Aborted take off.

[flying dog]

As I got an ear full for posting in the "Crash" area last time when it wasn't a real crash, I'll post here.

 

Heard on the news a V plane taking off from LA.

 

They got off the ground - note: OFF the ground - there was an explosion and they aborted the take off.

 

Question:

 

If they are OFF the ground shouldn't they continue the takeoff and go around and land?

 

 

[Spin]

Probably had some sub-editor mangle the journos report to make it sound better. I'd guess it started out as "failed to get off the ground...."

 

You're right though, makes no sense as it is written; they would probably have climbed away, dumped fuel and returned on one if it happened as reported.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

That didn't work out too well for Concorde. He must have had enough runway to land safely.

 

 

[flying dog]

Coulda been a 340.

 

Dunno.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, what I found:

 

V AUSTRALIA has chartered a jumbo jet to fly today�s service between Brisbane and the US while it works out how long one of its Boeing 777s involved in a rejected take-off last night will remain grounded in Los Angeles.

 

Flight VA2 was doing less than 130km/h in the early stages of its take-off roll when pilots aborted the lift-off because of problems with the performance of the left engine.

 

 

[Spin]

That didn't work out too well for Concorde. He must have had enough runway to land safely.

Concorde was a fairly unique scenario, overweight, undercarriage drag (on ground and then in air when they couldn't retract), aft C of G, then to crown it all they shut down a "good" engine whilst they were wallowing around just off the stall at dot feet. It was really only a question of when and where they would crash, not if. If I'm not mistaken they also actually made a go decision before V1, despite having id'ed a massive problem and standard practice calling for an RTO at that stage.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The concord almost did not even get airborne as they nearly hit a 747 waiting to cross the runway due to the aircraft pulling to the left due to the flat tyre. bad to bad to real bad to crash.

 

sounds like the V Aus crew made a good decision to abort. better to risk an over run than to have to deal with a huge workload trying to get above red line and obtain a positive rate of climb. LAX is a bit short these days for my liking. When i flew out of there in a full 747 a couple of years ago i could have sworn we were on the overrun section when it broke ground. airborne and then immediately crossed the fence.

 

 

[farri]

They got off the ground - note: OFF the ground - there was an explosion and they aborted the take off.

Question:

 

If they are OFF the ground shouldn't they continue the takeoff and go around and land?

Given enough runway to land safely,I know for sure that if I was the pilot in command, I would land rather than carry on and face the possibility of loosing the aircraft and all within it!

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not as cut and dried as you might think. In event of a thing like an engine failure, you have a decision speed where before it you stop, and after it you go. That's a relatively easy thing to do as long as your reaction time is good enough and you do all the appropriate actions.

 

IF you had reason to believe your plane was NOT in a condition to fly, ie substantial damage, massive fire, control malfunction,etc you would do the most safe thing, which would possibly include landing straight ahead even with insufficient runway to stop before the end of it. You actually have no other option if you think about it. The same as you have no other option with ONE engine, (if it fails). A good reason to NOT raise the undercarriage too soon. How silly if the engine fails and you have to pancake it rather than landing on the wheels on enough runway to pull up. ( sometimes you will have enough there). On a multi engine plane it will fly with one engine,out, and you have to clean it up very quickly and reach an optimum speed or it WON"T climb and you won't even be able to stop it turning either... so it's a slightly different matter.

 

Most take-offs in a commercial jet, use derated thrust so that most runways have JUST enough length to stop (including the over-run). if there is a failure before V1. This is to save engine stress and improve time between overhauls. You always get the impression that you just made it as you lift off...Nev

 

 

[farri]

Decissions to be made by PIC,at the time of occurance,relative to the situation.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

.

 

 

[poteroo]

There is no way 130 Km/hr, (about 70 kts), is anywhere near V1 in that aircraft, and that's below Vr, so, most unlikely it ever became 'airborne'. It would have meant some hard deceleration, and probably overheated brakes, but shouldn't have been a big deal. Typical of the press.....

 

Last year I was in a rejected t/o in Dubai in an A340, and by my estimates we were making well over 100 kts when they pulled the plug. Cause was an Air France aircraft trying to land on top of us - rather than runway left. It took over 3 hrs to get the brakes cooled, and we were stranded in the back end of the airport all this time.

 

happy days,