View Full Version : EMB-145 hydroplanes off rwy in Ottawa...

Global Driver
16th Jun 2010, 22:25
Has anyone heard any news regarding the Waterski (literally) EMB-145 that skid off of rwy 7-25 in Ottowa earlier today?
I understand that the rwy is ungrooved and that it lost its nose gear after skidding off the rwy.

CTV Toronto - United Express airplane skids off Ottawa runway - CTV News (http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100616/united-airlines-plane-100616/20100616/?hub=TorontoNewHome)

Way to go Hulas... That's what happens when you try to save money on jets with no thurst reversers!!

16th Jun 2010, 22:36
Global, its the sort of thing which will happen at our nations main airport, no groveing, no over run retardation systems, only two front course ILS, no cat 2, no cat 3, BUT, we do have a million dollar waterfall in the terminal and our ex PMs canoe on show, kinda sums up Ottawa, AKA Fort Fumble!

16th Jun 2010, 23:30
CBC Ottawa reports that he landed long and simply ran out of runway. Can anyone confirm this?

16th Jun 2010, 23:30
not enough information yet. I flew into Ottawa all the time and enjoyed it immensely. Beautiful city. Proud to have Canada as a neighbor and friend to the USA.

AS with any over run, stablized approaches, on target speed, firm touchdown, on target touchdown zone are all required. thrust reversers very helpful...don't know if this one had them or not.

wondering which runway in use? which way runway sloped? actual wx at the time...etc.

16th Jun 2010, 23:54
An account from CBC (Candian Broadcasting), with photo, is here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/16/ott-plan-off-runway.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/16/ott-plan-off-runway.html)

Landing long not confirmed, just suggested as a possibility.

The CBC's Cory O'Kelly reported from the scene that the plane came to rest nose down, just inside the fence at the airport perimeter. Debris from some of its parts was strewn behind it, and dozens of emergency vehicles were parked nearby.
Firefighter Eric Marshall said just before the plane went off the end of the runway, the pilot reported hitting the brakes, but was unable to stop. He said it's possible the plane landed too far down the runway or the pilot hit the brakes too late, given the runway conditions. It is believed the front wheel came off the plane, but the pilot managed to control the aircraft.

17th Jun 2010, 01:07
We had a lot of rain in the region last night and earlier today. Local news (Toronto) reported "skidded off wet runway".

BTW it is Ottawa. Mods, can you correct the title.

17th Jun 2010, 05:04
Accident: Trans States E145 at Ottawa on Jun 16th 2010, runway overrun (http://avherald.com/h?article=42d059bc&opt=0)

17th Jun 2010, 09:39
thrust reversers very helpful...don't know if this one had them or not.

AFAIK, it doesn't.

17th Jun 2010, 09:52
CYOW 162000Z 07008KT 3SM -RA BR SCT010 OVC022 15/15 A2981 RMK SF3SC5 SLP097
CYOW 161947Z 07008KT 3SM -RA BR BKN009 OVC020 15/ RMK SF5SC3
CYOW 161900Z 10010KT 6SM -RA BR SCT015 OVC025 16/16 A2983 RMK SF4SC4 SLP102
CYOW 161855Z 10009KT 6SM -RA BR SCT015 OVC025 16/16 RMK SF4SC4
CYOW 161818Z 14012KT 10SM -RA OVC023 16/ RMK SC8
CYOW 161800Z 09009KT 15SM BKN027 OVC050 18/13 A2986 RMK SC6SC2 SLP114
CYOW 161736Z 09008KT 15SM BKN028 OVC050 18/ RMK SC5SC3
CYOW 161700Z 09008G15KT 8SM -RA SCT026 BKN050 OVC100 18/13 A2990 RMK SC3SC3AC2 SLP127
CYOW 161600Z 10008KT 15SM -RA FEW040 BKN085 BKN140 19/12 A2993 RMK SC1AC6AC1 VRY LGT RA SLP135

This is TSA's second overrun in YOW. The first one was due to a strange BCU failure. Knowing the captain, I doubt he landed long or allowed to. The airplane was also tech earlier, I wonder if it was anything related?

Way to go Hulas... That's what happens when you try to save money on jets with no thurst reversers!!

Blame Bloomer, too. He signed it off!

Hope the pilots get well soon! :sad:

17th Jun 2010, 12:55
So far we had 43 runway excursions this year with commercial and executive operations (about 2 per week). There were 16 landing overruns, with 3 of them involving an EMB145.

