Corendon off runway, AMS

[Green Cactus]

A Corendon Air Boeing 737-400, registration TC-TJF performing flight 7H-603 from Dalaman (Turkey) to Amsterdam (Netherlands) with 167 passengers and 6 crew, landed on Amsterdam Schiphol's runway 22 (length 2014 meters/6610 feet) in drizzle at approx. 18:58L (16:58Z) but overran the end of the runway and came to a stop with the nose gear off paved surface. No injuries and no damage occurred.

The passengers disembarked onto the runway and were bussed to the terminal.

The nose gear was about 4 meters off the paved surface. The runway was closed until about 03:30L (duration about 8.5 hours) when the airplane was towed to a hangar.

[hetfield]

@Gabona

What's your limit to call an incident like that not anymore a "minor mishap" ?

[dixi188]

I did not realise 22 was used for Pax arrivals. I thought it was just used for GA or aircraft going for maintenance.

Not too short for a 737 but not a lot of room for error.

I wonder if the crew were aware that this runway is not the usual 10+ thousand feet that all the other runways have.

[fireflybob]

I wonder if the crew were aware that this runway is not the usual 10+ thousand feet that all the other runways have.

I hope so! Don't they have charts to look at and tell them?

[maybepilot]

Corendon?Isn't that the outfit that used to employ that guy with a fake ATPL that was arrested a while ago in AMS?

[fmgc]

Gob

Calamity. A muddy nosewheel.

Four metres off the end? Whoever insists on recording every single minor mishap in this industry, with that level of detail, seriously needs to get a life...

I would suggest that this is a bit more than just a minor mishap!

[Shell Management]

Leaving the runway is a serious matter and should be treated as so in any safety management system. Sadly too often in the airline industry such events are ignored or downplayed.

[Viper2]

ending up with one of the wheels outside the paved area is not a minor issue, even if nobody got hurt....

[Dan Winterland]

But closing a runway for eight and a half hours is.

[fmgc]

But that's not really what you said originally though is it?

[Shell Management]

GobonaStick

Wanting to supress safety information is a sign of a poor safety culture, yet such denial and suppression something that seems to be a common instinct in the airline industry.

[Admiral346]

Anotherone off the RWY, seems to be happening weekly nowadays.
To me these incidents are scary, they do represent our industries biggest killer. Mere luck keeps it limited to a small 2 liner on the web, and it is probably not worth more than that to the general public.
On this forum it should be causing concern, especially the multitude of occurences.
Again it is of interest to me what information has been given to the pilots and what alse might have caused them to choose a landing at this place and at this time.
After reading the report supplied by decurion on the AA Jamaika thread

http://www.nlr-atsi.com/eCache/ATS/14/919.pdf (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nlr-atsi.com%2FeCache%2FATS%2F14%2F919.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F399798-aa-crash-jamaica-27.html)

I have changed the way I work every day, have made room for more margin on takeoff and landing.
Noone plans to have an accident, and yet still they happen. So the above comments in the line of "not newsworthy" or "nothing happened, calm down" show a great lack of risk awareness.

Nic

[dixi188]

fireflybob,

I expect they had charts, but I've flown with people who have not mentioned the less than expected length of runway when briefing.
I (from the middle seat) have raised this point sometimes.

[Piltdown Man]

Just out of interest, what is the required LDR (no margin) for a 737-400, BA good, no wind, ISA?

PM

[latetonite]

Turks are getting themselves a reputation in Holland.

[Shell Management]

That is a cheap and unnecessary comment.

[Avman]

Something doesn't add up. Runway 22 is only used for GA traffic. Either the wrong runway was given in post 1 or they made a visual approach (unlikely)to the wrong runway. Nearest option to 22 would be 27. Too big a difference to confuse 22 for 27, plus I'm sure that they would have made an ILS to 27. Standing by for some more facts.

[MPH]

EHAM Rwy´s with westerly, south west orientation: Rw 22; Rw 27 and Rw 24.
RW 22 being the shortest. Still long enough for a B737, brakes 3 to max flaps 40 even 30. Depending on the weight, wind, runway condition, etc.

[Nubboy]

Been to AMS many times, but never landed, or offered 24 or 22
Any exciursion from the tarmac, such as this, needs looking at very closely indeed.
That no one is injured is fantastic. However the circumstances leading up to this needs to be investigated, and published.
Once we have the info then wse can start to look at whether technical deficiencies or other failings, including CRM and other issues, need to be addressed. I'ts utterley wrong to start slinging national references about. Western majors and flag carriers have been known to come off the runway.

