80 kt call out

[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.