Noises heard at 41 seconds

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by ppragman

What about a control surface failure? or a structural fire? Do you still want to go trapsiing around the pattern without any controls? Ehhhhhhh, not for me. I don't want to turn what would be a runway overrun into an al haynes adventure.

If you are at Vr and pull back and don't have any elevator well you don't really have any choice. I would say the chances that you would lose control authority between V1 and Vr when they are practically the same speed on your airplane are about .0000001% and there is no way you could reconize that fact in the time it takes to go from V1 to Vr and rotate. We're splitting hairs.

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

If you are at Vr and pull back and don't have any elevator well you don't really have any choice. I would say the chances that you would lose control authority between V1 and Vr when they are practically the same speed on your airplane are about .0000001% and there is no way you could reconize that fact in the time it takes to go from V1 to Vr and rotate. We're splitting hairs.

True, only 4kts of difference at mtow, and now that I'm flying the 207 again, its v1 is infinity because if I lose a motor, I have to stop. What about on a bigger bird though. Let's say you've got 20kts between v1, and rotate, you hit rotate and and nothing happens, or a fire happens in the cockpit at v1 + 5kts do you continue.

[jynxyjoe]

Originally Posted by ppragman

What about a control surface failure? or a structural fire? Do you still want to go trapsiing around the pattern without any controls? Ehhhhhhh, not for me. I don't want to turn what would be a runway overrun into an al haynes adventure.

If it is a control surface failure you arn't gonna go far after V1. Typical brief is to mention that if you can't get it off the ground safely due to control malfunctions you won't go flying. It is a part of my brief every day anyhow.

Back to the engine failure.

First I wanna say that you're are thinking about the problem and that is a credit to qualities as a pilot. I don't agree with you here so much but maybe time and math will prove me wrong. With that said, onto the engine failure:

I'd be curious if the engine failure had to do with all the oil pouring out of the engine due to some mechanic not putting on the cap (watched it happen the aircraft in front of me). Awesome when you dump all that oil on the tires and those brakey things connected to the wheely things (on a turboprop). Lose an engine past V1 go in the air, do your procedures, come back and land, and the best part will be now you have the whole 11,000ft of runway (-1000 for touchdown), maybe the wind will knock a little of that oil off on the approach so you don't have to burn so much runway lightly touching the brakes trying to burn off the oil from your discs. Trust your SOP's. I would even encourage you to blindly follow your SOP's because both companies I've been at, the SOP's tell you on the first page that the SOP's can't forsee every eventuality. By making something up when a new/different suitation comes up you ARE following SOP's. For the situations that are spelled out in the SOP's, like a simple engine failure, follow the procedures.

[400A]

Originally Posted by ppragman

True, only 4kts of difference at mtow, and now that I'm flying the 207 again, its v1 is infinity because if I lose a motor, I have to stop. What about on a bigger bird though. Let's say you've got 20kts between v1, and rotate, you hit rotate and and nothing happens, or a fire happens in the cockpit at v1 + 5kts do you continue.

Look up the DC8 crash in JFK where the elevator was jammed and the crew though they had a CG shift a decided to try to force the airplane to fly.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by 400A

Look up the DC8 crash in JFK where the elevator was jammed and the crew though they had a CG shift a decided to try to force the airplane to fly.

Didn't it jam/start rotating before V1 though? Not really relevant.

[400A]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Didn't it jam before V1 though? Not really relevant.

I guess I don't follow your logic, Vr follows V1 they tried to rotate at Vr and no elevator, I'm not sure how the fact that the debris was tossed up into the elevator at the gate changes the discussion on going or stopping at V1?

[wheelsup]

According to a report I read it started rotating on its own. Not sure at what speed but I would assume before V1 as they were 1,500 down the runway.

The DC-8 freighter started rotating in a nose-high attitude 1500 feet into the take-off. After becoming airborne at 2800 feet down the runway, the aircraft climbed to about 300-500 feet, rolled 20 degrees to the left, crashed and caught fire. The loss of pitch control was caused by the entrapment of a pointed, asphalt-covered object between the leading edge of the right elevator and the right horizontal spar web access door in the aft part of the stabilizer.

