FLYBE EMB195 Flapless landing

[endofeng]

EMB195 made a '0' Flap landing into Blefast Aldergrove last night, after TOTAL flap failure. Diverted into Aldergrove en-route to the city airport.
Apparently relatively fast approach (170kts ish), no tyres burst though!!
Well done to the crew:}

[Dave Gittins]

I am only a Cessna and Cherokee driver and practise flapless landings all the time. They are not a big deal

I'd be seriously worried if a flapless landing taxed these guys too much.

May a greater expert than I correct me if I am wrong.

DGG

[Cyclone733]

Dave,
The swept back wing on jets is designed for high speed flight and not so suitable for the slower approach speeds. A compromise must be reached for the approach speed, high enough to keep away from the stall, lower than the tyre limiting speed and low enough to avoid the brake energy limits. A flap failure can also be one of the effects of a larger systems problem e.g. a hydraulic system failure. The formula 1/2mv^2 should give you an idea of the increased energy taken onto the ground. 35000kg and 87.5 m/s (170knots) if you want to throw some figures together, takes a fair amount of stopping

Cyclone

[Dave Gittins]

Thank you for the helpful comments following my post.

Bearing in mind the hilarious "Pilots Only Forum" thread that has been running thse last few days, you reminding me of the excellent reasons why we should all be able to post together.

As the difference between the "correctly flapped" and unflapped landing speeds is probably nearly the entire clean stall speed of my steed (circa 50 kts), then runway length is obviously far more critical.

I guess from a piloting perspecive, assuming you can find a strip long enough, the landing isn't any more taxing though ????

DGG

[haughtney1]

Dave, it depends:ok:
It is different thought, and by definition, not normal....so it is more of a challenge..with the added bonus of a lot more energy to get rid off before running of the end of the smooth concrete bit.

Well done to the Flybe chaps/chap'es's

[SmilingKnifed]

Not to mention the high body angle in that configuration, making the runway rather difficult to see during the latter stage of the approach.

[fade to grey]

yeah,
You sure as hell don't want to flare much and the 'hold off' is non existant as you are eating runway at a most impressive rate !

[sevenstrokeroll]

does the emb 195 have leading edge devices of any sort? were they working?

never been to the UK, but surely there must be some military bases which have extra long runways...over 10,000 feet?

the first time I saw an emb 170/95 series plane was in Virginia...demo for a big airline and yes, the flaps were broken. I said: we shouldn't buy this thing if the demonstrator breaks down like that...of course the big wigs bought it anyway.

[Cyclone733]

sevenstrokeroll,
Google gives Heathrow runway length at 12800 ft and Boscombe at about 10500 ft, there are another couple of airfields approaching that length, but no guarantee that you'll get the crash cover you need for pax flights at a military airfield

[parkfell]

Landing distance as per the QRH ?
It would be interesting to know how "actual" event compared to the sim exercises prior to LST etc.
EGAA a better option than EGAC. Nearest really long runway EGPK of course.
:)

[eastern wiseguy]

Runway 22(BHD).....about 5994
Runway 25(BFS)..............9120

[Cyclone733]

Over run at BHD and paddle home, think I'd take BFS and a taxi...

[nugpot]

It would be interesting to know how "actual" event compared to the sim exercises prior to LST etc.

I know this is slightly of topic of E170 flap failures, but during the early years of CRJ200 operation, I did more 0 flap landings than I care to remember. The CRJ is a little dinky toy compared to the bigger iron (21.3 ton MLW), but it has no LE devices, so Vref(flap0) @ MLW is 178kts.

Two most difficult things about the landing is keeping the speed down with no drag while staying on the slope and then getting the bloody thing to touch down. It would float till tomorrow if you didn't force it onto the tar.

Landing distances for the CRJ were as advertised in the books, but I can't comment on Embraer figures.

[akerosid]

Here's the 195 on approach (to JER); you can see the LEs quite clearly.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6100190&nseq=3

Just for interest: in normal landing configuration (as in this photo), what would the landing speed be, assuming a full load, zero wind?

[NWSRG]

As a PA28 pilot, 25 at BFS has lots of room for a flapless landing...;)

However in an E195, at 180kts, and probably a twitchy bum (we're all human after all), I have to say a big well done to the crew...

I know you're all "trained to do it" but nonetheless, a fine display of airmanship from all involved. Well done indeed!

[Wycombe]

I remeber many years ago watching an Air France 74' land flapless at EGLL - don't know what the speed over the threshold was, but it looked bloody scary :eek:

Also an AOM DC10 at EGKK, remember wondering how the drivers could see the runway, such was the landing attitude.

