Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aborted Takeoff At PHL 6/20  
User currently offlineCanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

A US A319 from PHL to PBI aborted takeoff this afternoon, stopping a few feet from the end of the runway. The aircraft was bouncing up and down as it neared V1 speed, and once it reached that speed the pilot aborted. The brakes were applied, something shorted out in the cockpit and at least one tire blew. No injuries reported. This info from a very credible source. Didn't get flight number or further details. Anyone else have more info on this incident?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5329 times:



Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
The aircraft was bouncing up and down as it neared V1 speed, and once it reached that speed the pilot aborted.

If the plane was AT V1, the protocol is to go, not abort unless the plane is not gonna fly once airborne.



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineCanyonBlue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5225 times:



Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 1):
If the plane was AT V1, the protocol is to go, not abort unless the plane is not gonna fly once airborne.

I am just repeating what was told to me from an observer on board. And while I know the protocol is to go at V1, there are always exceptions depending on circumstance. This is why I was hoping someone else would have further details.

The observation that it took the entire rest of the runway at PHL to stop the aircraft does support the idea that the A319 could have been at V1.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5207 times:



Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 1):
If the plane was AT V1, the protocol is to go, not abort unless the plane is not gonna fly once airborne.

The faster the plane is moving, the more serious failure is required to warrant a rejected takeoff. Near V1, it must have been a pretty serious failure. Generally, when the plane is moving that fast, it is best to get in the air and then deal with the problem unless it is especially serious.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePhllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

It was 1937 and it left PHL for PBI 12:56 and arrived 4:25

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5068 times:



Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 2):
I am just repeating what was told to me from an observer on board.

Unless that "observer" was seated on the forward side of the cockpit door somewhere and had technical training on the operation of the aircraft, their observations are thus highly subjective, if not a tad over-emotionalized.

Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 2):
The observation that it took the entire rest of the runway at PHL to stop the aircraft does support the idea that the A319 could have been at V1.

Ditto; See above.

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
A US A319 from PHL to PBI aborted takeoff this afternoon

OK, it happened...

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
stopping a few feet from the end of the runway

According to who? Did they measure it? Do they know what a stopway is?

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
The aircraft was bouncing up and down

Any more than a "normal" takeoff run, or landing?

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
as it neared V1 speed

Was there an airspeed indicator installed in the passenger cabin so someone could say for sure?

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
and once it reached that speed

Ditto.

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
the pilot aborted

How does anyone know precisely when the captain initiated the abort, absent having witnessed it with their own eyeballs?

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
The brakes were applied

How about the ground spoilers and thrust reversers; them too?

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
something shorted out in the cockpit

Sounds like a big fat assumption.... See next item..

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
and at least one tire blew

In reality, high-speed abort/RTO = high brake energy (expressed in millions of foot-pounds) = heat = heat transfer to wheel assemblies = fuse plugs melt = deflated tires. Sounds like a typical high-speed abort/RTO, i.e. nothing "shorted out..."

Again, I realize that you're just repeating the observations made by someone else, and that you deem them credible, but that said, their account is pegging the hyperbole-meter...  Wink


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5010 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
In reality, high-speed abort/RTO = high brake energy (expressed in millions of foot-pounds) = heat = heat transfer to wheel assemblies = fuse plugs melt = deflated tires. Sounds like a typical high-speed abort/RTO, i.e. nothing "shorted out..."

I highly doubt that the tire 'blew'. It most likely deflated in an orderly fashion as you describe, meaning that all of the safety equipment did its job perfectly - a point I'm sure the media will conveniently skirt in favor of sensationalism.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
Again, I realize that you're just repeating the observations made by someone else, and that you deem them credible, but that said, their account is pegging the hyperbole-meter...

I think that you are on to something there.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRsg85 From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

OMG ground all a319's and suspend all US flights  sarcastic 

Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
Anyone else have more info on this incident?



