Aircraft crashed due to wrong take-off performance

[Gabriel]

Remember I said in the simulator, so it will almost always be an outboard engine failure. And it was AFTER V1 so you fly!

(yes, yes, in the sim)

So. you lose an engine after V1, abort the take-off, and fly????

"How many times did you have to abort at the exact moment before V1"

Dozens of times, in the simulator! And many dozens more at the exact moment AFTER V1

And no, unsafe or unable to fly, you abort. You don'f fly even if it is after V1.

[BoeingBobby]

(yes, yes, in the sim)

So. you lose an engine after V1, abort the take-off, and fly????



And no, unsafe or unable to fly, you abort. You don'f fly even if it is after V1.

Well young man, you will NEVER make it as an airline pilot then! After V1 you go, unless you are taking off from Edwards AFB or the Shuttle strip. NO QUESTIONS, NO EXCUSES! That is what V1 is all about. And this is Exactly why you little airplane/MSFS pilots have NO business talking about what you have no F*****G idea what you are saying!

[Gabriel]

Dear BoiengBobby,
Fuck you!

I am not an experienced pilot like you. But I DO HAVE A FUCKING IDEA OF WHAT I AM SAYING.
STOP THROWING YOUR TITLES AT ME AND CALLING NAMES ON ME.

If you are a good pilot and have a good knowledge: SHOW IT. SHOW YOUR KNOWLEDGE, NOT YOUR TITLES.
If I am wrong: SHOW IT. SHOW MY MISTAKES, EXPLAIN WHY IT'S WRONG, HOW IS RIGHT, AND WHY. DON'T CALL ME NAMES.

By now, you are failing a good deal at that, I am really starting to question whether you are such a great pilot as you said. (I know, not that you care the smallest bit about what I question or not).
Many of your interventions here look rather the opposite. Your 20 second to 80 knots rule, your "seat of the pants" TOPMS, using yourself as safety statistics to try to make a point, and now this.

So...
- You said you rejected the take-off after V1 dozens of times (in the sim) (after your following interventions, I realized that is not what you wanted to say, but that is factually what you did say).
- I reply to that what made the plane unsafe or unable to fly, because I KNOW that this is the only reason to abort a take-off after V1.
- And then you call names on me saying that, no matter what, after V1 you have to go no matter what.

That is NOT the case. Yes, it has to be extreme situations. Situations where you, the captain, judge that an overrun (and even a high speed overrun) will be preferable to insisting to take off a plane that you judge will not fly or will crash shortly after take-off. At this point the decision is how you prefer to crash: While braking and losing energy or at a much higher speed (and maybe altitude).

I do not know if you ever practice an aborted take-off after V1. But it is there in the manuals and training material.
AND YOU SHOULD KNOW IT. AND YOU CALL ME NAMES ON YOUR OWN IGNORANCE.

So are you going to continue the take-off if, after V1, the landing gear fails and, as a result of the drag, the plane starts to lose speed so you will never get to Vr anyway? And you are going to keep the engines at TOGA and not apply brakes so you crash as fast as possible?
What if 2 or more engines fail?
What if the plane will not rotate an inch even applying full back yoke?

Now, go tell these guys below that they are little airplane/MSFS pilots that have NO business talking about what they have no F*****G idea what they are saying.

Boeing 737 Flight Crew Trainiung Manual

Rejecting the takeoff after V1 is not recommended unless the captain judges the
airplane incapable of flight.

airbus.com

Above V1
At V1, the Captain’s hand comes off the thrust levers/throttles, and the PF can continue
the takeoff even if a malfunction or a problem is then detected, because it may not be
possible to stop the aircraft on the remaining runway length.
Note:
The Captain can consider to reject a takeoff when the aircraft is above V1, only in
the event that the aircraft is not able to ensure a safe flight.

Runway overrun after rejected take-off of the Onur Air MD-88, registration TC-ONP, at Groningen Airport Eelde on 17 June 2003

2.5.8 Rejected take-off

The take-off concept with its various check speeds is mainly based on the assumption that a take-off
can be continued safely after V1. Though if a pitch control problem is at hand, this will most probably
remain unnoticed until at rotation. When the inability to rotate becomes evident rejection of the
take-off may lead to a runway overrun.

Considering the unusual high pull force the captain experienced, in combination with the absence of
significant rotation, it is reasonable that in this situation he thought that “he could not make the
take-off”. It is questionable that continuation of the take-off would have turned out to be successful. Considering
the circumstances rejecting the take-off might have been the less bad choice.

smartcockipt.com

Do not initiate a stop after V1 unless the aircraft is incapable of flight.

