Is this a good reason for a high speed RTO?

[tbayav8er]

I'd say good job to the crew. Electrical issues can be very complicated, and you never know...maybe the generator went offline due to an electrical fire. Better to reject the takeoff and potentially overheat the brakes than get airborne and realize you have an electrical fire. In our training, they basically say to reject below 80 kts for any caution, and between 80 kts and V1 for any fire or engine warning etc. Having said that, it's at your discretion as the pilot if you want to reject past 80 kts for less critical stuff. Have to use some decision making. Between 80 kts and V1, I tend to stay on the side of rejecting, rather than taking a problem into the air. Then again, I don't fly a wide body jet.

But yeah, I would not fault someone for doing a safe high speed reject, especially for a fault with the electrical system. You never know if that fault is going to snowball into more problems once you're airborne.

[GRK2]

Uh yeah, because those pesky electrical systems cause so many fires. A generator fault is NOT a great reason for a high speed reject. I'd rather have one less gen and go flying (esp when the RTOW is max weight) than burning brakes and/or blown fuse plugs any day! As for a FLAP EICAS warning above V1...I have to think that at the very least the crew would have confirmed a correct takeoff flap setting (at least the checklist covers that) and if they did have an incorrect flap setting, there would have been a Takeoff CONFIG warning well before take off thrust was set. THAT"S when you reject. If a decision is made to reject BEYOND V1, there'd better be a seriously good reason and explanation as to why it happened. I know my own concerns about heavy weights and V1 and reasons to reject and always include a conversation about what might constitute a decision to go flying rather than stop at heavy weights and high speeds. I'm certainly not second guessing the Cargojet reject at all, just wondering why the decision was made above V1? If it wasn't a CONFIG warning I think that jet was capable of flying perfectly well.

[ayseven]

I have no experience with this sort of thing, have never flown a jet (other than video games) am not referencing any QRH or anything, but my gut says that the crew decided to abort. They made a decision that may be debated later. Maybe it was not a good move for the equipment, but by my definition, it was a good move. The moral of the story is that he made a decision with enough runway to stop. Sometimes the wrong decision is the right decision.

People work with what they have available at the time, and we can talk til eternity second guessing - easy in retrospect. I have not read the whole thread, but can anybody enlighten me as to the manufacturer recommendations in this case?

[AuxBatOn]

https://www.cmfmag.ca/duty_calls/royal- ... n-florida/

In the accident described in the article, they were well past every abort point and yet, judgement from the pilot to put the aircraft back down, despite against SOPs, saved the lives of all onboard.

Going against SOPs is not always a bad thing. I’ll take popped tires over a ball of flames any day I have doubts.

[telex]

Above V1 why would they reject unless the captain had better insight, like excess runway. This would have required an over weight landing at high landing ref. considering flaps stuck if they took it into the air. It worked out so no issue and proper call at the time. I'm not sure if a human brain could weigh all this in the split second and muscle memory rules. That could be the question but a red warning light could move you towards wanting to stay on the ground.

Why would a flap problem require an overweight landing?

[valleyboy]

Why would a flap problem require an overweight landing?

Returning to an airport immediately after T/O would be an over weight landing on the planned flight. Flying around a heavy aircraft with flaps out, even at 1 degree is limiting, back on the ground is good. I don't think the 76 has fuel dumping and even if it did an O/W landing is much better than dumping fuel, especially in this day and age. The inspection involved is minor so operators will land over weight and to hang around and burn off the fuel is just silly, you open yourself up for more "issues".

[telex]

Why would a flap problem require an overweight landing?

Returning to an airport immediately after T/O would be an over weight landing on the planned flight. Flying around a heavy aircraft with flaps out, even at 1 degree is limiting, back on the ground is good. I don't think the 76 has fuel dumping and even if it did an O/W landing is much better than dumping fuel, especially in this day and age. The inspection involved is minor so operators will land over weight and to hang around and burn off the fuel is just silly, you open yourself up for more "issues".

Can you provide flightplan information to support your position that an overweight landing would be required for this flight?

What is limiting about flying a heavy around with flaps out?

I think B767-300 does have fuel dump capability...

Are you suggesting environmental issues are more important than following a checklist to dump fuel in an effort to land under max landing weight?

What "issues" will surface while flying around burning off fuel?

[valleyboy]

Fuel dumping is a thing of the past and a over weight landing is preferred. First you just can't dump fuel where ever you want to unless you are prepared for great mounds of paperwork and possible costs of impact studies and such. Sure if you ass is on the line "dump to minimums" was a common phrase in T/O emergencies but that was extreme with 2 engines out in a muli eng jet (more than 2 engines) The modern aircraft usually has enough power to weight ratio fuel dumping is not required. The other thing about fuel dumping is that ATC has specific areas which might be up to an hour flight time each way so why noty land over weight. It's done on a daily basis all over the world and providing crew does what they are trained for an aircraft inspection is carried prior to next flight.

