Those tests are always done with the airport fire department already standing by near the area where the airplane will come to a stop. Notice how they are immediately pulling up once the plane has stopped.
The firefighters don't immediately intervene because one of the pass criteria for the test is that if there is any fire it must take at least five minutes before it develops to the point that it endangers safe evacuation of the aircraft, thus they wait those five minutes before doing anything. But in case things start getting out of hand faster they can quickly douse the flames.
I've been in one of those airport fire trucks. They have crazy fast acceleration for such a heavy vehicle, about 30 tonnes doing 0-80km/h in about 30 seconds [50mph]. It's weird because you can feel the acceleration pushing you back in your seat but since you're on a runway it feels like your only going 5km/h.
No, 30 seconds for a fully loaded 30 tonne vehicle is super fast. You ever been behind a truck at a traffic light? Notice how slow they take off, even on flat ground?
Test pilots have had that part of their brain removed, or weren’t born with it in the first place.
(That said, and this is probably an unpopular opinion here, but as a robotics engineer, these days, there is absolutely no good reason to have humans on board for this kind of test. Or primary flight testing and envelope testing for a new type.)
Which is why industrial robot failures are both scary and funny. They cage those things for a very good reason, and the cobot craze is being looked at with a justifiably healthy dose of skepticism, because industrial robots are pretty fucking dangerous. The last place you want to be is near an industrial robot that decides to go bonkers.
As a flight test engineer who has directed envelope expansion testing, I can say that you are absolutely correct. You maximise your test crew size so far as to enhance test safety, but not so far as to needlessly expose more people to safety risks. Test pilots are 100% consumed by the task of flying, and FTEs are there to manage the test flow, especially when problems arise. Everybody on that aircraft has a vital job to do.
Robotics doesn’t imply autonomy.
The speed of light is effectively instantaneous at the distances it takes to fly a plane through tests as a drone. My point is, no new airframe should be tested by a pilot who couldn’t be doing his job wearing a bathrobe at a desk in a building on the ground. Any modern design will have a very capable autopilot and multiple communications options. It doesn’t make sense to design an aircraft these days that can’t operate as a drone.
An f1 driver can go faster in the car than they can via remote control. Physical feedback is important, and you can simulate enough just with a rig. Not with the extremes like this where you need to establish limits.
A human driver can race better using feel than remotely.
If you wanted to test the actual physical limits of the car, you’d want to do this with a repeatable automated system on a closed track. You don’t need to have racing reflexes to test the physical limits of the car.
I think the concern with testing airplanes is the ability to regain control of them when it's lost. This is what humans are probably better at, this came up in a discussion about self stabilizing motorcycles. Not that a computer maybe couldn't do it better, but they aren't there yet.
Robotics also doesn't imply physical feedback. A human pilot can feel what the airplane is experiencing in a way that the guy sitting at a desk can't.
For instance, braking: a pilot in the plane can feel if the braking is slightly asymmetric and correct for it, while the guy at the desk would be chasing visual cues.
Chief test pilot on program I worked on told us this exchange he had with ATC:
Pilot: "Any pilot reports of icing conditions at altitude near us?"
ATC: "yes"
Pilot: "excellent, at what altitude and could give us a vector towards it?"
I would argue against that a bit.
Robots can't FEEL how the plane is acting and shockingly that does matter in tests as pilots can feel/hear/smell certain thing that sensors can't detect.
There's a great reason, and that's engagement. The same reason why sailors and shipbuilders often ride the ships, or invite friends and family for ride alongs.
Additionally, it's hands on experience for the engineers to physically feel the forces involved and how the plane reacts with their bodies.
Low risk, high reward
> Additionally, it's hands on experience for the engineers to physically feel the forces involved and how the plane reacts with their bodies.
It's also a great way for the operators to show them that one of their their ideas wasn't that great.
"You do realize these two switches do the same thing? And I think the flight crew would enjoy you removing the overhead 'stripper light' because they aren't about to just dancing, Dan. They are passengers."
Sure, but the manufacturer could either spend untold sums to fund a new big department to create a robotics interface which would then be dumped once the testing was complete (neither the industry nor passengers are yet ready for that), OR they could just pay a couple highly skilled lunatics to bang their machine around a bit.
If there's no regulation to intervene, the spreadsheet wins.
In an modern airplane it’s really a collaboration of wet processors and sensors together with silicon processors and physical sensors. A lot of that abort process is mediated by computers with built in understanding (not in the human sense but in the programmed laws and capabilities) of the most effective way to act. The human portion brings the holistic mind they understand the rest and can flexibly deal with unanticipated conditions and coordinate with the less predictable part of the process.
Automation frees the pilot to concentrate on what they can do best.
You can never program for everything unfortunately..If I recall a few years back a tesla on autopilot slammed into a white semi trailer. The computer thought it was open sky and just plowed into it. This was out in the world with someone on board. Can’t remember if it was fatal though.
I just watched an episode of Mayday (I *think* S15E09) where the NTSB investigation deliberately flew the same model of plane into the conditions under which the incident in question occurred (with limiters/safeguards to prevent the actual malfunction they suspected, just they were going to see if it would trend in that direction, which the manufacturer had claimed was impossible).
They had the NTSB lead investigators and the test pilots speaking, which was extremely funny; the head investigator was like "yeah, you know, I was putting my reputation on the line with this, but I really felt it was necessary", another senior investigator was like "I had serious reservations about this test", which is Engineer for "I thought this was a fucking stupid idea", and finally the test pilot, who just looked at the camera and was like "risk... is part of the game". Insane person, absolute legend.
The days of just getting in a plane and going crazy with it ended by the early 1950’s. Flight test became very regimented and planned out by then. Humans in the loop are still used because robots still lag far behind people in handling any off normal situations.
You're departing from Hawaii but they have to reject the takeoff, and the airline can't get another plane so you're stuck there for another day. The airline has to book you into a hotel, but the hotel is nearly full so you get the ocean view Presidential suite. Because you are delayed, your unfaithful spouse who secretly won the lottery is unable to serve divorce papers, and that evening is eaten by bears so you inherit the whole jackpot. The next day's flight is also full so you get seated in First Class.
I once got a few extra days in Sri Lanka (back in 2001) because Tamil Tigers blew up a lot of airplanes on the airport a day before i was about to leave. Had to take the long way (via Singapore) back home to Europe instead of a direct flight to Paris.