[speedbump59]

Turkish airlines are racing neck and neck with Aeroflot to be the least safe airline in Europe.

[Shell Management]

Is Turkey in Europe now?

[Lon More]

22 (aka de ARIbaan) 45 meters wide and 2014 long is available as and when WX demands it. Maybe the crosswind component made it a more attractive proposition cf 27. Not a lot of info available at the moment, although one newspaper is stating that the pilot didn't try to take the turn off (?)

[TopBunk]

Some facts:

1. PREFERENTIAL RWY SYSTEM 06-22Z
LDG: 06, 18R, 36R, 18C, 36C, 27.
TKOF: 36L, 24, 36C, 18L, 18C, 09.

2. There is a published ILS approach to 22

3. I have flown into AMS about 100 times, and only once (back in 1994) landed on 22

4. 2000 metres is plenty of runway to land a 737 on - for heavens sake, hundreds if not thousands of 737 operations are performed onto and off runways in the 1600 metre range every day of the year given normal ops, and in this case, if the ops weren't normal, I have little doubt that they would have chosen a longer runway.

[Teddy Robinson]

Any over run is serious in these days of ptf etc.. another piece of tarmac we could have been looking at another situation altogether .. perhaps one deemed "newsworthy" by some commentators here.

Once again .. wait and see, there will be a report, and the conclusions may not be so simple as those jumped to here.

[TDK mk2]

Sounds more like a taxying misjudgement than an overrun to me. But if this lot are anything like mine they will be looking for a head on a platter, if only because it has made it into the papers. And we all know who that's going to be...

[edmundronald]

At least he managed to remain within all the runways he landed on, in his 10.000 hours career without a proper licence.

As a humble SLF, I would have no problem flying with him - there certainly is such a thing as on the job training.

Edmund

[Piltdown Man]

Something doesn't add up. Runway 22 is only used for GA traffic. Either the wrong runway was given in post 1 or they made a visual approach (unlikely)to the wrong runway. Nearest option to 22 would be 27. Too big a difference to confuse 22 for 27, plus I'm sure that they would have made an ILS to 27. Standing by for some more facts.

I'm afraid not. Rwy 22 is the preferred runway for GA aircraft only because it is closer to the GA/Private handling facilities. It is a shade over 2,000m and has a CAT I ILS and appropriate lighting. Rwy 22 is used by larger aircraft (up to A330 I believe, but don't quote me) during strong winds conditions or sometimes on request for training but is generally not used because the approach takes you straight over Amsterdam city centre. For a similar reason, Rwy 06 is hardly ever used for departures, but I have occasionally departed from this runway but I have lost count of the times the very nice people in the tower have let me land on Rwy 24.

PM

[Diamond Bob]

Sounds more like a taxying misjudgement than an overrun to me.

Why do you say that? Everything I've seen specifically mentions a runway overrun. Such as "overran the end of the runway and came to a stop with the nose gear off paved surface." from the Aviation Herald.

Incident: Corendon B734 at Amsterdam on Oct 2nd 2010, overran runway on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=431b39fa&opt=0)

[rp122]

>Four metres off the end? Whoever insists on recording every single minor mishap in this industry, with that level of detail, seriously needs to get a life...

What if it hadn't been plain grass at the end of the runway?
Could have been a load of those really spikey bushes.

[hetfield]

Maybe it's also a minor mishap to scratch a mountain by 4 meters....

[8846]

AMS is my home airport and in 10 years I think I've landed on 22 twice. It's no big drama (the allocation of 22 for landing) except for the earlier point about noise over Amsterdam. I don't operate a 737 so have no clue as to the LDR for that type.

Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is not a big deal is either on a wind-up, or has never worked in a professional airline.

Every near accident or incident is a golden opportunity to learn and the mature safety culture within most airlines offers a framework to share and learn from all such incidents.

It's understandable that, to someone outside the industry, this might sound a little over the top - but to those of us in it, it's perfect sense.

That's what professional means.

Oh and I take your point TDK - it could be a taxy misjudgement, it's a little confusing in that area and these things are notoriously poorly reported. Let's see what the final report says..you may well be right..

[Clandestino]

closing a runway for eight and a half hours

:eek: AMS was reduced to mere 5 operating runways?!?

