Aborting a T/O

[WMUSIGPI]

At Mesaba on the jets it is the capatain guarding the thrust and performing the abort. On the Saab it was whoever PF was did the abort though I believe they were changing that to be the captain only like the jets. Works fine for the jet because with the CRJ9 with the fadec detents the power is set before airspeed is even alive, not sure if it's quite as smooth for the CRJ2. The Saab would be a bit more of a cluster.

 

[skyward80]

USAF procedures has the Aircraft Commander announce the decision to abort, the Pilot Flying will then execute the procedures for the abort.

IMHO, this is a good way to run things. I'm not sure if everybody has the Abort Decision written out in their Tech Orders, but ours breaks it down into time required to make the decision, average reaction time, etc. It's just a matter of seconds as we all know. I think transferring control during an abort wastes time. Maybe on most days, you can get away with this but imagine a heavy weight take off on a contaminated runway.

If you can't trust the guy in the seat next to you to execute an abort IAW Tech Orders the moment the Aircraft Commander announces his decision, he shouldn't be sitting there.

Just my .02. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter.

Skyward80

 

[WSurf]

If you can't trust the guy in the seat next to you to execute an abort IAW Tech Orders the moment the Aircraft Commander announces his decision, he shouldn't be sitting there.

Just my .02. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter.

Skyward80

I don't think its a matter of trust, but more of how some people handle stressful situations. You could have a guy that knows the plane inside out, knows company's policy and prodecures inside out. You might fly with him thinking he is one of the best pilots in the world.

Then all the sudden the ******************** hits the fan, and that guy you thought was Chuck Yeager goes into a shell and is wothless.

Everyone reacts to stress differently. I trust everyone I fly with, but I never know how that guy will act in a stressful situation.

 

[aa73]

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.

At most other airlines on the F/O's leg, F/Os usually set the power, with the CA assuming control of the throttles once power is set. In this case TWA was the one who did it differently from everyone else.

 

[Golden Falcon]

thought jets had thrust levers...

 

[hammer2]

Wouldn't you want to trust the crewmember next to you? Both have gone through the same training in the same a/c. It would seem an abort call wouldn't be made in vain, just a safety of flight issue.
Most of us would consider doing paper work and, letting the brakes cool down good airmanship, or would it be better to become one of those famous disasters they make movies about?

 

[PCL_128]

Wouldn't you want to trust the crewmember next to you? Both have gone through the same training in the same a/c. It would seem an abort call wouldn't be made in vain, just a safety of flight issue.
Most of us would consider doing paper work and, letting the brakes cool down good airmanship, or would it be better to become one of those famous disasters they make movies about?

High speed aborts are dangerous. It's not just as simple as waiting for the brakes to cool and filling out a report. In many cases, the abort is far more dangerous than simply continuing the takeoff with the malfunction. An abort isn't something to be taken lightly.

 

[firstthird]

High speed aborts are dangerous. It's not just as simple as waiting for the brakes to cool and filling out a report. In many cases, the abort is far more dangerous than simply continuing the takeoff with the malfunction. An abort isn't something to be taken lightly.

exactly. which is why it is important for your operating manual to spell out what is and is not a cause for a high speed abort.

an abort past 80 knots (100 for some planes/operators) is not something to be taken lightly. and it is also not something to have a discussion about at the time, thus the need for a clear takeoff brief.

about the Captain vs. FO, I suspect that most companies have the same rule about the captain does a single engine landing (for a 2 engine plane). the captain guarding the thrust levers and doing the abort falls into this category. not to mention only the captain has a tiller (nose wheel steering beyond the rudder authority) in a 737.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

It seems there's at least two schools of thought:

1. Time Is of the Essence - PF has the T/Ls (go sticks, throttles) and has "abort authority."

2. Experience Rules - CA has the T/Ls, and abort authority.

I have a feeling the if we went through the NTSB files, each airline follows the lesson learned from their most recent accident/incident.

At Airline ABC, a Captain continued and tried to take off when an abort was call for (as quarterbacked by us on Monday morning), so FOs can call aborts.

At XYZ Air, an FO aborted because his Ipod battery died right at the good part of Darkside of the Moon, so now only CAs can call for aborts.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

Just a question. At CAL we use the term "Reject" instead of "Abort" at my previous airline. I still have the hardest time saying "Reject". What other airlines use "Reject" instead of "Abort"?

 

[Dieterly]

Just a question. At CAL we use the term "Reject" instead of "Abort" at my previous airline. I still have the hardest time saying "Reject". What other airlines use "Reject" instead of "Abort"?

Add Cathay to the same list...

 

[:-)]

A FlightSafety Foundation Article from 2003 (I've got a hard copy, I suppose that one could google it) states that transfering control from the FO to the Captain during an abort played an important role in determining the outcome of the abort. IOWs, FO aborts were/are more likely to end bad. I doubt that this is because FO's are bad pilots, but due to confusion because most FO's try to get confirmation before a decision while most Captains just do it.

My ops procedures (A320 in 121 ops) require that the Captain mans the thrust levers on ALL take offs. In that way, there is no question regarding the abort decision. I like it this way.

 

[30West]

As a check airman for my company for close to a decade, I have observed that inappropriate aborted takeoffs initiated by the First Officer outnumber those by Captains by a factor of ten. Yes, captains do make knuckleheaded decisions also.
But if we're talking risk mitigation, captains as a group statistically have more experience in operations and type and therefore are manyfold times less likely to abort when continuing would be more appropriate.

Also not a jab at First Officers, as I have been one 3 times since the start of my career.

 

[twinbeech]

How about this one...

It is the F/O's takeoff and for whatever reason, the flight controls don't feel right. Call it a rudder pedal that "feels funny". He does not notice it until about 80 knots. He calls for an abort but the Captain, not noticing anything wrong, says to continue. The F/O in an effort to get that pucker feeling taken care of takes the time to plead his case and says "But the rudder pedal feels funny!" At this point the plane starts to head for the grass while quickly nearing V1. It is now probably too late to keep her on the runway and a much more dangerous situation because once the Captain knows what's up, you are really hauling the mail.

I bring this situation up because I was the Captain for this situation at my former airline. The difference was that either the PF or PNF could call for the abort. At that point it is going to happen. The PF then initiates it (brings the power levers to idle and gets on the binders) and the CA completes it. Something had become lodged behind the pedal under the floor AFTER we had done the flight control check. Because of the procedures we had, it was a non-event, and happening just after 80 knots was no big deal at all.

I am sure this type of thing is not a normal event, but I was glad the F/O just made the decision rather than taking the time to tell me about it and convince me we didn't want to end up going four wheeling that night.

 

[avbug]

On a Boeing, one aborts an engine start, and one rejects a takeoff.

At our company, the Captain makes the decision, and executes, a rejected takeoff. If the first officer is performing the takeoff, he stands the power levers up, moves them toward the takeoff power setting, and then calls for reduced thrust or maximum thrust.

At that point he removes his hand from the thrust levers because he's done with them. The captain guards the thrust levers until V1, when he removes his hand, too.

If an incident occurs in which the captain elects to reject the takeoff, he will anounce that he is rejecting the takeoff, and perform the RTO. In the absence of the captain taking the aircraft for a reject, the FO will continue to fly the airplane until instructed otherwise.

We have clear instruction from the company on the matter, as well as specific counsel that there is nothing on the forward annunciator panel worthy of rejecting a takeoff.

We brief the situations in which a rejected takeoff will occur as part of the departure briefing.