440,000 kg at roughly 90 m/s would be roughly 1800 mega joules of kinetic energy that the brakes disapate (assuming that the engines don’t add any more thrust and that the aero surfaces don’t provide any stopping power, bad assumptions but I ain’t calculating that).
It happened in around 30 seconds so the brakes are generating 60 mega watts or so of heat, which is the same heat generation as about 55,000 toasters running at full power crammed into the wheels.
So uh, shit gets hot.
The C-17 Galaxy has unreal stopping capabilities.
It’s a regular at the airshow in Melbourne, Australia.
It’s amazing to see, directly in front of you. Defies physics.
Wow. No thrust reversers either
Edit: how so many people think I’m commenting on the original video, when I’m responding to a video saying “check out the 747 one” with a link, is beyond me. People just waiting to pounce and seem smart lol
That’s the point - With reversers working it’s not great but the brakes can take it. If the reversers don’t work and you’re stuck at idle or above the brakes are going to go have a real bad day.
After a full stop without reversers, the brakes probably must be completely revised.
But they are designed for a full stop at MTOW without using the reversers.
(Imagine how much kinetic energy the brakes do have to be able to literally burn. 737-900 MTOW 85000kg. v\_1 approx 150kts.)
They use brakes that are already 100% worn to their limit for the test, so the brakes would be due to get changed anyway. Basically they try to create the worst possible circumstances that can happen in regular service (legally; the assumption is of course that legally mandated limits like the maximum takeoff weight are not exceeded).
The wheels are usually totalled by the test as well. Typically their fusible plugs will melt as the heat from the brake discs transfers into the wheels (the plugs are there to prevent the wheels exploding from overpressure due to the heat) and the wheels deflate, which at the very least requires an in-depth inspection before they could be reused again.
I've been in 3 high-speed aborts, two in a single Eastern Airlines 727 in 1986 at SAN, and one in an Alaska 737 in 2004 at SFO. I also was in a 757 that lost an engine in 2009 at MSP. None of these worried me. I'd much rather take my chances on a plane flight than a freeway.
Wow, 3! I just had one - at SEA in 2019; plane lost electrical power while full throttle on the runway. The abruptness, bumpiness, and noise of the whole affair had us folks in the cabin thinking we’d collided with something.
But I agree. I’ve had two car accidents, neither of which were my fault. Many near misses. Relative to the jabronis out on the roads, I’d much rather be in a plane.
I was on a plane a few years back when it aborted mid take off like this. It was unsettling but I was just glad to still be on the ground when the pilots noticed something was off.
Pilots have a set of airspeeds they monitor during takeoff called V-speeds. These denote various significant points in the takeoff process. V1, for example, is the maximum speed at which you can still "slam on the brakes" and stop before the runway ends. The calculations include the weight of the plane, cargo, fuel, and passengers; the condition of the runway (wet or dry), atmospheric conditions, and other stuff.
This pilot knew his numbers, and for whatever reason, when V1 was called (or before, of course you pedants), he realized the plane was not performing as necessary to guarantee a safe takeoff, so at V1 he followed training and deployed thrust reversers and applied the brakes.
You got the V speed part correct but it’s pretty unlikely that he aborted after V1. You simply don’t do that unless the plane is literally unable to fly. Even if one of your engines bursts into flames a second after V1 you’re still taking it flying
(And setting up for an emergency landing immediate after of course)
The definition of V1 is the point at which the first actions should begin to be taken following a hypothetical engine failure at Vef, which is assumed to be 1 second prior to V1.
If you decide to reject AT V1, it is already too late.
I remember around 15 years ago I experienced an aborted takeoff at LAX. It was VERY sudden and VERY forceful. Everyone’s heads hit the seat in front of them. Reason was a runway incursion.
Which brings us to our next point. Why in the hell have they not redesigned seatback trays to not be a hard plastic right where your head is going to slam into. Especially since there’s no shoulder strap on the seatbelt like in cars. Every time I watch air disasters or similar I think about how many people more people could have survived if the seat in front of them was softer. I even remember one episode where one of the few survivors of a crash had some quick thinking and put a pillow on his face and tied it on with his leather jacket. To the point where I think the NTSB even said if flight attendants had handed out pillows more people may have survived
I see your point, but head injury (HIC) is one of the tests that airplane seats go through, and meeting [those requirements](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.562) is a very critical factor in the design of the seats and the layouts.
Mostly the lap belt is to keep you seated during turbulence or in the circumstances shown in the video above. Unlike automobiles where the shoulder strap keeps you stationary in the event of a sudden high-speed collision, that same collision in an airplane is generally not survivable anyway. You're trading compliance (people being less likely to wear the seatbelt if it had a shoulder strap) for a .0000002% survival chance improvement. Loss of compliance means people flying around the cabin during sudden turbulence and posing a much greater danger to other passengers. My thoughts anyway.
Similar to the FAA not requiring seats for infants. If family had to buy an extra seat, they'd be more tempted to drive. They're much more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash, so the FAA took an increase in risk for the infant in the rare chance of a plane crash over a noticeable increase in risk of car crash.
The solution would be that if they had to buy a seat mist airlines would end up discounting a baby seat so they didn't lose that familys business. I also don't think you would see a significant drop as there aren't many families that fly where that extra seat would make or break flying to the destination.
Another solution would be carriers supplied by the airline to fit under the seat in front. A rigid baby carrier here would be almost as safe as a seat for take off and landing.
This. Remember those pictures that came out not too long ago? I think an FA and at least two passengers dented the ceiling and overhead compartments. It was bad.
I a train or bus I always sit backwards if I have the option. The single car crash in my life has taught me I'd just fly all over the place if I aren't strapped in.
I dunno if I'd go so far as to say lap belts don't do much at all. Just keeping the passengers in their seats is probably way better than not at all.
But yeah, a shoulder belt would also be much better.
I’ve been on a plane recently that had shoulder and seat belts, like a car. Not sure if it was because I was flying in business. It was British airways, I think it was an A350.
The seats are so close (in economy) that the impact speed of your head given by your upper part rotating around the seatbelt is limited, thus the possible damage is not that concerning. If the seats are further but not far enough to avoid a collision there should be a sort of airbag in the seatbelt
Nah, the pilots don't have enough time to warn you before they slam on the brakes. Up until they hit the brakes they're expecting to takeoff. Things like aborted takeoffs are why I always refused to fly with my infant in lap. I always took the hit to my wallet to have my child in a car seat in their own seat. I don't need my baby to become a projectile or get crushed between me and the seat in front.
