APFPilot1985

Those are both examples of perfect reasons to alert the cockpit on a takeoff roll. With the heart attack there was no way they would have known in the cockpit and depending on how open the door was it might not have set off an indicator. A couple of studies on have been done on CRM and FA reluctance to break sterile cockpit. They've found a couple of things. One of the main points is that more training needs to be provided to FAs on the mechanical aspects of the aircraft. Obviously they don't need to know the systems of the aircraft to the extent to that the pilot does, but some education on what is safe/unsafe and what specific items are worth calling the cockpit on regardless of the phase of flight is something that should be covered. Engine falls off, alert the cockpit. Cosmetic panel falls off, wait until 10K and notify them. This would also eliminate the other major issue which is reluctance to notify the cockpit during sterile cockpit for anything. A few years ago an ATR-72 flight attendant noticed a leaking sound that wasn't normal from a door and a few minutes later it separated from the aircraft, she was reluctant to notify the cockpit because they were only at 600ft after takeoff. Obviously this should have been reported.

APFPilot1985

Frankly even if there was more than just cosmetic damage if it is in the overhead crown there is nothing that would be more of an issue after takeoff than it is during the roll.

NWAFA

You are 100% correct. You should have seen things before sterile cockpit and CRM.

When I went to the cockpit after the door opening, the Captain asked if we lost any luggage. He then explained that the DC10 had an inherent flaw in it's doors. Yes, they could open, but they would not get a warning until the door went to 3 feet. WHAT!? It wasn't taught in training on the a/c because it happened so rarely. We had a good laugh at dinner as the guys were telling everyone how big my eyes were when I came into the cockpit.

I didn't hear about the door coming off. Anyone hurt?

DanTravels

Yeah. I've spent enough hours manning computer helpdesks to know that you're supposed to lead off with "Captain, the plane is broken!"

florin

Thanks for the insight, NWAFA! ^

APFPilot1985

Thankfully no one was killed the FA had some bruises from being banged around (And I'd venture to guess some brown trousers.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/11/us...ter-plane.html

flyerslc

I am a Buddhist monk and I am upset they don't care about me.

PDXNRTLHR

I'm only relaying what I heard. Yes, the FA should not have used those words, but did. And I'm sure as hell glad that the cockpit was notified ASAP; the issue at hand wasn't that some flimsy plastic fell down, but was that there was a possibility of further damage to the aircraft that could have made it non-airworthy. Yes, we were going too fast to abort, but in the heat of the moment, the FA did what she thought was right. I'm sure she'll react differently next time something out of the ordinary occurs.

APFPilot1985

There is ALMOST no chance that anything would have fallen from the crown of the aircraft that would have been more unsafe than a high speed abort. An example is the 2 southwest decompression incidents that were at alititude when an explosive decomp resulted as holes in the ceiling. Modern aircraft are designed to limit the size of the hole that ruptures. Both of those incidents occurred when the aircraft was actually pumped up as well.

Down3Green

I'm not trying to be mean here, but those are both 'not' perfect examples and directly at odds with the rejected takeoff philosophy at Delta Air Lines. While there has been some massaging of the abort procedures during my career, they have been pretty much static for the last decade or so. Our annual recurrent Sim training tends to focus on the hot industry safety scenarios, but in recent years, rejected takeoff training shows up constantly because unfortunately, both at Delta and industry wide, we continue to abort for issues that are counter to the stated philosophy.

A rejected Takeoff is an inherently dangerous procedure. As pilots we are taught to build 'time' into whatever abnormal situation occurs...too literally sit on our hands by not making snap decisions and asking for vectors or holding to make more time. Mistakes happen when forced to react quickly. There are only a handful of "no time" events that must be dealt with immediately and one of them is a rejected takeoff. The incident reports are full of poorly executed high speed aborts for dubious (and sometimes non existent) problems that result in runway excursions. Even if you stop correctly, you set yourself up for a passenger initiated evacuation which undoubtedly will result in injuries. The fact is that the plane will fly just fine with doors open, electrical power lost, holes in the roof, passenger illnesses, failed A/C packs, even failed engines post V1. With just a few exceptions, it is always safer to take the jet into the air and add 'time' to whatever abnormal occured by asking for a nice long downwind, completing the apropriate checklists, expanding your team to include dispatchers, MX, and F/As and returning for a landing if need be.