Quoting Phllax (Reply 4):
It was 1937 and it left PHL for PBI 12:56 and arrived 4:25

If the flight still went ahead this in a non event

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):

Spot on


User currently offlineCaspian27 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4921 times:

Thank goodness for OPNLguy's comments. How do you know they're at V1 unless you're in the flight deck? Obviously everything worked like it should since they didn't go off the end...


Meanwhile, somewhere 35,000 ft above your head...
User currently offlineCanyonBlue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4585 times:



Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 8):
How do you know they're at V1 unless you're in the flight deck?



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
How does anyone know precisely when the captain initiated the abort, absent having witnessed it with their own eyeballs?



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
Unless that "observer" was seated on the forward side of the cockpit door somewhere and had technical training on the operation of the aircraft, their observations are thus highly subjective, if not a tad over-emotionalized

The observer was in the cockpit. A second US source confirmed "abort" today.


User currently offlineCanyonBlue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

I know how detailed and specific A.netters are and I would not have posted unless the source was credible with first hand eye-witness knowledge.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4429 times:



Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 9):
The observer was in the cockpit. A second US source confirmed "abort" today.



Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 10):
I know how detailed and specific A.netters are and I would not have posted unless the source was credible with first hand eye-witness knowledge.

Although we now all know which side of the cockpit door they were on, the other comments still make one wonder about their tech background, i.e. was the jumpseater a pilot, dispatcher, or AMT, or whether it was someone (still authorized to ride) who didn't have as much as a tech background, if any. That the "blown" tire(s) seemed to be attributed to "something in the cockpit shorting out" suggests that whoever the rider was didn't have a grasp on what commonly happens in the aftermath of a high-speed RTO as far a brakes, wheels, fuse plugs, and deflated tires are concerned.

But, to steal a line from Monty Python's classic "Holy Grail" flick, "Let's not bicker about who killed who---this is supposed to be a 'appy occasion!" Glad the abort went well, the aircraft stayed on the runway, nobody was hurt, no aircraft damage (other than brake changes and another set of MLG tires) and that PHL didn't have a disabled aircraft on a runway that would have generated HUGE delays.

On that latter note, several years ago at LAS, a Rich International L-1011 aborted takeoff on 25R. They were going to Hawaii, full of pax and fuel for the long flight, and thus heavy in all senses of the word. The RTO was initiated (IIRC) somewhere above 100 kts., but below their V1, and it was a max effort stop (even with 25R's 1% uphill slope). They were about halfway into the turnoff at the end of 25R when the MLG tires started deflating from the fuse plugs in the wheels melting from the heat, and that's where the aircraft ended up sitting for 10-12 hours. Nobody could use 25R, and the shorter 25L only provided enough weight to get short- and -mid-range flights off the ground (Very hot day, 105+). I had to fuel-stop about 3 of my long-haul flights that day--major PITA, but unavoidable under the circumstances. All the brakes and tires on the L-1011 had to be changed on-site before the aircraft could be moved off 25R. Since Rich International didn't have a full shipset of L-1011 brakes/tires on-hand in LAS, they had to borrow some from DL/EA/TW, and what those folks didn't have locally, some had to be COMATed in from LAX and SFO.

Yep, high-speed RTOs are tons of fun...Not!


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7730 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Just read this thread and something just occured to me, namely runway design length and derated takeoff. Initially runway length is decided based on what, most runways existed at the start of the jet age and were in some cases lengthened, how does derate takeoff affect the stopping "area" of the runway.
Derate takeoffs mean that more runway is used, so whatever buffer was created for RTO becomes smaller, does that have anything to do with the rule of V1 speed means fly, if you "have enough stopping distance" is it not safer to stop rather than go airborne in the event of an emergency?


User currently offlineJamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4067 times:



Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
The aircraft was bouncing up and down as it neared V1 speed, and once it reached that speed the pilot aborted

So the aircraft started bouncing and the pilots waited until V1 to call stop?

Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 10):
I know how detailed and specific A.netters are and I would not have posted unless the source was credible with first hand eye-witness knowledge.