PROBABLE CAUSE:
pilot in command - failed to abort takeoff
airframe - flight control surfaces: elevator assembly,attachments
miscellaneous acts,conditions - jammed
miscellaneous acts,conditions - interference with flight controls
miscellaneous - foreign material affecting normal operations
FACTORS:
pilot in command - inadequate supervision of flight
miscellaneous acts,conditions - checklist-failed to use

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by 400A

Look up the DC8 crash in JFK where the elevator was jammed and the crew though they had a CG shift a decided to try to force the airplane to fly.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It doesn't work.

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by jynxyjoe

If it is a control surface failure you arn't gonna go far after V1. Typical brief is to mention that if you can't get it off the ground safely due to control malfunctions you won't go flying. It is a part of my brief every day anyhow.

Back to the engine failure.

First I wanna say that you're are thinking about the problem and that is a credit to qualities as a pilot. I don't agree with you here so much but maybe time and math will prove me wrong. With that said, onto the engine failure:

I'd be curious if the engine failure had to do with all the oil pouring out of the engine due to some mechanic not putting on the cap (watched it happen the aircraft in front of me). Awesome when you dump all that oil on the tires and those brakey things connected to the wheely things (on a turboprop). Lose an engine past V1 go in the air, do your procedures, come back and land, and the best part will be now you have the whole 11,000ft of runway (-1000 for touchdown), maybe the wind will knock a little of that oil off on the approach so you don't have to burn so much runway lightly touching the brakes trying to burn off the oil from your discs. Trust your SOP's. I would even encourage you to blindly follow your SOP's because both companies I've been at, the SOP's tell you on the first page that the SOP's can't forsee every eventuality. By making something up when a new/different suitation comes up you ARE following SOP's. For the situations that are spelled out in the SOP's, like a simple engine failure, follow the procedures.

Very very very very very good points. Nothing I can really argue with there, glad to see too that your brief includes it. 11,000' vs. 8,000' is a very good argument for it, though I wonder if it is a good idea to bring the airplane in the air just out of the very nature of accidents (e.g. a list of things going wrong that in their compilation become catastrophic). I dunno, engine failures are pretty simple and straight forward compared to the myriad of other possibilities that can occur in an emergency, and should typically be followed to the letter, but even then sometimes I wonder.

Example:

Dutch harbor, spooky place. The problem is that 3900' doesn't really give you that many options. Do you take off into weather that changes so rapidly that you might no longer have a place to land? or do you mash on the brakes and risk flying off into the drink. In that case I pick fly, because you can pull fuel out of the other tank and get to PACD, PAKN, or PADL, if all of those are closed you've still got illiamna and anchorage if you've got the fuel. However, if you're doing the same thing out of Kodiak, you're shafting yourself, because even though there's an ILS, the wx might go below mins before you can get back around. Plus, there's a lot of terrain that can make things challenging, no radar, and brutal violent winds, and in winter months terrible icing. Now, granted, at PADQ, you've only got 7500' of runway on 25, so you have to weigh that against the other options, but I've seen 40kts of wind there last winter on the GPS on short final, so you could use that too. None of these situations are favorable, even coming back around at ADQ and shooting the ILS isn't really a good option, you'd have to go out, then join the arc, then come back around land through bad ice and brutal winds with a full load with less directional control on a windy runway than usual, and thus more chance for fire if you rupture your tanks in a botched landing. Plus, you have to land, because with the special approach I don't know if I'd want to go missed with the mountain at the end of the runway.

Lots of stuff to think about.
Notice the mountain at the end of runway 25 (the only runway with an ILS, though granted its not that high)

[jynxyjoe]

Yeah. If there is one thing these types of conversations bring up, it is always that "this #### isn't easy".

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by jynxyjoe

Yeah. If there is one thing these types of conversations bring up, it is always that "this #### isn't easy".

Agreed.

[jtrain609]

Two things:

-The engineers that figured out the V speeds have spent a lot more time crunching the numbers than I possibly can when I hit V1, so I'll trust my training and their numbers. It works 99% of the time, and I'll take those odds.

-If you think that staying on the ground during a V1 cut is safer than taking the plane into the air, simply put you need to go back to training. A V1 cut is, in many aircraft, a complete non event. Mash the thrust levers, look out the window and fly the plane straight with your rudder and fly the numbers. Nice and simple as far as I'm concerned.

We're pilots, not Nascar drivers. We're trained to deal with aircraft moving at 130 knots better in the air than on the ground.

[Hacker15e]

You have to evaluate what the problem is. If the risk posed by the high-speed abort and subsequent off-roading (if above refusal speed) is less than taking the emergency airborne, then you have to go with the option of what poses less risk to you, any passengers/crew, and the aircraft.

