Air Whiskey abort in MKE

[rtmcfi]

rough crowd!

 

[viper548]

Let me try asking this a different way, why the ******** would you abort for an anti-skid failure now that you have reduced braking capability?

 

[DiverDriver]

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.

 

[viper548]

Our SOP is a bit different, that's why I was asking if anyone knew what happened

 

[14RF SUX]

I think I sharted......did you see it on the 6:00 news?

 

[vectorvictor]

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.

 

[DrewBlows]

Let me try asking this a different way, why the ******** would you abort for an anti-skid failure now that you have reduced braking capability?

Do you know if it was a high speed abort? If it was a low speed abort, they may not have even used the brakes. For that matter do you know for a fact it was an anti-skid problem? Maybe that's why you got the responses you did...

 

[Oakum_Boy]

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!

I can't buy that.

Definitely better to take it into the air, pull the QRH and see what it says. Burn fuel to reduce to MLW if above, return to the takeoff runway or better yet select the longest runway you can find, get the emergency equipment in place if you desire, and collect your thoughts and get your ducks in a row.



Assuming you got the message below 80, it is a good call. If above 80, you don't reject in a jet for anything other than engine failure, fire, windshear or fear the airplane will not fly. That's it.

Sorry guys, but the prop days are over when flying a jet.

 

[DiverDriver]

I can't buy that.

Definitely better to take it into the air, pull the QRH and see what it says. Burn fuel to reduce to MLW if above, return to the takeoff runway or better yet select the longest runway you can find, get the emergency equipment in place if you desire, and collect your thoughts and get your ducks in a row.

You can't by that... but you did just below:

Assuming you got the message below 80, it is a good call. If above 80, you don't reject in a jet for anything other than engine failure, fire, windshear or fear the airplane will not fly. That's it.

You just answered and contradicted yourself in one post. Wow.

Sorry guys, but the prop days are over when flying a jet.

Man, am I glad you told me that cuz I hadn't realized I was in a jet until now.

You guys are real keen. You don't know it was an abort above 80 knots. Hell, you don't even know if it was really an anti-skid problem. And if you called MKE "short" on runway length...well you gotta be kidding me. Oh, and you don't know how heavy they were so "short" is always a relative term.

 

[DiverDriver]

Being in command is a responsibility to the passengers and the airplane first and the policies and procedures second.

Had your student followed policy and procedure first he wouldn't have a pitot cover still on during takeoff roll. :-o

Have you never heard the phrase "It's better to go off the end of the runway at 60 knots than out of control into the trees at 80?" While your pilot did gaff and overran he's here to talk about it. While you would think that going airborne without his airspeed indicator would have been better I'll submit this view: He already had a flawed decision making approach. Why make it worse? He missed the pitot cover with a flawed preflight. He didn't abort at the first signs of an airspeed failure. 3,600 feet sounds plenty long to get the airspeed off the peg and climbing then abort with enough room to stop. So, if he was that unaware then maybe it was better he aborted and overran than trying to go airborne to only ball it up in the trees on short final with a bad effort which would kill all on board. Which is the better/safer outcome? A little bent metal or a lot?

<dons nomex ready for flaming>

 

[Oakum_Boy]

You have a vivid imagination.

 

[bizzum]

It happened at 60kts. Heard the whole story from the FO.

 

[vectorvictor]

Had your student followed policy and procedure first he wouldn't have a pitot cover still on during takeoff roll. :-o

Have you never heard the phrase "It's better to go off the end of the runway at 60 knots than out of control into the trees at 80?" While your pilot did gaff and overran he's here to talk about it. While you would think that going airborne without his airspeed indicator would have been better I'll submit this view: He already had a flawed decision making approach. Why make it worse? He missed the pitot cover with a flawed preflight. He didn't abort at the first signs of an airspeed failure. 3,600 feet sounds plenty long to get the airspeed off the peg and climbing then abort with enough room to stop. So, if he was that unaware then maybe it was better he aborted and overran than trying to go airborne to only ball it up in the trees on short final with a bad effort which would kill all on board. Which is the better/safer outcome? A little bent metal or a lot?

<dons nomex ready for flaming>

I guess to clarify he wasn't my student until after the incident. I'll give you the flawed pre-flight bit but then I guess you never made a stupid mistake and got away with it :-0. There are those who have and those who will and you my friend just tempted fate. Did you ever read "Fate is the Hunter" by Ernest Gann? When you finish that one try on "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. You CAN fly an airplane without an airspeed indicator....its not a great place to be, but with some good planning you can get yourself back on a runway....even in a Jet. As for going off the runway at 60 knots being better than into the trees at 80 you can play armchair quarterback all you want but my POINT is that (and I agree with you) that his decision process is messed up and for some people no matter how much instruction you give them they still do stupid things. No POH or Ops manual will ever save them. In short, a decision chain that leads to a safe outcome in a bad situation is a good one. It may not follow every procedure or it may not be what you or I would do but nevertheless all is well. In this case it didn't all work out so obviously there is a flaw. You are correct, taking off the pitot cover prior to lift off would have shortened the causal chain a bit but in this case it was a lot of PILOT ERROR that led to an unsuccessful outcome.

To your last point....I would go for the gusto and bend a lot of metal if given the choice.

PS Latin is a dead language.

 

[samballs]

Why is this even a thread? A CRJ aborted for an anti-skid msg whoopie, the worlds coming to an end. What was there to hear from the FO did he call you a dork when you called him and said the following "Dude I was reading FI and saw a plane aborted a TO so I looked up the flight number and your the FO, Can you give me details?" His reply " you friggin retard get a life we aborted a TO for an ANTI SKID MSG the least important Caution MSG". You people sound like Miles O'brien on CNN.

 

[bizzum]

Why is this even a thread? A CRJ aborted for an anti-skid msg whoopie, the worlds coming to an end. What was there to hear from the FO did he call you a dork when you called him and said the following "Dude I was reading FI and saw a plane aborted a TO so I looked up the flight number and your the FO, Can you give me details?" His reply " you friggin retard get a life we aborted a TO for an ANTI SKID MSG the least important Caution MSG". You people sound like Miles O'brien on CNN.

Man you are good. This is exactly how it played out. He called me a dork and everything. Wow dude. I heard about it the night it happened, the FO happens to be a friend of mine.