SA Airlink Embraer skids off runway at Ndola
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Holding somewhere.....
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SA Airlink Embraer skids off runway at Ndola
Heard this evening that an Embraer 135 skidded off the runway at Ndola in heavy rain. The aircraft is now stuck in the mud.Ummm!! No reverse thrusters fitted to the entire fleet. Would this have happened if there were reversers on the aircraft? If you try and cut corners and save money initially its going to bite you in the long run. Anyway apparently no one was hurt but lets see what state the aircraft is in. 
Should have fitted those reversers Mr Foster!!!!!!!
Should have fitted those reversers Mr Foster!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beechbum
Many of us would not even be flying the EMB135 were it not for the astute business skills of Mr Foster !!! Lets give credit where credit is due. There will be incidents - thats life. If you want to talk about cutting costs, go checkout the Nationwide setup !
Many of us would not even be flying the EMB135 were it not for the astute business skills of Mr Foster !!! Lets give credit where credit is due. There will be incidents - thats life. If you want to talk about cutting costs, go checkout the Nationwide setup !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Holding somewhere.....
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure I agree, but the incident could have been far worse than it was. Luckily there was only minor damage. But why cut costs in the interest of safety? I just think that these situations could have been avoided had the reversers been fitted to the aircraft in the first place. I also understand that this is not the first time that these Embraers have shown their remarkable aquaplaning skills!!! I may be under correction here but I believe the anti - skid system fitted is not the best either. Maybe someone can comment on that one!!!!Anyway Freightman maybe a few years working for Link would give you an insight as to what really goes on in the company!!!! 
Or maybe you already have done!!!!
With your experience in the UK how do the operators there think of the Embraer 135/145 in wet conditons.
Would be interesting to hear.
Or maybe you already have done!!!!With your experience in the UK how do the operators there think of the Embraer 135/145 in wet conditons.
Would be interesting to hear.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beechbum,
As a UK based ERJ driver, please enlighten us with your 'facts' on Embraer runway excursions?
The aircraft handles well under wet or dry conditions, and there have been no issues with the anti-skid system.
It may surprise you that most operators who have taken the "Thrust Reverser" option have found it more hassle than its worth, with many operators actually locking them out. Ironically, those operators also have the highest number of brake unit changes per aircraft than the rest of us.
As for runway excursions, they can occur, regardless if the aircraft uses reverse thrust or not.
As a UK based ERJ driver, please enlighten us with your 'facts' on Embraer runway excursions?
The aircraft handles well under wet or dry conditions, and there have been no issues with the anti-skid system.
It may surprise you that most operators who have taken the "Thrust Reverser" option have found it more hassle than its worth, with many operators actually locking them out. Ironically, those operators also have the highest number of brake unit changes per aircraft than the rest of us.
As for runway excursions, they can occur, regardless if the aircraft uses reverse thrust or not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Holding somewhere.....
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly 172's for a living and know absolutely nothing about the Embraer but have mates who fly it . They are the ones that tell me about these certain things so RJDude my sincerest apologies if I don't know what I'm talking about. As you may have read, I did pose the question as to how these Brazilian Lawn Rockets handle in the wet....and basically that is all I wanted to know!!!!!
And thankyou for your response.
And thankyou for your response.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Outa Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Embraer 145 handles fine in the wet, although you can feel the antiskid working, and it often appears as if it isn't doing a whole lot to stop you, Frankfurt and its slippery wet runways springs to mind.
As for thrust reversers, I don't think they can be taken into account for performance calculations for Perf. A aircraft in the UK, so all your landing performance / distances etc are calculated without the use of reversers. Therefore, I guess you may as well not have them anyway, although on a wet runway they would be nice to have. At about 300Kgs in weight, they potentially take away the weight of two pax and bags per revenue sector, so over time money is made by not having them, along with their associated maintenance costs.
Having been a regular into Ndola in the past, I can vouch for it being a bit slippery in the wet being concrete and all that, but it is a pretty long runway and if B707s and DC8s and the like can manage, I fail to understand why someone should find it unreasonably taxing in an Emb135..............assuming they touched down somewhere in the vicinity of the first threshold and not the second..............
Sounds like its the place to be if you're looking for Emb135 or King Air 90 parts......
As for thrust reversers, I don't think they can be taken into account for performance calculations for Perf. A aircraft in the UK, so all your landing performance / distances etc are calculated without the use of reversers. Therefore, I guess you may as well not have them anyway, although on a wet runway they would be nice to have. At about 300Kgs in weight, they potentially take away the weight of two pax and bags per revenue sector, so over time money is made by not having them, along with their associated maintenance costs.