This is why we are professional pilots and not robots.

It really depends on the aircraft, that aircraft's systems/capabilities, and what the possible failure modes are. For example, in the F-15E where I have antiskid brakes, a tailhook, and at least two arrestor cables on the runway, it is possible to abort above "Max Abort" speed (which is this jet's term for refusal speed) and not end up in the dirt off the end of the runway. For certain catastrophic failures, this may be a less-risky option than taking a sick jet airborne and dealing with a really, really severe problem. In some cases it's even a better option than just getting airborne and ejecting from a really sick jet.

In another jet, the T-38, it had such poor brakes, thin tires, no hook, and a so-so ejection seat, that I was in a "go" mentality most of the time. A high-speed abort in that jet was probably going to be bad news, even if it was officially below refusal speed. For any of you guys with T-38 time, recall that the procedure used to generate the TOLD charts in the -1 ("maximum braking in a 3-point attitude") was different than the -1 proscribed abort procedure (which included aerobraking). This means that for decades the jet flew with invalid TOLD. The issue was corrected with a B.S. solution that subtracted 2,000 feet from available runway length and created a new TOLD number called "adjusted refusal speed" to make up for the differences in deceleration procedures. As a side note, when they re-engined the T-38 fleet, they had the Test Pilot School re-test the jets to create new TOLD charts and -- lo and behold -- the new accurate refusal speeds changed quite a bit.

Anyway...

So, V1 is NOT necessarily a binary decisionmaking speed in all cases with all aircraft. If you're talking about a simple engine failure, then sure. But there are other possible failures that blur the lines depending on aircraft capabilities.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

You have to evaluate what the problem is. If the risk posed by the high-speed abort and subsequent off-roading (if above refusal speed) is less than taking the emergency airborne, then you have to go with the option of what poses less risk to you, any passengers/crew, and the aircraft.

This is why we are professional pilots and not robots.

It really depends on the aircraft, that aircraft's systems/capabilities, and what the possible failure modes are. For example, in the F-15E where I have antiskid brakes, a tailhook, and at least two arrestor cables on the runway, it is possible to abort above "Max Abort" speed (which is this jet's term for refusal speed) and not end up in the dirt off the end of the runway. For certain catastrophic failures, this may be a less-risky option than taking a sick jet airborne and dealing with a really, really severe problem. In some cases it's even a better option than just getting airborne and ejecting from a really sick jet.

So, V1 is NOT necessarily a binary decisionmaking speed in all cases.

I'm not really sure that you can compare the civilian vs. military procedures for this kinda stuff, as you guys have a lot of other factors going for you. As you said, in the end, you can always give the plane back the tax payers. In fact don't you have a zero zero ejection seat on that thing, allowing you to punch out while the aircraft is rolling down the runway?

While I agree we're not robots, the standardization is there for a reason. In many ways, in the last 50 years especially, we've found that we need protection from ourselves. Simply put things can be happening too fast to consider all the factors we're discussing in this thread while you're chewing up runway at an incredibly high rate of speed, so with that we have briefs. The standard brief I'd hear from captains usually included this:

-Below 80 knots we'll abort for anything.
-Above 80 knots we'll abort for engine fire, failure, loss of directional control or a control surface failure.
-At V1 we're taking it flying unless the airplane won't, at which point we'll take what we've got on the abort.

But the fact of the matter remains, you need to accept that you've got a good chance of going off the runway after V1. Now as you said, that might be preferable to taking the plane airborne, but what if you're on a 7,000' runway with a 100' drop off at the end of the runway? I'd take almost any problem into the air as opposed to taking that drop off at the end of the runway, as that's going to be certain to cause a hell of a lot of damage to the aircraft and I'm willing to bet get everybody on the airplane killed.

So let's take an example I think folks were talking about; The CHQ EMB-145 incident at JFK. These guys had a problem with their elevator (gust lock didn't release properly, but checked ok in the cockpit to the points. They've got new procedures to check it now), couldn't rotate and I think ended up aborting at something like V2+15. Now by the time you hit V1, you're accelerating INCREDIBLY quickly, so I'm willing to bet they were probably V2+15 within 5 seconds after V1 (it's just a guess after flying the aircraft for a year). In those 5 seconds you'll end up thinking:

-V1, rotate....rotate.....rotate, why isn't the other guy rotating.

All the while the flying pilot is thinking.

