Hi guys,On friday 4th of june a Ryanair 737-800 aborted the take-off. The nosewheel was already in the air ( the mainweels still on the runway) when the pilots decided to abort. This resulted in a hot-brake situation. All passengers and crew where safely evacuated, no one was injured. The flight was continued on another plane.A emergency-stop after VR? I am curious as to what kind of failure they encountered?It must have been a very lightly loaded plane, their destination was Faro (LPFR) in Portugal, about 3 hours of flighttime. If they had been heavier and/or the runway was shorter, it might not be possible to abort (after V1).Regards,Wijnand (EHBK)

Doesn't EIN have a really, really long military runway though? May have been safe to stop after VR although I've no idea why they would unless there was a control problem. That and Ryanair pilots seem to just do whatever they want anyway :(

Hi guys,On friday 4th of june a Ryanair 737-800 aborted the take-off. The nosewheel was already in the air ( the mainweels still on the runway) when the pilots decided to abort. This resulted in a hot-brake situation. All passengers and crew where safely evacuated, no one was injured. The flight was continued on another plane.A emergency-stop after VR? I am curious as to what kind of failure they encountered?It must have been a very lightly loaded plane, their destination was Faro (LPFR) in Portugal, about 3 hours of flighttime. If they had been heavier and/or the runway was shorter, it might not be possible to abort (after V1).Regards,Wijnand (EHBK)

Wijnand can you provide a link to this, I find this impossible to believe without it making the news over here. Not saying your lying mate, if it's true then something major like a dual flamout or serious flight control problem must have occured and the UK media would be all over it.Regards Rob

http://avherald.com/h?article=42c733bc&opt=0best regards, michael

http://avherald.com/h?article=42c733bc&opt=0best regards, michael

Thanks for the link. I'm not doubting the RTO, I'm asking about the reject at VR? the only proof of that is comment from a dutch 'journalist'.

Thanks for the link. I'm not doubting the RTO, I'm asking about the reject at VR? the only proof of that is comment from a dutch 'journalist'.

So far there are no actual witnesses (I mean spotters or so) who actually saw the nose going up.Every paper in Holland stated that the nose was up, but after reading the forementioned link, I tend to agree that it was a (normal) RTO. I am curious what the malfunction might have been.Regards,Wijnand Lindelauf (EHBK)Edited for typo

With regard to several newspapers reporting the same thing, that is usually because they pick up their information from the same source, invariably that will be the Associated Press news agency, which most newspaper groups pay a retainer to for that service, so they don't have to go to the expense of having journalists all over the world. AP's service includes the supply of images as well as reports, which continually come in to the paper's main office, day and night. If the paper's editor thinks one of those reports is worthy of space in the paper, he will assign a journalist to write up the story, and since each journalist at each paper which does that is basing what they write on the same source data, they tend to all report the same thing. But that doesn't mean it is completely irrefutable fact. Often AP reports are written quickly, before all the fact are in, because newspapers want stuff quickly, and so they know there is a time limit on using that stuff if it is to sell a paper.When editors select this kind of thing, they are interested in any dramatic stuff, not the mundane, so reporting that a reasonably routine aborted take-off procedure occurred is not what they are interested in, and AP know that, so they usually only feed stuff through that has dramatic potential. You can see this in the language newspapers use to report things. And notice too, that in the newspaper industry, these are referred to as 'stories', which is nothing if not a giveaway as to the kind of focus newspapers are interested in.Then we have to consider the language newspapers revel in: If an airliner crashes, it will perhaps be referred to as 'the doomed jet', because that will titilate readers into the morbid fascination that the passengers were somehow marked by fate. Similarly, airliners in an incident don't descend, they 'plunge', since that is a far more dramatic way of putting it, and you can bet that any airliner which does an RTO will almost certainly have 'screeched to a halt with mere feet to spare' (it might have been 2,500 feet to spare, but they won't bother to clarify that bit). Another phrase they like to throw in is, 'seconds from disaster', which doesn't actually mean anything at all. I am currently seconds from disaster as I type this, since if I get up, go out of my house and jump in front of a speeding car, it would only take me a few seconds to do so, thus I am seconds from disaster. All that kind of emotive language is commonly known as 'journalese'. So the flight data recorder universally becomes the 'black box crash recorder', any fire is automatically 'a blazing inferno' etc. In other words, if you want facts, don't go off what a paper has written, they love to dress things up, because that is their job.Furthermore, whenever an aviation-related incident occurs, if facts are hard to come by, newspapers report things in what is known in the industry as 'shotgunning', that is to say, they broadly focus on everything that might be bad, before the facts can be substantiated, so nobody can dispute their speculation, in the hope that it sells some papers, but doing that tends to make things seem a lot worse than they usually are, because all that kind of stuff sticks in people's minds. That's why many people are scared of flying. If next week upon investigation, it turns out that the pilots had made a sensible decision and at no point was there any risk because of their decision, you certainly won't see that on page one, because it is not suitably dramatic.Trust me, I wrote for a daily newspaper for ten years, and I can promise you that is exactly how they work.Al

It is possible that V1 and VR were the same speed. As per my 737-800 FCOM there are many times in the T/O Performance section that V1 and VR are the same speed, but these tables don't take runway length into consideration, but as stated by another user the airport has a long runway which would allow for a higher V1. Another thing to think about is a possible early rotation.Kevin W.

On a dutch forum for pilots most pilots talk about the reporter getting it wrong about the part where he said the nose was in the air. Reason for getting that part wrong is because a high speed RTO means you brake very hard and that can feel like a 'Nose down' moment. Someone also made a comment about wrong V1 calculations, if your calculated V1 speed is lower then it should be the airplane wont go in the air when you pull the yoke and with plenty of runway left you can do a safe RTO.Then again, I am not a pilot and have just used their comments for this post.

Hi Tiemen,I think you mean wrong VR calculation rather then wrong V1. The story does sound like a over excited journalist or pax adding a little 'Extra' to the whole event. I think everyone here agrees that for a trained crew to abort 'after' V1 is called means somthing major has happened to the aircraft, that is why it's SOP with Boeing and Airbus for the Pilot flying to remove his hand from the T/L after the V1 call to avoid instincts taking over.About two years ago I experienced my first Go-around after flying event free roughly once a month on average for 15 years, I have to say it freaked me out dispite understanding what was going on and flying them thousands of times in the sim. The feeling of a real lightweight A330 going to TOGA thrust 50ft above the ground when your stuck at the back not in control and drained after a 8 hour flight is not a nice feeling. Of course the crew were in complete control and it was a minor incident but if I didn't know anything about aircraft and the media interviewed me I probably would have said something stupid like 'We were going to crash and the aircraft was almost vertical' because that's exactly what it felt like.

Of course I ment VR instead of V1. Thanks for pointing. Principal still remains: calculate them wrong and you have a problem :(