For some more general background info on runway excursions (including landing overruns) checkout:
NLR-ATSI: Runway excursions (http://www.nlr-atsi.nl/smartsite.dws?ch=ATS&id=14562)
NLR-ATSI: Causal factors (http://www.nlr-atsi.nl/smartsite.dws?ch=ATS&id=14832)

Global Driver
17th Jun 2010, 14:53

I agree. He's been around for a while. You'll also notice in the photo that he was going for flaps 45.

Hope all is well!
Any chance you'll be in Nice, FR in the next few days?


17th Jun 2010, 19:35
‘The nation’s main runway’ not grooved ?

‘Slippery When Wet’. (http://flightsafety.org/asw/feb10/asw_feb10_p46-51.pdf)



18th Jun 2010, 12:36
Unfortunately not, Shef. Should you be around DUS or AMS let me know.

18th Jun 2010, 16:23
CBC News - Ottawa - Pilots call for airport runway safety system (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/18/ottawa-runway-incident.html)

18th Jun 2010, 22:31
Re: Air Canada Pilot’s Association call (restatement) for the need of EMAS or similar overrun protection.

These safety devices are last chance (reactive); there may be better value in proactive safety aspects which address some of the contributions to this type of incident. They are available now and apply to all runways.
Although runway grooving is part reactive, its absence should trigger crews to consider the landing performance with extra care, similarly the actual landing, – speed, height over threshold, touchdown position, and use of brakes. The type of runway surface is also important – (smooth) wet concrete is particularly poor, rubber contamination even worse. What considerations are made for crosswinds – crosswind wind can affect braking distance, particularly with poor braking technique.
How about the condition of the tyres (before flight check); an old NASA report on Wet Runways, (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=396547&id=2&as=true&or=false&qs=Ntt%3Dircraft%2Bperformance%2Bon%2Bslippery%2Brunways%2Bi n%2Bcrosswinds%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchall%26Ns%3DHa rvestDate%257c1%26N%3D0) indicates that tread designs tend to lose their drainage capability when the tread is approximately 80 percent worn.
There are also differences in hydroplaning speed with modern tyre designs. Hydroplaning of modern aircraft tires. (www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1147.pdf)

If operators require reactive safety barriers then why not reduce the landing distance available by a suitable margin, i.e. each crew provides their own RESA. At least the performance calculation might get crews to take more notice of the conditions, fly an accurate approach and landing, and use max braking.

Aircraft performance on slippery runways in crosswinds. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=1034480&id=1&as=true&or=false&qs=Ntt%3Dircraft%2Bperformance%2Bon%2Bslippery%2Brunways%2Bi n%2Bcrosswinds%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchall%26Ns%3DHa rvestDate%257c1%26N%3D0) This link may change; select "+ back to results" to see the link.
See the chart of tire-ground friction coefficient; the friction at high speed on a flooded or puddled runway, is no better than the friction on wet ice.

18th Jun 2010, 22:40
I've done aquaplaning in the 145.

Braking? Hell no! It seemed like we'd speeded up!
Just had time to say to my oppo.....Waaaaaaaaaay!

Then the thing bit and stopped.

It was a runway surface issue.

I never filed but I should have done.:suspect:

Bristol shut to all traffic two days later.

(btw it was off a CAT 2 approach, which in the Barbie usually puts you over the left hand edge lights, so it was 'visual'- at 80'- swerve to plunk it on the c/l, land.................. and then, internally, "wtf!":uhoh:

19th Jun 2010, 11:52
The CBC had a bit on the lack of over run protection and lack of grooving at CYOW, pity they didnt go further into lack of Cat2/3 ILS / TDZ lighting and the money pissed away on a waterfall in the terminal at this "third world airport" at our nations government location. With the drop offs at the end of two runways Ottawa has been very lucky so far, knowing this town as I do it will take some body bags before things are rectified and some technically qualified are apointed to the airport board to make decisions bassed on safety, not image, and by the way, the ramp slopes the wrong way, fuel spills run into the buildings, not away! Its time to review the whole privitization of our airports, it aint working folks!

19th Jun 2010, 12:04
I seem to remember a 145 going off the end a few years back.

Just my faded memory and the below is possibly rubbish or pure conjecture so take with a pinch of salt.....

If they squeezed the brakes before the antiskid was up and active the wheels could possibly lock, fooling the aircraft into thinking it's stopped and closing the spoilers as well.....most unhelpful. If the anti ice had been on in flight the flight idle might have been raised as well, though it might drop back in the flare if it gets a rad alt signal??.... Wonder if either of these factors turn out to have played a part. Glad I never flew the things to be honest.