-V1, rotate....rotate....rotate....what the ####.....WHAT THE #### IS HAPPENING!?!?!? ABORT!!!! ABORT THE ####ING TAKEOFF!

I mean honestly something like that is so out of the ordinary that it's incredibly hard to train for, and if it takes you only 5 seconds to realize that the airplane isn't going to come off the ground, on a lot of runways you're already off the end of the runway and probably dead.

The point being, fly what you brief. The airplane doesn't fly at V1? I'd say that at that point, you need to be a robot. You briefed that if it won't fly at V1 due to a control failure, then you're going to abort the takeoff. Don't try to over think the situation and get yourself killed, get the airplane stopped as soon as possible. Those guys in JFK got lucky they weren't in AVL when that happened, and they were lucky they had so much runway to play with. They would have had fractions of a second to make the decision to abort AT V1 if the airplane decided to not fly, and if they were dicking around thinking about all the possibilities of what could be happening and whether it's a prudent decision to abort, they'd be dead.

I mean to be honest, there are very few situations in an airplane when something goes wrong and you need to be on the ball 2 seconds ago or you and everybody in the plane is going to die, but things going wrong on the takeoff roll can produce situations that will require those kinds of reactions. Most of the time, when something goes wrong, I stick the time tested policy of winding the clock. Unfortunately, with how quickly things happen in a transport category aircraft on takeoff, with a limited number of options on how to get the airplane into a safe situation in an incredibly limited amount of time, we need to be robots then, or at least I feel we do.

[ATN_Pilot]

Agree completely, Train.

[Hacker15e]

Good discussion and great points all around.

Yes, you're right that an ejection seat and a tail hook give a military fighter a completely different set of options...and that was my point that "absolutes" like "you ALWAYS continue the takeoff after V1" aren't necessarily absolutes. That in other aircraft and other circumstances that may not necessarily be true.

Although today's fighters have zero-zero ejection seats, there is always inherent risk when you pull the handles, too. Like with a high speed abort, you have to assess and compare risks. Also as with other emergencies you have to decide beforehand what you will and won't eject for. We have an adage that goes "the decision to eject is made on the ground."

Originally Posted by jtrain609

But the fact of the matter remains, you need to accept that you've got a good chance of going off the runway after V1. Now as you said, that might be preferable to taking the plane airborne, but what if you're on a 7,000' runway with a 100' drop off at the end of the runway? I'd take almost any problem into the air as opposed to taking that drop off at the end of the runway, as that's going to be certain to cause a hell of a lot of damage to the aircraft and I'm willing to bet get everybody on the airplane killed.

Again, this is a decision that you make given the set of circumstances...not a binary one based only on a number in the TOLD.

[Velocipede]

I have to go with the V1 continue takeoff crowd on this one. While Pat has a valid point about a situation where you still have 7000 feet remaining, I personally prefer to continue the takeoff if it happens within 5 knots of V1. Granted, you may not want to take a problem flying, but when V1 rolls around, you're going to have a lot more trouble getting an airplane stopped than just flying it around the pattern and coming back for landing.

Of course the airplanes I rountinely fly can fly a long time in one engine. Your mileage may vary depending on your airframe.

And comparing an engine failure at V1 to the DC-8 crash in Miami is apples to oranges.

[E_Dawg]

I like to not have to think. At v1, unless the airplane physically does not rotate or we are asphyxiating from fire/smoke in the cockpit, we are flying.

Because at v1, there is almost nothing that would necessitate an abort to the point that it would be safer than a quick trip around the pattern.

Especially when you factor in human decision making ability, your assessment of what is wrong (how do you KNOW it's a structural fire that's gonna burn through the control cables and not a coffee pot that got too hot), and the amount of time you have to make that call.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

I like to not have to think. At v1, unless the airplane physically does not rotate or we are asphyxiating from fire/smoke in the cockpit, we are flying.

Because at v1, there is almost nothing that would necessitate an abort to the point that it would be safer than a quick trip around the pattern.

Especially when you factor in human decision making ability, your assessment of what is wrong (how do you KNOW it's a structural fire that's gonna burn through the control cables and not a coffee pot that got too hot), and the amount of time you have to make that call.

