Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

SWA 737 overrun at BUR - Dec 6 2018

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

SWA 737 overrun at BUR - Dec 6 2018

Old 7th Dec 2018, 00:57
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 865
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Looks like the EMAS did it's job. Makes you wonder why it's use isn't more widespread...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…………... there's your reason why not !
machtuk is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 02:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,196
Originally Posted by machtuk View Post
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…………... there's your reason why not !
And a hull loss costs how much? Not to mention the potential human costs...
tdracer is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 03:50
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,069
EMAS is an expense to the airport or the city/authority. A hull loss doesn't cost them anything - that is a cost to the airline or its insurer or the leasing co., or whoever.

Different pots of money controlled by different people and entirely separate budgets.

Unless airlines want to pay for their own EMAS installations at difficult airports they serve. Or threaten to stop service unless the airport pays for EMAS. Or lobby the FAA or equivalent regulators to lean on the airports to do it.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 03:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
A divert would certainly be an option, but if the airport was above landing minimums and your perfromance calculations indicated the aircraft could be stopped on the runway, would you divert?
Yes I would in some circumstances TriStar.
This SAFO is important,all crew should have thought about the practical implications of it.
Subject: Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways
Purpose: This SAFO warns airplane operators and pilots that the advisory data for wet runway landings
may not provide a safe stopping margin under all conditions.
Background: Landing overruns which occur on wet runways typically involve multiple contributing factors such as long touchdown, improper use of deceleration devices, tailwind and less available friction than expected. Several recent runway landing incidents/accidents have raised concerns with wet runway stopping performance assumptions. Analysis of the stopping data from these incidents/accidents indicates the braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower than expected for a wet runway as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Federal Air Regulation (FAR) 25.109 and Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7C methods. These incidents/accidents occurred on both grooved and un- grooved or non-Porous Friction Course overlay (PFC) runways. The data indicates that applying a 15% safety margin to wet runway time-of-arrival advisory data as, recommended by SAFO 06012, may be inadequate in certain wet runway conditions.
Discussion: The root cause of the wet runway stopping performance shortfall is not fully understood at this time; however issues that appear to be contributors are runway conditions such as texture (polished or rubber contaminated surfaces), drainage, puddling in wheel tracks and active precipitation. Analysis of this data indicates that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may be required in certain cases where the runway is very wet, but not flooded.
For non-grooved or non-PFC runways, experience has shown that wheel braking may be degraded when the runway is very wet. If active moderate or heavy precipitation exists, the operator should consider additional conservatism in their time-of-arrival assessment.
For grooved or PFC runways, experience has shown that wheel braking is degraded when the runway is very wet. If active heavy precipitation exists; the operator should consider additional conservatism in their time-of-arrival assessment.
Possible methods of applying additional conservatism when operating on a runway which experience has shown is degraded when very wet are assuming a braking action of medium or fair when computing time- of-arrival landing performance or increasing the factor applied to the wet runway time-of-arrival landing performance data.
Distributed by: AFS-200 AFS-240
In some cases manufacturers have provided improved performance landing data for grooved/PFC runways. This improved performance grooved/PFC runway landing data should only be used when following any other Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) requirements and/or requirements of section 7 of AC 121-195(d)-1a, “FAR PART 121 OPERATIONAL APPROVALS OF AIRCRAFT WITH OPERATIONAL LANDING PERFORMANCE ON WET RUNWAYS” or equivalent operation specification.
Some of the wet runway braking shortfalls have occurred at US airports where Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 139 runway design and maintenance standards apply. Operators should be aware that the aforementioned runway design and maintenance standards may not be met in other countries. Many country’s standards for design, construction and maintenance of runways are based on International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14 runway design and maintenance standards, however they may lack oversight in implementation of these standards. Also, outside of the United States there is often less usage of grooving or PFC overlay which, when present, will normally aid in drainage and mitigate the risk of hydroplaning during active precipitation, thus impacting braking action.
Operators should be aware of the runway maintenance program and wet runway friction capability at the airports to which they operate. Mitigation should be considered at airports where aircraft operators have reason to suspect the runway’s capability of creating good friction while very wet during active precipitation.
As stated initially the other common contributing factors for wet runway excursions are long touchdown, improper application of deceleration devices and tailwind landings. Aircraft operators should review their flight training programs to ensure flight crews are familiar with the assumptions used in creating the data used for the time-of-arrival assessment such as the assumed distance from threshold to touchdown, recommended uses of deceleration devices; aircraft operators should also ensure flight crews are aware of the wind assumed in the original dispatch calculations for the flight. Advisory Circular 91-79A has been recently updated to address these issues and operators should review the guidance contained therein.
In 2015 a committee of manufacturers and regulators will further investigate the issues with wet runway braking performance shortfalls. Airport and aircraft operators will be included in this investigation.
Recommended Action: Directors of safety and directors of operations (Part 121); directors of operations (part 135, and 125), program managers, (Part 91K), and Pilots (Part 91) should take appropriate action within their operation to address the safety concerns with landing performance on wet runways discussed in this SAFO.
Contact: Questions or comments regarding this SAFO should be directed to the Air Transportation, New Program Implementation Branch, AFS-240 at (202) 267-8166.
73qanda is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 05:14
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago
Age: 63
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
EMAS is an expense to the airport or the city/authority. A hull loss doesn't cost them anything - that is a cost to the airline or its insurer or the leasing co., or whoever.

