CMA Incident in Rainbow Lake

[Captain_Canuck]

Hey all,

Just wondering if this incident in Rainbow Lake has anything to do with CMA now looking for a CP?

[swordfish]

It amazes me how you guys can sit back and armchair a split-second decision by the crew. You've all been-there, done-that, I assume....?

Good Grief...preserve me....

[AuxBatOn]

It amazes me how you guys can sit back and armchair a split-second decision by the crew. You've all been-there, done-that, I assume....?

Good Grief...preserve me....

Actually, the decision is made well before the crew takes the runway. Below V1: Abort. At or above V1: Take Off. That's why the PNF calls "V1". In my mind, it means "we're going flying"

[swordfish]

It amazes me how you guys can sit back and armchair a split-second decision by the crew. You've all been-there, done-that, I assume....?

Good Grief...preserve me....

Actually, the decision is made well before the crew takes the runway. Below V1: Abort. At or above V1: Take Off. That's why the PNF calls "V1". In my mind, it means "we're going flying"

Actually, the decision is made a split second before reaching V1, and there are a million operational variables that affect that decision...in that type of flying...not a heavy jet departing T-O.

[AuxBatOn]

Actually, the decision is made a split second before reaching V1, and there are a million operational variables that affect that decision...in that type of flying...not a heavy jet departing T-O.

You mind telling me in what situation(s) it would be better going off the runway than taking off, taking care of the situation and come back for a landing?

If at V1, the aircraft doesn't have a problem, you go flying. As you see or hear V1, you should go flying. This is your decision, if you are talking about it, which is made clear well before take-off.

[Flybaby]

reject on captains command below 80, after 80 kts, only reject for eng fail, eng fire, loss of oil pressure or control problem.

If your SOP's tell you to fly it and your not sure, continue the takeoff.

[swordfish]

AuxBatOn wondered:

You mind telling me in what situation(s) it would be better going off the runway than taking off, taking care of the situation and come back for a landing?

If at V1, the aircraft doesn't have a problem, you go flying. As you see or hear V1, you should go flying. This is your decision, if you are talking about it, which is made clear well before take-off.

1. Leaving Zama Lake, ½ mile vis, ice, 1 generator/engine/hydraulic pump drops off line; fire warning, oil pressure light...blah, blah. High Level is out, but you can probably scrape into Hay River - provided you can climb out of the ice on 1 engine before you end up looking like a popsicle.
2. Uncommanded torque or runaway prop (...try identifying the failed engine in a split second for that one).
3. You hear a "bang", vibration from right gear, suspect blown-out tire, or one popped off the rim in a turn, and you didn't notice it till 90 kt.
4. Pax start yelling there is a fire in the cabin/right engine/wing....
5. Unruly/drunk/psychotic pax comes forward during take-off, and starts yelling he wants to get off the plane.

.............................. >> 1,000,000


btw, there's normally no need to go off a runway, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do...considering (in a split second) your alternatives. THOSE are the decisions you make before "taking the runway"....

[AuxBatOn]

1. Leaving Zama Lake, ½ mile vis, ice, 1 generator/engine/hydraulic pump drops off line; fire warning, oil pressure light...blah, blah. High Level is out, but you can probably scrape into Hay River - provided you can climb out of the ice on 1 engine before you end up looking like a popsicle.

On a multi-engine, you have back ups (2 generators, 2 engines, fire supression systems, etc) If you can't make it back to your departure airport, you need a take-off alternate, which, combined with your back up systems, should keep you safe.

One of your requirement to depart IFR is to be able to climb on 1 engine. It also means taking into consideration any ice you could take.

2. Uncommanded torque or runaway prop (...try identifying the failed engine in a split second for that one).

Keep going. The airplane was designed and certified for that. Shouldn't be too hard to identify, with massive yaw on one side and instruments readings.

3. You hear a "bang", vibration from right gear, suspect blown-out tire, or one popped off the rim in a turn, and you didn't notice it till 90 kt.
4. Pax start yelling there is a fire in the cabin/right engine/wing....
5. Unruly/drunk/psychotic pax comes forward during take-off, and starts yelling he wants to get off the plane.