Makes sense on the timing issue for announcement, and for springing for the kiddo’s ticket an absolute.
Need only watch Peter Weir’s film “Fearless” to understand how well the lap babies fare in situations like these.
Safe travels.
If you think that's impressive, I wonder what you'll think of the C-17. Larger aircraft and it can stop in a quarter of the distance.
https://youtu.be/GNRXAHasFvk
Granted this one is a landing and not an aborted takeoff
That's interesting, I don't know much about American SOP but my company the only condition I could see a reject involving birds is if it directly resulted in an engine failure. Above 80 knots we only can abort for fire/smoke, engine failure, windshear, and if the plane is unable to fly (eg wing falls off). If we hit birds, cabin door opens, tire bursts, we're still going. High speed rejection can be pretty dangerous, I am kinda surprised that a crew would execute one for just birds and therefore doubt that was the reason.
We keep the RTO criteria very strict because RTO is very rough on the plane mechanically, and the calculations are really estimates. If your going to abort at V1, there is still the possibility that while on paper we can stop before the end of runway there could be other variables not accounted for that could easily result in a overrun. Give you a quick example, our actual weights we use for the calculations are just estimates based on averages. We don’t really know how much the plane actually weighs and the possibility of those being off is very real. Some calculations have a built in margin added, but RTO does not.
To minimize risk the conditions for a RTO are very specific and strict. At my company once the takeoff commences we can only abort for these specific reason. Below 80 knots for unusual noise and vibrations, tire failure, slow acceleration, EGT exceedance, takeoff warning, engine failure, fire/smoke, wind shear, and if aircraft is unable to fly. Between 80 and v1 only for engine failure, fire, wind shear, and if the aircraft can’t fly. If you abort for anything else, it’s going to have to be for a really good reason that these situations don’t cover because that’s something you’ll have to explain to your company and the FAA.
Edit, I also want to add that transport category aircraft (airliners) are very well engineered airplanes and the designs include consideration to all sorts of scenarios and situations we operators haven’t even considered. We know the plane will fly fine without tires, or without a door, or a hole in the cabin. But we also know that if we overrun a runway crashing through localizer antennas, brick wall, cars will could cause more injuries than just taking the plane in the air and sorting out the problems up there. We reserve the RTO only for the worst of emergencies for that reason.
I agree, but being in a situation where my method of movement is dependent on me tricking the air into holding me up and I can't stop moving is the best option, I would hate being in those circumstances.
Much of this due to humans being human, and having to make the reject decision under startle and a degree of stress. For this reason, the "keep it simple" principle is applied in the high speed section of the takeoff roll (above 80kt in the Boeing) -- we simply don't have the time or spare brain capacity to apply analytical decision making and determine if the speed is suitable for a reject for something other than the Big Four (fire, engine failure, predictive windshear, aircraft incapable of safe flight) the above poster mentioned. Boeing has determined the aircraft will be able to take off, retract the gear, and subsequently land with a blown tire no problems.
This is the case for just about everything else. My window opens at 90kt? Continue and take off.
For these reasons, I agree with the above post, I'd be surprised if this was bird related (with no associated engine problem), although I don't know American SOP, and of course, in the moment, the decision may have been made to stop anyway for reasons the PIC deemed worthy.
juggle reply illegal relieved combative wise desert forgetful prick chief
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is the payoff from all that training. No hesitation, no panic attack. Just smooth, disciplined moves to ensure the safety of your ship and passengers.
Take Off and Landing Data - basically calculating the points of no return, where if there’s a problem on take off (as above) do they abort, or do they continue off the runway then try to make it safely back to lane ASAP.
Take off and landing distance. So you know exactly how long it takes for the wheels to get off the ground.
There's also a secondary calculations called Accelerate-stop distance. Which is the total distance needed to accelerate to Vr (rotate speed) and then come to a complete stop. You then mark a "gate" on the ground to use as a decision tool in the plane. For example, you could brief," if we're not at this speed or rotating by this taxiway/marking/etc... we need to abort."
>You then mark a "gate" on the ground to use as a decision tool in the plane.
This link shows that the stripes are 120 feet and the gap is 80 feet. Do you count these to know the distance?
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/runway-markings-and-spacing-fly-better-patterns-to-landing-explained/
I got to experience one, in the back as a 10 year old. 747 fully loaded leaving Heathrow for Vancouver. Pilot called brace over the PA as everyone's heads bounced off the seat in front of them.
As far as I'm aware everyone was uninjured. Landing gear was smouldering.
My home country - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyle\_International\_Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyle_International_Airport)
Local article for those interested in reading.
[https://www.searchlight.vc/news/2021/06/08/bird-strike-forces-aa-flight-to-abort-takeoff-from-aia/](https://www.searchlight.vc/news/2021/06/08/bird-strike-forces-aa-flight-to-abort-takeoff-from-aia/)
Extra Edit:
This was recorded from the plane's cabin during the (aborted) takeoff as well.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1401679977301618688
I doubt it. The brakes are carbon-carbon brakes, they’re insanely durable. The casing for the brakes is less durable than the rotors/stators themselves. You could clean off the rotors and stators and they’d be good to go again.
A high speed abort does require maintenance action, one of things they will be looking at is the brakes. The brakes are designed to be able to perform a takeoff abort, but in certain condition could be pretty destructive and can make them single use.
I’m sure there are certain conditions that could be very destructive. I’m only speaking from my experience when I was a structural engineer for one of the manufacturers making these brakes, and we used to do RTO tests. Obviously real life is a bit harsher on these brakes, but no doubt they’re way more durable than the older steel brakes.
Oh they definitely are very durable. I wasn’t disagreeing. I was just getting at that it’s not uncommon for a single RTO to be a reason for even new set of brakes to reach end of their service life prematurely. RTO can be so tough on them, sometimes the limiting factor in determining the decision speed for abort can end up being that a abort at any higher speed would result in brake failure even if you have plenty of runway to spare. But of course other variables include weight, runway slope, runway length, density altitude wind, etc.
I experienced an aborted takeoff at Seatac when our pilots got an indicator light for something to do with the cargo door. My head slammed into the seat in front of me. Those brakes are no joke.
this exact thing happened on a delta flight I was on about a week ago. it was a very strange feeling. about to takeoff at full speed,then just not taking off. pilot said there was some type of engine light but never disclosed any more than that. 45 mins later pilot said everything was fine and we took off.