I assume a 76 has a max t/o weight and a landing weight alone with a zero fuel weight. A trip to YFB is about 2.5 to 3 hours from YWG and alternates are either YVP or YRT (usually) and possibly YYQ This (while I do not have the manuals) would mean T/O weights would exceed landing weight at initial point of flight.

I'm not sure if you are trolling me or are not familiar with heavy jets. I have not flown a 76 but do have other boeing types on my ticket. For a pilot with light aircraft only experience landing over weight seems contradictory to all you were ever taught but it's done all the time and routinely as well. WX forecasting is getting better but even unforecast tail winds can put you in an over weight landing situation (which is usually ignored since a few hundred pounds on a 200,000 aircraft is so small) if you are operating at that magic point where max landing weight and load is predicated on the fuel load on touch down.

[pelmet]

Bottom line, we don’t know if this aircraft was over it’s max landing weight. As for fuel dumping policy, I worked at two airlines that had totally different policies. One wanted the overweight landing, likely to save fuel cost, while the more recent one had a policy to dump fuel for most of the time I was there.

[complexintentions]

Fuel dumping is a thing of the past and a over weight landing is preferred. First you just can't dump fuel where ever you want to unless you are prepared for great mounds of paperwork and possible costs of impact studies and such. Sure if you ass is on the line "dump to minimums" was a common phrase in T/O emergencies but that was extreme with 2 engines out in a muli eng jet (more than 2 engines) The modern aircraft usually has enough power to weight ratio fuel dumping is not required. The other thing about fuel dumping is that ATC has specific areas which might be up to an hour flight time each way so why noty land over weight. It's done on a daily basis all over the world and providing crew does what they are trained for an aircraft inspection is carried prior to next flight.

I assume a 76 has a max t/o weight and a landing weight alone with a zero fuel weight. A trip to YFB is about 2.5 to 3 hours from YWG and alternates are either YVP or YRT (usually) and possibly YYQ This (while I do not have the manuals) would mean T/O weights would exceed landing weight at initial point of flight.

I'm not sure if you are trolling me or are not familiar with heavy jets. I have not flown a 76 but do have other boeing types on my ticket. For a pilot with light aircraft only experience landing over weight seems contradictory to all you were ever taught but it's done all the time and routinely as well. WX forecasting is getting better but even unforecast tail winds can put you in an over weight landing situation (which is usually ignored since a few hundred pounds on a 200,000 aircraft is so small) if you are operating at that magic point where max landing weight and load is predicated on the fuel load on touch down.

Uhhh...overweight landings are not done "routinely" and jettisoning fuel is not a "thing of the past". You have zero idea of what you speak of.

WTF are you talking about with "unforecast tailwinds"? I've shown slightly over MLW at destination during cruise several times in the career, there are always strategies to reduce to landing weight, descend early, drop 14 tons of gear early...there is no justification for overweight landing due to poor planning. Don't know who you fly for, but just try casually landing overweight for any reputable operator and let us know how that goes for you. The QAR email will be waiting for you before you even taxi to the gate.

Oh and it's an old thread, but a high-speed reject for a generator failure is piss-poor risk management in any modern ETOPS twin with multiple electrical sources. There's a reason pretty much everything is inhibited after 80 and 100 kts. It's just plain riskier to reject going fast than to have your electrical supply reduced from three sources to two. Oh, the humanity. If only there was some other source of electricity installed on the aircraft.

Then there's the pain of reading the rationalizing of an incorrect decision with the ever-popular "captain's authority". Everyone wants to be a hero, gonna save the day by operating outside the box. Got away with it, so must be right. Wowsa. Let's extrapolate an engine gen failure into an uncontrollable cockpit fire. Makes sense. Now we can just abandon SOP's. Solid logic.

But the crown jewel: let's just reject AFTER V1. Why not? I'll just eyeball it, looks like about enough runway to stop.

Please God, is this all just a Christmas joke?

[valleyboy]

to each his own but from experience I can say fuel dumping from a controllable aircraft I would never do. BTW what happens if your type has no fuel dump capability. I suppose you are off the mind to burn fuel off for several hours and to to sweat 500 lbs in a 200 k aircraft now that is picking pepper out of fly shit. We don't have drive over scales so in reality what is the actual aircraft weight, minor errors are inevitable with use of standard weights, could be over or could be under. I was always amazed why aircraft MT weight was different whenever the aircraft was re - weighed.

Why there was a reject above V1 we will never know. I hope I would not do that given what I've seen such as CP air in YVR but I learned a long time ago - never say never - it's served me well over many years. At some point we should all learn that aviation is not black and white, there are shades of grey as well.

[AuxBatOn]

to each his own but from experience I can say fuel dumping from a controllable aircraft I would never do.

I hope I would not do that given what I've seen such as CP air in YVR but I learned a long time ago - never say never - it's served me well over many years.