19th Jun 2010, 18:02
Glad I never flew the things to be honest.

So, just as a matter of interest, where does your practical knowledge of the type come from?

Deep and fast
19th Jun 2010, 20:44
Not from a 145 thats for sure.

Right speed and right place and it's fine. Have also done the no surface friction thing, but let the anti skid system do its job and it stops fine.

Icing condition doesn't cause an N1 rump up at this phase of flight(gear down logic) and brake system looks for spin up on landing(50kts wheel speed or three seconds after last touchdown).

As for reverse thrust, I never had the privilege.

D and F :8

20th Jun 2010, 00:20
Over 1000 Barbies made and goodness knows how many hours flown.

Never killed anyone yet- Officially touching wood now.

Cracking aircraft!

20th Jun 2010, 02:05
The company TSA which owns the aircraft had the reverses removed for cost savings.

Deep and fast
20th Jun 2010, 09:03
There is no performance advantage with the reversers if memory is correct.

Barbie is a good machine.

D and F :8

20th Jun 2010, 11:35
D and F, Yes its true that stop-go/ balanced field distances are calculated without using reverse, but to fly in Canada in the winter without reverse is about as dumb as disconecting the ABS on a new car or driving all year on summer tires {or tyres, if a Brit} No, its not Winter here right now but this doesnt change the point that with reverse, instead of residual thrust pushing, the outcome would most likely have been a non event, add to no reverse the third world aspects of CYOW {no TDZ lights, no C/L lights, no Catt 2 or 3, drops at the end of two runways, no overun protection poor rubber removal from Rw 25/07} we are headed for a major loss of life here given our climate, its a pity the media and local politicians dont seem to understand this . Our airports policy in Canada is totally flawed, the decline I observe on a weekly basis with reductions of basic services and closure of strips will, in time result in only major centres having reliable, safe air service, its time to re visit the whole privitization mess and stop building supermarkets on active airports, along with the odd gas stations at the end of runways or excursions such as this will result in headlines for sure!

20th Jun 2010, 17:39
no reversers? Wow, cost savings has taken a frightening level these days

20th Jun 2010, 17:51
are there any runways left in the world where a jungle jet hasn't aquaplaned off ???

20th Jun 2010, 18:09
Barbi, "Cracking Aircraft?" Yup, this one has some very expensive looking cracks in it now, Forward fuse bent all to hell, cockpit floor up about ten inches, gear trunion broken of, major distortion around first five frames, cracking indeed!I wonder how this stacks up against the cost of reverse thrust?

22nd Jun 2010, 11:53
CBC this AM is reporting that the young lady who gave a very accurate and clear report on what she heard on the tower freq and a clear description of events during this over run has been kicked of the "Airport Watch" team, Benoit, the airport manager claims that they have a "no talk" rule for these folks, she claims she has never signed such a form, I prefer to go with her version, it seems the heat may be getting a bit too much for Benoit now that the media is clueing in on the third world conditions at CYOW and money spent on waterfalls and frills rather than improving safety, just wish the media would do some REAL reporting on this, but the local CBC is totally gutless and CTV not much better, its hard to remember that this nation was once a world leader in anything!

22nd Jun 2010, 22:07
Not having reversers would make a decision for an aborted landing easier... i guess they might have encountered poor braking on the RWYs end, maybe due to rubber, wich on wet conditions is quite scaring, my guess.

23rd Jun 2010, 11:50
Big Bad, I have it on good authority that so far no Jungle Jet has gone of the end at Muroc Dry Lake Bed, on the other hand, no one has tried to land one there yet!

23rd Jun 2010, 22:04
There is no performance advantage with the reversers if memory is correct.

Correct, and let's not forget that Crossair and BACX's E145 fleet had no TRs either. Not sure about City Airlines and BMI Regional. Some of the Crossair 145s ended up at Trans States.

Now here's something I had forgotten about the 145's system (it was mentioned on another bb): If you have weight on wheels but no wheel speed (due to hydroplanning) then the logic dictates that a wow fault is present and brakes, TRs and spoilers are locked out, because the logic assumes the aircraft is flying. TRs wouldn't have mattered anyway, it seems.

(Time to hit the systems book again - :suspect: :uhoh: :rolleyes: )

The company TSA which owns the aircraft had the reverses removed for cost savings.

Not quite. They simply ordered them without TRs. CHQ has some as well, I was told.

