DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Samuel Zerilli
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Oct 2020, 06:59

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by Samuel Zerilli »

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.
Attachments
20201126_182449.jpg
20201126_181945.jpg
20201126_182007.jpg
20201126_182016.jpg
20201126_182030.jpg
Hi, I'm Samuel -;)

pitrixplanespotting
Posts: 617
Joined: 04 Feb 2016, 18:11

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by pitrixplanespotting »

Samuel 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.
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 sure :o

Samuel Zerilli
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Oct 2020, 06:59

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by Samuel Zerilli »

pitrixplanespotting wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 19:20
Samuel 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.
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 sure :o
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 braking :shock:
Hi, I'm Samuel -;)

Homo Aeroportus
Posts: 1284
Joined: 24 Feb 2007, 18:28
Location: 2300NM due South of North Pole

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by Homo Aeroportus »

@1838z
RWY 25R closed.
ARR 25L
DEP19.


H.A.

TLspotting
Posts: 2602
Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
Location: Uccle/Ukkel, BE
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by TLspotting »

Confirmed by someone that the aircraft braked at highspeed. Runway closed until at least 02:00Z.
Hi. I'm Thibault Lapers. @ThibaultLapers & @TLspotting

sdbelgium
Posts: 4042
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 13:32
Location: Gent
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by sdbelgium »

http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0

150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed 😳

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11529
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by luchtzak »

sdbelgium wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0

150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed 😳
Extra information and footage: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/dhl- ... r-blocked/

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11529
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by luchtzak »

luchtzak wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 23:37
sdbelgium wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0

150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed 😳
Extra information and footage: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/dhl- ... r-blocked/
Runway reopened, this morning at 04:00 with a first landing 6 minutes later.

AustrianSimon
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 11:13

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by AustrianSimon »

sdbelgium wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0

150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed 😳
Indeed, it just turned out they were already rotating with the nose gear off the ground when the crew sensed difficulties and rejected takeoff.

See: http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95

lucas
Posts: 182
Joined: 01 Feb 2017, 15:06

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by lucas »

AustrianSimon wrote: 27 Nov 2020, 12:54
sdbelgium wrote: 26 Nov 2020, 23:10 http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95&opt=0

150 knots GS... That is *very* high speed 😳
Indeed, it just turned out they were already rotating with the nose gear off the ground when the crew sensed difficulties and rejected takeoff.

See: http://avherald.com/h?article=4dfbfe95
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?

Atco EBBR
Posts: 129
Joined: 21 May 2012, 13:11

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by Atco EBBR »

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.

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11529
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by luchtzak »

Indeed, some pictures from that crash: https://www.aviation24.be/do-you-rememb ... -25052008/

saratoga
Posts: 237
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by saratoga »

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.

Duke
Posts: 281
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by Duke »

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

sdbelgium
Posts: 4042
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 13:32
Location: Gent
Contact:

DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne

Post by sdbelgium »

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.
  • 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.
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.

Hope this makes a little sense...

longwings
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Feb 2019, 03:51

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by longwings »

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.
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.

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).

sdbelgium
Posts: 4042
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 13:32
Location: Gent
Contact:

Re: Anomalies in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2020

Post by sdbelgium »

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.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 37747
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne

Post by sn26567 »

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.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Poiu
Posts: 857
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne

Post by Poiu »

sn26567 wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 22:37 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.
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.

sdbelgium
Posts: 4042
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 13:32
Location: Gent
Contact:

Re: DHL A300-600 rejects takeoff above V1 due to difficulties becoming airborne

Post by sdbelgium »

Poiu wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 23:08 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.
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.

Post Reply