[BoeingBobby]

Look Gabriel, I know there is a bit of a language difference for you here, and I did not call you a name other than young man. Yes there will at times be a mitigating circumstance to abort after V1. But if go back and look at the statistics since wide body aircraft have been in service, you will see that most of the accidents were the direct result of a rejected take-off. However for 99.999% of the time V1 is "takeoff safety speed" and to abort after it will end up with a bent airframe and possible loss of life. Please read very carefully the couple of items that you posted above.

Originally Posted by Boeing
Rejecting the takeoff after V1 is not recommended unless the captain judges the
airplane incapable of flight.

Originally Posted by Airbus
Above V1
At V1, the Captain’s hand comes off the thrust levers/throttles, and the PF can continue
the takeoff even if a malfunction or a problem is then detected, because it may not be
possible to stop the aircraft on the remaining runway length.
Note:
The Captain can consider to reject a takeoff when the aircraft is above V1, only in
the event that the aircraft is not able to ensure a safe flight.

[Gabriel]

I did not call you a name other than young man.

No sir:

you little airplane/MSFS pilots have NO business talking about what you have no F*****G idea what you are saying!

You, sir, believe that being a 747 pilot with dozens thousands hours and years of experience makes you a sort of deity, and that a little fly like me cannot correct you and be right.
That is very dangerous, especially in an airliner captain. And in one of your caliber, it is very disappointing too.

Yes there will at times be a mitigating circumstance to abort after V1. But if go back and look at the statistics since wide body aircraft have been in service, you will see that most of the accidents were the direct result of a rejected take-off. However for 99.999% of the time V1 is "takeoff safety speed" and to abort after it will end up with a bent airframe and possible loss of life.

Exactly, and that is why you reject after V1 ONLY IF you, the captain, judge that continuing the take-off will be even worse.

Please read very carefully the couple of items that you posted above.

Aha, again shifting the burden. Do you really think that I didn't? What's wrong with you?

Why don't YOU better read what YOU an me said here? Again? Carefully?

Gabe: How many times did you have to abort at the exact moment before V1?
BB: Dozens of times, in the simulator! And many dozens more at the exact moment AFTER V1 [Do you realize that you just said that in the sim you aborted dozens of times AFTER V1??? Yes, later I learnt that it was not your intention to say that, but you did say it and I didn't know that you intended otherwise]
Gabe: What made the plane unsafe or unable to fly? [Because I do know that what you said, i.e. aborting after V1, is a total no-no unless there are desperate circumstances where you have to choose not the best but the least worse, like, I don't know, that the plane won't fly?]
BB: it will almost always be an outboard engine failure. And it was AFTER V1 so you fly! [There is where I realized of YOUR mistake, you meant to say that you made the GO decision just after V1 dozens of times, which is NOT what you said]
Gabe: So. you lose an engine after V1, abort the take-off, and fly???? [I said that to show the contradiction between what you had said before and there, and see if you realized of your mistake] And no, unsafe or unable to fly, you abort. You don'f fly even if it is after V1. [I was keeping my previous position]
BB: Well young man, you will NEVER make it as an airline pilot then! After V1 you go, unless you are taking off from Edwards AFB or the Shuttle strip. NO QUESTIONS, NO EXCUSES! That is what V1 is all about. And this is Exactly why you little airplane/MSFS pilots have NO business talking about what you have no F*****G idea what you are saying! [Do you need any explanatory notes for this post?]
Gabe: That is NOT the case. Yes, it has to be extreme situations. Situations where you, the captain, judge that an overrun (and even a high speed overrun) will be preferable to insisting to take off a plane that you judge will not fly or will crash shortly after take-off. At this point the decision is how you prefer to crash: While braking and losing energy or at a much higher speed (and maybe altitude).
BB: Look Gabriel, I know there is a bit of a language difference for you here [really?], and I did not call you a name other than young man. [Really??] Please read very carefully the couple of items that you posted above. [REALLY?????? So you are the one making mistakes, the one saying I am wrong when I correct them, and I am the one with a problem here?]

You, sir, have a serious attitude problem. And I am not talking pitch and bank (although the problem in the former can one day lead to a problem in the later).
It is called arrogance, and it is one of the 7 deadly sins (hubris, perhaps the source and most serious of all 7).

[BoeingBobby]

No sir:


You, sir, believe that being a 747 pilot with dozens thousands hours and years of experience makes you a sort of deity, and that a little fly like me cannot correct you and be right.
That is very dangerous, especially in an airliner captain. And in one of your caliber, it is very disappointing too.


Exactly, and that is why you reject after V1 ONLY IF you, the captain, judge that continuing the take-off will be even worse.


Aha, again shifting the burden. Do you really think that I didn't? What's wrong with you?

Why don't YOU better read what YOU an me said here? Again? Carefully?

