I’ve had one, in my own plane due to a feeling that take off power wasn’t what it should be. Pulled off the runway, lengthy full power run up, everything seemed fine, second time nothing out of the ordinary. And nothing afterwards. So it was probably just an attack of nerves on my part.
The RTO was no big deal at all – just pulled the power and coasted to the end of the shortish runway.
The problem with doors popping open is that they tend to do that just as you rotate for lift-off. So on a couple of occasions I have taken off and climbed away with a door that just opened (slightly). Once I pulled the throttle immediately when it happened, but the airplane had lifted off at the same instance and settled back ungracefully as I idled the engine. A door popping open like that is not really cause for doing anything without thinking about it first.
My only performance related rejected take-off was in a fully loaded Cardinal RG on a grass strip. I knew the aircraft well but was a fairly new pilot at the time. I had just landed solo and being light, the surface felt hard. When I loaded passenger and luggage and started take-off roll, it became obvious that the field was somewhat soft. I had not used the soft-field procedure, and I had also not determined a 70%-of-lift-off-speed-mark. As soon as I realised that soft-field technique was called for, I aborted, taxied back and took off with good margins using the right technique and checking speed at the mark.
I know about two serious accidents with SEPs taking off and not rejecting despite degraded performance. One was a fatal accident in a Lake amphibian, with a very bad and tired engine. The aircraft overran the runway and fell down the steeply falling terrain after the runway. Both occupants died. It is many years ago and I do not remember where it happened.
The other was at my home airfield, in an AA-1 airplane that I knew well (OY-AYF). The pilot had forgotten to check that the primer was closed before take-off, and that made the fuel mixture over-rich, reducing power. He took off but did not manage to climb very much out of ground effect before settling down again, overrunning and hitting a tree.
It is obvious that it can be difficult to judge whether acceleration is normal if you are not familiar with the type or aircraft. But in some cases the option of aborting simply seems not to be present in the pilot’s head. A few years ago a pilot in a C150 tried to take off from an short unimproved field, not far from here. As he overran the level field and entered weeds high enough for the propeller to cut its way through, he kept full power on until the airplane stopped completely.
That seems extreme, but the above mentioned Lake accident showed signs of the same, as the poor acceleration was very obvious to witnesses.
It might help if there was more emphasis on this during basic flight training. Rejected take-off is not in the EASA-FCL syllabus for PPL/LAPL. I have never done one for training.
This
is a very good way to check performance on take off and I do it every single time. I rejected a landing once on that basis. The wind had turned.
I’ve rejected a couple others, although both times I had plenty of runway unlike the situation above. Once I forgot the pitot cover. Another time after maintenance to fix an engine problem (that was on my Turkey trip), the engine made it clear the problem was NOT fixed.
Both of my RTOs were due to trivial dirt: once in the Pitot tube on a club-owned TMG, and once in the mixture control cable. The latter one was interesting: Bowden cables on my aircraft have a helical sheath of steel wire but no plastic sleeve, so when the inner cable got stuck at the far end, the sheath acted as a spring. I pushed the mixture control fully in before starting the engine, and it initially stayed there but popped out when I started to roll. I noticed the poor acceleration and simultaneously heard a message to that effect from the tower. Pushed the mixture in again, it popped back out in a few seconds. Taxied back to the apron, opened the cowling, found a stuck cable, exercised it back and forth so it would stay rich, then flew back home (15 minutes) and gave it a thorough cleaning and lube.
1) Rejected on short runway on a “hot” day for Inverness, took off on main runway.
2) Lifted off, not climbing, put down and hit fence at Stronsay, Orkney. Uphill towards rising ground, near max AUW, long grass.
Had been persuaded not to take off downhill and downwind by co-owner who had landed and was now pax.
3) Took off, no airspeed, landed on remaining runway and removed pitot cover.
4-7 Engine died as I opened throttle. Carb ice. One vapour lock at gascolator. Now use carb heat at start of run if suspicious
8) Was touching things as I did pre-take-off checks at Wick. ATC in a friendly voice asked if I could accept an information service for training purposes. I said “G-WF affirm”. Angry voice: ,“That requires a read-back”.
I must have been touching the fuel at that moment, and turned it off. Noticed at start of run, and aborted rather than turn it on and have a power loss before fuel flow caught up. Engine did stop.
All my MEP training and revalidations involved an RTO at any inkling of something untoward.
The instructor would sometimes ask a question or perhaps pull a breaker to set off the doors open alarm or to quickly reduce power on one engine. Failure to brief for it or failure to act quickly and decisively with a call of " aborting" reduction of throttle and breaking was frowned upon.
I am surprised one would reject takeoffs on a twin that readily. They are after all supposed to take off and fly on one engine – subject to the required speed having been achieved.
And in GA ops one rarely has a “balanced runway” option. Obviously I have not researched the numbers but I am sure that at more than 50% of GA airfields a takeoff rejected at V1 will have you coming off the far end of the runway at quite some speed, with a fire being pretty likely. The brakes are mostly pretty useless…
Peter wrote:
And in GA ops one rarely has a “balanced runway” option. Obviously I have not researched the numbers but I am sure that at more than 50% of GA airfields a takeoff rejected at V1 will have you coming off the far end of the runway at quite some speed, with a fire being pretty likely
Yes, in typical less than 800m runways you have to reject at 30kts-40kts, after that it’s mostly a controlled crash
At Vr, V1 in GA (SEP NCO on raw POH TO data+x%) it’s outgoing only 
Peter wrote:
I am surprised one would reject takeoffs on a twin that readily.
It’s a VERY big part of twin training.
Peter wrote:
They are after all supposed to take off and fly on one engine
Good luck with that, most of the light MEPs have very, shall we call it anemic, climb performance on one engine. Depending on DA that ‘performance’ may in fact be a negative value. If you can you most definitely want to troubleshoot on the ground rather than in the air.
I do recall somebody (NBAA?) having done the research when EASA proposed forcing a balanced runway for all jets, even privately operated. Currently AFAIK it is a requirement only for AOC ops. It was found that some huge number of European runways, currently usable, would become inaccesible to jets (900 from vague memory). About 5 years ago?
Good luck with that, most of the light MEPs have very, shall we call it anemic, climb performance on one engine. Depending on DA that ‘performance’ may in fact be a negative value.
Sure, but all certified piston twins are supposed to “climb” on one engine
If you can you most definitely want to troubleshoot on the ground rather than in the air.
Unless the plane is on fire, post-crash.
Obviously rejecting is a good idea in the right conditions, but in reality one needs to check all the stuff (fuel flow, etc) quickly after applying power, because the window for shutting down while not coming off the far end of the runway is usually only a few seconds.
In the US you have long runways, and some here too (I recall one of 3500m; took for ever to taxi along it). But most are much shorter, and there are many ~500m ones.
