Towers snitching on aborted take-offs?

schmookeeg

schmookeeg

En-Route
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
4,832
Location
Alameda, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Mike Brannigan
Hello all,

I leased out my Baron recently, since I was moving hangars and homes and my mission was somewhat on hold.

My Lessee, being new to the plane, has had two aborted takeoffs in his 60 hours of flying. Once for an Alternator Out light, once for a door pop.

Both were remedied using obvious means (taxi back, turn on alternator or latch door)

Both incidents have had a FAA ASI contact me and the pilot to find out what happened.

...

I feel like this was a waste of time in both instances, and... more importantly, there's a chilling effect here. I think most people equate ASIs with traffic cops at best (SS Ostufs at worst :D ) -- so getting a contact from them is really unwelcome.

You could almost hear the eye-roll from the ASI on the other end of the line, so I don't think the feds are enjoying this b!tchwork either.

I worry that fear of a call from the principal's office might nudge someone to NOT abort a takeoff when there's an abnormal situation, and it might hurt someone.

I was planning on filing an ASRS about this, since the more I think about it, the more annoyed I become -- these are the same jokers that need a weeks' notice to see me about anything -- how they find time to chase up every towered aborted takeoff is mind-boggling to me.

Any idea when or why this started? It's lame. Flight Schools at towered airports must just have a hotline red phone to their FSDO.

Are there other avenues for me to Karen up and complain? :D I need an outlet for this, and there are no nearby dogs to kick.
 
At they listening to the tower frequency while on the job? Or, is Tower ATC reporting it as part of normal protocol? I seem to remember this topic come up before, maybe elsewhere and not POA. May be partly the reason ATC says, “can you state the nature of ____?”, as if they keeping a log and then eventually delivering the info.

I would simply ask them what the objective is and where they are getting their info from. If you are a private operator and not 135, then it’s odd. If the “principal” is antagonized by the inquiry than I would place a friendly call to someone one or two latter steps above. You haven’t “gotten into it” with this ASI have you?
 
Anyone know what would happen if you just ignored them? I mean, if you did nothing wrong, what can they do?
 
TrueCourse said:
At they listening to the tower frequency while on the job? Or, is Tower ATC reporting it as part of normal protocol? I seem to remember this topic come up before, maybe elsewhere and not POA. Hence the reason ATC says, “can you state the nature of ____?”, as if they keeping a log and then eventually delivering the info.

I would simply ask them what the objective is and where they are getting their info from. If you are a private operator and not 135, then it’s odd. If the “principal” is antagonized by the inquiry than I would place a friendly call to someone one or two latter steps above. You haven’t “gotten into it” with this ASI have you?
Click to expand...

I was friendly and compliant, since I have 4 plastic cards that I'd like to keep usable :D

I did ask, and he mentioned "some new program" but didn't know much else. Apparently each reported abort needs a report to be filed and closed out.

He called me first as the owner, and when he learned I was not the pilot, apparently "couldn't close the report" until he had also contacted the pilot.

If I get an opportunity to ignore the next one, I'll take it and report back on the nature of letter I receive. :D
 
I've heard of this going on for the last few years. It seems they are looking for aborts caused by mechanical failures that were not inspected or repaired by a mechanic. Or maybe just looking for a pattern of aborts/failures.

I thought there had been a post a little while back about someone that got a little more fluffed by the FAA because they later took off after a suspected problem but never had a mechanic look at the aircraft.
 
Hey, @Timbeck2 - would you know anything about this? Do controllers send a note to the principal's office when a pilot aborts a takeoff?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I've heard of this going on for the last few years. It seems they are looking for aborts caused by mechanical failures that were not inspected or repaired by a mechanic. Or maybe just looking for a pattern of aborts/failures.

I thought there had been a post a little while back about someone that got a little more fluffed by the FAA because they later took off after a suspected problem but never had a mechanic look at the aircraft.
Click to expand...

