Delta Pilot aborts takeoff at Shanghai Airport PVG

Back to Forum

This topic contains 8 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  stevescoots 17 Nov 2018
at 03:25
.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

  • Tom Otley
    Keymaster

    Sounds like the pilot did a good job here

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6383653/Delta-flight-Shanghai-Detroit-aborts-high-speed-takeoff-plane-appears-runway.html

    Presumably there are pretty good brakes on those new A350s.

    I wonder why the confusion happened with the JAL flight crossing the runway during Delta’s takeoff…


    stevescoots
    Participant

    High speed take off….is there such a thing as a low speed take off?


    FDOS_UK
    Participant

    Semantics.

    Take offs are rejected, not aborted.

    Low speed reject = non-event

    High speed reject = a serious event, with a risk of fire (that’s why the fire truck was dousing the landing gear with water, to cool the brakes)


    esselle
    Participant

    But FDOS you must remember this is the Daily Mail.


    MartynSinclair
    Participant

    I think this also highlights why there will never be pilotless aircraft, especially out of busy airports. The only part of flight that can not be fully automated is the take off, as I believe, there is no computer that could identify a runway incursion & decide to reject a take off, fast enough..

    I am sure it may eventually happen, but as far as I am aware, not just yet…

    Well done the human pilot…

    2 users thanked author for this post.

    capetonianm
    Participant

    The recent incident with the Air Astana Bombardier over Portugal is another example of why automated aircraft should never happen.

    Daily Mail …. it was quite restrained. You would expect to read about the stricken aircraft hurtling at almost the speed of sound towards the crowded shopping centre at the end of the runway.


    FDOS_UK
    Participant

    There is something not right about the Delta report, where it mentions

    Passengers told Xinmin Evening News that the nose of the Airbus A350 had already lifted off the ground when the pilot slammed the brakes.

    As pilots of multi-engined aircraft know there are three key speeds during takeoff

    V1 – after which point the aircraft is committed to flight

    VR – the point at which the nose is left (or rotated) to increase the angle of attack of the wing as a precursor to flight

    V2 – the after takeoff safety speed for the initial climb

    If the aircraft nose had lifted, it must have been post V1 and it would probably have required less runway distance to clear the tail of the other aircraft than to stop.

    I suspect that the passengers incorrectly perceived the forces of acceleration as the nose rising – nonetheless, given the smoke coming out of the landing gear and the fire services dousing it with water, this must have been a high speed reject to generate that much energy.


    stevescoots
    Participant

    But FDOS you must remember this is the Daily Mail.

    That was my point, should have been high speed abort


    FDOS_UK
    Participant

    But FDOS you must remember this is the Daily Mail.

    That was my point, should have been high speed abort

    No, abort is not a word used by pilots.

    The word is reject.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls