BACX E145 off rwy @ HAJ

[Ascot]

rumour has it a BACX e145 (G-EMBD) has come off the rwy at HAJ, after having braking difficulty on a wet runway....

anyone got more info?

[SoaringTheSkies]

just made it into the online media. Embraer 145 overshoot on the wet runway, 49 people evacuated, seems noone was injured.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,369758,00.html

[flyer55]

Thats in German for everybody else that plans to click on the above link

[Jordan D]

BBC Story is also available here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4151828.stm)

Jordan

[RMC]

Wasnt going to post here but, as usual, the media have got it wrong. To stop people diving down the wrong bunny hole... the problem is less of a "downpour" / pilot error issue more of a total system failure issue. Shouldnt be too long before the facts come out. The bit they did get right was that everyone is OK.

[Carnage Matey!]

Presumably you're hinting at a total brake failure as the BACX Embraers don't have reversers fitted?

[threemiles]

http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=374027

[Jonty]

Glad to see everyone got off, although I have to say if I was sitting by the overwing exit I would have opend it!

[MaxReheat]

Why? Aircraft is upright on its wheels. I'd take the steps, thanks. ;)

[Copenhagen]

I understand that a BA 757 encountered a slippy runway at FRA on Sunday evening.

[Carnage Matey!]

I imagine lots of aircraft encountered slippery runways in Europe on Sunday. Where's the news?

[Jonty]

MR

I didnt say I would have got out of it, but I would have opened it just in case. :ok:

[Farrell]

Can anyone tell me why it overran? Was on the 14th of August, but can't find anything about it here

Farrell

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=907634&WxsIERv=Rzoenre%20RZO-145RH%20%28REW-145RH%29&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Oevgvfu%20Nvejnlf&QtODMg=Unabire%20%28-%20Ynatrauntra%29%20%28UNW%20%2F%20RQQI%29&ERDLTkt=Treznal&ktODMp=Nhthfg%2015%2C%202005&BP=1&WNEb25u=Byns%20Whretrafzrvre&xsIERvdWdsY=T-RZOQ&MgTUQtODMgKE=24%20ubhef%20nsgre%20birefubbgvat%20ehajnl%2027 Y%20guvf%20ON%20Wrg%20jnf%20oebhtug%20onpx%20gb%20gur%20ehaj nl%20ol%20n%20erfphr%20grnz%20sebz%20Senaxsheg.%20Ybbx%20gur %20Cvybg%20gnxvat%20cvpgherf%20bs%20uvf%20Wrg%20arneyl%20onp x%20ba%20gur%20ehajnl.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=29938&NEb25uZWxs=2005-08-27%2003%3A23%3A43&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=145039&static=yes&width=1024&height=695&sok=JURER%20%20%28%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27908348%27%20BE%20cu bgb_vq%20%3D%20%27908301%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%2790826 1%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27907988%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20 %3D%20%27907634%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27907552%27%20BE %20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27907393%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27 907251%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27907243%27%20BE%20cubgb_ vq%20%3D%20%27907098%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27907012%27 %20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27906851%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D% 20%27906660%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27906466%27%20BE%20c ubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27906290%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%2 0QRFP&photo_nr=20&prev_id=907988&next_id=907552&size=L

God I\'m such a T@SSER! - thanks!

[threemiles]

For sure the runway was not long enough

[acbus1]

.....the BACX Embraers don't have reversers fitted?
Surprising lack of take-up on that comment. I'll admit I've no idea if BACX have reversers fitted, though.

Often looked at the shirt-button tyres on the 145, added to which the phenominal approach speed and considered that not having reversers really is asking for the inevitable. Maybe not applicable here. But if it is, then it warrants discussion, IMHO.

[interestedparty]

Why no thrust reversers? Cost, weight penalty maybe?

[Ropey Pilot]

Certainly a cost/weight penalty.

Also they can't be taken into account for performance calculations so runway has to be long enough to land without them regardless.

Carbon brakes on the ERJ wear far less when hot so one is supposed to brake v.firmly anyway to reduce brake wear. Thrust reversers leading to light brake application will therefore actually increase this brake wear.

All in all a no win situation (Unless the brakes fail, along with the accumulator pressure and the emergency/parking brakes too - but then why stop there, why not have parachutes and anchors in case the reversers fail.....:} )

[Grunf]

Ropey,

can you get a quote on your statement on brake wear for EMB 145 (I presume the same is on 140, 135)?