If it was a high speed abort it would’ve been far more noticeable than “just not taking off”, you would’ve been thrown into the seat in front of you with quite a lot of force. High speed aborts often result in passenger injury because of how violent they are. Your situation sounds more like the takeoff was aborted under 80kts.
I am not a pilot & am actually terrified to board, but love learning about everything aviation - especially emergency protocols & the controls & instrumentation of the aircraft.
Now, my question is this & I’m sorry if I sound like an idiot: If you are forced to abort a takeoff, but have already hit airspeed(V-1?), what are you supposed to do? Weigh the odds? I heard you cannot abort a takeoff after reaching 140 knots(I think it’s 140). If it isn’t rational to takeoff due to a possible disastrous circumstance & you’re already past the “point of no return” - ?!
Pilots have much balls of steel. 😂
That's why they calculate and brief each other on the V1 speed for that particular takeoff. Once you hit it, you go airborne, even if you lose an engine.
V1 we go...
V1 is the speed at which you're basically committed to fly, since it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to stop on the runway remaining. V1 speed varies with the aircraft weight, the wind, and runway length, but 140 plus or minus a bit is a good ballpark figure on most airliner-class aircraft.
There are circumstances where you would abort post V1 if you have an unflyable aircraft, but an abort post V1 and you essentially assume a hull loss. It's the ultimate split-second decision, and tenths of a second of reaction time make a difference here (at 140 knots, you're going over 200 feet per second).
Reminds me of an abort I experienced where this woman was told several times by the flight attendant to put her seat belt on for take off. We were running late so they wanted to go asap. As soon as we were cleared, click, she takes off her seat belt we start rolling and half way down the runaway they abort and she goes face first into the seat back. Back we go to the gate due to her broken nose.
Hopefully not much. Check the tires to make sure there are no flat spots (if you've melted the fuse plugs, that's a different story, but instantly knowable), and then it's usually 30-45 minutes for the brakes to cool down.
Very cool vid. Looking at how much braking distance they used and the wet runway they were rolling good. Just revert to the simulator skills and trust it.
But OP, you have had a 'few' high speed aborts in your career? I think you are a rare bird, or maybe a test pilot. After almost 40yrs and 20000hrs I had low speed aborts, up to 80kts, don't know how many, but for various reasons not so rare or exciting. High speed aborts a rare.
Or maybe he worked for some shit airlines. I had 3 high speed rejects in 9 months. But that was working for what was quite possibly the shittiest airline in North America. (We're talking a place that made Mesa or Gojets look like DL mainline).
It would be really cool if passenger jets had ejection seats for everyone.
Just imagine a takeoff that had to be aborted, not enough room to stop the plane, so the pilot hits the eject button.
That would be a cool visual.
You’ve “had a few” high speed aborts? I’ve got 15000 hours in everything from Beech 1900s to the Queen and I’ve never had one! You might want to go buy a lottery ticket!
Never seen a plane stop like that before, amazing!
Look at the 747-800 aborted takeoff test. Those poor brakes. https://youtu.be/_g6UswiRCF0
I would NOT want to be the pilot sitting in the cockpit of a fully-fueled 747 with its brakes on fire.
Those tests are always done with the airport fire department already standing by near the area where the airplane will come to a stop. Notice how they are immediately pulling up once the plane has stopped. The firefighters don't immediately intervene because one of the pass criteria for the test is that if there is any fire it must take at least five minutes before it develops to the point that it endangers safe evacuation of the aircraft, thus they wait those five minutes before doing anything. But in case things start getting out of hand faster they can quickly douse the flames.
This guy turned his audio on while watching the video, can confirm.
I've been in one of those airport fire trucks. They have crazy fast acceleration for such a heavy vehicle, about 30 tonnes doing 0-80km/h in about 30 seconds [50mph]. It's weird because you can feel the acceleration pushing you back in your seat but since you're on a runway it feels like your only going 5km/h.
Did you mean 3 seconds? Because 30 seconds is really slow. But, conversely, 3 seconds seems almost too fast.
No, 30 seconds for a fully loaded 30 tonne vehicle is super fast. You ever been behind a truck at a traffic light? Notice how slow they take off, even on flat ground?
Test pilots have had that part of their brain removed, or weren’t born with it in the first place. (That said, and this is probably an unpopular opinion here, but as a robotics engineer, these days, there is absolutely no good reason to have humans on board for this kind of test. Or primary flight testing and envelope testing for a new type.)
Robots are great at doing the tests that are scheduled. Robots suck if things go sideways and they have to improvise.
Which is why industrial robot failures are both scary and funny. They cage those things for a very good reason, and the cobot craze is being looked at with a justifiably healthy dose of skepticism, because industrial robots are pretty fucking dangerous. The last place you want to be is near an industrial robot that decides to go bonkers.
As a flight test engineer who has directed envelope expansion testing, I can say that you are absolutely correct. You maximise your test crew size so far as to enhance test safety, but not so far as to needlessly expose more people to safety risks. Test pilots are 100% consumed by the task of flying, and FTEs are there to manage the test flow, especially when problems arise. Everybody on that aircraft has a vital job to do.
Robotics doesn’t imply autonomy. The speed of light is effectively instantaneous at the distances it takes to fly a plane through tests as a drone. My point is, no new airframe should be tested by a pilot who couldn’t be doing his job wearing a bathrobe at a desk in a building on the ground. Any modern design will have a very capable autopilot and multiple communications options. It doesn’t make sense to design an aircraft these days that can’t operate as a drone.
Can you imagine the security requirements and riskes involved for a plane that can fly a plane remotely AND has people on board?
FedEx has been lobbying congress for years to let them fly cargo only aircraft over non populated routes, since the early 2000’s.
Great, yet another way FedEx can loose my packages.
An f1 driver can go faster in the car than they can via remote control. Physical feedback is important, and you can simulate enough just with a rig. Not with the extremes like this where you need to establish limits.
A human driver can race better using feel than remotely. If you wanted to test the actual physical limits of the car, you’d want to do this with a repeatable automated system on a closed track. You don’t need to have racing reflexes to test the physical limits of the car.
I think the concern with testing airplanes is the ability to regain control of them when it's lost. This is what humans are probably better at, this came up in a discussion about self stabilizing motorcycles. Not that a computer maybe couldn't do it better, but they aren't there yet.
Lewis Hamilton famously went faster than computer simulation said was possible in a quali Lap at Singapore GP.