24th Jun 2010, 03:02
Let's clarify something here,

TR's are not credited in stopping distance, but when you are on ice, or hydroplaning, they are about the only device that stops the aircraft. So they do have a real world effect. Caution in crosswinds of course.

In other words, runway grooving, or TR's, or both, could have saved this airframe.

24th Jun 2010, 16:33
Squawk 7777

Correctamundo re spoilers. If you're out for a spot of aquaplaning the a/c helpfully leaves the spoilers flush due zero wheel speed.

The wheel brakes are inhibited until a few seconds afer touchdown so you get-briefly, but it seems to last a while- no brakes and no spoilers.

I think this is why it felt to me like we'd sped up!:)

Deep and fast
25th Jun 2010, 21:48
The emergency brake is never locked out, but if you are riding water then thats not gonna help much either. Time for some runway grooves I think.

D and F :8

The Spoiler Control Unit (SCU) automatically performs ground spoiler opening, without pilots' interference. The SCU enables the ground spoilers to open whenever the following conditions are met:
− Airplane on the ground. − Main landing gear wheels running above 25 kt. − Both engines thrust lever angles set to below 30° or both engines N2
below 56%.
If any of those conditions is not met, the ground spoilers will not open. A status indication is presented on the EICAS to indicate that the spoilers are open or closed. If a failure is detected, a caution message is presented on the EICAS.

Air/ground indication is determined by a system that detects landing gear shock absorber compression and relays information to the landing gear electronic unit for gear control. The system consists of five weight-on-wheel proximity switches. Two of them are installed on each main landing gear leg and one on the nose landing gear leg.
The Landing Gear Electronic Unit (LGEU) processes the main landing gear proximity switches’ signals information in four independent channels and controls various equipment operations. Logic processing includes the position signal and its validity. If all proximity switch signals are valid, four signals are processed to assure that at least three signals indicate identical status for releasing the air/ground signal output.
Should one proximity switch signal be invalid, the logic will process the remaining three signals so that at least two indicate the same status. If a second proximity switch is invalid, the two remaining signals are processed only if both send the same signal. Disagreement between these two remaining proximity switches causes the Landing Gear Electronic Unit to de-energize the channels and provide a default output signal.
The nose landing gear proximity switch signal is sent only to the thrust reverser logic (if installed) and steering control.

The touchdown protection system inhibits brake actuation before the main wheels spin up during landing. Brake actuation will be allowed only after 3 seconds from the latest touchdown or after the wheels have spun-up to 50 kt. In bouncing landings, the countdown is reset after each runway contact.
Touchdown protection is provided by the brake system receiving signals from main landing gear weight-on-wheel proximity switches. If one landing gear proximity switch fails at the air position, the brake system will operate normally. However, if both proximity switches fail at the air position, braking capacity will be available only for wheel speeds above 10 kt.
Below 10kt, a loss of the main brake capacity will occur, but emergency braking is still available.

The emergency/parking brake system is used when parking the airplane or when the normal braking system has failed. The emergency/parking brake system is mechanically commanded and hydraulically actuated. It is totally independent of the BCU, so it has none of the normal braking system protections.

Each FADEC will command Maximum Reverse thrust on ground only, when the associated thrust reverser is deployed and associated thrust lever is requesting reverse thrust whenever either of the following conditions are met:
- Airplane on the ground indication from both main landing gears, and main landing gear wheels running above 25 kt, or
- Airplane on the ground indication from both main landing gears and from nose landing gear.
During landing, when the Thrust Levers are set to below IDLE, the FADEC commands reverse thrust only after the Thrust Reverser doors (both engines) are completely deployed. If the Thrust Lever is requesting forward thrust, the FADEC will command IDLE thrust if the associated engine thrust reverser indicates that there is a ̈not stowed ̈ or a ̈deployed ̈ condition.
If one engine is inoperative or one thrust reverser is not deployed, the FADEC of the operative side will only command Reverse Thrust if the associated Thrust Lever is requesting reverse thrust and the Thrust Lever of the affected side is set to IDLE. Such a feature is provided to avoid uncommanded thrust asymmetry.

26th Jun 2010, 00:16
Aeromexico Connect 145 runway excursion earlier this year. Non-Grooved & Wet RWY and no TR. Plane had enough energy left to travel for 200m in mud.

