vectorvictor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 355
So that you don't have to LAND at an even HIGHER energy level than you already were at when you got the anti-skid caution message!
Plus, you know...the whole brief "We'll abort for ANY malfunction before 80 knots...call will be ABORT, ABORT." You know. SOP stuff.
I'm no expert but I don't think it is that clear cut. I would argue continuing the take off on a short runway would be the better decision. If you were worried about the landing at your destination you could always go somewhere with a long runway and/or no runway contamination. SOP's are great and they should be followed, but aborting a takeoff with questionable braking capability and rolling off the end of a just "balanced" field length runway would be tough to justify as well.
I gave instruction once to a Baron pilot who was preparing for a 709 ride following an aborted take-off that took a perfectly good airplane off the end of a runway and about 300 yards into a cornfield. (FYI- not a good place to do an overrun) During the take off roll the airspeed indicator remained at 0 and he tried to abort the takeoff on the 3400 foot long runway. Had he continued the take-off and flew to someplace with a nice long runway on the VFR day, landed and removed the pitot cover it would have been a funny story and he probably would have did a bit more on his next preflight.
Being in command is a responsibility to the passengers and the airplane first and the policies and procedures second.