Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA 507 DCA-ORD Just Rejected Take Off  
User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 620 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Hi! I'm aboard AA 507 from DCA to ORD and just had my first rejected take off. I was wondering if anyone had any more insight into it.

We had just gone to take-off power and started down the runway when we throttled back and began awkwardly braking until we exited the runway and went back onto the parallel taxiway. The captain assued us everything was okay and he just had to do some additional "recalculations." after two more departures and an arrival before us, we reentered the runway and away we went!?

Would the captain had noticed he had more paperwork to do just as he departed or was it traffic/ATC related?

Just wondering if anyone has any insight. Saw quite a few folks over at Gravelly Pt. Were any of you there this morning!?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Thread starter):
I was wondering if anyone had any more insight into it.

How would we know? Why didn't you ask the Captain when you got off the plane?

Quoting mhkansan (Thread starter):
Would the captain had noticed he had more paperwork to do just as he departed or was it traffic/ATC related?

Again, why didn't you ask the Captain when you got off the plane?


User currently offlineSAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

If it was paperwork, it might've been his performance calculations. (Just a thought).

His Accelerate Check Time might've been off, or he had a feeling that a speed didn't make sense. Rather stop and recalculate than screwing up a good flying day.

Erich



On-board Direction Consultant
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

Maybe some system shown fault, and after vacating it was decided not required for departure...


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 2):
His Accelerate Check Time might've been off...

Is an Accelerate Time Check really done on all takeoffs?



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlinekcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3763 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 4):
Is an Accelerate Time Check really done on all takeoffs?

I would think so on shorter runways especially.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 2):
His Accelerate Check Time might've been off, or he had a feeling that a speed didn't make sense. Rather stop and recalculate than screwing up a good flying day.
Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 5):
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 4):
Is an Accelerate Time Check really done on all takeoffs?


I would think so on shorter runways especially.

I hope AAR90 will put this to rest promptly: I have not seen Normal or Min Accel Check Speeds (or times as a proxy) used outside of military operations, and have certainly never used them myself in DCA in the hundreds of times I have been there. I have never seen this data presented in the pilot manual set for any Boeing, McD, Lockheed, or Airbus I have flown (though doubtless the data exists for engineering and performance analysis purposes; the data might be buried in the performance section of the FCOM or equivalent, but I have certainly never had the need to look for it.) Nor have I encountered these speeds/times/distances in any civil contract flying or instruction I have done for a variety of airlines from all over the world.

Actual knowledge beats speculation in any thread of this nature, so please chime in AAR90.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3451 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
Actual knowledge beats speculation in any thread of this nature, so please chime in AAR90.

Not sure what you wish to know. AA does not utilize accelerate time checks for takeoffs.

Taking the original statement that there were "additional recalculations" to be made, the most logical situation was that the crew received an ACARS message canceling their "Load Closeout" (final weight/balance numbers --normally sent via ACARS). Many different things can cause a Load Closeout to be canceled (it is an automated function) and no AA flight may takeoff without a valid Load Closeout.

The plane is flying its second ORD-SFO flight today and there is nothing in the electronic maintenance log to indicate any mechanical problems (past 2 days). Probably just another paperwork "SNAFU."



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 7):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
Actual knowledge beats speculation in any thread of this nature, so please chime in AAR90.

Not sure what you wish to know. AA does not utilize accelerate time checks for takeoffs.

I wanted an AA pilot to definitively stop the speculation that there was an issue with an acceleration time or speed check (which I was confident you did not use,) but nobody can speak more authoritatively here on AA's procedures than you, hence my desire to have you put that theory to rest promptly. Thank you.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Thread starter):

The reasons are too numerous to mention. Just because he said 'calculations' doesn't really mean that was the reason.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinetwinotter From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
The reasons are too numerous to mention. Just because he said 'calculations' doesn't really mean that was the reason.

Exactly. Low-energy rejected takeoffs aren't terribly unusual. I know of a pilot who left a personal item on the console that blocked the throttles. I don't know what he said to the passengers about the rejected takeoff, but I know it wasn't the whole truth!


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 3):
Maybe some system shown fault, and after vacating it was decided not required for departure...

There are actually very few fault indications which would cause a crew to reject a takeoff. The ones which do exist are very rare to occur only after you have selected TO thrust. Not impossible, but very unlikely. Config warnings would appear well before TO thrust was selected. Other time-critical flight deck effects (the kind you would reject a takeoff for) are exceptionally rare. On Boeing aircraft (AA507 is a 737-800) for most types of faults, it is legal and crews are trained to complete the current flight leg, (which begins at engine start) with the fault present. If this happened to be one of those rare instances where it was indeed a flight deck indication requiring rejection of the takeoff, it is unlikely to be a fault which could be addressed via "paperwork" (e.g. the MEL), with the aircraft getting a fresh release within minutes.

Given the fact the airplane almost immediately received a fresh release and is now continuing a second leg with a clean logbook, AAR90's guess at a late call regarding an airplane weight or CG change seems as probable as any other scenario. I'd just feel a lot better if those calls were happening well prior to the TO roll.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
AAR90's guess at a late call regarding an airplane weight or CG change seems as probable as any other scenario. I'd just feel a lot better if those calls were happening well prior to the TO roll.

I certainly cannot speak to this incident, obviously, or for AA policy, but if I had what appeared to be a reasonable set of weights and speeds, I would be disinclined to reject a takeoff for a paperwork issue, and certainly I would not at high speed (I have no clue at what speed this occurred, of course.)

