SWA 737 overrun at BUR - Dec 6 2018
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.
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.
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'.
Flight Detent, you need to move your red dot for BUR to a 60ft TCH.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 58
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
The -700 is a lot easier to handle and stops much faster that the -800.
He was legal.
I am landing on a runway where my data says I can land, and I add additional margins with my technique.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 14th Dec 2018 at 21:19.
I tell you, I see four red lights every time, and I have done this for 30 years.
