Your arguments are totally correct.

Years of experience and over the top sim training, finally paying off... ^_^

Agreed, some good points there to think about when it comes to possible landing sites without the need for a 180.

 

Years of experience and over the top sim training, finally paying off... ^_^

And don't forget about the wingflex. Ok, 'wong flex' for those being really into that topic. ^_^

And don't forget about the wingflex.

Thought we were calling it wong flex now? :P

If there was another 500-1,000ft of rwy with this exact scenario then you could stop it on the tarmac. In fact as it stands the a/c would come to a halt literally at the end of the rwy. So in this case it is correct to take-off. Having said that the remaining engines are at full throttle until levelling off and even then are more than 90% n2 until over the threshold. You have a partial electrical failure, your speeds on take-off and climb out have to very precise

 

There is nothing serendipitous about having enough runway to stop at or not when aborting at V1. Before each takeoff, we check the maximum allowable takeoff weight for the runway in use. We do not takeoff unless our weight will allow the aircraft to accelerate to V1, then either abort safely with the remaining runway or continue the takeoff to be at least 35 feet above the end of the runway at V2. There is no "as it stands." That is one of the reasons why you will see gate agents soliciting for volunteers to take a later flight. Sometimes we just cannot take all the people that we have seats for because of restrictions such as a short runway. We limit the amount of passengers so that we can make a takeoff within the weight restriction.

You takeoff. There is no choice here. I don't understand the long post and question of yours. What are you driving at? By saying you are already past V1, you've answered your own question. You takeoff. If the malfunction occured before V1, then you should abort. If after, you continue. To be asking this question, I am sure there is something about the concept of V1 and Vr that you do not understand. Perhaps we can help you come to a better understanding of it.

 

The point of the question is that the failure occurs "exactly" at V1. If this happened at London Heathrow then with the same a/c configuration a good case for stopping can be made. There's time enough ansd space enough to make a cup of tea!

The rwy length used in my example is critical even in dry conditions. So a take-off is the only option.

The point of the question is that the failure occurs "exactly" at V1. If this happened at London Heathrow then with the same a/c configuration a good case for stopping can be made. There's time enough ansd space enough to make a cup of tea!

The rwy length used in my example is critical even in dry conditions. So a take-off is the only option.

Just because the runway is long doesn't mean you should abort, what about brake energy? Next thing you know you'd have tyres blowing up, possibly fatally injuring your PAX as they evacuate...

 

Ró.

I like that part the most.

Engine Fire Drill Secondary Actions when convenient

 

Anyone recalling those drill cards from Flight Club? :Worried: Do they have those in the cockpit?

The point of the question is that the failure occurs "exactly" at V1. If this happened at London Heathrow then with the same a/c configuration a good case for stopping can be made. There's time enough ansd space enough to make a cup of tea!

The rwy length used in my example is critical even in dry conditions. So a take-off is the only option.

 

If it happened right at V1 by the time you react you are past V1. Still take it to the air.

 

During my initial training they spent nearly an hour explaining how V1 is found and when to do the abort. If reaction would take you beyond V1 then you take it to the air. If we reacted slowly we would be falling off cliffs into the ocean or flying into a mountain side for some of our airports.

The point of the question is that the failure occurs "exactly" at V1. If this happened at London Heathrow then with the same a/c configuration a good case for stopping can be made. There's time enough ansd space enough to make a cup of tea!

The rwy length used in my example is critical even in dry conditions. So a take-off is the only option.

 

Having a failure at, and reacting to it at, exactly V1, means you can do either. However, you would have to make a very very good case for yourself for aborting a takeoff after V1 because by doing so, you have made the career leap into being a test pilot. You do not know how long it will take for the plane to stop after V1. The takeoff performance charts assume a takeoff or abort at V1, an abort after V1 would use up more runway than continuing a takeoff. You do not know the procedure for aborting after V1 nor do you know what can happen to the plane if you abort after V1 nor do you know how much runway it will use if you abort after V1. In short, you are not trained to do something like that and no one knows what will result. This is the kind of stuff airline CRM training try very hard to stamp out.

http://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html#5X-UVA%20Addis%20Ababa%2018%20April%201972

The case for not taking-off!

I remember discussing V1 to death on here before, but can't remember what the thread was. Would to be good to post a link to it here if only I could remember where it was... :Rolling Eyes: Some people on here could do with a bit of an education. Think it may have been the Aer Lingus trip report one, but not entirely sure...

 

Regards,

Ró

http://www.vc10.net/...a 18 April 1972

The case for not taking-off!

 

That was before V1 and the damage took out the braking system. This is not related to the question you asked where you are past V1.

http://www.vc10.net/...a 18 April 1972

The case for not taking-off!

 

Seriously, the story about the takeoff abort after rotation due to a blown tire? 43 people died. The plane went off the end of the runway and down a slope. Huh? That's your case for not taking off?

 

That is a case of seriously bad airmanship, of making things up as you go, of not doing as you're trained, and causing unnecessary deaths. A blown tire is one of the worst reasons for aborting. With a blown tire, your stopping abilities are reduced substantially, meaning you may not be able to stop within your calculated accelerate stop distances that you used as a basis for your takeoff performance conisderations. In fact, learning from incidents like the one you just linked to, the preferred action after a blown tire is to continue the takeoff and just come back in and land normally. A lot less drama and a lot safer. The 4/18/72 incident you read showed poor airmanship since that crew aborted a takeoff after V1 with an aircraft that had impaired stopping abilities. Really? That is what we call a double whammie. Two things against them which work together to exponentially make the situation worse. Aborting after V1 in a plane that can't stop. If all they did was continue the takeoff and come back around for a landing, then they would have had a lot more runway in front of them when they did hit the brakes and those 43 people would still be alive today. Vololiberista, you totally misread that article.

That was before V1 and the damage took out the braking system. This is not related to the question you asked where you are past V1.

In my example V1 and Vr are effectively the same just a fewk knots apart. With the a/c in question a SVC10 at 65% AUW it still can get off the ground after 2,700ft at that altitude. At an airport close to sea level like LHR the take-off run is below 2,500ft (for the same config) so one would be able to justify a stop there a second or so past V1 but no more!

http://www.vc10.net/...a 18 April 1972

The case for not taking-off!

That's a case in favour of taking off. Your referring to the VC10 crash in Addis Ababa right? Am I missing something here or have I finally lost it... :wacko:

 

Ró.