That's awful if it's the first one. Do we need more reasons to spank pilots? They're raining out of the sky here in the southwest lately.
 
Just curious, but was it approached from a pure “collecting data” perspective? We’re they acting at all like it was a possible enforcement discussion? Did they give any sense that the discussion was voluntary?
 
Salty said:
Just curious, but was it approached from a pure “collecting data” perspective? We’re they acting at all like it was a possible enforcement discussion? Did they give any sense that the discussion was voluntary?
Click to expand...

I would say no, from memory it was generally in the nature of "I received a report of... and need to find out what happened so I can close this file out" -- I don't think it came from a place of possible enforcement, but I'm closer to the SS than traffic-cop treatment of my ASI interactions, so I assume that any conversation can ALWAYS lead down that path. I didn't get the idea he was fishing for violations though, just filling out a TPS report.
 
This has been previously discussed on a forum. I forget where, someone even went to the trouble to chase down someone at FAA HQ.
The report back was this is a new program aimed at improving data. There were a few accidents in the last few years, soon after takeoff, and the problem appears to be mechanical.
So the FAA wants to know why, and how these issues are being missed.

Tim
 
I was told recently at MYF that all the aborted takeoffs here are reported by tower, FAA program, as stated above.
 
What if it just takes you really long to take off? Like 15 minutes because a door was open? I mean, you didn't abort it, you just took your time. :eek:
 
schmookeeg said:
My Lessee, being new to the plane, has had two aborted takeoffs in his 60 hours of flying. Once for an Alternator Out light, once for a door pop.
Click to expand...
lucky guy to be leasing a Baron! I've been trying to find an arrangement to have something outside of our vintage '67 club Aztec or duchesses (is that the plural?). I'd be curious though, I had a door pop once in our duchess and I continued take off, didn't declare, came around, and landed. Is the consensus that an alt light and door pop are show stoppers? I assume if the door popped he already had some speed (30, 45 knots + ?).. A twin on take off roll as a fair bit of potential energy and things to manage. I'd hate to go off a runway and bend metal over something like a popped door
 
Half Fast said:
Hey, @Timbeck2 - would you know anything about this? Do controllers send a note to the principal's office when a pilot aborts a takeoff?
Click to expand...

Nope. We just ask if they need any assistance and to contact ground.

Plus, I don’t understand why a controller would care other than having to send someone around because of it. Besides, “I ain’t got no time fo dat.”
 
Last edited:
What a total waste of time for the controllers. We did so many simulated aborted takeoffs, I guess now the students won't get that ... we also had engine out right after rotation and land on the next runway over (see KLRU which is non-towered) ...
 
I've heard of a few non-emergency in-flight mechanical issues (pilot deviated from planned flight to return to base kind of thing) that have resulted in follow-up calls from the FAA.

It really isn't clear what the purpose of these inquiries are, but now with it extending to aborted takeoffs, I agree this could have the opposite effect from whatever they are trying to achieve. I might bring this up at the next safety meeting I attend.

If they have a good explanation for this, and I sure hope it isn't for enforcement, they should really communicate the purpose more broadly so it doesn't develop into something that compromises safety.
 
Tantalum said:
lucky guy to be leasing a Baron! I've been trying to find an arrangement to have something outside of our vintage '67 club Aztec or duchesses (is that the plural?). I'd be curious though, I had a door pop once in our duchess and I continued take off, didn't declare, came around, and landed. Is the consensus that an alt light and door pop are show stoppers? I assume if the door popped he already had some speed (30, 45 knots + ?).. A twin on take off roll as a fair bit of potential energy and things to manage. I'd hate to go off a runway and bend metal over something like a popped door
Click to expand...

Yeah the bonanza/baron door pop scenario kills pilots -- I have no idea why, but it's something we train every transition. Possibly because it can be very percussive and comes at a real high cognitive-load time -- at rotation.

