Gatwick closed (now reopened) - aborted take off
That's quite a high speed. probably not too far below V1 and with the distance involved, probably a widebody with a decent fuel load.
Tyre deflation may have occurred and they may have need the portable fans for brake cooling.
Tyre deflation may have occurred and they may have need the portable fans for brake cooling.
Spotters Corner!
A passenger reported the crew told them there had been a problem on the flight deck.
That made me laugh. Just waiting for the tabloids to twist that around!
That made me laugh. Just waiting for the tabloids to twist that around!
Another BA 777 RTO handled in a sub-prime way? Or have the lessons learned from the last major one resulted in an overly cautious new method?
Barring a catastrophic failure which obviously didn’t occur here; why not get out of the way? Brakes are certified up to max energy + a portion of taxi time after RTO. This wasn’t max energy and it would have taken two minutes to vacate and stop on a taxiway.
And I’m speaking from the experience of an RTO at 130+ knots due to a serious failure in the flight deck but not catastrophic. We were off the active within ten minutes of stabilising the situation.
Barring a catastrophic failure which obviously didn’t occur here; why not get out of the way? Brakes are certified up to max energy + a portion of taxi time after RTO. This wasn’t max energy and it would have taken two minutes to vacate and stop on a taxiway.
And I’m speaking from the experience of an RTO at 130+ knots due to a serious failure in the flight deck but not catastrophic. We were off the active within ten minutes of stabilising the situation.
I don’t know, I wasn’t there and neither were you. It’ll all come out in the wash, why not wait and see. Just because you vacated the runway doesn’t make you right/them wrong. It’s just attempted point scoring without knowing any of the facts.
Professional courtesy and all that… unless you have a particular axe to grind?
Professional courtesy and all that… unless you have a particular axe to grind?
BA have a trend to completely f&ck up RTOs and EFATOs. I reckon that is their own axe to sharpen.
But then again it also seems they are more concerned about the feelings of the overweight cabin crew.
lol.
But then again it also seems they are more concerned about the feelings of the overweight cabin crew.
lol.
The aircraft was stationary on 26L for the best part of 40 minutes. The ADS-B data suggests that it may have been slightly N of the centreline at that point.
There will have been a very good reason to stop and stay on the runway. No crew are just going to sit there and fill in the tech log.
I am not B777 rated, but Nose-wheel steering. Brake problems, Landing gear unlocked or a flat tyre might require staying put until an engineering inspection had been made, or a tow could be organised (very heavy aircraft). Unlocked reverser or a flight control issue would be another reason to RTO, but should still be able to taxi off.
A problem involving a chance of fire and/or emergency evac also might mean staying on the runway for better emergency services access around the aircraft, rather than having to use the grass ?
.
I am not B777 rated, but Nose-wheel steering. Brake problems, Landing gear unlocked or a flat tyre might require staying put until an engineering inspection had been made, or a tow could be organised (very heavy aircraft). Unlocked reverser or a flight control issue would be another reason to RTO, but should still be able to taxi off.
A problem involving a chance of fire and/or emergency evac also might mean staying on the runway for better emergency services access around the aircraft, rather than having to use the grass ?
.
Last edited by Uplinker; 30th Jun 2024 at 22:17. Reason: clarification
BA2279 at London Gatwick on 28 June 2024, rejected takeoff at high speed
Simon Hradecky over on The Aviation Herald covers the incident here.
The ADS-B data collected and interpreted by Flightradar24 is interesting. It shows three consecutive positive altitudes either side of the point of recorded maximum ground speed. Noting that a rejected take-off after rotation would be something extraordinary, I am curious as to whether anyone might have any information regarding the incident.
And yes, corrupted and/or spurious ADS-B data would be a leading explanation, but the timing and persistence over three transmissions covering 18 seconds is, at best, odd.
![](https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1200/screenshot_20240629_121407_flightradar24_ebafc3b3872a253f3af6263102657951fddfd4c9.jpg)
![](https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1750x715/screenshot_20240630_085311_sheets_bed86dd30ab20f9b5c6d4fe2352880d7689f178d.jpg)
The ADS-B data collected and interpreted by Flightradar24 is interesting. It shows three consecutive positive altitudes either side of the point of recorded maximum ground speed. Noting that a rejected take-off after rotation would be something extraordinary, I am curious as to whether anyone might have any information regarding the incident.