Incident: Aeromexico Connect E145 at Tijuana on Jan 21st 2010, went off runway on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=426268a1)

JetPhotos.Net Photo » XA-WAC (CN: 145255) Aeroméxico Connect Embraer ERJ-145LU by GeorgeMxl (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6757994&nseq=9)


28th Jun 2010, 07:30
There is a general misconception that grooved runways are always better than other surface treatments under wet conditions. A surface with large aggregate asphalt will have the same runway friction characteristics on wet/flooded surfaces as a grooved surface with the same average macrotexture. There are examples of overruns on wet, grooved runways. If grooved runways are not maintained well, or the depth and spacing is as such that the average macrotexture is still low, they will not help you getting better friction on a wet surface.

28th Jun 2010, 09:35
The three main aspects of good wet weather friction are geometry (crossfall, gradient), macrotexture, and microtexture. The matter is complex and a systematic approach demands all three aspects receive attention. It can be likened to the legs of a 3-legged stool - if one leg is missing, the stool is unstable. Just what the facts are at Ottawa, I don’t know. But the Embraer 135 overrun at George South Africa in December was aquaplaning due to deficiencies in all three. The interim accident report is on the CAA website in South Africa:

AircraftAccidentReportsIndex (http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20&%20incid/reports/AircraftAccidentReportsIndex.htm)

and look for the latest updates below the annual accident reports – 7 December 2009 ZS-SJW

decurion's comment about grooving presents a view that could be mis-interpreted. What Decurion says is not, in itself, incorrect:
A surface with large aggregate asphalt will have the same runway friction characteristics on wet/flooded surfaces as a grooved surface with the same average macrotexture However the issue is that most asphalt surfaces have LESS macrotexture than a grooved surface, and crucially, less than the ICAO recommended minimum of 1.0mm. That is why, generally speaking, grooving makes a difference and an ungrooved asphalt runway is always looked at with suspicion that its macrotexture is below standard (unless or until proven otherwise).

30th Jun 2010, 13:42
With the hydroplaning in mind, does anyone else find it funny that TSA's call sign is "Waterski"? :)

30th Jun 2010, 14:00
Yes, lots of chuckles about this around CYOW, the airframe is now in the First Air hangar, its gona need a fair bit of duct tape to fix, Red Green is on his way. {For non Canucks, Google it}

30th Jun 2010, 14:32
The GASR (Group of Aerodrome Safety Regulators) proposed the following (see GAR Subpart F – Physical Characteristics):

(f) Runway surface texture
(1) The average surface texture depth of a runway should be more than 1.0 mm, or the surface should be grooved.
(2) Grooves that should meet the requirement for good breaking action when the surface is wet, should be cut with a tool that leaves a clean cutting edge, the width of each groove should be 5 – 7 mm and the spacing between grooves should be approximately 125 mm.
(3) The average surface texture depth and/or grooving of a runway should be given in the AIP for the aerodrome together with data on surface type (class A, B, C, D or E).
(4) Surface texture shall be measured periodically. If the runway is grooved, the grooves shall be checked periodically for evenness and depth.

GASR does not limit these requirements to new surfaces (like ICAo now does) but also considers existing runways (if I read the GAR text correctly). This GASR work will be adopted by EASA for their Aerodrome Regulation.

30th Jun 2010, 15:54
non canadian huge Red Green fan. He is on PBS stations in the US. Keep your stick on the ice.

30th Jun 2010, 22:27
In AIP Norway you will find the surface type, measured runway surface texture and grooving published.

Log on to www.ippc.no / AIS publications / AIP Norway / Current AIP Norway . Tick off I Agree and enter the AIP. The published surface type and texture are located under AD 2 Aerodromes and found under EN?? textpages para EN?? 2.12 Runway physical characteristics, remarks.

Example ENZV: Surface type D, texture depth 1.0 mm, grooved.

1st Jul 2010, 00:05
"Hello DC-ATE, it appears that you have not posted on the forums for several weeks. Why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a debate with other members in any one of the forums?"

That's what's on the main page as I log in, so guess I'd better add my two cents here.

From reading all the posts, it seems this is an acceptable aircraft in most respects, but the runway in question isn't. So.....if the crews flying these things into this particular airport/runway under adverse conditions know the limitations, WHY continue the approach and attempted landing? Go somewhere else.

There.....hope that fulfills my obligation.

Dash-7 lover
1st Jul 2010, 21:52
Not forgetting G-EMBD @ Hannover

JetPhotos.Net Photo » G-EMBD (CN: 145039) British Airways (CitiExpress) Embraer ERJ-145EU by Tomek Kujawa (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=524972&nseq=110)

2nd Jul 2010, 22:53
I have some 'skiing' time logged on the Barbie too unfortunately.