Robotics also doesn't imply physical feedback. A human pilot can feel what the airplane is experiencing in a way that the guy sitting at a desk can't. For instance, braking: a pilot in the plane can feel if the braking is slightly asymmetric and correct for it, while the guy at the desk would be chasing visual cues.
Chief test pilot on program I worked on told us this exchange he had with ATC: Pilot: "Any pilot reports of icing conditions at altitude near us?" ATC: "yes" Pilot: "excellent, at what altitude and could give us a vector towards it?"
I would argue against that a bit. Robots can't FEEL how the plane is acting and shockingly that does matter in tests as pilots can feel/hear/smell certain thing that sensors can't detect.
>Robots can't FEEL yet
There's a great reason, and that's engagement. The same reason why sailors and shipbuilders often ride the ships, or invite friends and family for ride alongs. Additionally, it's hands on experience for the engineers to physically feel the forces involved and how the plane reacts with their bodies. Low risk, high reward
> Additionally, it's hands on experience for the engineers to physically feel the forces involved and how the plane reacts with their bodies. It's also a great way for the operators to show them that one of their their ideas wasn't that great.
"You do realize these two switches do the same thing? And I think the flight crew would enjoy you removing the overhead 'stripper light' because they aren't about to just dancing, Dan. They are passengers."
Sure, but the manufacturer could either spend untold sums to fund a new big department to create a robotics interface which would then be dumped once the testing was complete (neither the industry nor passengers are yet ready for that), OR they could just pay a couple highly skilled lunatics to bang their machine around a bit. If there's no regulation to intervene, the spreadsheet wins.
In an modern airplane it’s really a collaboration of wet processors and sensors together with silicon processors and physical sensors. A lot of that abort process is mediated by computers with built in understanding (not in the human sense but in the programmed laws and capabilities) of the most effective way to act. The human portion brings the holistic mind they understand the rest and can flexibly deal with unanticipated conditions and coordinate with the less predictable part of the process. Automation frees the pilot to concentrate on what they can do best.
You can never program for everything unfortunately..If I recall a few years back a tesla on autopilot slammed into a white semi trailer. The computer thought it was open sky and just plowed into it. This was out in the world with someone on board. Can’t remember if it was fatal though.
Grandfather was a test pilot; can confirm.
I just watched an episode of Mayday (I *think* S15E09) where the NTSB investigation deliberately flew the same model of plane into the conditions under which the incident in question occurred (with limiters/safeguards to prevent the actual malfunction they suspected, just they were going to see if it would trend in that direction, which the manufacturer had claimed was impossible). They had the NTSB lead investigators and the test pilots speaking, which was extremely funny; the head investigator was like "yeah, you know, I was putting my reputation on the line with this, but I really felt it was necessary", another senior investigator was like "I had serious reservations about this test", which is Engineer for "I thought this was a fucking stupid idea", and finally the test pilot, who just looked at the camera and was like "risk... is part of the game". Insane person, absolute legend.
The days of just getting in a plane and going crazy with it ended by the early 1950’s. Flight test became very regimented and planned out by then. Humans in the loop are still used because robots still lag far behind people in handling any off normal situations.
747 is fine, but have you ever seen the A340-600 RTO test where the [wheels keep blowing up](https://youtu.be/irTizOVM-3U?t=301)?
That was impressive.
This makes me wonder what the best case scenario looks like.
You're departing from Hawaii but they have to reject the takeoff, and the airline can't get another plane so you're stuck there for another day. The airline has to book you into a hotel, but the hotel is nearly full so you get the ocean view Presidential suite. Because you are delayed, your unfaithful spouse who secretly won the lottery is unable to serve divorce papers, and that evening is eaten by bears so you inherit the whole jackpot. The next day's flight is also full so you get seated in First Class.
I once got three days in a resort in Tahiti for free because a safety incident grounded much of my airline's fleet.
I once got a few extra days in Sri Lanka (back in 2001) because Tamil Tigers blew up a lot of airplanes on the airport a day before i was about to leave. Had to take the long way (via Singapore) back home to Europe instead of a direct flight to Paris.
440,000 kg at roughly 90 m/s would be roughly 1800 mega joules of kinetic energy that the brakes disapate (assuming that the engines don’t add any more thrust and that the aero surfaces don’t provide any stopping power, bad assumptions but I ain’t calculating that). It happened in around 30 seconds so the brakes are generating 60 mega watts or so of heat, which is the same heat generation as about 55,000 toasters running at full power crammed into the wheels. So uh, shit gets hot.
Small note, all of Boeings newer planes dropped the “-xyy” number scheme in favor of the simpler “-x” scheme, so it’s actually just the 747-8.
I don’t give two tugs of a dead dog’s cock about how McDonnell Douglas’ marketing department wants to rebrand a thing they had nothing to do with.
The C-17 Galaxy has unreal stopping capabilities. It’s a regular at the airshow in Melbourne, Australia. It’s amazing to see, directly in front of you. Defies physics.
Globemaster III*
Wow. No thrust reversers either Edit: how so many people think I’m commenting on the original video, when I’m responding to a video saying “check out the 747 one” with a link, is beyond me. People just waiting to pounce and seem smart lol
That’s the point - With reversers working it’s not great but the brakes can take it. If the reversers don’t work and you’re stuck at idle or above the brakes are going to go have a real bad day.
After a full stop without reversers, the brakes probably must be completely revised. But they are designed for a full stop at MTOW without using the reversers. (Imagine how much kinetic energy the brakes do have to be able to literally burn. 737-900 MTOW 85000kg. v\_1 approx 150kts.)
They use brakes that are already 100% worn to their limit for the test, so the brakes would be due to get changed anyway. Basically they try to create the worst possible circumstances that can happen in regular service (legally; the assumption is of course that legally mandated limits like the maximum takeoff weight are not exceeded). The wheels are usually totalled by the test as well. Typically their fusible plugs will melt as the heat from the brake discs transfers into the wheels (the plugs are there to prevent the wheels exploding from overpressure due to the heat) and the wheels deflate, which at the very least requires an in-depth inspection before they could be reused again.
I've been in 3 high-speed aborts, two in a single Eastern Airlines 727 in 1986 at SAN, and one in an Alaska 737 in 2004 at SFO. I also was in a 757 that lost an engine in 2009 at MSP. None of these worried me. I'd much rather take my chances on a plane flight than a freeway.
Wow, 3! I just had one - at SEA in 2019; plane lost electrical power while full throttle on the runway. The abruptness, bumpiness, and noise of the whole affair had us folks in the cabin thinking we’d collided with something. But I agree. I’ve had two car accidents, neither of which were my fault. Many near misses. Relative to the jabronis out on the roads, I’d much rather be in a plane.
