit. From instructing in many sim sessions, I often felt for the poor F/O who could hardly keep up with all the directives and commands from the left seat.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
[YT]SVaY0y6XCW8[/YT]
Orange Anchor
New Member
Funny takeoff on the industry but the sinking of the HoFE was not. 193 deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterprise
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Still not apples/apples. But neither here, nor there....just different approaches/different industries.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
At the theoretical company there is a "no fault" policy for go arounds but it is clear that in the scenario of an EICAS message, the captain will decide and say either "abort" or "continue." In all take offs it is only the captain with his hands on the thrust levers. The FO is expected to just say clearly what the message is.
As somebody stated previously, if the FOs were to call aborts, we'd have many more high speed discussions....FO- Baggage door open..ABORT! Captain - No! We're going!
In any case I think the captain was caught of guard and hadn't thought about possible scenarios on the runway. I know I force myself as we take the runway to "chair fly" the takeoff in the seconds before we advance the thrust levers. I'd guess complacency has reared it's ugly head catching the captain off guard. The rest with deciding to go after the abort was started was just poor airmanship.
Good job to the fo who realized it was better to just stop.
Orange Anchor
New Member
How is it different and not an apples/apples comparison?
Are you suggesting that it is necessary for the Capt to manipulate the controls or that F/Os on ships can't get the ship in trouble? ???
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Not at all.
I merely suggested that there is a difference in "immediate action" requirements between aircraft and ships. Regardless of who is flying, some things have immediate consequences. In ships, there are very few things that reacting "immediately" to will affect the outcome.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Did you scan the reports? In one, the F/O took control and made a hard turn which caused the ship to list considerably, tossing about pax and equipment.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you can hurt someone in a ship with bad technique, but it doesn't usually result with the loss of the ship. Ie a rudder hard over doesn't result in the loss of the aft end of the ship or shutting down the wrong engine will not result in the ship rolling over. As you mentioned, there is more mass involved, and thus things cannot happen as suddenly in a ship as it would in an aircraft. As I said, just different approaches to different industries.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Pilot in Command
I totally agree with NJA_Capt here. The PIC should have the decision to abort the takeoff or not.
An aborted takeoff can be the difference between off the end of the runway and evacuating needlessly which will include injuries, or continuing and flying a traffic pattern while an engine fire is put out.
I totally agree with NJA_Capt here. The PIC should have the decision to abort the takeoff or not.
An aborted takeoff can be the difference between off the end of the runway and evacuating needlessly which will include injuries, or continuing and flying a traffic pattern while an engine fire is put out.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
While I agree that the time needed to react to a situation is normally slower in a boat than it is in a plane, I can't say that unequivocally. I don't have a lot of experience operating larger boats, but what time I have spent working 80 foot ferries and sailing 20 to 40 foot sail boats, when you get into a bigger wave situation, there are certainly times where you only have seconds to react as to where to steer the ship or how much (or little) power to apply.
You should have intervened. Grab those throttle, yell abort, stop the fkn plane. Whats more important, your job or your life? Anyways you would have been fully justified in doing so regardless, so you couldn't have possibly gotten into any trouble for that, if anything the captain would have. After we stopped, personally I would have been like look, I don't know what you would call that, but I'd suggest that once you make a decision like that, stick to it. Maybe they were having a bad day, who knows. I wouldn't go tattle tailing on them tho, b/c I strongly doubt they would make that same mistake again regardless.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
