PDA

View Full Version : EMAS Save at ORD


Airbubba
19th Jul 2008, 04:48
1 injured as plane skids off O'Hare runway

July 19, 2008

One person was injured after a plane ran off the end of the runway at O'Hare International Airport on Friday evening, said officials with the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mexicana Airlines flight 802 was arriving from Mexico City just after 7 p.m. when the plane left the landing area, said Tony Molinaro, an FAA spokesman. One flight attendant was injured, he said.

Officials said the plane was stopped by a bed of lightweight, crushable concrete at the end of the runway. The runway was closed and 142 were taken off the plane, a spokeswoman said.

1 injured as plane skids off O'Hare runway -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-plane_overshoots_runwayjul19,0,2749598.story)

Huck
19th Jul 2008, 10:18
the plane was stopped by a bed of lightweight, crushable concrete at the end of the runway.

That's gotta hurt.....

Mercenary Pilot
19th Jul 2008, 10:44
Not as much as hitting the ILS and approach lighting. :ok:

Fact Sheet - Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6279)

Doors to Automatic
19th Jul 2008, 10:49
It was allegedly landing on 04R (8075ft) - be interesting to understand how the overrun occurred given that the aircraft routinely lands on much shorter runways around the world.

Mercenary Pilot
19th Jul 2008, 10:52
Looks like it was an Airbus A320, although the article doesn't come across as very accurate.

From the Chicago Sun-Times


O'Hare safety area stops jet that overshot runway
July 19, 2008
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

A Mexicana Airlines flight with 145 passengers and crew aboard overshot a runway at O'Hare Airport on Friday but stopped safely when it reached a safety area designed to slow errant planes.

One crew member was slightly injured in the 7 p.m. mishap. City Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said the "arrestor bed" at the end of a runway stopped the plane.

Airline spokesman Adolfo Crespo said the Airbus A320 departed from Mexico City. Crosswinds forced Flight 802's nose gear off the runway, he said.
Pride said the arrestor bed's lightweight concrete blocks ''worked perfectly.''

Oilhead
19th Jul 2008, 13:16
4R at ORD is one of those runways where you need to pretty much roll to the far end to clear.

Pugilistic Animus
19th Jul 2008, 14:42
anyone got the TAFs METARs---RWY report ?---interesting though-- I have to admit that I am overwhelmed by all the technical details provided by the US media:}---

Longtimer
19th Jul 2008, 15:03
The Aviation Herald has posted some of the information you are seeking. Can not post it here due to their copywrite restrictions but the goto for the information is: Accident: Mexicana A320 at Chicago on Jul 18th 2008, stopped by arrestor bed after overrun on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=409dd228&opt=0)

Pugilistic Animus
19th Jul 2008, 15:08
Thank you LongTimer:)

Lured in perhaps by the proverbial calm before the storm:confused:---those things pick up fast I wonder what the 'big picture' was for the day--- just an isolated METAR is really not enough for me to say much comment but landing near potential TS's:=
KORD 190051Z VRB03KT 10SM SCT033CB BKN100 OVC200 27/21 A2996 RMK AO2 RAE03 SLP139 CB NW-NE MOV E VCSH NW-NE P0000 T02670206


PA

Two's in
19th Jul 2008, 15:51
It was allegedly landing on 04R (8075ft) - be interesting to understand how the overrun occurred given that the aircraft routinely lands on much shorter runways around the world.


...it's only 8,075ft if you start at the beginning.

Doors to Automatic
19th Jul 2008, 16:01
True - but even on Med Autobrake the aircraft can be brought to a halt in 3000ft so you have got a hell of a margin before meeting Uncle EMAS!

Pugilistic Animus
19th Jul 2008, 16:05
True - but even on Med Autobrake the aircraft can be brought to a halt in 3000ft so you have got a hell of a margin before meeting Uncle EMAS! Today 10:51

Not if the wind suddenly died/or became horrible and gusty---I wonder what were those High clouds alluded to in the METAR?

ix_touring
19th Jul 2008, 18:35
Arrived a few hours ago as SLF, broke the cloud base very low, standing water on all surfaces... damp, dark, wet miserable day here.

Landed on RWY 10 (not sure which), we were clear of the built up areas (see google below) when we broke cloud, C. 1K to 500m to threshold:

ord - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ord&ie=UTF8&ll=41.976721,-87.923498&spn=0.029352,0.074844&t=h&z=14)

iX

Grackle
19th Jul 2008, 20:34
Good job it wasn't LAHSO ...

