RTO Procedures

[macpac22 0]

>From what I've heard, RTO is quite painful (the g-forces>really throw you against your seatbelts). It surprises me that>the pilots can actually grab onto a speedbrake handle or the>reversers with their weight being thrown forward so hard.Ouch! does this depend on how fast the aircraft is moving? i wouldnt like to be reaching V1 and have a RTO so!!

[wongben4 0]

From my experience, once the FMA is in HOLD mode, and then you are over 80kts and you pull to idle, spolier will automatically deploy, and spd break will active... It is funny to stop the aircraft(without reserver) when you are 10kts below V1, you will see yourself stopping at around 2 to 3 hundreds meters from the end of the runway, and you brake temp will rise to around 500 degree C. I know that in real situation, if one engine failed before V1, but above 100kts, the pilot will likely to cts the take off since climbing or landing with 3 engines is not really a big deal in 744.By the way, you need extra care in rubble control during such situation due to the asymmetric thrust. (ie you only have 3 working engines)ben

[lostmoon 0]

great input from so many people. interesting read. have any of the rw pilots in the forum exp. an RTO? how would you describe it? is it violent?if memory serves me right, in the Virgin DVD, the departure briefing that included an RTO situation, the captain mentioned that he would use manual braking. is this correct?tomax

[Guest D17S]

It

[wongben4 0]

wooo... thx for the insight analysis. Before that, I really throught the reserver control on the throllel (don't know how to spell it)is just a on off switch, and the computer will adjusts the level itself. However, it generate a question for me, the handling pilot doesn't pay much attention on the insturement (unless under CAT 3) as he is busying keeping the aircraft on the centreline during roll out, so how does he know when is the time to adjust the reserver level, the non handling pilot.. if that is the case, that the non handing pilot should handle the reserve thrust... I am not challenging what you have said, I just wanna to learn something on real world dual crew operation..thxben

[cowpatz 243]

The speedbrake application is very important. It is possible to use auto spoiler but this takes time to work thru the interlocks. The spoilers will allow much more efficient use of the brakes as it will significantly reduce lift generated by the wing. The auto spoiler is an effective backup. Our company has recently changed its rejected TO procedure to allign with the Boeing procedure. I have attached a page showing what effect each has on a rejected TO for your info. Of particular note that on a balanced field operation if you do not use spoilers or reverse you will go off the end at 45 kts and if the spoiler deployment is 5 sec late then you will go off at 35kts. The problem with a rejected TO for an engine failure is that reverse is only used on symetrical engines. For example if No.1 eng failed then reverse would only be used on 2 and 3. As Sam said reverse thrust is not factored into accelerate stop distances but speedbrake is so should be the thing to go for first after thrust reduction. As for braking I would let the auto brakes take care of it (as long as they were functioning correctly) as they apply sustained maximum brake pressure. Many a time I have seen guys in the simulator try to manually brake and have trouble maintaining max brake pressure, significantly increasing the stopping distance...after all it is not a natural thing to do with 400 odd fare paying punters down the back!!!!High speed aborts are relatively straight forward, low speed (less than 80kts) on the otherhand are a different kettle of fish and can be quite exciting especially when an outboard eng fails (as they always do in a simulator!!!).CheersSteve

[Guest D17S]

I imagine all airlines have their own procedures about this, but by some method, someone will be tasked with watching thrust stabilize at the EICAS reverse thrust limit. Should the PNF be doing the reversing? Could be, but also consider this (purely imagineered) alternative. I have seen cockpit procedures where the Capt and FO are 'hand on hand' on the thrust levers. Yes, the PNF will place his hand directly on the PF's hand as thrust is advanced for TO. That suggests that it might be reasonable to suggest that PF still handle the reverse thrust. I still think the PF needs to be handling thrust for the rollout. It's about directional control.The PF will be using his feet first to maintain directional control. That's a feel thing. If it gets to be 'too much foot', he might decide to back off on a reverser. The PF still needs to have a grip on the reversers. But the earlier observation suggests that the PNF might be allowed a procedure where he could actually touch the PF hand on the reverser thrust lever. Go 'hand on hand.' Kinda like reigning a horse. If the horse (PF) is willing, he will allow the new rider (PNF) some element of control. But if the dang thing's not willing, forget it. "I don't care. Blow the fan out." the PF's lack of cooperation silently says, "Otherwise this airplane's going sideways!" Maybe. Darn, we need some real world guys. You present a good question.

[cowpatz 243]

The main problem concerns a low speed abort with an outer eng failure and the FO as PF. The problem is that the Capt alone makes the decision to go or not to go and will handle the abort. If the FO is flying he will maintain directional control until the Capt has control and commences the abort procedure. In our airline, on a normal TO, the FO stands the levers to get 70%N1. The Capt then advances the thrust levers to TO thrust as well as pressing the TOGA switch. The problem arises when the aircraft has TO thrust set , has a low airspeed and an engine fails. The Captain has to recognise this, gain control from the FO all whilst doing the RTO procedure. At low speeds the a/c will swing quickly and more so on a contaminated runway. Personally I think that when the FO is conducting the TO there should be a hand over of who is responsible for rejecting the TO at the 80 kt call. That is if an eng fails prior to 80 kts the FO will intially commence stopping the aircraft. All that really has to be done at this stage of the TO roll is to close the thrust levers and the problem goes away. Directional control is re-established with plenty of rwy left for a leisurely stop. After 80 kts the Capt will place his hands on the thrust levers or over the FO's (not my preferred option as that is dual controlling) and do the RTO procedure backed up by the FO.Stevehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/146560.gif

[Guest AJ]

>I know that in real situation, if one engine failed before V1,>but above 100kts, the pilot will likely to cts the take off>since climbing or landing with 3 engines is not really a big>deal in 744.That depends a lot on how heavy you are. If you are departing for a long hauls and are near you max takeoff weight, you will likely find that climbing/landing on three engines is quite a challenge (not imposible, but very dicy). Just look at what happened to that C-5 the other day. Andrew

[Qavion 19]

"It is possible to use auto spoiler but this takes time to work thru the interlocks."Interesting... I was under the impression that the speedbrake lever was lifted up before the interlock baulk. Perhaps I was thinking of LE retraction? (this will definitely be initiated before the reverser baulk). Remind me to look into this :) This would mean that the autospeedbrake wouldn't deploy if the #2 or #4 reverser cowls didn't move(The interlock baulk won't release without cowl movement).Cheers.Q>(Edit: My training notes say the autospeedbrake should be activated at the reverse baulk position. I may have to run some RW tests on this. If my traiing notes are correct, then there won't be a delay for spoiler autodeployment as the reversers move through the interlocks)