[Fliegenderflieger]

Hi Friends,
a flappless landing is a "normal" procedure within the abnormal procedures.
You have to check:
-Landing distance required
-increased speeds
-weather and RWY condition


It is easy to check with the QRH/Emergency checklist.


Take care


(Airline CPT, 8.000hrs)

[dixi188]

Embraer 195 has leading edge slats.
If landing was No Flaps then Vref would probably be +30 knots or there abouts. If No Flaps and Stats then much faster, maybe +60 kts.
Much longer runway required, at least double, and then tyre limit speed becomes a problem. Most jets have 195.5 kts (225mph) tyres so if normal Vref is around 130kts then no Flaps and Slats gets a bit close to the limit.
The figures I have used are for A300 but most swept wing Airliners have similar numbers regardless of size.

Hope this helps

[Rainboe]

I am only a Cessna and Cherokee driver and practise flapless landings all the time. They are not a big deal
I'm trying to see the logic of a Cherokee pilot commenting in a thread about jet flapless landings in a Professional Pilots forum. What relevance is it?

Nope- not there yet. Weird

[Callsign Kilo]

Well, hopefully they have discovered something about the different aerodynamic characteristics to the straight and swept wing. Not a lost effort after all.

[Coastrider26]

the 225 MPH also applies to the E-jet series from Embraer, after the factory told me could do anything we want to I figured it was fun to do a flapless at the factory runway.

It's interesting to do the approach, like people said the last couple of feet you'll loose sight of the runway. The plane was otherwise stable at the speed and I am happy I did not try to flare as you burn up runway really quick. Most limiting factor are the (ceramic) brakes which even at the light weight and 2 tons of fuel went into the amber range.

[Rainboe]

In '89 I did an All Flaps Up landing in a 732 at LGW. Despite setting up early and advising the Approach and Director controllers of a high speed Flaps up approach, as we switched over to tower on final approach at about 1200', we were horrified to see and hear a 747 taxiing on and being cleared for take-off at Alpha with the Tower controller obviously unaware we were bombing in at 195kts. We made it clear pretty quickly with a sudden urgent response. As we flared we were right in its vortex with the 747 lifting off at the other end. Full reverse and minimal brakes still had us stopping easily at the usual turnoff.

The attitude was higher, but not inordinately. I think it was about 5 degrees- no losing sight of the runway.

If you ever do this, make sure every controller is fully aware.

[eastern wiseguy]

Rainboe...."If you ever do this, make sure every controller is fully aware"

One of the results of a lack of FAM flights to ATCO's. Many younger guys will have no idea.Mind you these threads do provide a very useful insight into flight deck ops.

[Dentist]

Something about the EMB 170-195, I work for LOT and we had multiple flapless landings on the 170 in the last 2 months??????
Cheers

[FE Hoppy]

Don't know the landing weight but at MAX landing weight the numbers would be something like:
Vref 190kts
Landing distance required 1278m or 4200ft
All the E-jets have lots of brake capacity so the landing perf is good. For a 0 flap 0 slat landing the LDG Coef is 1.8 times the unfactored flaps full landing distance. The Unfactored landing distance at max ldg weight 0 wind SL 45T is 710m or 2330ft.
At MAX lndg weight the normal full flaps Vref would be 127kts the increment for 0/0 is +60kts.
The brakes are Carbon not Ceramic. Brakes in the amber is no big deal. The amber is the no take off limit. It's a long way below the Brake overheat limit.

Pro Pilots closed forum anyone? I would not qualify for entrance. :=

[Coastrider26]

Sorry I meant carbon brakes instead of ceramic. Like you say they can absorb lots of energy without a problem. This was the only time I saw them well into the amber limit but still not close to the fuse plug melting "zone"

[Ian Brooks]

There are a few airfields with 10+ runways
Heathrow and Manchester both have two also Gatwick, EMA and Prestwick
plus as mentioned Boscombe Down

Ian

[frequentflyer2]

As I said on another thread in this forum I am a journalist by profession.
I have written a few paragraphs about the incident for the paper I work on and just for everyone's information Flybe's appointed spokesperson has denied this was a 'flapless landing', describing it as a 'minor techncal problem'.

[puddle-jumper2]

Then perhaps it was partial flap or slat, the word 'flapless' implies no flap or slat.

Even with partial slat/flap BHD may have proven not to be long enough.