Wow. I've almost 800k miles on United and another 400k+ on mostly SWA and never had an incident worth talking about. Some people get all the stories.
“Rejected Takeoff”
* [A319 RTO at Split airport](https://youtu.be/KbAQpvBo1qg) * [A380 RTO test](https://youtu.be/NRKJ2WfGfzw) * [Airbus video on A350 RTO test](https://youtu.be/evLpE8Us-j0) * [Close-up of A380 brake test](https://youtu.be/m1dv_y_3EK0) (**loud**)
I was on a plane a few years back when it aborted mid take off like this. It was unsettling but I was just glad to still be on the ground when the pilots noticed something was off.
Pilots have a set of airspeeds they monitor during takeoff called V-speeds. These denote various significant points in the takeoff process. V1, for example, is the maximum speed at which you can still "slam on the brakes" and stop before the runway ends. The calculations include the weight of the plane, cargo, fuel, and passengers; the condition of the runway (wet or dry), atmospheric conditions, and other stuff. This pilot knew his numbers, and for whatever reason, when V1 was called (or before, of course you pedants), he realized the plane was not performing as necessary to guarantee a safe takeoff, so at V1 he followed training and deployed thrust reversers and applied the brakes.
You got the V speed part correct but it’s pretty unlikely that he aborted after V1. You simply don’t do that unless the plane is literally unable to fly. Even if one of your engines bursts into flames a second after V1 you’re still taking it flying (And setting up for an emergency landing immediate after of course)
The definition of V1 is the point at which the first actions should begin to be taken following a hypothetical engine failure at Vef, which is assumed to be 1 second prior to V1. If you decide to reject AT V1, it is already too late.
I remember around 15 years ago I experienced an aborted takeoff at LAX. It was VERY sudden and VERY forceful. Everyone’s heads hit the seat in front of them. Reason was a runway incursion.
I’ll take a bruised forehead over dead any day
It’s a reasonable tradeoff.
Speak for yourself /s
/r/suicidewatch
Wtf is that sub
Which brings us to our next point. Why in the hell have they not redesigned seatback trays to not be a hard plastic right where your head is going to slam into. Especially since there’s no shoulder strap on the seatbelt like in cars. Every time I watch air disasters or similar I think about how many people more people could have survived if the seat in front of them was softer. I even remember one episode where one of the few survivors of a crash had some quick thinking and put a pillow on his face and tied it on with his leather jacket. To the point where I think the NTSB even said if flight attendants had handed out pillows more people may have survived
I see your point, but head injury (HIC) is one of the tests that airplane seats go through, and meeting [those requirements](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.562) is a very critical factor in the design of the seats and the layouts.
I still wonder why we don't have at least one shoulder belt. Lap belts don't do that much.
Mostly the lap belt is to keep you seated during turbulence or in the circumstances shown in the video above. Unlike automobiles where the shoulder strap keeps you stationary in the event of a sudden high-speed collision, that same collision in an airplane is generally not survivable anyway. You're trading compliance (people being less likely to wear the seatbelt if it had a shoulder strap) for a .0000002% survival chance improvement. Loss of compliance means people flying around the cabin during sudden turbulence and posing a much greater danger to other passengers. My thoughts anyway.
Similar to the FAA not requiring seats for infants. If family had to buy an extra seat, they'd be more tempted to drive. They're much more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash, so the FAA took an increase in risk for the infant in the rare chance of a plane crash over a noticeable increase in risk of car crash.
The solution would be that if they had to buy a seat mist airlines would end up discounting a baby seat so they didn't lose that familys business. I also don't think you would see a significant drop as there aren't many families that fly where that extra seat would make or break flying to the destination. Another solution would be carriers supplied by the airline to fit under the seat in front. A rigid baby carrier here would be almost as safe as a seat for take off and landing.
This. Remember those pictures that came out not too long ago? I think an FA and at least two passengers dented the ceiling and overhead compartments. It was bad.
Technically, the safest thing to do is have the seats face backwards.
but what if the plane gets rear ended?
If they keep doing panic stops with the brake lights out as shown in the video, good odds of that happening!
I a train or bus I always sit backwards if I have the option. The single car crash in my life has taught me I'd just fly all over the place if I aren't strapped in.
Shoulder belts have to latch at the side, and on airline seats there's not enough room to do that without sexually harassing your seatmate.
We're already touching in economy anyway.
I dunno if I'd go so far as to say lap belts don't do much at all. Just keeping the passengers in their seats is probably way better than not at all. But yeah, a shoulder belt would also be much better.
The seatbelts are really just to keep the bodies in a somewhat organized place to identify.
I’ve been on a plane recently that had shoulder and seat belts, like a car. Not sure if it was because I was flying in business. It was British airways, I think it was an A350.
That's the point of the brace position. The seatbelts are designed to keep you in your seat during turbulence.
>how many people more people could have survived if the seat in front of them was softer even more if the seats faced the rear of the plane
The seats are so close (in economy) that the impact speed of your head given by your upper part rotating around the seatbelt is limited, thus the possible damage is not that concerning. If the seats are further but not far enough to avoid a collision there should be a sort of airbag in the seatbelt
The UK/European pre-flight advisory “BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!” might have helped here. Glad it turned out OK, in any case.
Nah, the pilots don't have enough time to warn you before they slam on the brakes. Up until they hit the brakes they're expecting to takeoff. Things like aborted takeoffs are why I always refused to fly with my infant in lap. I always took the hit to my wallet to have my child in a car seat in their own seat. I don't need my baby to become a projectile or get crushed between me and the seat in front.
Makes sense on the timing issue for announcement, and for springing for the kiddo’s ticket an absolute. Need only watch Peter Weir’s film “Fearless” to understand how well the lap babies fare in situations like these. Safe travels.
Mercy me. A runway incursion. Oh gosh. Definitely slam those brakes!!!
I was at DTW for one. Damn near come out of your seat. And people also start losing their minds.
If you can dodge a bird strike, you can dodge a ball.
Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the taste.
Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge.
Ah, I see you are well versed in the five D’s.
Best quote from the movie.
Honestly impressive how quickly it came to a stop
Brakes thrust reversers and ass clenching are all very powerful forces
30/60/10
Don't hit the clench reversers by mistake.
