Aborting a T/O

[Ameriagle]

yeah-true- captain only is very arrogant-especially at the majors where the experience level is so high. an abort is not the time to be proving your case. It's the time to act.
There is the argument that you don't want a less experienced pilot aborting at 130kts for a door.

Who has there hands on the thrust levers? Don't think arrogance or skill plays much of a role in an airlines particular philosophy on the matter!

 

[wmuflyguy]

yeah-true- captain only is very arrogant-especially at the majors where the experience level is so high. an abort is not the time to be proving your case. It's the time to act.
There is the argument that you don't want a less experienced pilot aborting at 130kts for a door.

I think the point of it is, is that both of you know who is to make final decision. That way at 120 kts, there isn't a question as to who will make the call.

Two people may abort for entirely different reasons and there isn't time to reason it out with the other person. experienced or not, it just takes the question of who is going to do what out of the question and saves the precious seconds.

Where I work, no matter who is flying...the CA has his/her hands on the thrust levers (after the PF pushes them up and PM sets thrust) and he decides and carries out the abort.

 

[pilot772]

At my former company (a regional) on the turbo prop side either pilot could call the abort and the pilot flying would abort including the FO. On the Jet the brief was, "If we have an engine Fire or failure prior to V1 the pilot noting will call abort, abort (including the Fo) and I (CA) will abort the takeoff. Any other malfunction bring to my attention and I will call abort or continue." So even if the FO was flying and called the abort I performed the abort(had my hand over the thrust levers)

At the new company (Frac) our FOM is similar to the turbo prop above where either pilot can call the abort and the pilot flying performs the abort.

Clear as Mud

 

[GogglesPisano]

I've worked for 3 airlines. It has always been captain's call with the captain's hands guarding the thrust levers.

 

[aa73]

At AA it is only the CA who can abort, and who guards the thrust levers, however, the F/O is expected to call out anything abnormal he/she sees.

At my last regional, the flying pilot could abort.

Just curious... what does FOM stand for? I'm assuming it is the company manual correct? AA calls it "Flight Manual Part 1."

73

 

[waveflyer]

i've worked at 5 companies- 3 of them made it the responsibility of who notices first and 2 are captain's calls-
the better training regarding the aborts happened at the airlines where FO's were expected to initiate the abort if they noticed it.
This is a better culture safety wise, imo. But i get the above points.

 

[Flyer1015]

Just curious... what does FOM stand for?

Flight Operations Manual

 

[GuppyWN]

My brief is:

"We've both got a ton captain experience in jets or we wouldn't be here. Let's work together and if we ************************* it up let's un************************* it together."

Gup

 

[FmrFreightDog]

i've worked at 5 companies- 3 of them made it the responsibility of who notices first and 2 are captain's calls-
the better training regarding the aborts happened at the airlines where FO's were expected to initiate the abort if they noticed it.
This is a better culture safety wise, imo. But i get the above points.

I disagree. Approaching V1 speed on a runway that might be short or might be wet with an aircraft that might have a deferred thrust reverser or an deferred anti-skid system, I think the concept of "abort by committee" is a very bad idea. At the end of the day, just like always in this business, somebody has to be in the position of "final decision maker". Sure, a captain might make a decision to continue when an abort is warranted. Sure, an FO might make an ill-advised decision to abort at 120 knots for a blown tire. Everyone's fallible. Obviously, time permitting, a decision on the best course of action by consensus is the best course. However, in an abort situation, there's no time for that kind of thing. The person in command of the aircraft is the one who should be making that decision. Of course, a competent co-pilot should also know how to call out a malfunction that he or she believes warrants and abort in an assertive, agressive manner, up to and including stating the word "Abort".

Bottom line though.... like it or not, it's the Captain's airplane, and the abort is the Captain's decision.

Just my opinion.

- Former Captain, current Co-Pilot.


ps. To answer the original poster's question, at both 121 carriers I have worked at, the abort decision always rested with the Captain. At one 135 freight carrier I worked for, the abort could be called by either pilot. Then again, we were flying Shorts 330s, and Vr in that thing is roughly 7 knots, so an abort wasn't a big deal. Oh, who am I kidding. It was freight. Doubtful we would have aborted if the HAZMAT in the back exploded, caught the cargo net on fire, and took out an engine with flying debris....

 

[waveflyer]

There are very few items worth aborting for above 80 kts and fewer above 100kts. We can disagree, it's ok.
But to be clear- are you saying the FO is empowered to say the word "Abort"- but the captain is empowered to ignore it?
That's safe how? In the moment and culturally- that is not a good idea.
The reason I agree w/ both pilot's being empowered to initiate the abort is b/c it gets the FO thinking like a captain instead of sitting on their hands. It makes them responsible, instead of just a passenger who can pawn that off on the captain.

