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 13th Dec 2018, 22:06
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
Originally Posted by Mana
Comments?
I think it is safe to say you have never landed 60 tons of 737-800 on a 1800 m snow covered runway with BA Medium.
When you have done this exercise, please return with your fancy theories and tell us you don’t want as much runway ahead
of you as possible when you touch down.
Settle down. If you read Flight Detent's post closely, he is pointing out that the PAPI leads you to a longer touchdown, past the ILS touchdown point. If you were following the PAPI, you'd probably even touchdown past the certification point (455m in).

Originally Posted by Misd Agin
The touchdown zone where the landing is required is 1/3 of the landing distance or the first 3000'. With a 5802' runway the requirement to be on the ground is 1930'.
In the old days. The current certification numbers (for me at least) are based on touching down at 455m/1490ft in. That extra 500ft might have saved them, eh?

Flight Detent, you need to move your red dot for BUR to a 60ft TCH.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 23:04
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
They way they buried themselves 200 feet in, they were coming in real fast...

I would also note that the aiming bars and distance markers are set for the VGSI, not the ILS....(or RNAV/GPS)

Last edited by underfire; 13th Dec 2018 at 23:14.
underfire is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 23:07
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,206
Wasn't the old data based on "1,000' air distance"? Isn't it now seven seconds, which is a longer distance? All runway behind you based on the expected touchdown point which is used to figure out the required landing distance? 130 kts = 1517'?
misd-agin is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 23:21
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
Glideslope
thanks

Filler
Check Airman is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 23:22
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Settle down. If you read Flight Detent's post closely, he is pointing out that the PAPI leads you to a longer touchdown, past the ILS touchdown point. If you were following the PAPI, you'd probably even touchdown past the certification point (455m in).


In the old days. The current certification numbers (for me at least) are based on touching down at 455m/1490ft in. That extra 500ft might have saved them, eh?

Flight Detent, you need to move your red dot for BUR to a 60ft TCH.
My last company assumed a touchdown at 1500ft. Always appreciated the buffer.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 07:36
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Settle down. If you read Flight Detent's post closely, he is pointing out that the PAPI leads you to a longer touchdown, past the ILS touchdown point. If you were following the PAPI, you'd probably even touchdown past the certification point (455m in).


In the old days. The current certification numbers (for me at least) are based on touching down at 455m/1490ft in. That extra 500ft might have saved them, eh?

Flight Detent, you need to move your red dot for BUR to a 60ft TCH.
My comment was for all that he posted in this discussion.
What would he do if the landing calculation shows a stopping margin of 10 metres? Land 455 m down the runway because the book tells him to?
I live in the real world where this scenario is not an academic discussion.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 08:03
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
What would he do if the landing calculation shows a stopping margin of 10 metres? Land 455 m down the runway because the book tells him to?
10m?
If the performance calculations suggested that I had 10m margin using maximum manual braking, and the runway was wet or damp, I would divert. The FAA encourages me to
73qanda is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 08:42
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
10 m on top of the required margins. Not wet or damp. Snow and ice. BA Medium.
FL40, max manual and Vref +0.
This is the reality on some winter days.
No, 455m air distance is not an option, whatever the books say.

ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 13:57
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post
10 m on top of the required margins. Not wet or damp. Snow and ice. BA Medium.
FL40, max manual and Vref +0.
This is the reality on some winter days.
No, 455m air distance is not an option, whatever the books say.

If Burbank were in a snowy/icy climate, I would refuse Runway 8 when covered with ice and snow and a poor braking action report. I'd go for Runway 33, weather permitting. If not, I would divert.
aterpster is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 16:50
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
If Burbank were in a snowy/icy climate, I would refuse Runway 8 when covered with ice and snow and a poor braking action report. I'd go for Runway 33, weather permitting. If not, I would divert.
No option to change runway in my example. Calculation shows the landing is doable. Divert and put 150 pax in a hotel or land and have a beer before bedtime?
Would you land and insist on 455 m air distance, or put the wheels as close inside the threshold as possible?
I tell you, I see four red lights every time, and I have done this for 30 years.
That’s why I react when fair weather pilots tell me I can’t do it. Or that the book says this or that.
This is the real world.

BTW, there is a differenece between BA Poor and BA Medium.

ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 18:01
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,174
MAS, whilst public forums enable open opinion, these opinions are of little value without substanciating information or reasoned argument.

One aspect we have yet to discover is the standard of the landing performance charts the accident crew might have used; similarly for your views, especially over the years where there could have been different data source and understandings.

Then there is the question of safety margin; stopping within the published distance does not provide an equivalent level of safety to that expected by regulation, or the passengers.

The real world is uncertain, where ill-judged, false beliefs, and the variability of one’s ‘infallible’ actions, will sooner or later result in a surprise.
The skills in flying are required to manage thoughts and actions so there are no big surprises.
alf5071h is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 18:26
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by alf5071h View Post
MAS, whilst public forums enable open opinion, these opinions are of little value without substanciating information or reasoned argument.

One aspect we have yet to discover is the standard of the landing performance charts the accident crew might have used; similarly for your views, especially over the years where there could have been different data source and understandings.

Then there is the question of safety margin; stopping within the published distance does not provide an equivalent level of safety to that expected by regulation, or the passengers.