So, you are telling me that it is safer to abort at high speed with a risk of directional control problem (and potentially go off the runway with no control over the nose) than take off, burn fuel, land slower?

4. Pax start yelling there is a fire in the cabin/right engine/wing....

How many times have you seen a cabin fire on take off that cannot be taken care with fire extinguishers??

In the other cases, it is better to take off and take care of the problem at a safe altitude (engine fire). You have 2 engines and your airplane has been certified to fly on 1 and climb on 1.

5. Unruly/drunk/psychotic pax comes forward during take-off, and starts yelling he wants to get off the plane.

So, your company lets drunk passengers get on the plane? Shouldn't your door be closed or, if you don't have a door, shouldn't the FA do his/her job?

Again, I have yet to see any reason not to continue take off after V1 (unless off course, that the airplane will not get off the ground at rotation speed, in which case it is not your decision, but the airplanes), especially not for a KNOWN nuisance problem.

[swordfish]

How many minutes, hours, days, months, or years did you say you have, flying Beechcraft airplanes? (99, 90, 100, 200, 1900C & D)?

I assume you ARE a captain, and have already sailed thru your line indoc and upgrade conversion...?

[AuxBatOn]

How many minutes, hours, days, months, or years did you say you have, flying Beechcraft airplanes? (99, 90, 100, 200, 1900C & D)?

I assume you ARE a captain, and have already sailed thru your line indoc and upgrade conversion...?

It came straight from my wife, which has more than 1500 hrs on King Air, including Capt time.

[Benwa]

So, your company lets drunk passengers get on the plane? Shouldn't your door be closed or, if you don't have a door, shouldn't the FA do his/her job?

Have you ever set foot in a 703 airplane ???????

[AuxBatOn]

So, your company lets drunk passengers get on the plane? Shouldn't your door be closed or, if you don't have a door, shouldn't the FA do his/her job?

Have you ever set foot in a 703 airplane ???????

Yup

[bezerker]

AuxBatOn, you are showing your inexperience and unfortunately you are dragging your military training and your lovely wife down with you. Your logic makes me laugh at least (uncommanded torque increase during takeoff "Shouldn't be too hard to identify" ha, ha, ha).

No King Air series uses a balanced field and in many cases the accelerate-stop is much, much less than the accelerate-go. Good luck getting to 35' if an engine conks while the gear is still down in the 200/100/90 at anywhere near gross weight.

[swordfish]

AuxBatOn, Your posts (and many of others in this topic) underscore a need for people who are either inexperienced globally, or inexperienced on this type of aircraft - and I don't mean to single out Beechcraft aircraft - to refrain from arbitrary or theoretical discussion on this subject, and specifically on this topic. I only chose the Beechcraft because that is what CMA flies.

These 704 planes are notoriously underpowered, and there is a wide range of things you will want to deal with on the ground rather than in a small cabin in flight - all of which ON BALANCE - throw the V1 thing out the door right at the second a life-saving decision needs to be made. It becomes "life-saving" when you weigh the possibilities of damaging the plane in an overrun, and everyone on board simply has to walk 400 metres back to the terminal, against crashing an iced-up, grossed-out, underpowered plane that won't stay in the air any longer, and killing everyone. (Now I already know what the AFM/POH says about these planes. I'm beyond debating those magical theoretical figures.)

How the individual Captain deals with them will be directed largely by his/her experience and environmental conditioning.

The point of my original post is that hardly anyone is in a position to comment on a decision that a Captain makes in a split second unless you are there in the cockpit with the crew at that moment.

i.e. REFRAIN from comment on areas of operations you are not familiar with.

[gonnabeapilot]

A question to swordfish, bezerker and benwa, as you jump all over AuxBatOn for his opinions... have any of you flown the 'D'? Because your posts lead me to believe that you haven't....