Always find ORD ATC a bit too inclined to try to make you land with a ridiculous tailwind after keeping you too high & fast anyway :\

sevenstrokeroll
20th Jul 2008, 23:08
maybe the pilots just screwed up...we don't say that very often do we?

maybe they tried for a grease job and shouldn't have.

maybe they landed long because they were sloppy and the brakes were not up to the task.

of course, there might have been a mechanical problem.

doodahdave
21st Jul 2008, 00:45
We landed about 40 minutes after the Mexicana event.

We were told to expect a 20-30 minute hold. We got into the area and landed with minimal vectoring on 9R. The radar showed rainshowers in the area and the ramp and runway was wet upon arrival.

I consider the ATC crew at ORD to be some of the best with whom I have ever worked. Once I learned the system to taxiing around ORD from an American Eagle Captain friend, I found ORD much easier to understand.

Rule #1 - The Inner Taxiway (now Taxiway A) goes clockwise.

Rule #2 - The Outer Taxiway (now Taxiway B) goes counter-clockwise or anti-clockwise to the blokes!

Rule #3 - Never stop moving. You'll screw things up worse if you stop the airplane, better to keep moving around the airport.

And the most important rule of all:

Rule #4 - NEVER follow Mexicana anywhere.

He shared these rules with me about 15 years ago and I have found them to useful on many occasions.

That also reminds me of a TWA 747 my Dad (a former Air Wisconsin pilot) saw landing on 9R many years ago. The 747 was halfway down and was still 20 feet above the runway. The ORD controller asked,"Are you going to make it TWA??". The pilot's strained response was,"We're tryin'!!".

The 747 touched down soon after that and they made the left turn at the end, speed permitting.

Dave

broadreach
21st Jul 2008, 01:22
Slightly off-thread. What happens after EMAS is used? Is the recently grooved area just smoothed over or does the affected area have to be cut out and new porous concrete laid in its place? If new stuff has to be laid, how quick is the process (presumably closing that runway) and who pays for it, offending airline's or airport's insurance?

PEI_3721
21st Jul 2008, 02:17
Doors to Automatic “… but even on Med Autobrake the aircraft can be brought to a halt in 3000ft so you have got a hell of a margin ..”

3000ft, who say’s so? Read the small print, what about varying depths of water, different runway surfaces, varying wind, touchdown speed, position, etc, etc. What margin then?

From AC 91-79 Runway Overrun Prevention.
10kts fast on a wet runway, 500ft; float due to shearing wind, 2500ft; 10 ft high at threshold 200ft; and these are before you might have to consider a slick runway due to rubber or even hydroplaning.

Auto brake is only a selection of the deceleration target, and whilst the brakes (or brakes / reverse combination) attempt to meet this target there is no guarantee of achieving it; nor are there particularly good feedback cues for detecting less than desired braking performance, better to use manual brake and get a feel for the landing from the ‘feet & seat’.

BRE
21st Jul 2008, 08:00
Has EMAS ever been known to rip off gear?

I suppose an airplane would belly glide on EMAS if it were not for the gear?

Doors to Automatic
21st Jul 2008, 12:52
3000ft, who say’s so? Read the small print, what about varying depths of water, different runway surfaces, varying wind, touchdown speed, position, etc, etc. What margin then?

From AC 91-79 Runway Overrun Prevention.
10kts fast on a wet runway, 500ft; float due to shearing wind, 2500ft; 10 ft high at threshold 200ft; and these are before you might have to consider a slick runway due to rubber or even hydroplaning.



I said the aircraft could be brought to a halt in 3000ft (i.e. ground run distance) so float and height at threshold do not come into it.

Assuming a correct landing point the total landing distance would be around 4000ft or 50% of what is available hence my comment about a good margin.

PEI_3721
24th Jul 2008, 02:44
Doors to Automatic, thanks (#20). This reinforces the need for accurate qualification of data presented in Pprune (#11), i.e. ‘ground roll’ vs the ‘landing distance (factored/unfactored)’.