I don't recall if my old sundowner ever popped a door, but I think its design might allow in-flight closure -- the bo/baron will definitely not allow you to close it in-flight, it will trail about an inch open and suck any paper outta the cockpit. Landing/Aborting to re-secure is the only remedy.
 
Emphasize in your nasa report that the event was a non-issue and that this nasa report is intended to address mainly that:
a) this is a waste of valuable ASI time, ATC time and,
b) could actually worsen safety by distracting ATC from their real and important work of separating airplanes. (and your other point in post #1)
 
I've heard Tower ask a pilot about why they aborted a takeoff. The pilot (CFI) said "For training" and then: "Why do you need to know?" and Tower said, "Oh, we're supposed to keep track of the reasons for all aborted takeoffs."
Didn't sound at all like targeting anyone, just information-collecting.
 
Any aborted take off after crossing the hold short, IS a mandatory occurrence report. Whether or not that MOR gets submitted to the ASI is the function of the facility QA person. ASI might not even bother with a follow up.

839E53A1-822E-4880-BDE4-FB200D722012.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I can confirm that I aborted a takeoff at Osh this year and did not get a call. I actually had to tell the controller so he could cancel another takeoff clearance behind me.

Maybe they knew I’d be a smartass if they called and asked why.
 
I’ve heard a jet abort before saying they needed more time to warm up. Tower on frequency said they were filing a report.

I am reading up about multi engines and maintenance and some procedures called for high speed taxi, accelerate and stop distance, etc on the runway.

Regards to the door opening in flight, I’ve had it happen a few times and in different airplanes. It can be startling. In a C172 I got it fixed pretty easily but had a second person in the airplane. In the Piper Arrow it is a little more tricky and not something I want to do solo, easier if a second person is inside. I asked tower for a full stop taxi back, it was denied due to airport construction, I just decided to go to another airport nearby, looking back I should have explained the situation so I could have landed, stopped and fixed the issue. I didn’t feel it was an emergency but it is definitely adding an element, I was in the traffic pattern and didn’t want to start a conversation while on final. Touch and go, went to another airport, full stop taxi back and fixed the issue.

Funny thing with the Pipers, passengers think they need to slam the door hard to get it closed - just need a soft close, secure the latch until you feel the click, then test it is secured. Cannot understand why passengers mess it up and door doesn’t get locked. I do physical push of the door to make sure it’s secured before takeoff now, after having it open you know to push on the top portion of the door as that’s the point that usually opens if it isn’t secured.
 
luvflyin said:
That's from here. All y'all may find some of the other rat outable things interesting. Go to Appendix A.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7210.632A.pdf
Click to expand...


Interesting.

This one caught me by surprise:
c. Any occurrence where an aircraft enters special use airspace (for example, a warning area,
military operations area, or ATC-assigned airspace) without coordination and/or authorization.​

Since when do you have to be talking with ATC to fly through an MOA?
 
mandm said:
I’ve heard a jet abort before saying they needed more time to warm up. Tower on frequency said they were filing a report.

I am reading up about multi engines and maintenance and some procedures called for high speed taxi, accelerate and stop distance, etc on the runway.

Regards to the door opening in flight, I’ve had it happen a few times and in different airplanes. It can be startling. In a C172 I got it fixed pretty easily but had a second person in the airplane. In the Piper Arrow it is a little more tricky and not something I want to do solo, easier if a second person is inside. I asked tower for a full stop taxi back, it was denied due to airport construction, I just decided to go to another airport nearby, looking back I should have explained the situation so I could have landed, stopped and fixed the issue. I didn’t feel it was an emergency but it is definitely adding an element, I was in the traffic pattern and didn’t want to start a conversation while on final. Touch and go, went to another airport, full stop taxi back and fixed the issue.

Funny thing with the Pipers, passengers think they need to slam the door hard to get it closed - just need a soft close, secure the latch until you feel the click, then test it is secured. Cannot understand why passengers mess it up and door doesn’t get locked. I do physical push of the door to make sure it’s secured before takeoff now, after having it open you know to push on the top portion of the door as that’s the point that usually opens if it isn’t secured.
Click to expand...
Probably because they're used to Cessna doors that you have to solidly close, then engage the latch pins. If the latch handle isn't in the right position before the door is slammed it won't close, lol.
 