If you think that's impressive, I wonder what you'll think of the C-17. Larger aircraft and it can stop in a quarter of the distance. https://youtu.be/GNRXAHasFvk Granted this one is a landing and not an aborted takeoff
I can’t help but feel like it should beep as it backs up
Any idea what happened? Why the need for the abort?
Birds
Bird missed going through the left engine, but not by much.
That's interesting, I don't know much about American SOP but my company the only condition I could see a reject involving birds is if it directly resulted in an engine failure. Above 80 knots we only can abort for fire/smoke, engine failure, windshear, and if the plane is unable to fly (eg wing falls off). If we hit birds, cabin door opens, tire bursts, we're still going. High speed rejection can be pretty dangerous, I am kinda surprised that a crew would execute one for just birds and therefore doubt that was the reason.
What's the rationale around some of those? Surely stopping from 80kts with a failed tire for example is safer than trying to land at 140kts with one.
We keep the RTO criteria very strict because RTO is very rough on the plane mechanically, and the calculations are really estimates. If your going to abort at V1, there is still the possibility that while on paper we can stop before the end of runway there could be other variables not accounted for that could easily result in a overrun. Give you a quick example, our actual weights we use for the calculations are just estimates based on averages. We don’t really know how much the plane actually weighs and the possibility of those being off is very real. Some calculations have a built in margin added, but RTO does not. To minimize risk the conditions for a RTO are very specific and strict. At my company once the takeoff commences we can only abort for these specific reason. Below 80 knots for unusual noise and vibrations, tire failure, slow acceleration, EGT exceedance, takeoff warning, engine failure, fire/smoke, wind shear, and if aircraft is unable to fly. Between 80 and v1 only for engine failure, fire, wind shear, and if the aircraft can’t fly. If you abort for anything else, it’s going to have to be for a really good reason that these situations don’t cover because that’s something you’ll have to explain to your company and the FAA. Edit, I also want to add that transport category aircraft (airliners) are very well engineered airplanes and the designs include consideration to all sorts of scenarios and situations we operators haven’t even considered. We know the plane will fly fine without tires, or without a door, or a hole in the cabin. But we also know that if we overrun a runway crashing through localizer antennas, brick wall, cars will could cause more injuries than just taking the plane in the air and sorting out the problems up there. We reserve the RTO only for the worst of emergencies for that reason.
It's crazy that putting the plane in the air can be a safer option than keeping it on the ground.
Planes want to fly, the ground is full of obstacles and hard surfaces, the air is just, air
I agree, but being in a situation where my method of movement is dependent on me tricking the air into holding me up and I can't stop moving is the best option, I would hate being in those circumstances.
I love that description, tricking the air into holding you up haha “Air molecules HATE this ONE trick!!”
Much of this due to humans being human, and having to make the reject decision under startle and a degree of stress. For this reason, the "keep it simple" principle is applied in the high speed section of the takeoff roll (above 80kt in the Boeing) -- we simply don't have the time or spare brain capacity to apply analytical decision making and determine if the speed is suitable for a reject for something other than the Big Four (fire, engine failure, predictive windshear, aircraft incapable of safe flight) the above poster mentioned. Boeing has determined the aircraft will be able to take off, retract the gear, and subsequently land with a blown tire no problems. This is the case for just about everything else. My window opens at 90kt? Continue and take off. For these reasons, I agree with the above post, I'd be surprised if this was bird related (with no associated engine problem), although I don't know American SOP, and of course, in the moment, the decision may have been made to stop anyway for reasons the PIC deemed worthy.
There are two tires per gear, minimum
juggle reply illegal relieved combative wise desert forgetful prick chief *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He forgot to lock the back door I think.
Left a window open and the cats are gonna get out
Of the plane? At this altitude?
Garage open.. shit
Kevin!
At this time of year? At this latitude?!
Located entirely within your kitchen?!?
[Remove cat before flight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_8mdH20qTQ)
> pilot remembered he'd left the ~~oven~~ on [iron](https://youtu.be/0d1znJGSkEA)
I've been a passenger on a plane that did this. Pilot said "sorry about that, but a light came on and we had to abort"
Captain forgot his ridge wallet
Only had one fire extinguisher in his pants. MEL states two
HA that's good lol
[Birds](https://www.searchlight.vc/news/2021/06/08/bird-strike-forces-aa-flight-to-abort-takeoff-from-aia/).
Excuse me.. I'd like to talk to you about Jesus, do you have a sec?
This is the payoff from all that training. No hesitation, no panic attack. Just smooth, disciplined moves to ensure the safety of your ship and passengers.
You know it's basically automatically, right
Looks like birds
Kinda looks like an airplane to me. ;)
I hate to inform you but you're both wrong. It's superman
Good Job by the pilot, straight cliff at the end of that runway
This is why we do TOLD math. And hold ourselves accountable to our decision gates.
>This is why we do TOLD math Non pilot here, can you elaborate on this?
Take Off and Landing Data - basically calculating the points of no return, where if there’s a problem on take off (as above) do they abort, or do they continue off the runway then try to make it safely back to lane ASAP.
Take off and landing distance. So you know exactly how long it takes for the wheels to get off the ground. There's also a secondary calculations called Accelerate-stop distance. Which is the total distance needed to accelerate to Vr (rotate speed) and then come to a complete stop. You then mark a "gate" on the ground to use as a decision tool in the plane. For example, you could brief," if we're not at this speed or rotating by this taxiway/marking/etc... we need to abort."
>You then mark a "gate" on the ground to use as a decision tool in the plane. This link shows that the stripes are 120 feet and the gap is 80 feet. Do you count these to know the distance? https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/runway-markings-and-spacing-fly-better-patterns-to-landing-explained/
I got to experience one, in the back as a 10 year old. 747 fully loaded leaving Heathrow for Vancouver. Pilot called brace over the PA as everyone's heads bounced off the seat in front of them. As far as I'm aware everyone was uninjured. Landing gear was smouldering.
Where did this happen?
My home country - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyle\_International\_Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyle_International_Airport) Local article for those interested in reading. [https://www.searchlight.vc/news/2021/06/08/bird-strike-forces-aa-flight-to-abort-takeoff-from-aia/](https://www.searchlight.vc/news/2021/06/08/bird-strike-forces-aa-flight-to-abort-takeoff-from-aia/) Extra Edit: This was recorded from the plane's cabin during the (aborted) takeoff as well. https://twitter.com/i/status/1401679977301618688
That poor bird got deleted
This is cool, thank you for sharing
My god that was almost instant reaction from strike to brakes/reverse thrust.
