80 kt call out

[svcta]

Nice condescending attitude in your post.
Where did I ever say our reject items are a moving target?
Our procedure is that anyone can call abort prior to V1 (this was relatively new). We are both typed and very experienced and always fly together.
However the point of the post was that runway available was more than 50% longer than the calculated BFL and the event happened well below V1.

Everything we do in aviation is conditional which is why we ALWAYS brief for the situation. What are you going to do when presented with a situation that is not covered by your "cold, hard rote memory" reject items?
Do you always brief for a runway incursion after 80kts? It's happened.
Is your night IFR contaminated runway brief the same as day VFR dry runway brief?

You might want to experience one of those unique and unusual events in the sim before you go passing judgement.

I knew I would get my comeuppance for that post. I was in a hurry, so please forgive the tone....if there can be such a thing in a typed sentence. I wasn't trying to be snotty.

A runway incursion? Really? Do you brief for that? To use that as an example is just being silly, who in their right mind would elect to continue in that case, unless the only hope was to nurse the airplane in to the air to avoid the incurrrrrerrerr? Again, off we go in to the wild hypothetical yonder. Yes, if all of a sudden there were a fire truck in front of us, I'm sure our collective instantaneous decision would be to abort.

Why is your night IFR contaminated runway brief fundamentally different from any other? The only things I can think of off the top of my head that change may be how we actually perform the reject maneuver. What do we do with the TRs, what kind of braking to expect? Or maybe what to do with the landing gear after we're in the air. Other than that the only real difference in that situation is mainly a taxi brief. Do we leave the flaps up? When do we turn the anti-ice on, etc. I mean, we already have a our takeoff data calculated and it looks identical to a regular takeoff when you look at everything except the numbers may physically shift a bit. Our manufacturers don't give us shiftable data to use depending on how we think things are going. "Adjust distance reuired by -100 feet for every bit you are less concerned about braking action" is not a line we're likely to ever see in an AFM. The fact is that they present these numbers to us in a standard way, reflecting the worst-case contamination data from testing. It eliminates us having to interpret things on the fly.

But the lousier the weather, the worse the runway conditions, the more important it is to have a standard set of operating rules to revert to when things start to go wrong, in my opinion. It allows us to have a place to go when we're thinking too hard and things are going wrong. Thinking on the fly and making snap decisions about things may sound exciting, but this stuff should not be exciting. None of us will win any awards for being the fastest thinker at the airport when you reject a takeoff for a popped CRT at night on a contaminated runway that you (not you, Rice, the royal you...all of us) thought was long enough to get stopped on. This is the point. Its not just my point, though.

Read the advisory circular from the FAA, I'm not just making this stuff up.

 

[BoilerUP]

From my experience(only 121/mil), this is NOT the norm. Every company I've worked for has made it clear that there is only one PIC when it comes to a reject. It's his call...... period. The F/O can call out any condition that he feels might warrant the Captain's attention, but the Captain is going to make the reject call.

There is way too much variation in experience in the right seat of a 121 bird to give the F/O the option to just grab a handful of throttles and reject anytime he feels the need.

Calling an abort is not the same as actually initiating an abort.

At my previous airline (a regional that had newhire FOs with <1000hrs), either CA or FO could call an abort, and whoever was PF (CA or FO) could initiate an abort.

What does it say for the culture AND training of a 121 operation if it believes First Officers cannot be trusted to properly execute a RTO? Especially at an airline such as FedEx, where its not exactly like FOs are newbie ab-initio pilots?

 

[svcta]

That's a bad attitude to have if you're flying a jet. Just sayin'.

Why do you say that?

To me , flying a jet is the most scientific form of flying there is aside from maybe trying to go so space in an airplane.

If I'm flying a Mustang my ears, eyes, feet, hands, and butt are all in tune with the airplane and constantly interpreting things, and I agree that in that environment there is far less room for "robotic" flying. "Hmm...the Merlin just gave me a kick. It's okay that was a normal one. If it does it too me again in less than 30 seconds or so maybe I'll clip off a half an inch. Or add 25 RPM. Or both. We'll see." There are a lot of things going on that require a mechanical knowledge and an instinct about that airplane that I am only beginning to develop. That is an art and a challenge that gives me a rubbery one.

