Rejected Takeoffs CRJ900

[mesaba13]

Continue

 

[CFI2766]

What's this? A genuine technical question on FI? It's like it's 10 years ago...


The book I read during my ground training said first and foremost that it is the PIC's decision. As a guideline, though, we abort for just about anything below 80 kts. Above 80 kts, abort only for engine fire or failure, loss of directional control, or the perception that the A/C is unsafe to fly. Again, I stress that the abort is the PIC's decision, not necessarily the PF's decision.

It is my personal technique to verbalize this at least once a pairing, regardless of whether or not I've flown with a guy before or not. Typically, I get blank looks and stuttering attempts to remember the criteria for a high speed abort at least once a month. Occasionally, this brings about a conversation that highlights things that I've either forgotten or not thought of; this is fine with me.

It's irritating for me to see memos from my company that suggest that crews are accomplishing too many high speed aborts. That being said, I see their point. The number of high speed aborts are up, while the necessity of these aborts, in hindsight, is often questionable.

 

[MoreDaysOff]

"It's irritating for me to see memos from my company that suggest that crews are accomplishing too many high speed aborts. That being said, I see their point. The number of high speed aborts are up, while the necessity of these aborts, in hindsight, is often questionable. "

Remember, the vast minority of total abort is in the high speed regime, about 120 KIAS or more. An yet, the vast majority of abort incidents or accidents come from these aborts. Be careful out there.

 

[mesaba13]

High speed aborts can have very grave consequences and should only be considered for Fire, failure, control problems, or inadverdent TR deploys. Its seems that some think there are too many low speed aborts happening.

 

[GuppyWN]

I'd rather abort at low speed and discover I over-reacted than NOT abort and wish I had.

Gup

 

[BoilerUP]

Remember, the vast minority of total abort is in the high speed regime, about 120 KIAS or more. An yet, the vast majority of abort incidents or accidents come from these aborts. Be careful out there.

Technically speaking, anything above 80kts (or whatever speed a particular operator uses) is in the high speed regime.

As for the BRAKE OVHT message...does it result in a red flashing MASTER WARNING with triple-chime? If so, and your brief including stopping for any red warning item above 80kts, then yes, you should reject the takeoff. If you briefed an abort above 80kts only for an engine fire/failure, loss of directional control or TR deployment, then continue because a master warning isn't one of your briefed abort criteria.

Again, I don't see the difficulty in flying as you brief...but what I don't understand is the logic of taking the time to look at a caution/warning, analyze it and its impact on the operation, decide a course of action and then execute that action (stop or go). Even a proficient, well-trained pilot is going to take at least one, and probably 2-3 seconds to go from chime/message to action initiation and that adds airspeed and gives up runway if you decide to stop.

 

[MoreDaysOff]

The high speed regine has a floating definition. What's fast on one runway is slow on another. Just one part of the dynamics of this very important topic.

Bt the way, the BRAKE OVHT is a Warning Message, is not inhibited and decreases your braking capability (on which your RTO performance is based).

 

[xjcaptain]

This is a debate that has gone on for years. There will never be an all encompassing list of what to abort for when under what conditions. My viewpoint is this. Aborting below 80 (or some other arbitrary number to signify a low speed abort) will not hurt you. It comes down to operational efficiency. Can the flight continue safely? Would the light have caused an air return, or just a write-up prior to the next flight. Either way...continue or abort, safety is served. High speed aborts are another animal entirely. Look at the stats...a high speed abort is a VERY RISKY MANEUVER. Whatever you abort for darn well better be for something riskier than the abort itself. What that might be can be debated to death, but it depends on the aircraft, the airport (overruns, runway length, braking action etc.), the weather, the crew (rested or not, experience etc.) I look at it like the doctors oath. "First do no harm". You never trade a small risk for a larger one.

 

[mesaba13]

XJ-I am with you for the most part but I'm not sure I like a philosophy that says there is really no need to abort for any amber cautions below 80 knots. To me there are some amber cautions in the 900 that I really dont wan't to deal with in the air when I knew about them at 30 knots.

 

[xjcaptain]

XJ-I am with you for the most part but I'm not sure I like a philosophy that says there is really no need to abort for any amber cautions below 80 knots. To me there are some amber cautions in the 900 that I really dont wan't to deal with in the air when I knew about them at 30 knots.

I agree with you, and am not saying to never abort for an amber when below 80. All I am saying is it depends on which one. If I get an ice caution....I'm going, other ambers maybe not. My point is that the decision to abort when below 80 is almost always very low risk. Some however may 2nd guess the decision if it is a minor issue. Aborting for an ice caution may not be seen as "efficient" by management when it turns into delays etc. Above 80 has the potential to hurt people so it should be taken very seriously. The risk of the abort can never be greater than the risk of flying with the malfunction. If it is then you are better off to continue the take-off.