[low n' slow]

Another aspect as I see it would be how to brief the PAX in a situation like this.
If the ship is risking to run off the runway at the departure end, would the brace for impact position be the safer way to sit? How far would you want to take the cabin preparations? A simple cabin clear enough?
Reason I'm asking is that I saw the Brussels Airline RJ overshoot the departure end in AJR live. Although it is a clearway I believe, it looked like a very bumpy ride...

/LnS
Ps. Well done to the FlyBe crew.

[Coastrider26]

frequentflyer,

The Embraer E-jets are designed as a very pilot friendly aircraft, The procedure we go into if either leading-, trailingedge lift devices or a combination of those is called a flapless landing, this is also the correct name in the non-normal procedures.

The plane handles as every normal airplane there are only some minor differences your approach speed in the worst case is about 60 kts faster than normal, increase of 150% hence the plane needs a longer runway (2.48 more than normal)

The plane is equipped with carbon brakes which are by far better than the steel brakes used on the latest versions of the 737. They're able to absorb huge amount of energy, this is like the people at Flybe said a minor technical difficulty.

I even practiced this on the factory aircraft with one of their pilots in Brazil.Only operational point is that you need a long runway

[FE Hoppy]

If the ship is risking to run off the runway at the departure end

It isn't because the crew are trained and all the information is available for them to calculate the minimum runway they need and then they make sure they have plenty more than that by selecting an appropriate runway. If a briefing is made it would be along the lines of a slightly faster landing than normal so we have chosen a very long runway to land on.

This is not a crash and burn emergency and if you look at the numbers I gave you can see that they didn't need much runway at all. Worst case needs only 4200 ft and they had lots more than that.

It's not a none event but it's not a huge big deal either.

[Maude Charlee]

Well it stops the punters worrying about fumes I suppose......:}

[BFS/BHD]

Looks like the same thing happening again this evening at BHD. BEE974 E195 currently at the hold at MAGEE, with caution light on the flaps :ugh:.

And it is diverting to BFS. Same problem as the other night.

[P-air]

would be interesting to find out what type anti ice fluid they are using

I wonder if that could have any effect upon the flap extension..... or lack thereof

[Doors to Automatic]

Just out of interest what is the landing distance of the E195 under normal conditions with full flaps and a dry runway?

[FE Hoppy]

take a look at post 27

[Doors to Automatic]

Sorry - don't understand what exactly the numbers quoted in post 27 relate to. It is not very clear. Is the 4200ft quoted for a flapless landing or a normal one?
If it is for a normal one why is the VREF given as 190kts? If it's for a flapless one what is it for a normal one? :confused:

[CAT1 REVERSION]

Doors to automatic,

Depends on the weight....

Heavier you are faster your Vref is. Also take into consideration wind/gust factors etc...

I would guess for a EMB195 with an average load a Vref of around 130kts with full flap, correct me if I'm wrong. Similar to the Airbus 320 and Boeing 73.

[Just wondering]

<<I am only a Cessna and Cherokee driver and practise flapless landings all the time. They are not a big deal >>

I'm with you mate ! Never realised it was that difficult or complicated...... bug up, GPWS off, check the distance.. fly the aroplane... works for Cessnas too

[P-air]

Not Sure if there is any significant difference in weights / Distances, between the 190 & 195

Figures for E190 at 114,000 lbs (51,710kgs) (over MLW)

Unfactored Landing Distance for Flaps 5 = 3286 feet (1000 metres)
Normal Length Required dry (x1.67) = 5487 feet (1672 metres)
Normal Length Required Wet (x 1.917) = 6299 feet (1919 metres)


Unfactored Landing Distance for Flaps FULL = 2911 feet (887 metres)
Normal Length Required dry (x1.67) = 4861 feet (1481 metres)
Normal Length Required Wet (x 1.917) = 5580 feet (1700 metres)

SLAT/FLAP FAIL 0/0 - Vref = Vref Full + 60, Unfactored Landing Distance for flaps FULL: 2.41 dry / 2.84 wet

Slat/Flap Fail Length Required dry (x2.41) = 7015 feet (2138 metres)
Slat/Flap Fail Length Required wet (x2.84) = 8267 feet (2519 metres)

Vref at 115000 lbs Flap 5 145 KIAS, Flp FULL 136 KIAS
Vref Full + 60 = 196 KIAS

*note used max weight for worst case scenario

[puddle-jumper2]

P-Air,
Good job on the figures, Max landing weight on the 195 is 45T so they are all slightly less than that but close enough for here.
PJ