Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aborted Takeoff At JFK  
User currently offlineCanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 469 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Delta Flt 140 a Boeing 757 from JFK to Brussels just aborted takeoff at JFK. Pilot called in no emergency assistance needed off the runway, but said reason for abort was "right engine generator problem."

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4410 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 5755 times:

Thankfully the abortion went well - it's a dark and stormy night in the NYC area.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineVikingA346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 5648 times:

Oh yeah it is. I was on the EWR ramp at about 6:10pm this evening and it came down harder than I've seen it in a LONG time. Short lasted though, sun came out ten minutes later! It's nasty again now though..


...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 5621 times:

Oh boy, Its been raining hard here in NYC. I was in Manhattan eating dinner with my family and friends and suddenly it rained hard. We didnt bring the car to Manhattan and we didnt bring umbrealla, so we waited for 3 hours until it settled. We ended up ordering more food so they wont tell us to go out Big grin Glad it went well.


It's a cultural thing.
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4934 times:



Quoting Canyonblue17 (Thread starter):
but said reason for abort was "right engine generator problem."

Exactly that....The IDG took a dump and maint had to replace it.

KD


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4917 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 1):
Thankfully the abortion went well - it's a dark and stormy night in the NYC area.

Uh, we just call them "aborted takeoffs" or "aborts", for what should be obvious reasons...


User currently offlineUSAFDO From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

The correct term is "RTO"=Rejected Take Off....

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4716 times:



Quoting USAFDO (Reply 6):
The correct term is "RTO"=Rejected Take Off....

Yes, that as well....


User currently offlineCanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4568 times:



Quoting USAFDO (Reply 6):
The correct term is "RTO"=Rejected Take Off

I had never heard that term before....much appreciated on the education. By the way...I just used the term "aborted takeoff" because that is what the pilot told JFK ATC.

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 4):
Exactly that....The IDG took a dump and maint had to replace it.

Nice to know I heard it right......thanks for the details. Any idea how bad the delay was? Did they use a different aircraft?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4528 times:



Quoting Canyonblue17 (Reply 8):
By the way...I just used the term "aborted takeoff" because that is what the pilot told JFK ATC.

"Aborted takeoff" is correct, as is "rejected takeoff". The problem with using "abortion" is that it has another meaning, and it's best not to confuse them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAirFrance From United States of America, joined May 2006, 60 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Hmmm surprised I am about and hour south of EWR and half hour north of BLM and have not seen any rain or CB's in the area. Guess there will be delays sooner or later.


Work Hard, Fly Often
User currently offlineCanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4311 times:



Quoting AirFrance (Reply 10):
Hmmm surprised I am about and hour south of EWR and half hour north of BLM and have not seen any rain or CB's in the area. Guess there will be delays sooner or later.

This happened last night 7/26 when the weather was quite horrible in NYC. Today, there was a strong line of thunderstorms stretching down most of the East Coast, but most of the nasty stuff stayed south of NYC.


User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

It would seem to me that for a modern aircraft with multiple backup systems, including an additional operative generator and RAT, that a single generator failure would not justify an RTO. Why risk possible aircraft damage or costly by-products of RTO such as blown tires? It would seem that in this type of scenario continuing takeoff, with a subsequesnt go-around and return to field, would suffice and present any compromise of safety.

[Edited 2009-07-27 18:34:14]

User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

jetBlue777, interested in goin to jfk soon? i may go sometime this week or next. Email me for updates. Thanks.


Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently offlineAviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1360 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 1):
Thankfully the abortion went well

Now that I've stopped laughing....

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
It would seem to me that for a modern aircraft with multiple backup systems, including an additional operative generator and RAT, that a single generator failure would not justify an RTO. Why risk possible aircraft damage or costly by-products of RTO such as blown tires? It would seem that in this type of scenario continuing takeoff, with a subsequesnt go-around and return to field, would suffice and present any compromise of safety.

Well, an inoperative generator can have repercussions on an ETOPS flight. Also, it really depends at what speed this takeoff was discontinued. If procedures were followed, it couldn't have been greater than 80 knots, and was probably slower.

There are pretty strict protocols, actually, so far as which types of failures will initiate an abort, and when. The plane's warnings systems are engineered to only generate certain cautions and warnings when above (or below) certain speeds. A pilot is NOT going to abort for a generator problem at or near V1, believe me.


PS

[Edited 2009-07-27 19:01:05]


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3707 times:



Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
It would seem to me that for a modern aircraft with multiple backup systems, including an additional operative generator and RAT, that a single generator failure would not justify an RTO. Why risk possible aircraft damage or costly by-products of RTO such as blown tires? It would seem that in this type of scenario continuing takeoff, with a subsequesnt go-around and return to field, would suffice and present any compromise of safety.

Depends on how fast you're going when the failure occurs. A bad generator isn't something you'd do a high-speed abort for - you'd just take it into the air, and then come back to the airport (definitely can't go crossing an ocean with only one engine generator working).

But if you're not going that fast, then the risk of damage to the airplane is very low, and you might as well keep the airplane on the ground, since you're going to come back anyway. Of course, the crew doesn't have time to diagnose a problem while the takeoff is proceeding, which is why the protocol is generally that if it's important enough to merit a caution light (not everything will, and some that normally would are inhibited during certain important phases of flight like takeoff and landing so as not to be a distraction), it's important enough to do a low-speed abort for, and figure out exactly what is wrong after you've stopped. High-speed aborts are just for fires, engine failures and other things that would have an adverse effect on the airplane's ability to fly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3586 times:



Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):

I sure as heck would not want to takeoff "knowing" I "might" have to use the RAT. If thats the case I'm going to be pulling a Sully real fast.

Its easier to reject the takeoff, if warranted, and taxi off the active then trying to fly an airplane around a complete CF of airspace while dealing with a problem.

Quoting Aviateur (Reply 14):
If procedures were followed, it couldn't have been greater than 80 knots, and was probably slower.

Yeah exactly, the "jist" goes something like this:
We will reject for everything before 80 knots, from 80 to V1 only for an engine fire, failure, PWS, or airplane becomes unflyable.


User currently offlineUSAFDO From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Also, the USAF, and some airlines pilots have standard phraseology for an RTO; "Reject, Reject, Reject" to be stated in the cockpit during take off roll if the take is not going to happen.

In that way it is supposed to alleviate any confusions as to what actions are being taking by either of the pilots....


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...
Usex Dash-8 Aborted Takeoff At PHL. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:20:07 by Cadet57
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
AC320 Wild Aborted Takeoff At YYZ Today! posted Tue Feb 10 2004 03:00:00 by AirbusfanYYZ
British Airways Concorde Abort Takeoff At JFK posted Sun Nov 17 2002 01:40:58 by EastCoast
AeroSur 727 At JFK Today (7/19) posted Sun Jul 19 2009 17:02:37 by TR1
AA Arrivals At JFK T4 posted Tue Jun 16 2009 20:31:44 by B707forever
Taxi Accident At JFK? posted Tue Jun 9 2009 08:58:01 by Loadsheet
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