Modern jets are not designed to give us that level of feedback. They present to us condensed information that was interpreted by a computer. There is precious little room for artistic interpretation with this information when the Le crap frappe le fan in a takeoff roll. Up in the air flying around, dancing with the clouds, and all that may be different. Mainly because we have time to really get in to solving most problems.

A great aviator once said "Up there you don't have time to think. If you think, you're dead." (Not germane, just plain hilarious)

Edit: As someone said earlier, we're discussing things that seem to be fundamental to most of our personal identities. I, for one, am not trying to whiz in anyone's Cherios. This has been a great discussion so far and I have certainly enjoyed it.

 

[rettofly]

Pilots tend to play the "What if" game into the nth degree. I mean “What if” 8 goats crossed the runway and were sucked into both engines after 80 kts, would it be OK to continue the take off?

My limit is six goats.

 

[Airboss]

Available data indicates that over 75% of all RTOs are initiated at speeds of 80 knots or less. These RTOs almost never result in an accident.
Inherently, low speed RTOs are safer and less demanding than high speed RTOs. At the other extreme, about 2% of the RTOs are initiated at speeds above 120 knots. Overrun accidents and incidents that occur principally stem from these high speed events.

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf

No direct answer here, but some decent info.

 

[gern_blanston]

Why do you say that?

Because it's true.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

From my experience(only 121/mil), this is NOT the norm. Every company I've worked for has made it clear that there is only one PIC when it comes to a reject. It's his call...... period. The F/O can call out any condition that he feels might warrant the Captain's attention, but the Captain is going to make the reject call.

There is way too much variation in experience in the right seat of a 121 bird to give the F/O the option to just grab a handful of throttles and reject anytime he feels the need.

Maybe your perspective is the result of flying in a small corporate setting with highly experienced pilots that fly together all the time and swap seats every leg. Maybe the "anyone can reject" option works there but it really wouldn't be an option at most airlines.

Shows you and your company's opinion of FO's. Do you make them carry your bags and get you coffee?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

My limit is six goats.

Billy goat or mountain goat?

 

[svcta]

Because it's true.

Oh. I disagree.

 

[svcta]

There is way too much variation in experience in the right seat of a 121 bird to give the F/O the option to just grab a handful of throttles and reject anytime he feels the need.

Maybe your perspective is the result of flying in a small corporate setting with highly experienced pilots that fly together all the time and swap seats every leg. Maybe the "anyone can reject" option works there but it really wouldn't be an option at most airlines.

Actually, it was this way at the only airline I ever worked for. Nobody ever said that the FO was going to reach up and gab a handfull of anybody's anything. Those belong to the PF. Which brings up another question.....does the FO ever get a takeoff where you work? Can he call his own reject if he feels the airplane heading for a ditch or does he have to wait for the captain to call it? And if the captain has sole authority to call an RTO, it seems like a lot of work to lay on any one crewmember. Wouldn't if be safest to in your scenario for the CA to monitor all takeoffs while the FO performed the commanded tasks? This would ensure that PF and PNF duties were balanced and that the guy making the tough choices could focus solely on that task.

Of course, since the CA is such a VIP an RTO called by the FO, even if he were the PF, could wind up in a call to the CP and the NTSB. No good to be the HMFIC when the CRM got tossed behind os on the RW during the TO.

Isn't it cool to be a pilot? I mean, none of my friends ever get to even say 'roger'. Sad lot, them.

 

[BentOver]

Didn't read through all 5 pages so not sure if this reasoning was addressed...

At my last regional, the 80 (or 100 for us) was used for aborting for any malfunction (within reason), 100-V1 was for engine fire/failure etc..

Our brief was pretty standard...

"0-100 abort for any malfunction (again within reason)"

"100-V1 abort for engine fire/failure, loss of directional control or if we perceive the a/c as not being able to fly"

"Above V1 we'll consider it an inflight emergency...run the checklist etc."



