Easyjet Incident Brs

[ALLDAYDELI]

News just in the BRS is closed due to an EZY B737 landing short and over running into the stop bars at BRS. Aircraft awaiting to be towed out of the way.
No injuries and all are OK.
Anyone else have more news on this?

[almost professional]

did it land short or did it overrun?

[Chesty Morgan]

Good effort if they managed both! Glad they're all ok though.

[Drop The Dunlops]

No 737's landed after 9am but notice that EZY6164 from AMS (A319) landed at 10.50. Two arrivals subsequently diverted but apt open.

[brain fade]

No bleedin wonder if this is indeed an overrun.

The work being done on the runway means there is a large ungrooved bit in the middle. Many a/c not fitted with reverse have aquaplaned across this bit and the problem is bad enough that our company has imposed 'slippery runway' criteria for landing when it's wet.

Why not simply re-groove the runway as it's resurfaced?

[quazz]

Was waiting in the crew room waiting for BRS wx to do anything other than sit at 150m vis (running about 1 and a half hours late at this point) and was told by ATC of the incident at about 13:30.
So did it land short of the threshold, still on the concrete and take out the lights at the beginning of 27? If that makes any sense? :confused:

[BRISTOLRE]

Spoke to a GA operator earlier on, no lights damaged, landed part way along rwy - had a lot to do with poor wx at the time FOG FOG FOG

[Musket90]

Can't groove a runway immediately after the tarmac has been laid. Need to wait at least 72 hours for it to "harden" otherwise the surface just crumbles when the grooving saw cuts through it.

[standbyils]

A319 Autoland 3B - aircraft stopped on tarmac at stop end. Skipper decided it better to call for tug than risk heroics in 150m. Good call if you ask me. Non invent in any case.

[Ranger 1]

Brainfade: The ungrooved bit 300mts is not wearing course (top coat) therefore cannot be Grooved recent sections from the 09 T/hold have been grooved. Anyway was the surface wet or reported with water patches today which causes the Friction readings to fall?
As the friction readings under Damp condions from this ungrooved section are Good, & we seem to have had no rain I recon other factors may perhaps be invoved in this incident.
I agree with standbyils it was a good call by the crew, not to mention from what I have heard,the prompt actions of the ASU & Servisair in sorting it safely & swiftly without any fuss.:D
Merry Christmas:ok:

[cheer up]

Nothing to do with 'ungrooved' runway but all to do with autoland, brake selection and possibly a tailwind.

[brain fade]

Ranger-Roger, as they say at Brizzol!:ok:

Of course you're correct- No point grooving a sub layer. Glad it seems the runway was not to blame for this one.

I done a CAT 2 in here tho a week or two ago and when we came to the 'new' bit, we bloody speeded up as we slid over it with FA grip below!

What fun!:D

[RAT 5]

If the runway is not giving the stopping performance expected, what adjustments have the operators made to their takeoff & landing weights/performance/speeds etc? Surelty the BA of the runway should be reduced to allow proper calculations. This would be a simple method; declare the whole runway as having a nominlal slippery surface.

[brain fade]

RAT
Which is exactly (when it's wet) what we do now.

[RAT 5]

B.F.

I appreciate that is what you do when it is wet. However, some comments here seem to suggest that it is worse than that. An ATC "wet' runway can still have good B.A. From reports here it would seem to be more some type of 'slippery' that just wet. I am asking if the real state/performance of the runway is well understood and known about. Pratice/reality doesn't always follow the theory.

[brain fade]

RAT
For clarity.

When it's actually 'wet' we NOW treat it as 'slippery' which as you'd expect is a lot more restricive than 'wet'.

Reason- it IS bloody slippery!

On the same subject some airports seem to think they're doing you a favour if they over-egg the pudding re wet and damp runways. BRS used to do this but they stopped. SOU still does it and it's a pain in the arse. ie as soon as it looks a wee bit moist they report it 'wet'.

[WindSheer]

If the runway is not giving the stopping performance expected, what adjustments have the operators made to their takeoff & landing weights/performance/speeds etc? Surelty the BA of the runway should be reduced to allow proper calculations. This would be a simple method; declare the whole runway as having a nominlal slippery surface.

Am always listening into BRS RT whilst in the office. Seems to me the only airline querying braking efficiency with atc are BA. :confused:

[brain fade]

Widsheer
The ERJ-145 only has wheelbrakes to stop with. Lots of other jets (but not 146/RJ 100) have reverse thrust too.

Wheel brakes rely on getting a good grip on the runway whereas reverse doesn't.

BA operate ERJ-145. QED.:ok:

[Pilot Pete]

Widsheer
The ERJ-145 only has wheelbrakes to stop with. Lots of other jets (but not 146/RJ 100) have reverse thrust too.
Wheel brakes rely on getting a good grip on the runway whereas reverse doesn't.
BA operate ERJ-145. QED.:ok: Are you suggesting that those who have reverse thrust therefore don't need to ask about braking action?:confused:

PP

[brain fade]

ermmm. no.;)

[OverRun]

Several issues come to mind.

1 – BRS runway length is 2011m (6596'). This is fairly short I would have thought, with the A319 needing a landing distance of about 4400' dry and I guess something between 5060' (115% of dry) to about 5400' wet at MLW. Any float or tailwind would have caused difficulties.

2 – The friction readings under damp conditions are not relevant in the case of rain/wet, because damp friction is measuring the effect of microtexture and other contaminants (slipperiness) and is not measuring the effect of macrotexture (aquaplaning). If the runway is wet, then macrotexture comes into play as well. This is why ICAO have the two requirements – one for a minimum friction and one for a minimum macrotexture. An ungrooved normal asphalt runway usually does NOT meet the ICAO requirement for macrotexture, which is why it is grooved or a porous friction layer added.

3 - So the BRS ungrooved runway is JAR-OPS 1.480 'wet' when the runway surface is covered with water or equivalent, [with a depth less than or equal to 3 mm], or when there is sufficient moisture on the runway surface to cause it to appear reflective, but without significant areas of standing water. It is contaminated when the water is deeper.

4 - The interesting part is when there are significant areas of standing water, and thus there is a risk of hydroplaning. Even though the water is deeper than 3mm, good macrotexture of say 1-2mm means that the decrease of skid resistance due to standing water is greatly reduced even though the grooves aren't as deep as the water. Some good research by Benedotto in 2004 showed this. So operations on any grooved runway with some standing water may seem as though the braking action is 'wet' not 'contaminated' even though the runway meets the definition of 'contaminated'. There is a bit of leeway in things. But operations on an UNGROOVED asphalt runway with some standing water will definitely have a braking action as 'contaminated' when the runway meets the definition of 'contaminated'. This explains some of the comments by brain fade and RAT 5.

5 - Grooving is delayed, as Musket90 mentioned, to let the asphalt harden slightly. The Australian authorities wait for 4 weeks, and the FAA waits at least 30 days (section 2.19 of FAA AC 150_5320_12C), which is longer than Musket90 indicated.

6 – There can sometimes be a special wet weather slipperiness of brand new asphalt. This is not common on airports, and depends on specifics with the mix – often the stone mastic type asphalt gives this problem, as do some additives such as tar based ones. I can't see these likely at BRS though for the asphalt sublayer.

7 – I don’t have official rainfall data for BRS for 22 December, but I see a blip of about 1mm for the day from a private weather station there – which is not a strong indicator that the runway was wet. This overrun was probably not an aquaplane, as some posters have already suggested. But to avoid being the a/c that does overrun due to aquaplaning, the temporary declaration of the ungrooved runway as contaminated when wet seems prudent.