Can the jumpseater give anything more accurate than "bouncing up and down"?

From previous sims it sounds to me like that the jumping up and down could have been caused by a blowout on takeoff which is a minor event. Also explains the one tire "blew".

Up to 100kts we'll stop for anything, after 100 its only serious things that will stop us getting airborne (fire, loss of thrust, ecam, control probs resulting in being unable to get into the air).


User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3910 times:



Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 9):
The observer was in the cockpit. A second US source confirmed "abort" today.



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 11):
Although we now all know which side of the cockpit door they were on, the other comments still make one wonder about their tech background, i.e. was the jumpseater a pilot, dispatcher, or AMT, or whether it was someone (still authorized to ride) who didn't have as much as a tech background, if any.

My question exactly.

Quoting Jamotcx (Reply 13):
Can the jumpseater give anything more accurate than "bouncing up and down"?

This makes me think the observer was not a pilot. Still, if you suspected a control failure, would you abort at V1? I think you would have to take the lesser of two evils. Then the question becomes what symptom would cause a pilot to conclude that is was better to abort at V1 than continue flying?



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 2):
And while I know the protocol is to go at V1, there are always exceptions depending on circumstance

Never above V1 unless the plane literally won't fly and it would be safer to allow the overrun or possible stop. I will say that if using clutter speeds (lower V1 for contaminated runways) and an failure occurs after V1, depending on where, what, and when I would think the reject would be better.

Example........ We use max thrust when we do clutter speeds. Say we were very light and using the full length of a long runway. Were going to reach V1 very early (say 2000 feet into a 11,000 foot runway). As such were obviously going to be able to stop the plane in the remaining 9000 feet.

The problem arises for the above situation as to "when" that cutoff should be. That is why V1 is still the key no matter what.

Again the above is my opinion but I think its better then lifting off into IMC and doing all the E/O stuff plus the possibility of having to also navigate a t-procedure (engine out SID).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Near V1, it must have been a pretty serious failure

We have 80 - V1 only for the following: Engine fire, failure, PWS, or aircraft becomes unflyable. Nothing about a busted tire so I think "something" is missing or the problem was more then just a busted tire.

There was actually an incident a few years ago at "my" airline where a quota pilot thought an engine failure was a blown tire and continued the roll, the failure occurring past 80 knots. Needless to say they just cleared the threshold and yeah........ Thing is I really only know the story from a website and don't understand why the captain didn't step in since he has the authority. Needless to say the reject things are highly emphasized now.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):

As was said before.... spot on!

Quoting CanyonBlue17 (Reply 9):

The observer was in the cockpit. A second US source confirmed "abort" today.

Would have helped if you would have said that at the start. I'm an "observer" whenever I fly in seat 34D so that term can be used many ways,

[Edited 2009-06-21 17:33:36]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Flight Aborted Takeoff At PIT posted Tue Aug 9 2005 16:37:38 by PITA333
747 Aborted Takeoff At YVR posted Sat Dec 11 2004 01:39:08 by CO737800
NW 752 At PHL 9/20 posted Mon Sep 20 2004 20:50:05 by PHLBOS
Aborted Landing At PHL? posted Mon Sep 13 2004 00:04:53 by Cha747
AC320 Wild Aborted Takeoff At YYZ Today! posted Tue Feb 10 2004 03:00:00 by AirbusfanYYZ
AN-124 At PHL posted Wed Jun 17 2009 19:01:58 by Sancho99504
Interesting Aircraft At PHL Today 17 Jun 09 posted Wed Jun 17 2009 14:46:08 by Sancho99504
Aborted Takeoff Today posted Sat May 16 2009 05:11:33 by Tennis69
Anyone See The DC-6 Takeoff At MIA This Morning? posted Fri May 15 2009 07:28:56 by N62NA
AA At PHL Baggage Theft - "Hive Of Scum" posted Fri Apr 3 2009 11:18:40 by PlateMan