Different pots of money controlled by different people and entirely separate budgets.

Unless airlines want to pay for their own EMAS installations at difficult airports they serve. Or threaten to stop service unless the airport pays for EMAS. Or lobby the FAA or equivalent regulators to lean on the airports to do it.
Well, what do the airports do with all the landing fees and gate charges they collect? Certainly some of it must go to field improvements.
SquintyMagoo is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 05:28
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,637
Originally Posted by Gilmorrie View Post
Oakland to Burbank? Ye gods, take a Uber.

That’s hilarious. NY City to Baltimore: 187 miles. Oakland to Burbank: 363 miles.
737er is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 08:45
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Gilmorrie View Post
Oakland to Burbank? Ye gods, take a Uber.
The grapevine was snowed in that day! That's where Interstate 5 heads up into a small mountain range before dipping down again into the Los Angeles basin. Travel came to a complete halt.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 14:31
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by TriStar_drvr View Post
A divert would certainly be an option, but if the airport was above landing minimums and your perfromance calculations indicated the aircraft could be stopped on the runway, would you divert? Hindsight is always 20/20.
No, I’m honest to say that I would not divert in this situation.
ManaAdaSystem is online now  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 15:17
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Florida USA
Age: 58
Posts: 0
I think he meant Ontario LA California not Oakland....
4 Holer is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 20:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,173
Oh dear - a landing in driving rain onto a short runway with an 11kt tailwind followed by the inevitable meeting with Uncle EMAS. When will they ever learn?

Pre-Xmas tea and biscuits without mince pies I fancy
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 21:47
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,637
Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic View Post
Oh dear - a landing in driving rain onto a short runway with an 11kt tailwind followed by the inevitable meeting with Uncle EMAS. When will they ever learn?

Pre-Xmas tea and biscuits without mince pies I fancy
How do you figure? Tower reported winds 270/10 to them right before landing. Before that, a higher than a 10 knot tailwind component reported on ATIS would have locked out their landing data numbers and said no can do when they retrieved it,
737er is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 21:56
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
They’ve possibly landed long on a short wet runway with a TWC approaching limits. Could’ve been carrying excess speed (easy to do on an NG) and maybe an inappropriate autobrake setting and possible late application of reverse thrust (think Midway Accident a few years back). All speculation and I sympathise with the guys at the coal face. The aircraft is renowned to bite in similar scenarios. I’ll be interested to see the NTSB report when it becomes available however I do wonder what’s pushing people into accepting approaches on to RW08 with a tailwind at BUR?

