I don't often call fellow pilots abilities into question, in fact only once in my 23 year career have I, but right now I honestly think that you either need some serious training, or else you should volunteer up your license and retire from the aviation scene as a matter of safety.

 

With Regards,

Senior Captain Rónán J O Cadhain, A320/A330.

Let's look at it this way. Change the location to Heathrow. The VC10 (at medium weight) will accelerate to V1 in under 2,000ft. I'm not talkng about engine fires after V1 (though at that weight Vr would be called almost immediately). So, he fire bells come on at V1 I have not yet lifted the nose wheel I still have almost 10,000ft to stop the a/c

The starting point of the thread is a rwy of 6,700ft. Technically speaking you could stop the a/c but would be safer to take-off. And safer still to land away as 6,700ft would also be too short with a two engine landing.

 

That doesn't change anything. Aborting after V1 still makes you a test pilot. You are going "off the reservation" as far as what you trained to do, what the aircraft is technically known to be capable of doing, and what is expected of you. The training now is that you only abort at high speed for something that keeps the plane from actually flying. If you aborted for some kind of emergency where in the investigation, it turns out that the plane would have rolled over and killed everybody had you continued the takeoff, then you will be a hero. If it turns out that you aborted for something that would not have caused the plane to roll over and kill everybody and damage and injury occured in the process, then you will be a zero.

 

I don't often call fellow pilots abilities into question, in fact only once in my 23 year career have I, but right now I honestly think that you either need some serious training, or else you should volunteer up your license and retire from the aviation scene as a matter of safety.

 

With Regards,

Senior Captain Rónán J O Cadhain, A320/A330.

 

He is not a pilot. That much is obvious if you've been around to read his other posts. I believe he worked with VC-10s in some capacity as ground crew or steward in a previous career.

Hold for an hour or two, then land. You'll have all the runway, and most likely a similar speed if not a lower speed than your V1. Heck continuing the flight to LHR probably would have been safer. I'm really starting to doubt that you were a real VC10 pilot at the minute...

Perhaps I have been misunderstood. Because I'm not supporting their decision to abort at all. With the nose wheel already off the ground they should have continued. At normal airfield elevations the VC10 gets off the ground very quickly so in their case they probably thought they had enough room. Having said that the case for taking off and having a full rwy ahead for landing is the safer option. You certainly need the extra length as you are coming in hot!

He is not a pilot. That much is obvious if you've been around to read his other posts. I believe he worked with VC-10s in some capacity as ground crew or steward in a previous career.

I was under the impression he said he was a pilot somewhere on these forums, though given the his responses in this thread, he is acting far from professional. I'm starting to see what Rob Prest sees in him...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

He is not a pilot. That much is obvious if you've been around to read his other posts. I believe he worked with VC-10s in some capacity as ground crew or steward in a previous career.

 

I always thought he said he worked for BA as a VC10 pilot.

 

I'm not sure I'd let him touch a Cessna after these posts.

I was under the impression he said he was a pilot somewhere on these forums, though given the his responses in this thread, he is acting far from professional. I'm starting to see what Rob Prest sees in him...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Yes, I know he likes to post like he is a retired airline pilot, but I think this thread has removed all doubt with regard to that. He is most definitely not a pilot.

Here he fairly implicitly states that he was a Super VC10 pilot. However, at this point any credibility he had has been washed down the drain...

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/372812-air-france-447-new-details-suggest-the-airbus-design-contributed-to-the-crash/page__st__100#entry2366758

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/372812-air-france-447-new-details-suggest-the-airbus-design-contributed-to-the-crash/page__st__75#entry2365122

 

Regards,

Ró.

Interesting take on rejected takeoffs!

Here he fairly implicitly states that he was a Super VC10 pilot. However, at this point any credibility he had has been washed down the drain...

 

http://forum.avsim.n...00#entry2366758

http://forum.avsim.n...75#entry2365122

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

All his posts always kind of implied that he was a VC-10 pilot a long time ago. I never quite believed it, based on some of the specific things he would say. And I never really saw an actual "I was there" claim until the one about the "the stewardess coming up to the front office with white faces" post you found. Who knows? I just hope I don't sound like that when I get old whether or not I had actually done something or not.

All his posts always kind of implied that he was a VC-10 pilot a long time ago. I never quite believed it, based on some of the specific things he would say. And I never really saw an actual "I was there" claim until the one about the "the stewardess coming up to the front office with white faces" post you found. Who knows? I just hope I don't sound like that when I get old whether or not I had actually done something or not.

Yeh, In that AF thread my suspicions were quite aroused, hence why I asked for a report into the incident. Surprise surprise no copy was available....

Yes, I know he likes to post like he is a retired airline pilot, but I think this thread has removed all doubt with regard to that. He is most definitely not a pilot.

 

It sure has.

 

Here he fairly implicitly states that he was a Super VC10 pilot. However, at this point any credibility he had has been washed down the drain...

 

http://forum.avsim.n...00#entry2366758

http://forum.avsim.n...75#entry2365122

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Quite embarrassing to be uncovered.

Quite embarrassing to be uncovered.

Yes, I don't imagine he'll be showing his head around here any time soon. That being said, he did sometimes provide a good insight, though he didn't have to pretend to be a pilot to provide those insights, and I'm sure would have been much more appreciated if he hadn't betrayed the trust of us all on here. One thread, and his 10 years and 1500 posts have all been tainted for ever more by a small group of people who caught him out.

 

Anyways, Tis getting late over here, so I shall bid yee all a good night,

Regards,

Ró.

This is why I just keep out of these threads. I read them and learn from them. I did my PPL back in 1994 to 1996 and kept it up to 1998. Beyond that it is not my place to comment on the ATP stuff (I am kind of out of the loop in General Aviation now too as 1998 was a long time ago).

 

These are great threads to learn from though. I think I am going to practice a V1 engine failure in my PMDG NGX tonight when I get home.

 

Cheers

Gentlemen really!!! Clearly what I intended was misunderstood. Apologies if so.

If I am at or below max weight for the rwy limited take-off then I am guaranteed to be able to stop "at" or before V1.

If PNF calls "V- [engine fire bell sounds] -1" then provided I react quickly I can stop.

At the start of this post the example I posed was based around PNF calling "V- [engine fire bell sounds] -1, Rotate" all in one breath as the rotate speed is so close to that of V1. The speeds are clearly discussed before the flight so the PF is probably not trying to bury the nose wheel into the tarmac at that point as he expects to hear "V1-Rotate". In fact the nosewheel may already be coming off the ground. so in that case it would definately be better to continue through rotation.

 

Now then! As regards the Addis accident. All of you threw brown coloured stuff into the faces of the poor crew who did in fact perform correctly. They were very lucky that the FE survived for a short period long enough to tell them that there was such severe vibration upon the intial tyre burst that that was the reason for aborting and it was by the way below V1. The crew had no idea that brake repairs had been made incorrectly resulting in at best 70% available braking. They almost certainly would have stopped on the rwy had the brakes performed to spec.

Here are the last two pages of the official report.

 

V1 is defined as the speed at which the first action to reject take off needs to be taken, that means you need to have already made the decision before you reach V1. If you only decide to reject when you reach V1 by the time you take your first action you will already have passed V1 and thus be to late.

Hence the policy at some airlines for the PM to call out V1 five knots below the actual V1 speed, or the policy at some other airlines for the PM to call "Go!" rather than "V1".

 

In the "V-[fire bells]-1" scenario you have already passed V1 and thus should continue.

The Dutch aerospace laboratory published an interesting report on post-V1-rejections a while ago. If people are interested I could dig up the link.