Having been a regular into Ndola in the past, I can vouch for it being a bit slippery in the wet being concrete and all that, but it is a pretty long runway and if B707s and DC8s and the like can manage, I fail to understand why someone should find it unreasonably taxing in an Emb135..............assuming they touched down somewhere in the vicinity of the first threshold and not the second..............
Sounds like its the place to be if you're looking for Emb135 or King Air 90 parts......
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Lusaka and Joburg
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just a rumour but my man in Lusaka says he heard the visability was poor due to heavy rain and they touched down halfway along the runway. Will try and get some more accurate info.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having some experience on this topic, I am not sure that the answer is that simple. I have run some numbers though my trusty laptop, that has factory provided, JAR approved software on it, MARK I for the purpose.
With the following data: RWY 10L
Landing Weight 17800kg
LDA 2200m
Slope –0.436
Temp 24
Tailwind 8kt
Flap 45
Ice Speeds ON
The UNFACTORED landing distance is 1140m. That means there should have been over a kilometre to play with. This is assuming that the crew crossed the end of the runway at Vref (in this case 136kts) and touched down in the first 300m of the runway.
Just for the record, as all the facts about this incident are NOT available,I AM NOT IN ANYWAY QUESTIONING THE CREW ACTIONS. This is an academic discussion on landing on wet/contaminated runways.
In the case of contaminated runway, factoring is normally 40 – 100%. In the incident in question, 1.95 x unfactored landing distance was available.
If memory serves, SAA have had a B742 in Rio and an A320 at Lusaka in the mud, in recent years. Both aircraft were fitted with reversers. In both these incidents, it was a directional control problem, caused by aquaplaning. Just for interest, have a read of this incident:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_025504.hcsp
I know for a fact that most British operators DO NOT have the reverser option. Having insight into the math of the reverser/no reverser decision, I believe that the no reverser option was correct.
I think the question here is, should we not have a rethink about attempting approaches in pi**ing rain!! Have we, as an industry, not become a little too complacent, also too schedule driven. We all hate to be late.
In aviation, it pays to have your spirit of adventure about 4 steps behind your sense of self-preservation!!
P.S. I have to get my 5c worth about the comment:
“Many of us would not even be flying the EMB135 were it not for the astute business skills of Mr Foster!!! Lets give credit where credit is due.”
History will judge RF and his “astute business skills”. Me thinks history will not be kind. It is a pity hindsight is a 20/20 science.
With the following data: RWY 10L
Landing Weight 17800kg
LDA 2200m
Slope –0.436
Temp 24
Tailwind 8kt
Flap 45
Ice Speeds ON
The UNFACTORED landing distance is 1140m. That means there should have been over a kilometre to play with. This is assuming that the crew crossed the end of the runway at Vref (in this case 136kts) and touched down in the first 300m of the runway.
Just for the record, as all the facts about this incident are NOT available,I AM NOT IN ANYWAY QUESTIONING THE CREW ACTIONS. This is an academic discussion on landing on wet/contaminated runways.
In the case of contaminated runway, factoring is normally 40 – 100%. In the incident in question, 1.95 x unfactored landing distance was available.
If memory serves, SAA have had a B742 in Rio and an A320 at Lusaka in the mud, in recent years. Both aircraft were fitted with reversers. In both these incidents, it was a directional control problem, caused by aquaplaning. Just for interest, have a read of this incident:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_025504.hcsp
I know for a fact that most British operators DO NOT have the reverser option. Having insight into the math of the reverser/no reverser decision, I believe that the no reverser option was correct.
I think the question here is, should we not have a rethink about attempting approaches in pi**ing rain!! Have we, as an industry, not become a little too complacent, also too schedule driven. We all hate to be late.
In aviation, it pays to have your spirit of adventure about 4 steps behind your sense of self-preservation!!
P.S. I have to get my 5c worth about the comment:
“Many of us would not even be flying the EMB135 were it not for the astute business skills of Mr Foster!!! Lets give credit where credit is due.”
History will judge RF and his “astute business skills”. Me thinks history will not be kind. It is a pity hindsight is a 20/20 science.
Last edited by Avi8tor; 6th Feb 2004 at 01:30.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New to this forum
Gooday all,
New to this forum, doing the rounds.
I flew and assisted the recovery team to Ndola to pull the aircraft out of the mud. I have also been in contact with the crew over the incident.
This is what I have so far:
1. Because there are no thrust reversers fitted, Airlink fit dead weight at the back of the plane to compensate for the C of G. So much for not fitting thrust reversers to save weight.
2. The aircraft landed after the downpoar, not during it.
3. Runway 10 has poor drainage. It had standing water on it at the time. The tower said simply "rwy wet". Rwy 10 has a slight downward slope.