I can not bet my life on it but a combination of loads from thrust reverser + light breaking is on some other a/c resulting in LESS wear on brakes.

I presume you have hands-on experience for that statement, or if not a good quote.

It seems strange, however, they opted out thrust reversers. I've never seen that been done on comparable CRJ 200 fleet (1000+ a/c).

[RMC]

ACBUS - No t/r on BACX 145 a/c as it adds half a tonne at the back end. This would mean we had to kick off 10% of our pax when MTOW restricted.

GRUNF - RP is right with the 145 carbon brakes they wear less when halfway up the amber band than when cold (source 145 maintenance conference)

It appears Embraer have a problem here. I understand the German AIB are investigating another 145 which overran a week or so before in similar conditions.

The aircraft will not allow "normal" pressure to be applied to the wheel brakes until the wheels are rotating at 50 knots. The 145 tyre pressure makes them prone to aquaplanning....so you can be pressing/releasing like hell and nothing happens.

The emergency brake does bypass the normal system but also bypasses the anti skid and on a dry surface is like hitting a brick wall if you apply at 10 knots...you really would not want to use it.

HAJ is built on a marsh and it has some of the worst CBs / rain showers in Germany. Apparently there had been a huge downpour just before the incident and the reports of poor braking action were not passed onto the BACX crew.

[nitefiter]

I think the thrust reverser option adds 130 kg,s per side so nearer to .25 tonne heavier which is still significant with only 21 tonnes max all up.We almost always had to carry ballast to get the c of g rearwards.The brakes are excellent if you use them as designed,and i never aquaplaned one in over 2000 hrs.The windshield wiper system is the best ive seen ,why did Boeing put those "moggy minor" ones on 73,s?
I thought (may be wrong) that the ammount of pressure used when you select the emergency brake was proportionate to the ammount you displace the lever.

[Khaosai]

Hi can you confirm that it does not have autobrakes, curious. Rgds.

[acbus1]

My understanding of carbon brakes is that wear is related to number of applications. Wear is highest upon initial "bite".

Hence the "tip" for taxying to apply one big application (big as in long period, not heavy foot). Means you end up slowing to very slow and allowing acceleration to very fast taxy....admittedly not ideal.



Does anyone think about tyre wear during all these "recommended" (according to some posters here) hard braking applications after landing? Tyres cost, not just brakes.



Nope....sorry.... heap of junk. Tiny tyres,very high touchdown speeds, no reversers, wet runway. Not good.



I shouldn't mention low hours (hence low experience) crews building time in order to move onto proper jets.

So I won't mention that.

[208]

reported that the passengers asked the pilot to land nearer the bar....but looking at the wheels it would appear to be a good old fashioned case of aquaplaning.. the aircraft was towed off and after inspections flew home and is back in service.
and if there still is any thoughts on thrust reversers BACX do not have them as they would put the aircraft up another nav charge band apart from any other good reasons

[RMC]

NF - In my 4,000 worth of 145 hours I have never aquaplaned in the true sense of the word either...but I never landed on a runway that was contaminated with water (with an unhealthy layer of warm and wet rubber on the runway below...bad combination). ATC normally told me if this was the case and I went somewhere else.

In the sim the emergency brakes may be as you describe but in the a/c 5mm of travel is the difference between zero and full pressure....its impossible to "modulate" even at taxi speeds.

You are having a laugh about the windscreen wipers....they dont make contact with the windscreen for 30% of their travel:-)

ACBUS - I suspect I have more hours than you as been there done the 757/767 thing and am just topping up my pension here. I am certainly not suggesting heavy brake usage just backing up ropey who correctly said that warm 145 carbon brakes wear less...does not require heavy braking to get them warm!

edit to respond to wind up

[acbus1]

Wind up?

Well as long as you land into the wind, it helps if it picks up, Shirley.




I suspect I have more hours than you......
Quite possibly, but the point I wasn't making was that the majority of your collegues would be of much less experience.

But I didn't mention that, so I can't make the point, if you see what I don't mean.

:E

[nitefiter]

RMC
No not havin a larf!Admittedly at the the higher end of the wiper speed ltd, 170? from what i can recall they do tend to lift a bit but at lower speeds and landing roll and taxi i found them to be alot better than 4 types previous and 1 since.
ps i have never tried the emerg brake on line