The PIC is the one on the spot, and he is the best informed of the aircraft's overall situation; that he didn't elaborate on the specific cause of the RTO and instead put it into words the vast majority of travelers can understand is completely defensible and reasonable.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
I would be disinclined to reject a takeoff for a paperwork issue, and certainly I would not at high speed

Indeed. RTOs have their own set of risks, most of which increase with the speed at which you reject. I've only experienced one RTO on a revenue flight, and that happened at around 10 knots... not much risk there. 15 seconds later, it's a completely different situation.


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
There are actually very few fault indications which would cause a crew to reject a takeoff.

I can understand that for high-speed reject, but how about 40ish knots?



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 14):
I can understand that for high-speed reject, but how about 40ish knots?

Boeing aircraft (and I suspect Airbus are similar) will inhibit most flight deck effects during the takeoff roll, simply because they don't want the flight crew thinking about anything other than flying the airplane when the flight deck workload is very high. There are exceptions to this, but very few, and the exceptions are limited to those faults which require immediate crew awareness or action.

As far as turning back to the gate for non time-critical messages (e.g. Status-level EICAS messages in a Boeing), it doesn't matter whether you are starting your takeoff roll or are just beginning your taxi away from the gate, once the engines are started, crews are legal to complete the current leg. They may choose not to for reasons such as where maintenance or parts are available, or for reasons of passenger comfort, etc., but there is no legal obligation to abort the flight.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 15):
As far as turning back to the gate for non time-critical messages (e.g. Status-level EICAS messages in a Boeing), it doesn't matter whether you are starting your takeoff roll or are just beginning your taxi away from the gate, once the engines are started, crews are legal to complete the current leg.

CM: I generally agree with what you have said here, and while all your points are excellent it's worthwhile to note (you alluded to it in your final sentence) that individual carriers may have more restrictive policies in place than the aircraft was certified with. Obviously if it's in your carrier's procedures, you are bound by that as well.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21122 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):
if I had what appeared to be a reasonable set of weights and speeds, I would be disinclined to reject a takeoff for a paperwork issue, and certainly I would not at high speed (I have no clue at what speed this occurred, of course.)

   If I'm on the runway, I'm not really inclined to take a look at what's on the ACARS printer - my eyes should be outside. Once takeoff thrust is applied, I certainly don't want to look at it until safely off the ground.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

Rejected T/Os are not necessarily an emergency. It is possible to get a "Caution" message before 80 knots and reject for that. It may be something which can be reset but it would normally require an entry into the aircraft's logbook. It's no big deal normally and it is normally not worth explaining it to the passengers in great detail, as many of them don't understand. They just want to know that they're safe and when they can leave for their destination.

When I have a reject I explain in layman's terms what has happened, assure the passengers the situation is safe (We'd rather be on the ground wishing we were flying than in the air wishing we were back on the ground!) and that I will keep them informed as well as I can. Keeping passengers informed is important in these situations.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31580 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 18):
it is normally not worth explaining it to the passengers in great detail, as many of them don't understand. They just want to know that they're safe and when they can leave for their destination.

Exactly.....the reason could be a technical doubt or Flt ops doubt,but no point explaining details to the Pax.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 18):
Rejected T/Os are not necessarily an emergency. It is possible to get a "Caution" message before 80 knots and reject for that. It may be something which can be reset but it would normally require an entry into the aircraft's logbook. It's no big deal normally and it is normally not worth explaining it to the passengers in great detail, as many of them don't understand. They just want to know that they're safe and when they can leave for their destination.

I was thinking exactly this. I am not sure now how TO inhibit works in a 737 but I recall being told by an ATR pilot that TO inhibit only kicks in after 70KIAS.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AA 507 DCA-ORD Just Rejected Take Off
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A346 Rejected Take-off posted Mon May 17 2010 00:02:13 by natesantiago88
Tyre Burst Just Before Take Off V1 - Do What? posted Sat May 20 2006 23:45:51 by JulianUK
RTO(Rejected Take Off) Setting On AutoBrake posted Sat Oct 29 2005 19:28:02 by Julesmusician
Helicopters That Couldn't Take Off Vertically? posted Fri Feb 17 2012 14:34:51 by timz
Trigger Of Take Off Config Warning 737 NG posted Tue Feb 14 2012 05:57:12 by smartt1982
Take Off Run Vs Altitude. Rule Of Thumb? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 16:41:57 by a380900
707 Holding Brakes On Take Off posted Thu Jan 26 2012 00:12:34 by Jackbr
CO 727 Take Off Video,whats Happening? posted Sat Jan 21 2012 10:44:10 by readytotaxi
Night Take Off Tail Fin Lights On... posted Fri Dec 16 2011 18:47:26 by eastern023
Reason For Take-off Pitch? posted Thu Dec 8 2011 15:47:05 by shufflemoomin
Trigger Of Take Off Config Warning 737 NG posted Tue Feb 14 2012 05:57:12 by smartt1982
Take Off Run Vs Altitude. Rule Of Thumb? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 16:41:57 by a380900
707 Holding Brakes On Take Off posted Thu Jan 26 2012 00:12:34 by Jackbr
CO 727 Take Off Video,whats Happening? posted Sat Jan 21 2012 10:44:10 by readytotaxi
Night Take Off Tail Fin Lights On... posted Fri Dec 16 2011 18:47:26 by eastern023
Reason For Take-off Pitch? posted Thu Dec 8 2011 15:47:05 by shufflemoomin

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format