4. The first officer was the flying pilot. On landing and brake application, the first officer called "no brakes". The captain did not react. Poised for a go-around, the first officer again called "no brakes" to which there was no reply. The rest is history.
5. The aircraft has minimal damage. Blown tyres and some bits and fairings attached to the undercarriage damaged. Took three recovery air bags to lift it out of the mud (right wing was almost touching the earth)
6. The pilots at Airlink have been complaining for many months about the rwy at Ndola when wet. A few days earlier before the incident, there was almost another incident by Airlink: another pilot filed a report to the chief pilot stating that he almost did not stop at Ndola in the 135 (aircraft went past the end of the rwy into the tar stopway which is about 100 metres long before is stopped). This report was not passed on to the crew of the accident aeroplane.
New to this forum, doing the rounds.
I flew and assisted the recovery team to Ndola to pull the aircraft out of the mud. I have also been in contact with the crew over the incident.
This is what I have so far:
1. Because there are no thrust reversers fitted, Airlink fit dead weight at the back of the plane to compensate for the C of G. So much for not fitting thrust reversers to save weight.
2. The aircraft landed after the downpoar, not during it.
3. Runway 10 has poor drainage. It had standing water on it at the time. The tower said simply "rwy wet". Rwy 10 has a slight downward slope.
4. The first officer was the flying pilot. On landing and brake application, the first officer called "no brakes". The captain did not react. Poised for a go-around, the first officer again called "no brakes" to which there was no reply. The rest is history.
5. The aircraft has minimal damage. Blown tyres and some bits and fairings attached to the undercarriage damaged. Took three recovery air bags to lift it out of the mud (right wing was almost touching the earth)
6. The pilots at Airlink have been complaining for many months about the rwy at Ndola when wet. A few days earlier before the incident, there was almost another incident by Airlink: another pilot filed a report to the chief pilot stating that he almost did not stop at Ndola in the 135 (aircraft went past the end of the rwy into the tar stopway which is about 100 metres long before is stopped). This report was not passed on to the crew of the accident aeroplane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Holding somewhere.....
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez cave troll who rattled your cage. All was needed was the facts that is why we have these forums - not so. And you're right LHF every flight by the Embraer carries ballast to sort out the C of G. So I rest my case in Mssrs Foster saving money on those thrust reversers. But thanks for the info, it's about what I heard aswell. Thanks
Feasant Plucker
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In the lair of the Penguin......
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It occurs to me sitting comfortably at home, that perhaps having reversers is better than not having them, in an impaired braking action environment. Can anyone verify how effective the 135's reversers are? Would they have made the difference between stopping or not? They would certainly provide drag, at the very least. Even with excellent brakes, aquaplaning can occur......
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Outa Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is, you can't take account of thrust reversers for Perf A aircraft performance calculations, so runway lengths required should be worked without the use of reversers. Ndola's runway length should be sufficient in all conditions for the Emb135 with restricted landing weights if necessary.
We operate 28 Emb 145s with no reversers and as far as I know we do not have lead weighting in the rear to compensate for the lack of weight. Flying throughout Europe I would hazard a guess that many of our runways are by far more slippery than Ndola, and some considerably shorter too, and we manage without reversers for the aforementioned reason.
It was an unfortunate accident that luckily hasn't resulted in injuries ( as far as I know ) , and don't forget that SAA put an A320 in the grass on the right hand side of Rwy 10 at Lusaka a few years ago, that DID have reversers. Perhaps if people were not quite so blase about landing on wet / slippery runways, particularly if they know a particular runway to be notorious for it, these accidents would be even more infrequent than they already are.
Perhaps ONLY pilots who have been flying into (HMS) Nelspruit at night in the rain should be allowed to go into Ndola!! Those guys should be issued medals on a regular basis!!!
Going back into my cave now to get out of the lovely English rain.
We operate 28 Emb 145s with no reversers and as far as I know we do not have lead weighting in the rear to compensate for the lack of weight. Flying throughout Europe I would hazard a guess that many of our runways are by far more slippery than Ndola, and some considerably shorter too, and we manage without reversers for the aforementioned reason.
It was an unfortunate accident that luckily hasn't resulted in injuries ( as far as I know ) , and don't forget that SAA put an A320 in the grass on the right hand side of Rwy 10 at Lusaka a few years ago, that DID have reversers. Perhaps if people were not quite so blase about landing on wet / slippery runways, particularly if they know a particular runway to be notorious for it, these accidents would be even more infrequent than they already are.
Perhaps ONLY pilots who have been flying into (HMS) Nelspruit at night in the rain should be allowed to go into Ndola!! Those guys should be issued medals on a regular basis!!!
Going back into my cave now to get out of the lovely English rain.
