SWA 737 overrun at BUR - Dec 6 2018

[FlightDetent]

@ hans, 172 (and C/A)
Both 737 and 320 have quite a similar landing geometry. If the antenna passes THR on the G/S at 50', later the MLG will cross at 33' (34) which should be the RA indication (calibrated that way).


The radio call "over the numbers" should be 30 (not 50 btw) - the normal landing technique for the expected touchdown point at 455 m (1490 ft). Irrespective of LDA. Runways >= 2400m are a small cognitive challenge due to the placement of the large distance marker and PAPI (nicely documented by the incumbent's almost contradicting statements above).

The no-flare point is 200m (-ish) plus another 255 m (835 ft) is calculated for the flare. That's a fair deal. On a good day, a 400 m touchdown is perfectly possible while keeping the normal profile. 350 surely too with a thump Re-iterated: To fit the actual trajectory inside the calculation model, no extra skill or fjord-pilot tricks are required.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2WHVjP60Gg&feature=youtu.be&t=330
54' TCH/RDH, aim-point 314 m deep (nominal 3°)
35' RA when wheels over the THR
4 reds on the PAPI (displaced 470 m) at the round out and touchdown exactly abeam https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9931.../data=!3m1!1e3

However, the plot thickens in the second act where the relationship between the actual achieved vs. calculated deceleration needs to be discussed.

ManaAdaSystem:I'll pass on the measuring exercise, yet for my improvement: Which of these I actually said do you disagree with?

1. Shorter runways require correct flying, whereas the long runways don't, absolutely.
2. anything beyond 600 m is not correctly done. Irrespective of runway length.
3. The best a pilot can do to be safe and effective on short runways is to practice on the longer ones to get that skill perfected.
4. The touchdown is usually decided between 150 and 50 feet above the ground
5. 350 (m touchdown) ...with a thump ...is surely ...perfectly possible ... while keeping the normal profile
6. To fit the actual trajectory inside the calculation model, no extra skill or fjord-pilot tricks are required.
7. Aiming closer to the threshold, steepening the angle in the last stages is more consistent with the intention (of saving distance)
8. I am sure everyone does a bit more pushing on the short runways and tries to tweak it closer to the tarmac edge.
9. A cautious duck under… is part of the duty even, to make sure all the odds are in our favour. The (another) extra 90 meters is not a negligible distance.
10. The touch-down point and speed are what matters.
11. retard the thrust to idle by 15'
12. Vref to Vref -5
13. "no landings beyond TDZ markings" is a sound principle
14. the last two (extra and incorrect) distance markers on the pavement (at BUR RWY 8) are nothing but a deathtrap.
15. (after the touchdown) the plot thickens ... where the relationship between the actual achieved vs. calculated deceleration needs to be discussed
16. (due to low friction) The last 60 m (at the far end) you might critically need, and as if they did not exist (when wet or worse)

The numbers are not priorities, just labels so you can respond easily.