Benwa: The 1900 is a 704 airplane, not a 703 airplane. I understand that you were just trying to make a point over the lack of an F/A, but still....
Bezerker: That may be the case for the King Air 90/100/200 but this incident didn't occur in one of those aircraft. It happened in a 1900 D... anybody who has flown both will tell you there is a huge difference in performance between the two. The data for the 1900 is published as a Take Off Field Length. Unlike the King Air, there is absolutely no way of determining if it is your accelerate-stop or accelerate-go that is limiting. On top of that, CMA uses Aerodata WAT books to verify performance capabilities for every flight. If you continue at V1, the airplane will fly. Just follow the safe path that the WAT books describe.
Swordfish: The 'D' is probably one of the only 704 airplanes that I wouldn't classify as 'underpowered'. I'm curious if you would be making the same arguments had this incident occurred in a 737 versus the 1900?? I get the impression that you wouldn't be and that shouldn't be the case. Rejecting after V1 on a 4500 ft contaminated runway in a 1900 is no different than rejecting after V1 on a 10,000 ft contaminated runway in a 737 and the crews should be treated with the same scrutiny in both cases... There's a reason most airlines require the pilot flying to remove their hands from the power levers at the V1 call and CMA is no different.

As far as the debate earlier about whether or not the decision to reject happened before or after V1, I'd have to assume that the information contained in the CADORs would be accurate as it most likely came directly from the crew involved when they reported the incident.

[Benwa]

My comment was strictly aimed at the door/FA thingy...

I would not reject for a stall warning anywhere near V1. Happened to me more than once.

[xsbank]

V1 is V1. Its like intentionally flying below blue line or overspeeding the gear or going past barber pole. No different.

Thing is, if these aircraft are not capable of departing after V1 with an engine failure, why are you flying them? Wouldn't you say, if you knew about this danger yet you flew passengers anyway, that you might be had up for criminal negligence if you had an event at take-off and some passengers were hurt?

I don't buy it. Decide if the operation is safe knowing the aircraft performance, then decide if you should be taking off with a full load from Numbnuts Lake if you don't have balanced field. Simple. Follow the rules or admit you don't know what you are doing and stop putting innocent people at risk. "After V1 its an airborne emergency...." That means V1 is flight. By rejecting after V1 you are essentially landing the aircraft. You would not choose to land in the last half of a good runway, why would you do that with an unexpected unserviceability, one that has caught you by surprise and that you have had no time to consider?

If you do not feel that you are competent enough to take off on one engine, or the aircraft is not capable and you know it, then you should stop flying. There are other things like go-arounds that catch you by surprise, or gusty winds on final, or any other thing you can think of. Those passengers are counting on you to keep them safe and any of these maneuvers should be second nature to you.

[turbo-prop]

swordfish
You should take your own advise and stop talking then. First of all you obviously never flown the 1900D it has more than enough power to climb out of anything. Since we are talking beechcraft and the 1900, as I have posted here for you, V1 and Vr are within a knot of each other with flaps zero and within 3 knots at flaps 17. So in the case of the 1900D V1 is not much of an issue because you will be starting to rotate by the time you realize a failure at V1. I would also like to bet that if you do happen to work with a 704 or 705 company there SOP's don't say do whatever you want at V1. Planes are certified to have engine failures/fires at V1 and continue the takeoff. Why would anyone in ther right mind reject at V1 cause of torque runaway and chance an overrun when you could continue the takeoff climb out shut down that engine return for landing safely or fly to your takeoff alternate, in your senerio of 1/2 mile vis, wihch you are legelly required to have(within 60min one engine). At least I would hope you would intead of risking a high speed overrun because you figured you knew better then everybody else.

[Go Guns]

No King Air series uses a balanced field

The King Air 350 uses balanced field.

[bezerker]

I wasn't talking specifically about the CMA or Rainbow Lake incident when talking about making a go/no go decision while still on the runway. I wouldn't reject in a 1900D (which I have a few thousand hours on) with full power being developed at V1 with the stall warning going. This happened at St. Theresa Point (if I remember) many years ago and is an issue that should be known about by those flying the 1900. 704/705 operations with certified performance are a lot different than 703.