I'm even of the opinion that, at least in the Lears and Citations that I fly, it's better to get rid of the 80 knot decision mantra as well. We typically only have a short time between the 80 knots and V1 calls anyway, so I say forget about that "after 80 knots we'll only abort for loss of engine, engine fire, loss of directional control, or T/R deployment" stuff. I brief that we'll abort for anything before V1, because by the time I decide if that blinking light I see out of the corner of my eye is just a generator failure, or the first indication of an engine that's eating itself up, I'm probably already past V1. Others might make a different decision based on the characteristics of their airframes, but that's the way I approach it in the airplanes that I command.

[Boris Badenov]

Hmmm. An interesting, on topic thread with good points made all around and no name calling. Who are you and what have you done with jetcareers?

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

Hmmm. An interesting, on topic thread with good points made all around and no name calling. Who are you and what have you done with jetcareers?

Its about time. Frankly I like detailed discussions on the "absolutes" or the "this is how it should be done" topics because it makes for interesting discourse that everybody walks away from a little more knowledgeable.

I think being airframe and mission specific is incredibly important in this discussion, stevec was talking about the acceleration rates being so high that 80 - v1 is so fast that there's not really much time to even think about it, whereas at 80kts in the 1900, there's still plenty of time to v1 (couple seconds at least). Further, we'd get faulty annunciations in ours all the time. We'd get {L/R Bl. Air Fail} sometimes for no reason (electrical gremlins, the Bleeds always worked great) and the temptation to abort was great, but as soon as it appeared it was gone, just a phantom flickering. If we'd have aborted at 80kts to v1, we'd have done so for no reason. We'd get a {Bat. Charge} light all the time too, which would be disconcerting.

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

Although today's fighters have zero-zero ejection seats, there is always inherent risk when you pull the handles, too. Like with a high speed abort, you have to assess and compare risks. Also as with other emergencies you have to decide beforehand what you will and won't eject for. We have an adage that goes "the decision to eject is made on the ground."

I guess the Captains hands coming off the thrust levers at v1 is the transport category aircraft equivalent of "making that decision on the ground". It is probably the best decision 99.9% of the time, and very few people would have the presence of mind to think about anything other than safely flying the aircraft off the ground in the very limited amount of time. So while I agree we are not robots, as you have pointed out, some things decisions need to be made beforehand.

On another note, I had a buddy that flew A-6s. I remember discussing the differences between TACAIR EPs and ours. The NATOPS boldface procedures were somtimes very short. (It has been awhile, but as I remember...)

Engine fire
1. Confirm by secondary indications.
2. eject

Electrical fire
1. eject

Departure below x feet agl
1. eject

[germb747]

Why are we speculating on whether or not this crew rejected past V1 when there's not even a preliminary report out yet?

Originally Posted by WacoFan

I always thought V1 was the speed at which you were committed to flying if an engine failed, due to the inability to stop on the remaining runway if you aborted at that speed or higher.

Sometimes, but not always. If V1 and Vr happen to be different numbers, then that's a good clue it's impossible to stop after V1.

V1 could be selected from a range of values depending on whether you (or your company) "go" oriented or "stop" oriented. In the military, we calculate a speed that is greater than or equal to Vmcg and CEFS but less than or equal to Vrotate, Vrefusal, and VBmax. Critical Engine Failure Speed (CEFS) is basically the speed at which it will take the same amount of runway to go as it would to stop (Critical Field Length). Anyone know the civilian equivalent of that speed? Vrefusal is another number we compute that does actually represent the speed you could accelerate to and then stop on the remaining concrete. On long, dry runways this speed is usually higher than V1 because you'd be flying by then anyway. However, on short wet runways this speed will be controlling and you had better abort prior to then or you're not stopping on the runway.

With all that said, there's a reason we have a V1; pass it and you're going flying.

[kellwolf]

Anyone that uses flex thrust on a CRJ on a short runway has had this thought, I know I have:

"Holy crap. That's all the runway that's left at V1?"

Having to stop this thing right at V1 taking off in somewhere like Panama City would have me sucking my seat straight into my colon. I'm not even gonna THINK about aborting a takeoff AFTER V1. Even flex thrusting in DTW, you're a pretty decent ways down that 12,000 ft runway. If you're doing Flaps 8 instead of Flaps 20, you're at about 144 kts on top of that.

Like most everyone else has said, except in some extemely rare occasions, getting off the ground and coming back to land is safer than a high speed abort.

[wheelsup]

A -200 takes around 2000'-3000' to actually bring to a stop for touchdown upon landing. I would think it could be stopped in that or less when aborting, especially because you are getting on the brakes and thrust reversers immediately.