The assumption that the landing will occur 1000ft beyond the threshold is an important criterion, but it is affected by threshold crossing height, airspeed compared with ref, and wind; thus these and other aspects have to be considered before the ground roll distance.
Most importantly you do not qualify the runway condition, particularly where an increasingly wet runway results in deteriorating braking performance.
Although safety factors in landing distances indicate a 15% increase (1.67-1.92) between dry and wet, this does not mean that the achievable distances vary in the same proportion. Dry data is the result of flight test measurement, wet data uses a factor and might be checked with calculations, but this does not account for all combinations of ‘wet’ friction.
Thus with an airborne distance greater than 1000ft, ground roll (wet) considerably longer than 3000ft, and perhaps with a safety factor approaching 2.0 (braking level, flying accuracy, etc, etc), all indicate that a landing within 8000ft is not without risk, i.e. not a ‘good margin’.

FOforever
24th Jul 2008, 03:12
I was a non-rev pax on an American flight from Cancun that landed on 4R at ORD 40 minutes prior to Mexicana. At the time the WX was still nice, with calm winds, but thunderstorms were approaching from the Northwest. On my way home from the airport I drove (northwest bound) through torrential rain for 20 minutes. My guess is that Mexicana landed into the approaching WX. I am based in ORD and have experienced many WX systems approaching... ATC will keep you going until you tell them no... I guess Mexicana maybe thought they could beat the WX... Just a guess.

TO MEMO
26th Jul 2008, 21:45
Are there any pictures of the incident?

SLATS_EXTEND
27th Jul 2008, 02:36
I have operated in and out of O'Hare for almost 20 years flying aircraft such as 727, 757/767, 747 and currently A320/319.

Whilst landing 4R, the local controller normally tells the crew to "roll to the end". All well and good...You know you have traffic behind you, the aircraft will die in 8,000 feet of concrete, so you tend to use idle reverse, low braking and meter the roll out to the end..

Now, the part that "may" have gotten MX in trouble. If you do the above and the runway is even slightly contaminated, it gets very slick, the last 1,000 feet or so. I anticipate this and tend to have my speed adjusted accordingly so as not to slide on the painted surfaces etc...

I am in no way trying to guess what happened or attempting to find fault with anyone. I am just describing real world operations on a runway that I am extremely familiar with.

Cheers,

Slats

bubbers44
27th Jul 2008, 03:41
Landing with 8,000 feet of runway doesn't seem very hard at ORD elevation. A320's have had an awful lot of overruns in the last year. Maybe all that automation doesn't give the pilots the tools to deal with problems with computer conflicts that Boeing lets pilots override. I don't hate airbus but I am very happy I never flew one.

Doors to Automatic
27th Jul 2008, 20:06
Slats extend - I would guess you are spot on with your analysis - I must admit that was my first thought when I heard about the incident.

JammedStab
5th Dec 2015, 04:47
Resurrecting an old thread....

Have been reading up on NTSB reports on EMAS saves. There has been 9 of them so far. Usually there is a report on the NTSB site but I can't find one for this or the Polar 747 at JFK which is surprising because even small single engine accidents have some sort of info on the NTSB site.

However, I have had some difficulty on occasion finding a report for a while so perhaps someone out there knows if there is any further info on these two serious incidents.

Thanks.

DaveReidUK
5th Dec 2015, 07:45
Usually there is a report on the NTSB site but I can't find one for this or the Polar 747 at JFK which is surprising because even small single engine accidents have some sort of info on the NTSB site.

However, I have had some difficulty on occasion finding a report for a while so perhaps someone out there knows if there is any further info on these two serious incidents.

Correct, there is no record in either the NTSB or FAA AIDS database for either of those two incidents.

wanabee777
5th Dec 2015, 09:36
Correct, there is no record in either the NTSB or FAA AIDS database for either of those two incidents

Seems odd.

Regardless if there was little damage to the aircraft, the cost to repair an EMAS bed, from what I've heard, is very expensive.

600 ft of EMAS is used to prevent overruns on either end of runway 10R/28L at FLL.

The photo below was taken from NE 7th Ave, courtesy of Google Maps, looking up at the EMAS extension on the far east end of FLL's new south runway. The dimensions of the safety area in the photo are approximately 600 ft Long X 500 ft Wide X 55 ft High from grade level.

It's designed to stop a maximum gross weight B-777-200 from going over the edge with an EMAS entry speed of 70 kts.


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-01%20at%2010.55.46%20_zpshermyraz.png