To make the reject decision simpler, once we enter the high speed regime, there are really only 4 situations that we would consider an abort for. We NEVER abort for doors. Apart from those four items that we brief to start every trip, everything else is a nuissance warning, and indeed, many planes 'inhibit' some of these caution messages during takeoff to eliminate extraneous info. Of the few things that we would abort for, there's almost nothing that an F/A can tell me that I'm not going to get a more efficent warning of in the cockpit. The only thing that I can possibly see the need for an F/A to break sterile cockpit for during the high speed regime is some type of uncontrolled cabin fire. That's it....and if they're not being taught that, they ought to be. I'm going to give the F/A in this scenario the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was really just calling the other flight attendants. If not, I have a hard time believing that the Captain even answered the call......I wouldn't have. The thought of the Captain fiddling with the audio selector panel or handset while speeding down the running and trying to scan for items that actually might be worth aborting for is worrying.

MSPeconomist

What are the four things for which the pilot should abort a takeoff?

APFPilot1985

I'm pretty sure that we aren't at odds here for the most part. In the post of mine you quoted I used take off roll when I meant sterile cockpit time.

Down3Green

You're on here enough to know the tightrope that employees have to walk, so I apologize but I don't want to get into the finer details of a specific procedure. Both the FAA and Boeing have put out some good stuff regarding the go/no-go philosophy of takeoff decisions and you can Google them. However, I know that each airline varies somewhat in their definitions of Hi/Lo speed regimes, specific abort criteria, and callouts and because of that, I don't want to get into word for word procedure. You can probably come up with them, though suffice to say, they eliminate a whole host of items that passengers might consider dire threats.

I also don't want to leave the impression that those of us in the cockpit are somehow disdainful of F/A input. Quite the contrary and I always let them know that during the brief. While we are taxiing out, I want to know if any pax are ill or acting up. I want ot know if snow is accumulating on the wing. I want to know if some engine or aircraft system doesn't sound right. These are all things that they are uniquely able to spot. However, once the First Officer makes the PA for departure and they tell me the 'Cabin is ready for takeoff', any information they have after that point (with the exception of the aformentioned raging cabin fire) is not going to influnce the Abort decision in the high speed regime in any way and will only end up confusing the situation. It's just noise during a time that we try to limit any distractions. At Delta, only the Captain is responsible for the abort decision, and if some abnormal happens, there should be only one of two words you should hear spoken very forcefully by the Captain......either CONTINUE! or ABORT!.The thought of having a conversation with an F/A while rolling along or having them scream STOP is either stunning or amusing.... and maybe both. But I will gladly listen to any concerns they have once we are safely airborne.

MSPeconomist

Sorry, I wasn't trying to ask for any inside/confidential/proprietary information. I'm just fascinated by the risk assessment behind the abort decision and I was trying to imagine what three things besides big fires would make the decision to abort correct. A subtlety that I wouldn't have thought of is the idea that passengers might unwisely decide to evacuate after an aborted takeoff.

Depending on the location and mass, something on the runway might be an example, but there could be cases where trying to takeoff before the object and go over it could be the right decision.

If something would prevent the plane from climbing as fast as it must, so that it would surely hit a building or a mountain, there could be no choice but to abort, for example if more than one engine were to experience catastrophic failure. Unlikely except due to engine ingestion of large birds?

Maybe the last would be something that could prevent the plane from landing. It's farfetched but an indication that the landing gears won't work perhaps. I'm going to vote for the failure (blowouts) of multiple tires.

Are my guesses at all close? I realize we're talking about very low probability events. Structural failure would also be a factor, but only if it would prevent either takeoff or landing. Also an indication that the pilots will become incapacitated, but not incapacity of one pilot.

Pharaoh

Thanks so much for throwing in a mile wide photo, making the otherwise worthwhile discussion almost impossible to follow. Please use common sense when posting.