And yes, corrupted and/or spurious ADS-B data would be a leading explanation, but the timing and persistence over three transmissions covering 18 seconds is, at best, odd.
![](https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1200/screenshot_20240629_121407_flightradar24_ebafc3b3872a253f3af6263102657951fddfd4c9.jpg)
![](https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1750x715/screenshot_20240630_085311_sheets_bed86dd30ab20f9b5c6d4fe2352880d7689f178d.jpg)
The following users liked this post:
As I understand it, if the "Weight on wheels" signal is present the altitude records as zero. If the signal is not present the altitude is recorded from GPS or derived from air pressure. May not have actually lifted off.
The following users liked this post:
Any chance that’s an issue with the use of not of ADS data rather than an aircraft issue?
Somebody will know this - When does FR transition from assuming the aircraft is in the ground (and so displays alt of zero) and move to displaying the (uncorrected) baro data?
Edit: I see mikeygd has similar thoughts…in any event being Gatwick the crew will have been seeing 200 feet, plus or minus on their pressure altimeters on the roll. I’d be highly wary of any alt data as being valid or representative of what the crew were seeing or perhaps responded to.
Somebody will know this - When does FR transition from assuming the aircraft is in the ground (and so displays alt of zero) and move to displaying the (uncorrected) baro data?
Edit: I see mikeygd has similar thoughts…in any event being Gatwick the crew will have been seeing 200 feet, plus or minus on their pressure altimeters on the roll. I’d be highly wary of any alt data as being valid or representative of what the crew were seeing or perhaps responded to.
The following users liked this post:
Nothing odd about it. When the ground speed goes above a certain value, I think from about 60kts up to about 100kts for larger aircraft, the transponder changes signal from ground to air. This is so TCAS signals can be prepared in good time for an aircraft about to get airborne
however, there was a case in Canada where the controller in LVP saw an embraer “airborne” on his screen and cleared the next aircraft for takeoff. However the embraer had also rejected, and the status changed back to ground which the controller missed. This was a misunderstanding on the controllers behalf, the ADSB data should not be used in this way
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i...a20o0029.html#
however, there was a case in Canada where the controller in LVP saw an embraer “airborne” on his screen and cleared the next aircraft for takeoff. However the embraer had also rejected, and the status changed back to ground which the controller missed. This was a misunderstanding on the controllers behalf, the ADSB data should not be used in this way
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i...a20o0029.html#
Last edited by V_2; 2nd Jul 2024 at 06:53.
The following users liked this post:
Nothing odd about it. When the ground speed goes above a certain value, I think from about 60kts up to about 100kts for larger aircraft, the transponder changes signal from ground to air. This is so TCAS signals can be prepared in good time for an aircraft about to get airborne...
Last edited by MickG0105; 2nd Jul 2024 at 07:36. Reason: Added acknowledgements to save another post
The following users liked this post:
Nothing odd about it. When the ground speed goes above a certain value, I think from about 60kts up to about 100kts for larger aircraft, the transponder changes signal from ground to air. This is so TCAS signals can be prepared in good time for an aircraft about to get airborne
however, there was a case in Canada where the controller in LVP saw an embraer “airborne” on his screen and cleared the next aircraft for takeoff. However the embraer had also rejected, and the status changed back to ground which the controller missed. This was a misunderstanding on the controllers behalf, the ADSB data should not be used in this way
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i...a20o0029.html#
however, there was a case in Canada where the controller in LVP saw an embraer “airborne” on his screen and cleared the next aircraft for takeoff. However the embraer had also rejected, and the status changed back to ground which the controller missed. This was a misunderstanding on the controllers behalf, the ADSB data should not be used in this way
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i...a20o0029.html#
Given the QNH on the day (1017 hPa), an aircraft on the LGW runway at over the air/ground threshold speed should have been sending transponder altitudes of around 100' (± 25', AMSL, uncorrected) so those 50/'150' readouts aren't too far out, and shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as weight off wheels.
The following users liked this post: