Rejected Takeoff and the Go/NoGo decision
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 ноя 2013
- A Boeing video about Takeoff Safety, Rejected Takeoff, and the Go/NoGo decision.
Boeing Customer Services: www.boeing.com/commercial/ser...
Rejected Take-Off: flightcrewguide.com/wiki/perf...
If you like this video, please subscribe, give the thumbs up and share this video. It helps the channel! support.google.com/youtube/an...
Check out more study material for flight crew at flightcrewguide.com, your cockpit reference codex.
This video is for educational purposes. All content, copyrights, trademarks, and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Love these old videos they are so genuine and simple
Those classic videos are still the best!
The decision to abort is heavier than to GO at high speed due to proper judgement of momentum versus decelerate stopping available and the runway condition and gradient of the day.Better to abort in principle only if the plane's flyability or an engine/APU/Cabin fire erupted. At high energy you are close to flyable speed and so better to fly and return to land with a more comfortable stopping margin. For windshear at high speed it is better to select max thrust and get an extra 10 kt and continue the take off, especially in damp/wet conditions. Most aborted take offs above V1 resulted in runway over runs with high impacts and quite likely tire failures/fires and heavy casualties due to high momentum impact or if there is a surface drop at the end of the stop way.Fires are likely to result also due to heavier fuel uplift during take offs.Take offs are inherently more dangerous than landings as a result!
Thanks for uploading this!!!!
These old videos I love them a lot
Don't forget to "maysure!"
You must have made the stop decision PRIOR TO decision speed.
There is the first 767-300er!😊
Consider noise abatement?! Wtf
Watching this, I understand why pilots are taught V1 is almost sacrosanct. But I wonder whether that should ideally be treated on a more airport-by-airport basis. I'd think that if you're on a runway that has a 1000ft overshoot safety area (or EMAS) and then a mile of flat, open field past that, the safest move if you perceive a terrible problem has occurred might very well be different than if you're on a runway with a small safety area and beyond that a cliff that drops off to a river.
Then you can unbalance the V1 speed. V1 on some aircraft is a range of speeds.
I think the idea is to have it engrained like muscle memory - there is little time to process extra information like that on top of everything else, V1 is your last chance to stay on the runway. Even a short overrun can result in a major accident so you're committing to a crash, basically; and whatever the initiating cause, then where V1 was is probably the least of your worries at that point.
How about the Concorde's accident?
IIRC, after running over a foregin object, a pice of tyre was thrown against the wing, damaged the fuel tank, and set it alight. CMIIW
They were beyond the point of rejection, the plane had to take off and perform an emergency landing.
I do not agree, in this specific case, the aircraft would have overshoot the runway and hit the buildings in front of 26R, and those were crowded of people that day.
+KaMeWa2 I know I'm replying to a comment made a long time ago, bear with me. Even though in this specific example, the Concorde crew may or may not have been better to attempt to abort the takeoff, there would have been no way for them to understand the nature of the emergency in time to make that decision. In 99% of cases where an RTO-worthy emergency happens after V1, the safest thing to do is to take off and work the problem in the air. Obviously every incident would ideally elicit a nuanced and completely informed response, but that is not the reality of emergencies after V1. Up there in the cockpit you are far away from whatever's going wrong. You have to rely on the information given to you by the instruments and displays, and trust in the procedures. The pilots must execute the procedure that is more likely to be safe, and after V1 the accident history clearly shows that in the majority of cases, RTO after V1 is much more dangerous and costly than getting into the air, working the problem and then coming back for a landing.
The crew didn't knew there was such a big fire, but nevertheless, they'll have to get in the air anyway.
The concorde took off below v2. Thats mainly why it crashed.
Old, retired pilots are the worst people to ask about anything. When they flew, the accident rate was 10 times what it is today.
Everyone has valuable knowledge. It's fair to say that they still have great knowledge. Do you have the statistical proof for your "10x accident rate" claim? It's completely bombastic to make the claim you did
It was mostly because of weather, and a lack of weather info.
Shut the f**k up you stupid idiot, old generation pilots are the best in terms of knowledge and flying skills, such an imbecile comment.
If you hear a bang and stop would you use reverse, not knowing if a engine blew up?
I don’t think so maybe I’m wrong .just use auto break and then Manuel that would be correct but here they say we should apply breaks 1 st so voila
Yes, of course. Why wouldn’t you?
Yes you would use full reverse unless you are on a slippery runway and you notice that directional control is uncertain, then you would reduce to idle reverse thrust.
@@iantalbot7364 Well that was my query, asymmetric reverse thrust causing directional control problem.
Bill Roberson is the pilot in this vid - he's now retired.