faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1556 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3874 times:
Recently on a 738 flight flight from GVA, the take-off was aborted practically 1-2 seconds after full T/O thrust was set. The aircraft then braked gently and exited from the first taxiway and headed directly back to the T/O holding point. It then took off normally; the flight to destination was uneventful.
My question is besides faulty/spurious warning lights/indicators, what could have produced such a abort? Without the benefit of hindsight, could the decision to directly proceed to T/O after the mini-abort have been warranted?
DogBreath From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3852 times:
There can be a great deal of reasons for a rejected T/O. In your case it was a low speed reject and could have been one of the following:
1. Beginning the T/O without an T/O clearance.
2. ATC cancels the T/O clearance due any number of reasons.
3. Birds sighted on the runway or T/O flight path.
4. Predictive Windshear Warning.
5. T/O configuration warning horns sounds.
These are just a few examples, and I'm sure others may be able to add further reasons.
The fact that the crew taxied back for a normal T/O indicates to me that the reason was rectified without any problems and the remainder of the flight was presumably operated normally.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3631 times:
Quoting faro (Thread starter): Without the benefit of hindsight, could the decision to directly proceed to T/O after the mini-abort have been warranted?
Do you mean proceed directly to a T/O without leaving the runway, or do you mean going ahead to takeoff after looping back around to the beginning of the runway?
The former would not be acceptable, since it would invalidate all your performance calculations and takeoff procedures. The latter would be fine, provided that the reason for the "min-abort" was no longer present.
lax25r From United States of America, joined May 2008, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
I've seen this type of aborted takeoff at San Francisco a couple of times a day. San Francisco's runways intersect, and ATC usually departs aircraft off the 1L and 1R and lands 28L and 28R. The abort usually goes something like this:
1) ATC clears an aircraft to takeoff of runway 1L or 1R with an aircraft on a 2-3 mile final for one of the 28s.
2) The departing aircraft doesn't start their takeoff roll right away and instead waits a few seconds.
3) By the time they've just applied takeoff power, the aircraft on final to the intersecting runway is now too close, and ATC cancels the takeoff clearance for the aircraft departing the 1s.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3151 times:
Had this happen on a UA 744 flying ICN-SFO. Accelerated to 45mph on the runway then turned off back onto the taxiway. Pilots claimed some paperwork issue for maint. stuff. Flight was slightly delayed from the get go for repairs.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2715 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3075 times:
I was on a UA flight one time listening to channel 9 during taxi-out and one of the planes ahead of us aborted takeoff. The UA plane announced its abort to the tower and the tower asked if the plane needed any assistance. The crew replied in the negative saying the F/O's window was left open. Oops.