Before I give my two cents, I am a huge fan of the type - it was a fantastic little aircraft. I'd happily go back to her. That said, I have just heard a noticeably large number of stories of this aircraft aqua and viscous hydroplaning.

One snowy afternoon, after touching down on-speed, and on the marks we managed to consume all of an 11,000ft runway - and a little bit more.

Some factors were against us, the runway was concrete, was NOT grooved, and was also not cleared/deiced full length due to lazy airport management.

When we touched down the viz was low, the light was dim though it was day time, and we simply didnt realise the runway actually had a film of wet slush. At speed, it just liked like concrete as we expected.

Now I grant you that these factors were against us, but several aircraft landed in front of us with no issue. For us, it was an interesting rollout....

The brake system was mentioned earlier, after my incident I trawled the books. There is a 3 second pause following WOW activation before the brakes will bite - this allows the wheels to spin up, and also ignores any unintended brake application at touchdown.

The anti-skid uses an average speed of all 4 main wheels as a datum, deviation from this will command either a reduction or increase in brake effort on that wheel. If the average speed signal is lost (i.e. all 4 wheels lock), the anti-skid will no longer function. You must fully release, and then reapply the brakes. Use of the Emerg/Park brake bypasses anti-skid and can apply full system pressure to the brake units (3000psi), this will lock the wheels - drop the spoilers etc... Lastly, below 10ish kts the anti-skid will not function.

13th Jun 2013, 18:55
Report is out:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A10H0004 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2010/a10h0004/a10h0004.asp)

14th Jun 2013, 07:49
Thanks for the heads up notfred.

This investigation is taking wet runways seriously. All the elements of macrotexture, drainage, crossfall and friction are considered. The use of grooving in Canada is introduced. RESAs are being considered. Good to see.

14th Jun 2013, 08:57
Note the biggest single factor in the Emb -145 overrun above and also the Hannover overrun was failure to touchdown at the 300 m point ,I.e the fixed distance marking on most runways. In both cases above the landing was at almost double that distance. Good practice to land at 300 m every time, unless a good reason not to. Not enough emphasise generally on this,in my experience.

Speed of Sound
14th Jun 2013, 09:14
Good report.

It would have been easy to simply concentrate on the inappropriate configuration for a wet runway landing, but the investigators have taken it upon themselves to take a overview of all issues connected with landing on wet runways in Canada.

14th Jun 2013, 09:35
Note the biggest single factor in the Emb -145 overrun above and also the Hannover overrun was failure to touchdown at the 300 m point ,I.e the fixed distance marking on most runways. In both cases above the landing was at almost double that distance. Good practice to land at 300 m every time, unless a good reason not to. Not enough emphasise generally on this,in my experience.

Not sure I agree completely. If one follows the glideslope/PAPI just until one starts the flare then by definition touchdown will not occur at the 300m point. The touchdown zone is just that. A zone and not a point.

On a 10.000ft (3000m) runway (haven't looked up the numbers) I don't see how touching down 2000ft (600m) past the threshold would be "the biggest single factor" in a runway overrrun when landing distance factors of 1.67 or 1.92 were used to determine required landing field lenght.

14th Jun 2013, 11:29
Landing performance on the Emb-145 and i,m guessing on a B737 and any a/c assumes a touchdown at the correct point for that particular airfield, i.e 300m in generally-fixed distance markings. If you land beyond this point you compromise the calculations. On a 3000m runway, practically it makes not much difference, apart from heating the brakes up too much with a flap 22 landing (standard these days if performance allows). Unfortunately to make the 300m point in a barbie jet the technique is more akin to a T/P aircraft, get low over the fence and drag it in. Not text book but reduces the risk significantly of ever running off the end. PAPIS and glideslope to touchdown works far better and is essentially set up for proper medium sized aircraft e.g 737. Conversley a very large aircraft e.g B747 would look to land beyond 300m so the main gear touches at 300m. See "Handling the Big Jets' for technique.

14th Jun 2013, 12:37
So far we had 43 runway excursions this year with commercial and executive operations (about 2 per week). There were 16 landing overruns, with 3 of them involving an EMB145.

And the Indonesians get rubbished for less :ugh:

14th Jun 2013, 18:03
I refer to my earlier posts. I think this is a training problem as well as line pilots accepting long landings. I see new and inexperienced and some experienced pilots landing long continually and because its a "greaser" they consider this a good landing. Admittedly most of the time it's on long runways, but never the less bad practice and on limiting runways potentially disastrous.