I know it's not right and any fatality caused should be listed, but, as per AirSafe, because the fatality did not occur to a passenger then it is not considered an air fatality.Look for yourself.http://www.airsafe.c...irlines/luv.htmSo technically, Southwest still has a clean fatality record as per the FAA. Although the incident involving the drugged up passenger that got subdued by the other passengers is really interesting. Got suffocated by the pax onboard. Nobody got charged with manslaughter.JB

Good job SW. Still the only major airline to never have a fatality.

Not inside the aircraft anyway, but they have managed to kill at least one outside the aircraft.

Wow, kudos to SW for a good save. One of the pax says that they heard a loud pop and then the pilot put the nose back down on the runway. Guess they aborted after V1.Good job SW. Still the only major airline to never have a fatality.American Airlines probably won't be the last major network carrier to declare bankruptsy, that is, as long as Southwest and Jetblue keeps taking the marketshare from the other carriers.JB

The PAX that was quoted probably confused the massive amount of braking once they rejected the takeoff as putting the nose back down.

I am sorry to all those who may be offended,but I HATE American news channels. Everything is like the armageddon and its the end of the world.Everything in that report was blown so out of proportion that it would be a comedy sketch here in UK/Europe.really gets to me

+1000If you check the wire services, there will likely be some article with stuff like "potential catastrophe was averted".,.... "hero pilots performed a miracle",...... "Is this type of plane safe??...this is not the first time this type of incident has happened!!"....or other inane drivel.And no, I wasnt offended....in fact, I got a good laugh out of what you wrote.

The PAX that was quoted probably confused the massive amount of braking once they rejected the takeoff as putting the nose back down.

I agree with you... Take this for instance:

If you didn't know a whole lot about what was going on, I'm sure you would associate the bang/rattle you hear when the brakes are applied to the nose touching back down...Glad no one was hurt!

The PAX that was quoted probably confused the massive amount of braking once they rejected the takeoff as putting the nose back down.

Yeah, that is probably it. I highly, highly doubt that the pilots aborted after V1... I'm sure it is just a shaken up pax who doesn't really know what they are talking about in terms of V Speeds, rejected take-offs, and maximum braking.

Good job SW. Still the only major airline to never have a fatality.

I'm guessing you mean only major American airline? Qantas has never had a fatality either.

"'Runway behind me'...isn't that one of the four or five most useless things in aviation? :)"Runway behind you, altitude above you, and the fuel you didnt put in the tank :-)

The pilot of the Aussie F-111 would also say "the tyre bouncing along the runway" following his takeoff. If you don't know what I mean, there's plenty of videos on youtube showing that incident...

The PAX that was quoted probably confused the massive amount of braking once they rejected the takeoff as putting the nose back down.

I agree with you... Take this for instance:

Yeah, that is probably it. I highly, highly doubt that the pilots aborted after V1... I'm sure it is just a shaken up pax who doesn't really know what they are talking about in terms of V Speeds, rejected take-offs, and maximum braking.

It's all heresay considering none of us were there, but it does sound like the plane was well into rotation when they decided to reject the takeoff.Heres the article from a Sacramento paper.http://www.kcra.com/...189/detail.htmlThe quote from a passenger in the article says....... "It felt like you blew a tire on the freeway doing 80," said Daniel Dailey.Dailey said soon after the plane's nose started reaching for air they knew something was wrong."We were probably going a buck 50, 200 when the plane was starting to go up and then all of a sudden boom the plane started shaking really bad," said Dailey.Rejected past V1 or not, the flight crew made the right decision to get everyone back safely.Edit.... After reading a few more articles, a mechanic at Sacramento who was interviewed by the FAA says he believes the tire blowout was due to the rejected takeoff and a small blurb mentions that initial reports indicate that the plane made a hard landing. Who knows, maybe another problem resulted in the abort that caused the tire failure.JB

 

The whole V1 thing is overrated :)

If you reject the take-off after V1 you will need more runway to stop than you would need to continue the take-off, even with only 1 engine providing thrust. Thus unless the aircraft is sufficiently damaged to be uncontrollable (and an engine failure by design does not make an aircraft uncontrollable) continuing the take-off is the safer option. There have been quite a few cases of planes running of the end of the runway at high speed after rejecting a take-off above V1 and killing lots of people, as a result of a burst tyre. In all those cases the plane would have been fine if the pilot had continued the take-off.Note that the above is not criticism of the pilots in the current case, for one we don't know if it was actually a post V1 abort and secondly they may have had lots of runway left in this case, (say the runway was twice the length needed for take-off for example).As for the passengers' feelings, next time you're in a train, try walking forwards while the train is braking as it nears a station. It will feel like you are going downhill. Thus maximum braking during an RTO will probably feel like the nose is going down, apart from the fact that reverse thrust and the braking will create a nose-down moment. Even on a car the nose will dip if you brake hard. In the end though, the FDR will have all the answers, which will be more reliable than people's memory (which can play all kinds of funny tricks).John-Alan Pascoe

It's all heresay considering none of us were there, but it does sound like the plane was well into rotation when they decided to reject the takeoff.

Since pilots are trained to continue a takeoff after V1, even with an engine on fire, I doubt they'll reject beyond V1 for a tyre burst.

Since pilots are trained to continue a takeoff after V1, even with an engine on fire, I doubt they'll reject beyond V1 for a tyre burst.

To be a bit more specific, pilots are trained to continue a take-off after V1, unless the aircraft is 'unsafe to fly'. Unfortunately there are no concrete criteria for that. An engine failure (or fire for that matter) does not make the aircraft unsafe to fly. A c.g. that is so far forward that the plane can't rotate does, but in between there's a lot of grey area.A recent study found that about half (44%) of post-V1 rejected take-offs should have been continued (with the benefit of hind-sight of course). You can find that study here: http://www.nlr-atsi....ATS/15/694.pdf. It's quite interesting reading and goes into detail on the reasons for aborting take-offs even when the correct decision would be to continue.The following quote from the report may help explain why pilots would reject past V1 for a tyre burst. It's a description of such a case."During a takeoff from Frankfurt airport, just before reaching V2 there was aloud bang followed by severe vibration. The Captain concluded that the aircraftwas not safe to fly and rejected the takeoff. The aircraft stopped in theremaining runway available. The vibrations were caused by a tire failure. Piecesof tyre passed forward of the wing leading edge, then back through the enginefan casing. Some pieces struck the fuselage, wing, and flaps, all without damage.The Captain later stated that he never experienced such a high level of vibrationin an aircraft before and could not comprehend that such a level could everoccur."John-Alan Pascoe

Great video (with good points) here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EYUrLJDXKQKind of old, but no doubt the points are still fully valid.

Great video (with good points) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EYUrLJDXKQ

Kind of old, but no doubt the points are still fully valid.

A very good vid.Thanks for sharing.JB