Gabe: How many times did you have to abort at the exact moment before V1?
BB: Dozens of times, in the simulator! And many dozens more at the exact moment AFTER V1 [Do you realize that you just said that in the sim you aborted dozens of times AFTER V1??? Yes, later I learnt that it was not your intention to say that, but you did say it and I didn't know that you intended otherwise]
Gabe: What made the plane unsafe or unable to fly? [Because I do know that what you said, i.e. aborting after V1, is a total no-no unless there are desperate circumstances where you have to choose not the best but the least worse, like, I don't know, that the plane won't fly?]
BB: it will almost always be an outboard engine failure. And it was AFTER V1 so you fly! [There is where I realized of YOUR mistake, you meant to say that you made the GO decision just after V1 dozens of times, which is NOT what you said]
Gabe: So. you lose an engine after V1, abort the take-off, and fly???? [I said that to show the contradiction between what you had said before and there, and see if you realized of your mistake] And no, unsafe or unable to fly, you abort. You don'f fly even if it is after V1. [I was keeping my previous position]
BB: Well young man, you will NEVER make it as an airline pilot then! After V1 you go, unless you are taking off from Edwards AFB or the Shuttle strip. NO QUESTIONS, NO EXCUSES! That is what V1 is all about. And this is Exactly why you little airplane/MSFS pilots have NO business talking about what you have no F*****G idea what you are saying! [Do you need any explanatory notes for this post?]
Gabe: That is NOT the case. Yes, it has to be extreme situations. Situations where you, the captain, judge that an overrun (and even a high speed overrun) will be preferable to insisting to take off a plane that you judge will not fly or will crash shortly after take-off. At this point the decision is how you prefer to crash: While braking and losing energy or at a much higher speed (and maybe altitude).
BB: Look Gabriel, I know there is a bit of a language difference for you here [really?], and I did not call you a name other than young man. [Really??] Please read very carefully the couple of items that you posted above. [REALLY?????? So you are the one making mistakes, the one saying I am wrong when I correct them, and I am the one with a problem here?]

You, sir, have a serious attitude problem. And I am not talking pitch and bank (although the problem in the former can one day lead to a problem in the later).
It is called arrogance, and it is one of the 7 deadly sins (hubris, perhaps the source and most serious of all 7).

Gabriel

Senior Member

Join Date

Jan 2008

Location

Buenos Aires - Argentina

Posts

5,351 You have time for a job?

Chief Instructor, Sweet Monkey River Flight School, Del Sur. You hold a CFI?
CEO - Sweet Monkey River Flight School Group.

Oh yea, I'm arrogant!

[3WE]

Dear BoiengBobby,
[Expletive deleted]

Gabriel, chill man.

I know that Boeing Bobby is making some invalid arguments here and there, but the overly-bold-outsider aspect versus the insider who seriously works his ass off every day in the interest of the safety of his boxes, his passengers or his own ass in a crazy-safe industry, and has to worry about a whole shit pot of OTHER safety issues where his personal TOPMS has some merit...it probably ranks a little less pontificating from the 100 hour PPL bunch.

Bobby- as an outsider, it at least seems to me like this might be another area where HAL/Otto/Betty whomever can monitor things and provide advice...that this might be an ok thing...and that you are overly dismissive of the concept. There was another professional pilot on another thread who saw merit to this sort of thing, so your opinion is not end-all.

Pilots do make mistakes, sometimes simultaneously.

And, in defense of Bobby, I'm not sure I've seen Gabriel acknowledge Bobby's valid concern of a false warning leading to a crash itself.

One other serious issue with all of this is if you do enter the wrong data, the TOPMS is going to wrongly tell you things are OK...right? So there's another slice of swiss chesse with a hole in it...even though it's another slice of swiss cheese...I guess we need load cells on the gear and the engines and the computer does everything on it's own...of course, how many load cells are that at what failure rate?

[Gabriel]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I am not mad at BB due to difference in technical issues.

I am mad with his attitude, because he is trying to impose his credentials as proof that he is right (after all, someone with his credentials necessarily has to be right, no?) while disdaining anybody's else say on the subject if their credentials don't come close to his (which would be about everybody else in the world), with a total disregard for whether what the other person is saying holds merit or not (after all, it can't be right, not if is contrary to the King's say, no?).

[Gabriel]

You have time for a job?

I do. I probably work more hours per week than you, which is actually good. It is much more critical-to-safety that a pilot is well rested than whether I am rested or not.

[/B]Chief Instructor, Sweet Monkey River Flight School, Del Sur. You hold a CFI?
CEO - Sweet Monkey River Flight School Group.

Oh yea, I'm arrogant!

That was a joke between 3we and myself, ironic, mocking ourselves, referring to a mysterious place where ITS supposedly used to fly his open cockpit vintage steam gauge plane, mostly to splice toilet paper with the propeller. 3we had a similar title (except that for the Del Norte branch). Now that 3we changed his signature, I should and will change mine.

