DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne
Moderator: Latest news team
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: 16 Oct 2020, 06:59
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
November 26, 2020 at 6.15 p.m.: An A300 from the DHL company performed a take-off rejection. The firefighters then intervened but for the moment we do not know the reason.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: 04 Feb 2016, 18:11
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
still there at 19:19 LT, looking at some ADSB data they rejected going 188 kt, not sure whether that's the real data, but some very fast braking action for sureSamuel Zerilli wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 18:23 November 26, 2020 at 6.15 p.m.: An A300 from the DHL company performed a take-off rejection. The firefighters then intervened but for the moment we do not know the reason.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: 16 Oct 2020, 06:59
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
I'have a rejected takeoff at a speed of 90 kts! which seems more correct to me because 188 kts is normally after "V1". After if the data is correct, I do not imagine the brakes when brakingpitrixplanespotting wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 19:20still there at 19:19 LT, looking at some ADSB data they rejected going 188 kt, not sure whether that's the real data, but some very fast braking action for sureSamuel Zerilli wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 18:23 November 26, 2020 at 6.15 p.m.: An A300 from the DHL company performed a take-off rejection. The firefighters then intervened but for the moment we do not know the reason.
-
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: 24 Feb 2007, 18:28
- Location: 2300NM due South of North Pole
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
@1838z
RWY 25R closed.
ARR 25L
DEP19.
H.A.
RWY 25R closed.
ARR 25L
DEP19.
H.A.
-
- Posts: 3086
- Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
- Location: Uccle/Ukkel, BE
- Contact:
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Confirmed by someone that the aircraft braked at highspeed. Runway closed until at least 02:00Z.
Hi. I'm Thibault Lapers. @ThibaultLapers & @TLspotting
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Extra information and footage: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/dhl- ... r-blocked/sdbelgium wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0
150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Runway reopened, this morning at 04:00 with a first landing 6 minutes later.luchtzak wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 23:37Extra information and footage: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/dhl- ... r-blocked/sdbelgium wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0
150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 11:13
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Indeed, it just turned out they were already rotating with the nose gear off the ground when the crew sensed difficulties and rejected takeoff.sdbelgium wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0
150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed
See: http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Indeed, and the incident is not due to the weight of the aircraft. All the cargo has been weighted again, and no anomalies were found. Maybe wrong calculations or flap setting?AustrianSimon wrote: ↑27 Nov 2020, 12:54Indeed, it just turned out they were already rotating with the nose gear off the ground when the crew sensed difficulties and rejected takeoff.sdbelgium wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0
150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed
See: http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
This reminds me strongly of the Kalitta B747 crash in 2008. They also tried to abort at a speed above v1, but were less fortunate...
If memory serves, one of the contributing factors there was that one of the pilots had already done a rejected take off with a speed greater than v1, so he was more inclined to do it again.
If memory serves, one of the contributing factors there was that one of the pilots had already done a rejected take off with a speed greater than v1, so he was more inclined to do it again.
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Indeed, some pictures from that crash: https://www.aviation24.be/do-you-rememb ... -25052008/
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Very tough decision of the crew. Above V1 and aborting TO, not very obvious and the crew has to be 100% sure of why doing. I am really curious what investigation will bring up.
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
I thought V1 was the speed at which there is no other option than take off?
Sounds quite a risky decision to still try to stop after V1...
But, I'm not a pilot, so just my (maybe wrong) thoughts...
Regards,
Duke
Sounds quite a risky decision to still try to stop after V1...
But, I'm not a pilot, so just my (maybe wrong) thoughts...
Regards,
Duke
DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne
The truth is that the definition of V1 is actually quite complex. I won't go into too much details but off the top of my head it is basically twofold.
Hope this makes a little sense...
- In a lot of cases (when the takeoff is field length limited) it is - as you rightly pointed out - the highest speed to make the first action towards stopping the aircraft, in order to stop on the runway.
- Looking at it from the other side, it is the lowest speed at which you can safely continue the takeoff after the critical engine fails and whereby you can cross the end of the runway at the regulated minimum screen height.
Hope this makes a little sense...
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
At my employer, you take off at V1 unless the aircraft is not flyable, even if there is enough runway to stop the plane before making like a golf cart and riding the grass. Hard braking can be unpredictable and dangerous, not to mention recovery a pain.sdbelgium wrote: ↑27 Nov 2020, 21:12 In this case I suspect that the takeoff was not field length limited (25R is roughly 3600m long), rather obstacle limited and thus the V1 definition is more likely to be the second one. In that case, you can technically abort the takeoff after 'V1', yet still stop before you run out of runway.
If the crew could have safely flown the aircraft at V1, they would have been back on the DHL apron within 20 minutes, vs 10 hours to remove the aircraft from the runway. Stopping after V1 is not a convenience, but a necessity.
(absolutely not second-guessing the crew, wasn't there, don't know why they aborted, confident they took what they thought was the safest option for whatever situation they were in - only using this as an example of why taking off at V1 may be a better option over stopping if the aircraft if flyable).
Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020
Completely agree longwings, don't get me wrong. Unless you deem the aircraft unable to fly, every employer will tell you to continue the takeoff. Taking the problem into the air gives your time and options. The point of my previous post was merely to point out that aborting a takeoff after V1 does not necessarily turn the aircraft into a golf cart (cfr. Duke's post on the previous page), because it is in many cases technically possible to stop before the end of the runway.
Like you said, this decision is not a light one to make and I'm very confident the commander of this DHL flight had very valid reasons to choose the 'stop' over the 'go'. I'm very eager to find out why the main wheels did not rotate.
Like you said, this decision is not a light one to make and I'm very confident the commander of this DHL flight had very valid reasons to choose the 'stop' over the 'go'. I'm very eager to find out why the main wheels did not rotate.
Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne
From The Aviation Herald this 3 Dec evening:
On Dec 3rd 2020 the Belgium AAIU stated the crew reported a normal acceleration of the aircraft during the takeoff roll. During rotation the nose did pitch up, however, the aircraft did not lift off. The crew rejected takeoff, applied reverse thrust and brought the aircraft to a stop between taxiways A6 and A7. The occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated.
On Dec 3rd 2020 the Belgium AAIU stated the crew reported a normal acceleration of the aircraft during the takeoff roll. During rotation the nose did pitch up, however, the aircraft did not lift off. The crew rejected takeoff, applied reverse thrust and brought the aircraft to a stop between taxiways A6 and A7. The occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated.
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne
Not wanting to shortcut the investigation but IF the aircraft did rotate but didn’t take off, the speed or the configuration must have been incorrect. So maybe it wasn’t an abort above V1 in the end.
Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne
Despite the early comments ruling this out, a third factor could be incorrect loading. Also, technically if the takeoff was aborted after the rotation, it must also have been aborted after V1 (as VR is at least equal to V1, can’t be earlier). Which doesn’t mean its impossible for the aircraft to stop before the end of the runway.