Go Guns, the B350 (which I have lots of time on as well) didn't use balanced field lengths. It listed the TOFL by using the most limiting factor (accelerate stop or go). I have some quick reference charts in front of me right now for the 350 (dated 1999) and they say exactly that. You may have something newer. For true balanced field charts, you will see a large variation in V1 for a given configuration for different conditions (weight, temp, elevation) in order to make accelerate stop and go the same distance (and use clearways, stopways, etc).

xsbank, I will disagree with you (sort of) with your V1 logic. On smaller turboprops the V1 speeds have almost nothing to do with takeoff performance (not even that the aircraft can actually maintain a positive climb gradient). The speeds are mandated by certification requirements. e.g. V1 must be a minimum of 1.05 Vmc plus time to react for part 23 aircraft. Vr must be at least V1. So, big surprise, almost all these aircraft have a V1/Vr speed that is the same number and is almost always exactly 105% of Vmc. There is no consideration for the actual runway you are taking off from on your charts. If you know your accelerate stop distance (corrected for CRFI, etc.) and your runway is still more than double that number, I would think that some consideration could be given to rejecting the takeoff above V1 while still on the runway. Even more so when the aircraft has limited (or sometimes almost none) climb performance on one engine and even less ability with the gear down.

I know the B200 is one of the better performing light twins and yet under many conditions you will see numbers like accelerate stop = 4,000' and accelerate go = 7,000' Although not required to meet these numbers prior to takeoff, I better have a good idea of what I am going to do if I lose one on a 5,000' runway. And it is not going to be to keep going.

FAR 25 aircraft like the 1900D and B350 use different criteria than smaller planes, but if you look at V1/Vr speeds on those aircraft, you will also see that they are almost always calculated to be the lowest number allowed under certification.

I guess what I am saying is that you guys are right in saying that V1 means you can fly (for sure on FAR 25 aircraft). But what I am saying is that V1 plus a few knots doesn't always mean it it is unsafe to reject on certain light aircraft. It is up to the pilot to figure out which is the best decision.

gonnabepilot, I believe aircraft certification requirements in Canada require FAR 25 aircraft to have performance charts in the AFM. I haven't flown the 1900 for many years now so I don't know what is in there. I am sure that it has charts for figuring out accurate stop/go, even if COM/SOP's specify using WAT charts. I know some operators fly 1900s without WAT charts (we did), so they are getting their performance data from somewhere.

One thing I do remember is the engine failures after V1 in the sim for the 1900 and B350. Things did not generally go so well the first few tries for many pilots.

[Go Guns]

Go Guns, the B350 (which I have lots of time on as well) didn't use balanced field lengths. It listed the TOFL by using the most limiting factor (accelerate stop or go). I have some quick reference charts in front of me right now for the 350 (dated 1999) and they say exactly that. You may have something newer. For true balanced field charts, you will see a large variation in V1 for a given configuration for different conditions (weight, temp, elevation) in order to make accelerate stop and go the same distance (and use clearways, stopways, etc).

All that sounds correct to me, but doesn't that mean that every take off in the King Air 350, assuming you're following the rules and you're using the TOFL charts, meets balanced field?

[turbo-prop]

Yes Go Guns you are correct. The only limiting factor usually for the 1900D and 350 is TOFL. If you meet TOFL then you meet accel-stop, accel-go, and field length.

[bezerker]

Balanced Field Length is not necessarily the same as TOFL. Balanced Field uses a sliding V1 in order to equalize accelerate stop/go distances. In the end it is the same result, you get a limiting number for takeoff, except that BFL will give a more optimized (shorter) distance.

I will add one more argument for choosing to possibly reject while still on the ground after V1.

As I have the B350 book in front of me, I will use those numbers (I believe the 1900 is pretty similar, just a few knots higher).

So say I am going to take off out of YYC at a medium weight of 13,000 lbs a 5 degrees outside. The book says V1 is 94 kts and I need about 3,200' for a flap approach takeoff.