In a turbo prop I used to fly I think an 80 knot callout was also for VMC.... But that was a single pilot a/c anyways, so I was talking to myself

 

[gern_blanston]

Oh. I disagree.

I salute you, Sir. I respect a guy who disagrees with me.

 

[jet2work]

I've flown with guys who get all wrapped up about aborting a takeoff and then land 10 knots fast halfway down the runway. Just makes me chuckle.

 

[AdlerDriver]

Calling an abort is not the same as actually initiating an abort.

At my previous airline (a regional that had newhire FOs with <1000hrs), either CA or FO could call an abort, and whoever was PF (CA or FO) could initiate an abort.
What does it say for the culture AND training of a 121 operation if it believes First Officers cannot be trusted to properly execute a RTO? Especially at an airline such as FedEx, where its not exactly like FOs are newbie ab-initio pilots?

Shows you and your company's opinion of FO's. Do you make them carry your bags and get you coffee?

Actually, it was this way at the only airline I ever worked for. Nobody ever said that the FO was going to reach up and gab a handfull of anybody's anything. Those belong to the PF. Which brings up another question.....does the FO ever get a takeoff where you work? Can he call his own reject if he feels the airplane heading for a ditch or does he have to wait for the captain to call it? And if the captain has sole authority to call an RTO, it seems like a lot of work to lay on any one crewmember. Wouldn't if be safest to in your scenario for the CA to monitor all takeoffs while the FO performed the commanded tasks? This would ensure that PF and PNF duties were balanced and that the guy making the tough choices could focus solely on that task.

Of course, since the CA is such a VIP an RTO called by the FO, even if he were the PF, could wind up in a call to the CP and the NTSB. No good to be the HMFIC when the CRM got tossed behind os on the RW during the TO.

BoilerUP, Hugh J, and svcta:

We’ve had a pretty good (very unique to FI) exchange of viewpoints and ideas on this up to now. I’d really like to keep it going, so maybe we can tone down the sarcasm a bit.

You don’t have to agree with my opinion, but you don’t have to take us down the normal FI track of ridicule, etc. All I can do is try to explain the reason for my opinions and get your feedback.

The first paragraph on RTOs in the Fedex FOM states:
The Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the takeoff. The decision must be made in time to start the rejected takeoff maneuver by V1. If the decision is to reject the takeoff, the Captain must clearly announce "REJECT," assume control of the aircraft and immediately start the rejected takeoff maneuver.

I’m pretty much required to abide by that, so I don’t seem to have a lot of “wiggle room” when it comes to RTOs. What it says about the culture?............ I guess it says there is more than one way to approach RTOs. I think it says they place a high emphasis on standard procedures. One thing I’ve come to appreciate about all the airlines I’ve worked for is the emphasis on standardization. In my opinion, a time critical situation like an RTO requires as much standardization as possible.

My response was directed at someone who appeared (from their wording) to be advocating that either the Captain OR F/O could decide to abort. That just hasn’t been the accepted procedure at the airlines (United, World Airways and now Fedex) that I’ve worked – so perhaps my perspective is limited.

Calling an abort IS the same thing as initiating an abort, in my opinion. It’s no different than saying “Go around” on final. Once either one gets said on the flight deck during the appropriate phase of flight, is there really an option? If the F/O says “abort”, I seriously doubt any Captain is going to ignore that and keep going.

When I got my type ratings at those airlines, one of the requirements on the rating ride was to accomplish a reject from the left seat. The FAA requirements didn’t have me executing an RTO from both seats – just the left seat.

Personally, I think you guys are reading too much into the F/O side of this. It’s not a matter of trusting the F/O to accomplish an RTO. To me, it just makes sense to reduce the variables in such a time critical situation.