I am not an instructor, chief or otherwise, I am not a CEO (or C, or E, baerly maybe an O) of anything, and the Sweet Monkey River Flight School doesn't exist (as probably the Sweet Monkey River airfield, the place where ITS said he flew, probably doesn't exist either).

I am a private pilot with some 180 hours TT, I don't even hold an instrument rating, I have not logged an hour in my logbook for some 17 years (although I did fly a few times since then with a qualified and current pilot or instructor). I do have many hours of ground trainer (aka simulator) since I was working toward my commercial certificate and instrument ticket, and also many more hours of MS Flight Simulator. I am an aeronautical engineer (a 6 years career) and in the same university I was assistant teacher in Material Science, Physics, Aerodynamics, and I had to reject an offer to be assistant teacher in Flight Operations (because it conflicted with Aerodynamics). I am also a dedicated reader of aviation accident reports and anything related with aviation safety.

But the most important thing is that NOTHING OF THAT MAKES ME RIGHT. EVER. NEVER. What I say makes me right if it is correct, or wrong if it is incorrect, regardless of any credential that I may have. And the same applies for everybody, including you.

[Evan]

And, in defense of Bobby, I'm not sure I've seen Gabriel acknowledge Bobby's valid concern of a false warning leading to a crash itself.

Again, how exactly? As I said before, TOPMS isn't changing the safe rules of piloting. If you get a false warning at an unsafe speed (and unsafe remaining runway) you firewall the levers and get on with it. If it's false, that's not going to be a problem. Otherwise, you stop, safely. The old rules apply.

Tell me, how many crashes have resulted from a false configuration warning?

I think BoeingBobby might be resisting progress on principal here, the principal being that he feels he doesn't need it. Sure, most of the time he's going down a runway, he doesn't have to place his faith in anyone but himself. But we need it! The passengers who fly on many planes with many different pilots of varying degrees of competence need it!

[3WE]

Again, how exactly?

Its math, not binary.

More things being monitored means more false warnings.

That means more chances for startle factor and pilot idiocy failure to follow procedures as you might say.

As to the folks who truly operate planes, polls say one in favor, two opposed.

[Evan]

Its math, not binary.

More things being monitored means more false warnings.

That means more chances for startle factor and pilot idiocy failure to follow procedures as you might say.

As to the folks who truly operate planes, polls say one in favor, two opposed.

That's not an answer. 'Startle factor' hardly applies to a two-dimensional phase where pilots are the most alert and prepared for something to go wrong and even if it did, what do you expect they are going to do mistakenly that leads to a crash? Pull up relentlessly? Shut down an engine? The only dangerous move I can see is if they reject at high speed and as I keep pointing out to you, TOPMS is going to alert you well before V1 and you are still going to adhere to the rules of the 80/100 and V1 callouts. Just like a configuration warning.

But if you insist on this having the potential for an accident, map it out for us, just one scenario...

[3WE]

...TOPMS is going to alert you well before V1...map it out for us, just one scenario.

Typical black and white thinking. TOPMS IS (period) going to alert you well before V1.

TOPMS is usually going to alert you well before V1...now can you get out of your black and white world enough to map out a scenario where it goes off very close to V1 and the idiot pilots botch things?

It takes very little imagination to come up with potential mechanisms to lose acceleration at higher speeds (closer to V1) so TOPMS is gonna be monitoring and might just spit out a false warning if a swarm of dragonflies smacks the pitot tubes. Nor does it take much memory to come up with actual incidents where acceleration was fine early and faded late.

[3WE]

@#$%^@!~~!

@#%%^^@#! (maybe 2X the words)

[A few words edgewise]

The beauty of all of this is that it's a very classic Engineer - Pilot argument that goes waaaaay back.

Evident in:

The book "Fate is the Hunter"
Airport (Joe Patroni getting a 707 un stuck)
Flight of the Phoenix (model plane engineer vs. pilots)

...and, no doubt a real thing.

Engineers sit with their slide rules (and modern computers) and calculate things with very high confidence.

...however, they have been wrong, once or twice and killed folks.

Pilots sit with their butts on the line and see things break and develop a somewhat different perspective on things. (And yeah, they screw up sometimes too)

Sure, some arrogance creeps in too as well as simple us-vs-them human nature that happens everywhere.

[Gabriel]

Typical black and white thinking. TOPMS IS (period) going to alert you well before V1.

TOPMS is usually going to alert you well before V1...now can you get out of your black and white world enough to map out a scenario where it goes off very close to V1 and the idiot pilots botch things?

It takes very little imagination to come up with potential mechanisms to lose acceleration at higher speeds (closer to V1) so TOPMS is gonna be monitoring and might just spit out a false warning if a swarm of dragonflies smacks the pitot tubes. Nor does it take much memory to come up with actual incidents where acceleration was fine early and faded late.

If you are losing acceleration before V1 you need to abort.