The book also says I can take off with flap zero at max takeoff weight of 15,000 lbs at 35 degrees, in which case V1 is 110 kts and TOFL is about 7,200'.

So the book says that it is safe to reject at 110 kts (plus the 2 seconds reaction time) with only brakes and no reverse on a big long runway like they have in YYC.

Why then is it unsafe if I choose to reject above 94 kts if that is the V1 given to me for the actual conditions?

Obviously do what your books/SOPs/COM/Chief Pilot tell you to do, but common sense and a little digging through the charts show that it can be perfectly safe to reject above V1 for some aircraft in some conditions.

One question for turbo-prop - have you ever talked to someone who had torque runaway? The story I have heard was that they figured out they had a problem just after raising the nose wheel as the plane yawed like a mofo and started rolling. The torque was off the gauge and unresponsive to throttle movement. They pulled the condition lever to ICO and nearly died as the plane rolled and yawed massively into the same direction as the controls were being held. I believe the comments were "I didn't know the plane could fly sideways." Anyways, it didn't sound like something I would enjoy shortly after takeoff on a dark and stormy night. Maybe you have heard different stories that are more benign. Thankfully the newer PT6's don't have this issue (that I have heard).

[turbo-prop]

No bezerker i have never heard of one before, guess that could be quite the exercise. I am more or less talking about the shorter runways and continuing. I guess my point is in the 1900D you will be starting to get airborne by the time you realize you have an engine failure since V1 and Vr the same with flaps up and flaps 17. Getting into the 350 you have around 4 knots between V1 and Vr. When accelerating once you call V1 you are pretty much calling rotate right after therefore it would become an airborne emergency.

[BTD]

Good discussion, and lots to read about various speeds etc. However, I think the thread is straying from the fact that the take-off wasn't rejected after V1 due to engine failure. It was rejected for other reasons. I have never flown the 1900 any variant, but I do fly 704 now.

Certainly knowing that the aircraft has a known quirk with the SAS vane is important information to any flight crew flying the aircraft. Sometimes there are larger issues to look at, and consideration needs to be given (often in a split second) to whether you believe the aircraft is capable of flight. Not because an engine has failed, but due to possible damage, unknown wing contamination, spoiler deployment, flight control malfunction etc. Given the known issues with the Stall system, it would likely be advisable to continue the take-off based knowledge of that particular aircraft.

In more general terms here are a few accidents, where the aircraft was airborne above V1 with no engine failure the stick shaker going, where the aircraft was flown into obstacles at the end of the runway.


1 was a 727, the other a dc 9. Still probably not advisable in their situation to reject the take-off after being airborne, but it shows a thought process that could have crossed this crews mind when the stall horn started going. In both circumstances the flaps were not set correctly for take-off. This is the crews fault, and the reports find them responsible, however, it doesn't matter who's responsible during the event, all that matters is solving the problem.


I believe, although I don't have access to the official report, that the Dryden icing accident the stick shaker started after rotation as well. Even with no engine failure that aircraft wasn't capable of flight, as we all know.

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR88-05.pdf DC-9
I got tired of searching for the other report. I believe it was an American 727.

A case where an L1011 aborted the Take-off, once airborne, due to stall warning.
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR93-04.pdf


Another instance of surface contamination causing accident after rotation. Aircraft would not fly.
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR88-09.pdf

There is also another fantastic accident report regarding an L1011 I believe, that gets right into the V1 speed certifications, in the Analysis section. V1 as certified only relates to engine failures, and nothing else.

In my opinion, in most situations the right call is to continue after v1. Especially if it is an engine failure. There are those few and far between situations, where for whatever reason, you are certain your aircraft is incapable of flight, where you have to make a decision that might not be pretty. You had just better be ready for the consequences if you are wrong. And usually the reason the aircraft won't fly, is your fault anyway.

BTD

P.S. I can also find lots of accident reports of pilots rejecting after V1 and putting it in the weeds, often with fatalities, where the aircraft was perfectly capable of flight.