VC10 Boy

I have only had one RTO and that was sub 30 knots, so isn't a propoer RTO.

I remember making pilliow talk with an FO after a little sporting activity and he told me that up to 80 knots he would stop for anything. Between 80 Kt and V1 he would only stop for: any fire, enginer failure or windsheer! Beyond V1, no matter what the problem, he would take it into the air.

Phil the Flyer

Evidently so!

My one aborted take-off with BA was ex-CAI in the mid-80s on an L1011 Tristar. The one thing that remains in my mind to this day about the whole incident was the calm and reassuring voice of the Captain immediately after we came to a screeching halt on the runway. We waited 90 minutes for the brakes to cool down and took off at the second attempt without further incident.

Waterhorse

At the risk of upsetting EGLL_Director, the lower the speed of the rejected take-off the bigger the lurch is likely to be. Without going into techno-speak, at lower speeds the rudder is less effective and rudder controlled nose wheel steering has limited authority. The pilots would control the sideways movement caused by the engine failure initially with the rudder, only moving onto the tiller at a later stage thus gaining the full effect of nosewheel steering. The most "violent" rejected takeoffs are low speed with no reduced thrust. The requirement for certification is to stay within 30 feet of the runway centreline following a failure.

EGLL_Director

I'm not upset Waterhorse. I don't claim to be an expert on aborted takeoffs. I'm suprised nosewheel steering isn't equally responsive at all speeds though. Rudder steering I could understand, not nosewheel though.

As I've said before, most people fly inspite of their fears.

Waterhorse

I didn't explain that very well.

The nosewheel steering is just as responsive at all speeds but when you use the rudder bar to control the steering it only gives you 7 degrees of movement of the nosewheel either side of the centre position. Using the tiller increases that authority to 70 degrees. On any take-off the pilots hands are on the thrust levers and control column. In an RTO the one hand comes off the thrust levers but you then have to change hands on the column before grabbing the tiller - it takes a second or so, which at the time seems like an eternity. The faster you go and the more airflow over the rudder the more effective it becomes - so in low speed situations you have little nosewheel or rudder authority instantly available.

Jumbodriver

It is, but you only have very limited nosewheel control through the rudder pedals and the nosewheel tiller isnt held during the take off roll.

TravellerFrequently

OT, but I had a RTO flying from LGW to AMS in 2004.

We were in row 1 so I could see the CC member. The 'plane had reached a reasonable speed when suddenly the engines noise changed and it started to reduce in speed. We then turned off the runway and headed back to the terminal.

The CC member's expression did not change at any point and whilst I was concerned by what was happening, felt reassured by her calm expression. ^

Eventually, the pilot announced that a warning light had come on. In the end, it was a problem with the light rather than the system, and we carried onto AMS a short while later.

The OH slept through the whole experience until we were heading back to the terminal.

Happy not to repeat the experience.

EGLL_Director

The tiller doesn't operate at all above 20kts does it?

In terms of a take off run and breaking from one surely not a lot of rudder authority is needed? and at higher speeds the bumpyness of a quick braking will be more pronounced then when you're slowing down.

As I say I'm no expert at the physics of a 747, I am curious however.

Waterhorse

The tiller operates up to takeoff, though it would not be wise to use it at high speeds - hence we take our grubby little hands off it for takeoff. The body gear steering does de-activate at 20 knots, but it is only intended for low speed ground handling and would not help in an RTO. Indeed if the body gear is not straight as the thrust levers are advanced you will get a CONFIG warning which will cause an RTO!

leaveamessage

This gets better!

Our rebooked (for the second time) flight tonite is BA56A, using one of the a/c that operated as scheduled from LHR-JNB last nite.

Our faulty a/c from the past two nites (G-BYGE) that was supposed to be operating as the scheduled BA56 tonite has just been.....yep, you guessed it, CANCELLED.

So whatever fault it has with its engine is evidently still present....if that had been our aircraft again, I can promise you this place would be a full on riot - There are a LOT of very very angry, upset, and stressed out people here in JNB from being delayed by 48 hrs, and the ground staff are - to be blunt, some of the worst i've ever encountered at any outstation.

Some of the pax from our cancelled two flights did actually transfer to the BA56 tonite, and now face spending a third nite here in a hotel.

Beyond ridiculous.

Further updates later.

Seshman

This is very concerning as the 56 is my usual flight to LHR!!!! Might make a switch to the 54...

danosu77

On my last TATL flight I went up to the flight deck of our 763. They said the same thing, at 80 knots we are taking minor problems in the air and returning back to land. They expressed that "high speed aborts" are very risky. In fact, that day ORD-LHR we were lightly loaded and they said that with the performance of the aircraft, if we were close to V1 and had a compressor stall, we would likely take the plane into the air and come back to land. I think the point he was trying to make was that aborts at high speed can be dangerous. He said I can fly safely today on 1 engine. No problem getting us up and back into the pattern. If we catch fire from hard breaking action, there is more risk to those on board and the aircraft.

No doubt you want well trained pilots sitting up front!

henkybaby

I a previous life when NWA was still flying the DC-10 from AMS I experienced an RTO. Not particularly dramatic but a lot of people were still scared. We went back to the gate and we were told to stay on board while the techies checked if the warning light that came on in the cockpit was broken or if the oil something was really clogged. 40 minutes later we had another try. Captain aborted again and explained that although everything was functioning nominal the light went on again so we had to go back once more. Again we were told to stay on board since they only had 45 minutes to clear the a/c or the crew would run out of time.

By now some of the natives were really getting restless and demanded to leave the plane. Some even started to physically threaten the cabin crew (which was almost entirely female). When it really threatened to get out of hand I and some other passengers intervened fearing that a further escalation would lead to passengers needing to be offloaded which would take a lot of time and the flight would no doubt be cancelled. This was before a wrongly interpreted joke could lead you to get arrested on an airplane by the way...

We managed to restrain and/or calm the nervous pax (and by now cabin crew) and 30 minutes later we tried for the 3rd and final time. You could feel the tension. V1/Rotate and away we went.

This was before I was even a member of a FFP so I never got miles. Do you think I can put in a retroactive claim?

alexee

Interesting to hear the details - after the 2 aborted take-offs I bailed and went home on KLM via Amsterdam. I was a loyal BA flyer, but after this debacle I will consider other airlines in future before I fly BA again...

henkybaby

Yeah, cos this never ever happens on any other airline ever....