Tantalum said:
lucky guy to be leasing a Baron! I've been trying to find an arrangement to have something outside of our vintage '67 club Aztec or duchesses (is that the plural?). I'd be curious though, I had a door pop once in our duchess and I continued take off, didn't declare, came around, and landed. Is the consensus that an alt light and door pop are show stoppers? I assume if the door popped he already had some speed (30, 45 knots + ?).. A twin on take off roll as a fair bit of potential energy and things to manage. I'd hate to go off a runway and bend metal over something like a popped door
Click to expand...

Broad generalization here, but unless you're in an airplane where you're actually calculating V1, if you're on the ground when there's a problem, it is far better and safer to abort takeoff for ANY issue. Doesn't matter what it is. You hear a bang, maybe it's the door, maybe it's something else. Doesn't matter, abort the takeoff THEN figure out what it was.

The reason that jets and some turboprops will continue takeoff after V1 for most abnormalities (and often at a lesser speed for some abnormalities) is because 1) they're going really fast by then and it's a lot of energy to dissipate to stop, and 2) there may not be much runway left to stop anyway.

But for a Baron or most other piston airplanes, it's far better to just abort the takeoff.
 
Had two aborted take-offs in our plane…received certified letters asking why on both occasions.
 
Never heard of it. They certainly don't do it here in Canada. I had an aborted takeoff at one of the busiest airports in the whole country and other than tower asking if I needed anything, there was no follow up.
 
I got a call on one because the oil filler access door on the upper cowling of a 182 popped open right as takeoff power was applied due to vibration, I guess. Not sure what else I could've done. Maybe I should've taken it flying and had it rip off. As long as it didn't bonk somebody on the head down on the ground I guess the feds wouldn't care about that. ASI called me on the phone a few weeks later to ask me about it and wanted to know whether I was a commercial/135 operator. Not a big deal, but I guess you can tally this up to one more disadvantage of towered airports. Big brother is always watching. Queue the tin foil hat meme.
 
schmookeeg said:
Yeah the bonanza/baron door pop scenario kills pilots -- I have no idea why, but it's something we train every transition. Possibly because it can be very percussive and comes at a real high cognitive-load time -- at rotation.

I don't recall if my old sundowner ever popped a door, but I think its design might allow in-flight closure -- the bo/baron will definitely not allow you to close it in-flight, it will trail about an inch open and suck any paper outta the cockpit. Landing/Aborting to re-secure is the only remedy.
Click to expand...

It kills pilots who prioritize trying to close the door over flying the airplane. I’ve had the door pop open on a Baron at rotation at night in the worst possible set of circumstances and while loud, hardly an emergency as long as I kept flying the plane.

If the Sundowner door is anything like the Duchess, then yes, you can close the door in flight.
 
RussR said:
Broad generalization here, but unless you're in an airplane where you're actually calculating V1, if you're on the ground when there's a problem, it is far better and safer to abort takeoff for ANY issue. Doesn't matter what it is. You hear a bang, maybe it's the door, maybe it's something else. Doesn't matter, abort the takeoff THEN figure out what it was.

The reason that jets and some turboprops will continue takeoff after V1 for most abnormalities (and often at a lesser speed for some abnormalities) is because 1) they're going really fast by then and it's a lot of energy to dissipate to stop, and 2) there may not be much runway left to stop anyway.

But for a Baron or most other piston airplanes, it's far better to just abort the takeoff.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree on that.

In my case, I was departing a 3200 x 50' runway at night. Door popped open just after rotation/started to lift off. I knew it was the door and I knew the airplane would fly just fine, albeit loud.

Had I aborted at that point, I would have probably gone off the end of the runway....in the dark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top