The real world is uncertain, where ill-judged, false beliefs, and the variability of one’s ‘infallible’ actions, will sooner or later result in a surprise.
The skills in flying are required to manage thoughts and actions so there are no big surprises.
Are my arguments unreasonable? I am landing on a runway where my data says I can land, and I add additional margins with my technique.
As for data sources, I have done paper tables through various other sources up to todays very easy to use computer calculations. From the outside I have been through various vehicles using various speeds to measure BA, up to todays way of inserting conditions into a computer that spit out a BA. That includes the FAA and UK method of saying nothing.
Experience is everything. That is why I do what I do, and I have never been close to running off the end.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 18:34
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 7
I'm long retired now, but my one and only flight into LGA was Nov 30,2001... flying a 767-300 for AC . It was a charter from YUL bringing a corporate group to a 9/11 ceremony of some sort.... as both myself and the F/O were on reserve we didn't have much choice and neither of us had been there before.... it was a Friday night and it was busy, but really the worst part of it all was taxiing to a parking spot in the boonies after the pax had deplaned.... managed to avoid hitting anything, but it was real tight....
Stone69 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 19:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 42
On the A319 the land app requires 6400 ft of runway with 10 knots tailwind and wet runway with 129000 lbs
landing weight. The 737-800 is a fast lander. I doubt very very much that their landing data showed a legal landing unless they were extremely light.Your hearing always improves at the hearing! A divert would have been quite rational me thinks. Live to fight another day..
Reluctant Bus Driver is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:34
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 661
I'm surprised this hasn't yet been mentioned in the thread when it comes to the "legal" assessment of landing distance: SAFO 15009, Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways because the FAA now says that the perhaps you won't stop within the factored landing distance.

Originally Posted by SAFO 15009
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.
Personally, 10 tail on a short wet runway on the performance limit with SAFO 15009 in the back of my mind, I would have gone elsewhere.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:35
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 53
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post


Are my arguments unreasonable? I am landing on a runway where my data says I can land, and I add additional margins with my technique.
As for data sources, I have done paper tables through various other sources up to todays very easy to use computer calculations. From the outside I have been through various vehicles using various speeds to measure BA, up to todays way of inserting conditions into a computer that spit out a BA. That includes the FAA and UK method of saying nothing.
Experience is everything. That is why I do what I do, and I have never been close to running off the end.

I have read a lot of your posts here, and they are always well grounded and reasonable. I do have to disagree with this one. If you as you stated in your previous post always land with 4 reds, you are doing something wrong. This isn't a technique issue. Unless there is a reason to have more than 2 reds like GS and visual GP indication not coincident, you should not dip below the path to increase you LDA on a normal landing. It might give you a more runway in front, but it will definitely decrease your safety margin for an early touchdown. On my plane if the radar altimeter crosses the threshold at 50ft, the landing gear crosses at 22', so dipping 20 feet low and I will hit the runway edge lights. Don't flare long or reduce power too late.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:35
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by Reluctant Bus Driver View Post
On the A319 the land app requires 6400 ft of runway with 10 knots tailwind and wet runway with 129000 lbs
landing weight. The 737-800 is a fast lander. I doubt very very much that their landing data showed a legal landing unless they were extremely light.Your hearing always improves at the hearing! A divert would have been quite rational me thinks. Live to fight another day..
This was a -700, and with 58.5 tons (he was probably lighter), landing is OK with 10 kts tailwind, FL30 on a wet 2000 m runway. Better margins with FL40.
The -700 is a lot easier to handle and stops much faster that the -800.
He was legal.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:37
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
I am landing on a runway where my data says I can land, and I add additional margins with my technique.
I can definitely see your logic but I don’t share your assessment of the risk. Why I don’t share it is probably a complex mix of life experiences, personal motivations, and expectation. Everyone will have a different combination of these so it is inevitable that where humans are involved there will be very different assessments of the risk of one particular activity whether that be a child climbing a jungle gym or a 737 Captain landing on a contaminated runway.
Some of my reasons for diverting in the circumstances that you have given are as follows,
1/ The braking action may or may not be as reported. There are many many cases of this reported globally on an annual basis and I have experienced it myself so I have an expectation that if I do this job long enough I will experience it again, when I do, I want more than 255m wiggle room (1700 x 0.15)
2/ The wind may not be as reported. I can mitigate this to a certain degree through knowledge of my expected ground speed approaching the threshold but I also know that if my brain is working hard on the required scanning both inside and outside of the aircraft my assessment of ground speed in the last 100ft might be left wanting.
3/ The machine itself is not infallible. Once I have selected reverse thrust all of my passengers lives will be relying on mechanical cylinders,hydraulic lines, speed brakes etc to operate as advertised. There is a very small chance that this might not happen. ( I acknowledge that this chance is very slim).
4/ I am not infallible. I have made mistakes in the past and I assume I will fly a less than perfect flare and thrust reduction in the future.
5/ The FAA SAFO issued in 2015 suggests that I should exercise conservative judgement of braking action even when the data suggests that I can legally land. This SAFO was motivated by incidents and accidents where braking action was less than anticipated.
These things combine to create a risk assessment in my mind that is more conservative and would result in a divert. That variation in decision making is to be expected. Let’s just hope it ends well for us all.
73qanda is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:37
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
I have read a lot of your posts here, and they are always well grounded and reasonable. I do have to disagree with this one. If you as you stated in your previous post always land with 4 reds, you are doing something wrong. This isn't a technique issue. Unless there is a reason to have more than 2 reds like GS and visual GP indication not coincident, you should not dip below the path to increase you LDA on a normal landing. It might give you a more runway in front, but it will definitely decrease your safety margin for an early touchdown. On my plane if the radar altimeter crosses the threshold at 50ft, the landing gear crosses at 22', so dipping 20 feet low and I will hit the runway edge lights. Don't flare long or reduce power too late.
Thanks, but I go below the GS when it is needed. On nornal landings I just follow the GS or PAPI.

Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 14th Dec 2018 at 21:19.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 20:47
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
I tell you, I see four red lights every time, and I have done this for 30 years.
I think the above statement may have been mis interpreted as meaning you always aim short of 1000ft.
73qanda is offline  

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.