I’m not saying our way is the best and you guys are wrong. I can say that I agree with the logic that supports our method:
· Such a critical, time sensitive decision should rest with the PIC.
· It makes sense to me to reduce the variables in such a time critical situation.
· It’s pretty common for the Captain to be more experienced that the F/O. It’s possible that the F/O could be of equal experience on one trip and on his first flight after IOE the next. Much higher potential for lack of standardization.
· With the Captain executing the abort, he only needs to execute one set of RTO duties while the F/O executes his. We have clearly defined RTO duties each pilot must accomplish. Standardization again.
· The left seat allows easier access to the spoiler controls and tiller, both of which may be critical in stopping on the runway and keeping the aircraft on the runway surface.

 

[svcta]

That last part with all the acronyms was a reference to a movie called "Good Morning, Vietnam". It was supposed to be funny and nothing more, no point or sarcasm intended, mostly comic relief. And I don't think I've been sarcastic at any point, in my defense. The other quote you cited from me was a legitimate Q and A regarding your earlier post. I believe that quote post stands to reason. But, hey, sometimes I get carried away...I apologize for any offense.

In any case, you're right, and this aspect of the conversation is a tangent. The original question was aimed at determining what happens, if anything, at different points in a takeoff roll. Which we have established is an equally polarizing subject. I will assert that that if the left-seater is the only one that can initiate an RTO, then it makes even more sense to pare down the list of acceptable reject items at a certain point during the takeoff considering the FAA and manufacturer data regarding high-speed rejects. Because now we are talking about not only an RTO, which the FAA considers to be an emergency maneuver, but also a transfer of controls during this maneuver. To me yet another reason to heavily qualify a high-speed RTO.

I posted links to all of the data I keep mentioning, as have others. It seems, though, as if nobody cares to take the time to read it. The advisory circular, and industry reports are very clear about this topic, which is why I continue to point out that I'm not just making this stuff up.

 

[pilotyip]

My response was directed at someone who appeared (from their wording) to be advocating that either the Captain OR F/O could decide to abort. That just hasn’t been the accepted procedure at the airlines (United, World Airways and now Fedex) that I’ve worked – so perhaps my perspective is limited.


When I got my type ratings at those airlines, one of the requirements on the rating ride was to accomplish a reject from the left seat. The FAA requirements didn’t have me executing an RTO from both seats – just the left seat.

Personally, I think you guys are reading too much into the F/O side of this. It’s not a matter of trusting the F/O to accomplish an RTO. To me, it just makes sense to reduce the variables in such a time critical situation.

With the Captain executing the abort, he only needs to execute one set of RTO duties while the F/O executes his. We have clearly defined RTO duties each pilot must accomplish. Standardization again.

and when the company hears of the abort, do they ever ask "Who was the F/O?" but you can bet they ask "Who was the Captain?" The CA is in charge, it is his responsibility to make command decisions to safely conduct the flight.

 

[caseyd]

>>
I never argue with people holding clip boards. I mean, I don't really know what happens to the airplane I fly currently when it stalls at 45000'. I have an idea, but don't need to find out. The same way I don't need to find out what a RTO looks like on a 4500' runway from V1 minus 6 because of a door message.

Horse, I agree about Bizjets on long runways, but I always try to resist the temptation to allow a "soft V1" because of varying runway lengths. It just seems like a bad habit to get in to, though I'm not sure I posses the strength......to........resist.

Sorry I've been so on top of this thread, just haven't seen a really good discussion about a good topic in a while, I guess.[/QUOTE]<<

From a previous post>>In any case, you're right, and this aspect of the conversation is a tangent. The original question was aimed at determining what happens, if anything, at different points in a takeoff roll. Which we have established is an equally polarizing subject. I will assert that that if the left-seater is the only one that can initiate an RTO, then it makes even more sense to pare down the list of acceptable reject items at a certain point during the takeoff considering the FAA and manufacturer data regarding high-speed rejects. Because now we are talking about not only an RTO, which the FAA considers to be an emergency maneuver, but also a transfer of controls during this maneuver. To me yet another reason to heavily qualify a high-speed RTO.<<

You sir, make more sense than those who argue with your logic.. Well done...Time to quit... You know that line about wrestling with breakfast....

Now we're gonna get you an office job ;-)

Respectfully,
caseyd

 

[2-o'sinGoose]

Thanks for all of the great insight guys... First post ever that was actually answered.