Hmmmm

[valleyboy]

Again I think people are taking issues out of context - "never say never" refers to anything can happen and how you react is not set in stone. Human factors are such a fluid thing. What you did today and how you reacted could be all together different under similar circumstances at another time depending on variables you are dealing with. I still standby the fuel dumping issue - if the aircraft is flying and safely under control do your drills and check lists and land. Fuel dumping to me is a save your ass procedure just like "radar or firewall" thrust.

I'm putting up the lash in respect for the horse.

[tbaylx]

Again I think people are taking issues out of context - "never say never" refers to anything can happen and how you react is not set in stone. Human factors are such a fluid thing. What you did today and how you reacted could be all together different under similar circumstances at another time depending on variables you are dealing with. I still standby the fuel dumping issue - if the aircraft is flying and safely under control do your drills and check lists and land. Fuel dumping to me is a save your ass procedure just like "radar or firewall" thrust.

I'm putting up the lash in respect for the horse.

Theres a lot more risk in landing overweight than in dumping fuel. If you're above 4000' it evaporates in the air before reaching the ground. If its not a time sensitive emergency why would you not dump fuel to reduce landing weight, distance, brake energy requirements etc.

[AuxBatOn]

Again I think people are taking issues out of context - "never say never" refers to anything can happen and how you react is not set in stone. Human factors are such a fluid thing. What you did today and how you reacted could be all together different under similar circumstances at another time depending on variables you are dealing with. I still standby the fuel dumping issue - if the aircraft is flying and safely under control do your drills and check lists and land. Fuel dumping to me is a save your ass procedure just like "radar or firewall" thrust.

I'm putting up the lash in respect for the horse.

My point is that you contradicted yourself, saying you would never do something but then proceed to lecture people on never saying never...

As far as fuel dumping goes, it’s one more tool in the toolbox to successfully deal with unexpected situations. If you have a tool that allows you to land below Max Weight, reduce your brake-energy required and reduce the likelihood of compounding an emergency, you’d be stupid NOT to use it.

[ahramin]

Again I think people are taking issues out of context - "never say never" refers to anything can happen and how you react is not set in stone. Human factors are such a fluid thing. What you did today and how you reacted could be all together different under similar circumstances at another time depending on variables you are dealing with. I still standby the fuel dumping issue - if the aircraft is flying and safely under control do your drills and check lists and land. Fuel dumping to me is a save your ass procedure just like "radar or firewall" thrust.

I'm putting up the lash in respect for the horse.

Theres a lot more risk in landing overweight than in dumping fuel. If you're above 4000' it evaporates in the air before reaching the ground. If its not a time sensitive emergency why would you not dump fuel to reduce landing weight, distance, brake energy requirements etc.

Why would you not dump fuel for every landing? There's always a little extra you could get rid of to reduce landing weight, distance, brake energy requirements etc.

The only reason for which I would consider dumping fuel is runway length requirement. Fuel costs money. Landing weight does not, landing distance does not, brake energy requirements do not. If there is a long enough runway to handle the current weight at the current conditions, our procedure is to land as per the overweight landing checklist which makes perfect sense.

[pelmet]

I would be cautious about deciding not to dump unless runway limited. We landed once ten thousand pounds overweight in accordance with company policy. After convincing the captain to use the longer runway, we used up a lot more than expected, and would have had a problem if we had used the shorter one.

I suspect the mathematics of it all is that the increased energy required to stop is the square of the runway increased weight, or one of those kind of formulas where what was around a 5%weight increase required much more than 5% increase in braking energy. More weight combined with higher approach speed. And then you float a bit.

As for landing a few hundred pounds over max, once in a while, aside from the Twin Otter where it was a frequent event(as all Twin drivers know), I don’t remember that happening but I’m sure it did occasionally to some in the old days where no one ever found out. At the new company, also a new culture, and any broken limitation is a big deal and monitored, and you will be called upon for 100 pounds over max landing weight or a one knot over speed. And it does go on you record.

One crew even got in trouble for pushing back slightly above max taxi weight.

[ahramin]

Expected from what? Best guess? TALPA ARC?

[valleyboy]

Possibly you could say I contradicted myself but I think I said or indicated that while I would never reject above V1 (I was always a fan of V1=Vr on bare and dry runways and heavy weights) but what I meant was want you would do and what you actually do on a particular day you can never be really sure of of your reaction until after the dust settles. I know we should never stray from our training but facts speak for themselves.

Fuel dumping in Europe for example can add up to 2 extra hours in the air because they want to send you out to the north sea if you are operating northern France and above. It's perfectly safe to land "heavy" and as I said there are aircraft (737-some models at least) that can't dump fuel. Of course in doing so besides the captain's decision maintenance and commercial ops are involved as well. Also I think a lot of my thinking comes from flying aircraft with more than just 2 engines. Ya I'm old and still think more engines is still better.

[AuxBatOn]

So, because some aircraft don’t have a system, it shouldn’t be used on all aircraft? Great logic...