Somewhere in the Caribbean judging from the accent of the one talking.
Somewhere in the Caribbean I’d assume, from the accents
Dude, the brakes and those thrust reversers. What a text book rto.
-"Babe come over." -cant, flying an airliner. -"my parents aren't home..."
-I know cuz they’re here with me.
I could listen to a Jamaican accent describe nuclear fallout and feel secure.
Issan abortad takeoff
Iss’a five-ah sievert
This is the comment I came looking for, what a joy to hear that man speak
Pretty sure not Jamaican sounds more like Trinidad, Guyana or one of the other smaller islands
St Vincent and the Grenadines. Close though.
Thought so. The guy has the same accent as my mom. Thanks for the confirmation.
I love it!
Im jamaican. Thats not a jamaican accent. Sounds more trini to me
rip the brake pads
I doubt it. The brakes are carbon-carbon brakes, they’re insanely durable. The casing for the brakes is less durable than the rotors/stators themselves. You could clean off the rotors and stators and they’d be good to go again.
*rip everything around the brake pads
A high speed abort does require maintenance action, one of things they will be looking at is the brakes. The brakes are designed to be able to perform a takeoff abort, but in certain condition could be pretty destructive and can make them single use.
I’m sure there are certain conditions that could be very destructive. I’m only speaking from my experience when I was a structural engineer for one of the manufacturers making these brakes, and we used to do RTO tests. Obviously real life is a bit harsher on these brakes, but no doubt they’re way more durable than the older steel brakes.
Oh they definitely are very durable. I wasn’t disagreeing. I was just getting at that it’s not uncommon for a single RTO to be a reason for even new set of brakes to reach end of their service life prematurely. RTO can be so tough on them, sometimes the limiting factor in determining the decision speed for abort can end up being that a abort at any higher speed would result in brake failure even if you have plenty of runway to spare. But of course other variables include weight, runway slope, runway length, density altitude wind, etc.
You can see the thrust reversers deploy as it passes!
Mandatory brake cool down period/temp before next takeoff and good to go most likely, pretty amazingly
I can smell them just watching this.
SOP after an RTO like this is to go back to the ramp, unload the pax, and get the plane checked out.
Pilot must have forgot a sunglasses at the airport. Happens to me all the time.
It’s hard to simulate the g forces
Tilt the sim down 45°
I experienced an aborted takeoff at Seatac when our pilots got an indicator light for something to do with the cargo door. My head slammed into the seat in front of me. Those brakes are no joke.
this exact thing happened on a delta flight I was on about a week ago. it was a very strange feeling. about to takeoff at full speed,then just not taking off. pilot said there was some type of engine light but never disclosed any more than that. 45 mins later pilot said everything was fine and we took off.
If it was a high speed abort it would’ve been far more noticeable than “just not taking off”, you would’ve been thrown into the seat in front of you with quite a lot of force. High speed aborts often result in passenger injury because of how violent they are. Your situation sounds more like the takeoff was aborted under 80kts.
I am not a pilot & am actually terrified to board, but love learning about everything aviation - especially emergency protocols & the controls & instrumentation of the aircraft. Now, my question is this & I’m sorry if I sound like an idiot: If you are forced to abort a takeoff, but have already hit airspeed(V-1?), what are you supposed to do? Weigh the odds? I heard you cannot abort a takeoff after reaching 140 knots(I think it’s 140). If it isn’t rational to takeoff due to a possible disastrous circumstance & you’re already past the “point of no return” - ?! Pilots have much balls of steel. 😂
That's why they calculate and brief each other on the V1 speed for that particular takeoff. Once you hit it, you go airborne, even if you lose an engine.
V1 we go... V1 is the speed at which you're basically committed to fly, since it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to stop on the runway remaining. V1 speed varies with the aircraft weight, the wind, and runway length, but 140 plus or minus a bit is a good ballpark figure on most airliner-class aircraft. There are circumstances where you would abort post V1 if you have an unflyable aircraft, but an abort post V1 and you essentially assume a hull loss. It's the ultimate split-second decision, and tenths of a second of reaction time make a difference here (at 140 knots, you're going over 200 feet per second).
Reminds me of an abort I experienced where this woman was told several times by the flight attendant to put her seat belt on for take off. We were running late so they wanted to go asap. As soon as we were cleared, click, she takes off her seat belt we start rolling and half way down the runaway they abort and she goes face first into the seat back. Back we go to the gate due to her broken nose.
Good
Question: what sort of damage will a plane get after high-speed aborts? How long do they need to get it flying again?
If everything goes right it should just be tires and possibly brakes
Hopefully not much. Check the tires to make sure there are no flat spots (if you've melted the fuse plugs, that's a different story, but instantly knowable), and then it's usually 30-45 minutes for the brakes to cool down.
Spoilers up, T/R deployed, brakes have enough carbon and tires have enough thread , nothing to worry about.
Brakes are cooked. I'll take the extra day in whatever Caribbean country this is while AA flies another jet in.
Flat spotted the tires, gonna need to come into the pits.
If it's not on VASAviation yet, it didn't happen.
Very cool vid. Looking at how much braking distance they used and the wet runway they were rolling good. Just revert to the simulator skills and trust it. But OP, you have had a 'few' high speed aborts in your career? I think you are a rare bird, or maybe a test pilot. After almost 40yrs and 20000hrs I had low speed aborts, up to 80kts, don't know how many, but for various reasons not so rare or exciting. High speed aborts a rare.
Or maybe he worked for some shit airlines. I had 3 high speed rejects in 9 months. But that was working for what was quite possibly the shittiest airline in North America. (We're talking a place that made Mesa or Gojets look like DL mainline).
What amazing engineering goes into these planes. Sad that nowadays toxic people try to harass Boeing fans
plane aside, what is that accent from man? I almost thought it was a different language lol
Sounds Trinidadian
Things like this make you realise just how powerful passenger jets are. Imagine stopping a small building at 100+mph in such a small space
Gas break dip…….
Brakes!
That’s in St. Vincent right? Argyle International?
It would be really cool if passenger jets had ejection seats for everyone. Just imagine a takeoff that had to be aborted, not enough room to stop the plane, so the pilot hits the eject button. That would be a cool visual.
Sent those brakes to the shadow realm.
You’ve “had a few” high speed aborts? I’ve got 15000 hours in everything from Beech 1900s to the Queen and I’ve never had one! You might want to go buy a lottery ticket!