 

[Poahi]

On an FO PT once, the instructor programmed a stick pusher on take off. Obviously, I didn't know he had that planned. So on the takeoff roll, I applied some forward pressure on the yolk in line with out operations manual. Because of the pressure, the pusher didn't activate but did partially on the Captain's side. It was a situation even the senior instructor hadn't seen before. The Captain I was flying with did nothing. I assumed it was because it was a 'training event' and didn't want to call the abort. Had he tried that online, or had he not paid attention, we would have had some problems. The point - being anti CRM just because you're in the sim to me is a bad idea. I understand what is being tested, but if you have a life threatening malfunction whether or not it's in the sim should be irrelevant - regardless of who is flying.

 

[milky]

I think the FAs get to act as tie-brakers. Like when the VP gets to vote when the senate ties.

I wonder who breaks the ties, though?

 

[FBN0223]

The Captain always makes the decision to reject or not reject the takeoff. Anything else is unsafe.

 

[BoilerUP]

After the LR60 crash in CAE, any conversation about RTOs is a good one.

Personally, and of course it depends on the specifics of the situation, but if I hear ABORT ABORT odds are pretty good I'm going to stop with maximum effort. One simply doesn't have the time to consider the cause of such a call when rapidly accelerating on the takeoff roll, especially above 80kts.

As has been said, a good takeoff brief should encompass abort criteria and have everyone on the same page.

 

[PCL_128]

At AirTran it's the Captain's call. It was the same way at Pinnacle. I did prefer Pinnacle's departure briefing, however, since it included a discussion from the Captain about aborts. AirTran's briefing includes no discussion whatsoever about what situations would warrant an abort. I think it's a horrible policy.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Team discussion is for the brief not at 140kts.

Damn, that would be on long brief! Bottom line is we don't know what the hell could happen. So I don't think you can brief for every situation.

That depends on how you do it.

It's a lot shorter and simpler to brief the items you will reject for (especially after the power is set/high speed regime) than to brief everything you won't reject for. Some things may change based on runway length...etc, but overall its pretty much the same for each takeoff.

For me: if the engines are turning = GO.

At CAL the Capt's make the call and perform the reject. T/O reject is included in the recommended brief.

One thing that does get a little old, is that many captains brief the full reject procedures with every different FO they fly with (but don't talk about specifics, they just say call it out and I'll make a decision). Unless the FO is new, that really gets to be overly redundant and causes many an FO to tune out and maybe miss some important info buried in the standard procedures refresher.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

At AA it is only the CA who can abort, and who guards the thrust levers, however, the F/O is expected to call out anything abnormal he/she sees.

The same at ANA

 

[glasspilot1]

Here at DAL is is the CA and only the CA. We can call out a problem but it is the CA's ultimate decision.

I think it's that way at most carriers. But there's always little detail-ly things. At TWA it was always Capt abort (if the F/O's leg, capt calls: "I've got it"). Even on the F/O's takeoff the capt handled the throttles until the gear up call. Then we go to AA procedures; still only CA's abort, however for some reason F/O's initially set T/O power and then CA hand is on throttles. A useless and time wasting "musical chairs" of hands and throttles.

 

[firstthird]

at SWA it is the captain's decision.

a good takeoff brief isn't that complicated.

after 80 knots before V1, only abort for fire, engine failure, windshear, aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly

the last caveat is where the captain's decision comes in, the FO should give a clear and concise description of what they think is going on. if it isn't fire, engine failure or windshear, go flying.

that catch all is for something that might not generate a light or warning but the captain decides the plane won't fly.

that is obviously the scary one that gets people killed both ways (for aborting and for continuing).

for instance, blow a tire and try to abort, you very likely won't meet your performance numbers (poor braking with a blown tire) so on a critical runway you may be going off the end if you do a highspeed abort with a blown tire. blown tires also are a tough one if you haven't had one before in that plane, might seem like much more than it is, engine failure maybe (loud noise, swerve). there is also the question as to how much damage it did to hydraulic lines, etc. then again, if you're leaking fluid, another reason you might not stop on the paved surface.

or, flaps weren't set and you didn't get a warning (madrid, possibly) some planes won't takeoff with the flaps up and some captains might get a 'this isn't right' feeling during acceleration and abort, although flaps up is an insidious and scary one. which is why they make those warnings. at SWA we check the takeoff warning both at the gate before every flight (to get it) and just prior to takeoff (to make sure we don't get it).

anyway. I've flown both ways (in the navy anyone in the cockpit could call abort) and prefer the CA makes the decision. less debate at V1. although, any captain needs to very seriously consider the input of the FO if the FO just has time to yell abort.

 

[OrionFE]

Rejected T/O

Per our company FOM- Pilot noticing calls out the problem, CA always makes the go/no go decision.

Same here!