Last edited by Callsign Kilo; 7th Dec 2018 at 22:10.
Callsign Kilo is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 22:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 82
737er-
They could have got their legal landing data way before the tailwind picked up...

Kilo-
Theres no other instrument approach available into BUR (vis was 1 mile ish)
ontheklacker is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 23:43
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Callsign Kilo View Post
...interested to see the NTSB report when it becomes available...
Probably not an accident; don't know if or to what extent NTSB will get involved.

NTSB 830
§830.2 Definitions.
As used in this part the following words or phrases are defined as follows:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein...

...​​​​​​Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.
Zeffy is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 23:50
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,873
Originally Posted by 737er View Post
Before that, a higher than a 10 knot tailwind component reported on ATIS would have locked out their landing data numbers and said no can do when they retrieved it,
Is a ten knot tailwind a limitation on a wet runway for the 737 with braking action reported good?
Airbubba is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 01:46
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,637
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Is a ten knot tailwind a limitation on a wet runway for the 737 with braking action reported good?
Yes, sort of, and usually granted for 10 knots tailwind down to braking action 2 (medium to poor) but could be even higher tailwind allowed...that’s the “sort of” because extremely rare exceptions granted for a particular airports. Overriding that of course is yay or nay from performance data calc which have beefy margins built in.



737er is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 02:11
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,637
Originally Posted by ontheklacker View Post
737er-
They could have got their legal landing data way before the tailwind picked up...

h)
Well of course they sent for performance ahead of time. Wind 280/11. That’s not an 11 knot tailwind component, it’s 10. So provided the other safety margins were met the performance data would come back with the speeds and stop margins. If it was an 11 knot tailwind component it would be all blanked out..... meaning ya can’t land like that so we ain’t tellin ya nothin..so ya don’t take the bait by accident.

As far as the wind picking up, tower gave them a report on fairly short final of 270/10. 10 knot tailwind component again. Which is probably why they said “perfect”, finger on the TOGA button had it been 260/11 or something. That’s the last wind info they received.

Im just trying to keep it real here regarding the specific issue of did they think they had an 11 knot tailwind component and just landed anyway. To that I’d say it’s monumentally and fantastically implausible.


KBUR 061715Z 29008KT 1SM +RA BR FEW005 BKN013 OVC031 08/08 A2993 RMK AO2 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0026 T00830078
KBUR 061653Z 28011KT 1 1/2SM +RA BR FEW004 OVC013 08/08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP122 P0033 T00830083
737er is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 02:12
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,196
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Unless airlines want to pay for their own EMAS installations at difficult airports they serve. Or threaten to stop service unless the airport pays for EMAS. Or lobby the FAA or equivalent regulators to lean on the airports to do it.
EMAS at Burbank was partly paid for by an FAA grant after the 2000 Southwest overrun.
tdracer is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 10:23
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
Overriding that of course is yay or nay from performance data calc which have beefy margins built in.
And of course the yay or nay from the PinC.
Whether or not the margins are ‘beefy’ is a matter of opinion. The margin in this case would be around 220m if a 1500ft touchdown was made, that’s 2.8 seconds of float if the surface friction is perfect and the machine performs as advertised. If the surface friction is not as good as the performance software assumes, how many seconds float is it? 2? 1?
The FAA put out a SAFO in 2015 saying that on wet runways the beefy margins can be inadequate due to less than ideal runway surface friction ( rubber build up, water pooling in tyre tracks, surface treatment compounds etc) and they encouraged a ‘nay’ from the PinC even when ‘computer says yes’.

73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2018, 12:42
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
We have 15 knots tailwind limit on our NGs. Sometimes I need to use it.
ManaAdaSystem is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.