I landed 320 on 22 once, when rwy was offered by ATC to get us on the ground quicker. Quick consultation with QRH confirmed there is plenty of room to land even when runway is wet. Goes without saying that proper landing technique has to be used.

Sounds more like a taxying misjudgement than an overrun to me.

To me it sounds like nosewheel 4 meters off the pavement, for reasons severely unclear at the time. Could have been many things, but don't let this detract anyone from putting forward any pet theory. If facts get clearer, it might get discarded as non-complying with factual information and PPRuNe would be poorer for a post or two.

Quiz time:

Who wrote "If you decide to proceed for some good reason then risk bogging the nose wheel rather than main wheels. It makes subsequent work much easier for the ground crews."?

[Doors to Automatic]

This was a minor incident in that no-one was hurt and there was little damage to the aircraft. However as I stated in the Savannah Incident thread there have been a significant number of runway overrun incidents ranging from similarly minor ones to the disasterous event in India.

So whilst many of the individual incidents are relatively insignificant, the fact that there have been so many in such a short space of time IS a cause for concern and should be treated seriously by anyone with a remote interest in airline safety.

[MountainBear]

Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is not a big deal is either on a wind-up, or has never worked in a professional airline. It's understandable that, to someone outside the industry, this might sound a little over the top - but to those of us in it, it's perfect sense. That's what professional means.

Yes and we kill old ladies in their sleep and rape young children too.:rolleyes:

There is a difference between safety awareness and sensationalism, although some people have their wads so deeply tied to the journos that they can't see it.

Making mountains out of molehills is the exact reverse of professionalism because a key element to professionalism is a sense of perspective. :ok:

[N1 Vibes]

We have to remember that although in this situation the end of the runway is mud and therefore no serious damage occurred to the a/c or pax. My local airport has the sea at the end of the runway, this would have been rather more serious.

So don't just look at the actual outcome(muddy nose-gear), think also of the potential outcome(broken fuselage/pax injuries/open seawater) - then decide if it is a serious event or not. Open your eyes a little people!

[8846]

MB - I think (?) you are mistaking me for an apologist for sensational journalism.

I am not.

Those of us in the industry take a calm measured and analytical approach to incidents/accidents however small they are. We try to make reasoned judgements based on years of experience, which go on to increase the level of safety in civil avaiation.

I believe that you are getting exercised about the journos/sensationalist reporting of 'minor' incidents. Nothing will change that - it is part and parcel of our modern world.

The difference between safety awareness and sensationalism is something most industry professionals are accutely aware of - it is our job. We are not in the business of making tommorrows fish and chip wrapping..

Thankfully this incident will be digested and analysed by people who don't subscribe to hyperbolic and sensational language and..hopefully the result will be improved safety. And that..is professionalism.

I do not need a lesson a lesson on perspective.

N1 - well said my friend. :ok:

[MountainBear]

Those of us in the industry take a calm measured and analytical approach to incidents/accidents however small they are.

Indeed we do. We also recognize when an incident is "small" and when an incident is a "big deal".

An airplane crash is a big deal. This is not.*

*at least based upon the information we have right now.

So don't just look at the actual outcome(muddy nose-gear),

That's just nonsense. Of course you have to think of the actual outcome because...and I know this is a hard concept to grasp...it's the actual, factual, real-life outcome. Safety professionals are supposed to ignore the actual outcome in favor of some hypothetical crash into the sea. :ugh:

Any sensible safety system builds in a margin of error. The utilization of that margin of error is not a safety failure. It's a safety success.

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

hmmm... something a bit "off" here...

I don't operate B737 or anything similar, but I have in the past worked at a location where the only runway available for 737 ops was a 6000 foot runway. Those 737's have operated to/from that runway for in excess of 40 years without incident -other than a couple of very memorable bird-strikes on t/o, one of which I witnessed from the hold-point -impressive!

More to this than meets the eye.

[safetypee]

The safety concern is the reason as to how a safety margin of at least 3100 ft (6610 ft LDA – wet factor) was used up.
This is not to say that operators have to explain normal variability in operation (although this information is valuable in FOQA, etc), but operators must be prepared to explain how a full safety margin and an additional 12 ft happens to be used in circumstances, as known so far, were without failure.

There is a line in the sand (a fine and often indeterminate line) when ‘normal’ becomes an incident. It appears that this operation crossed this line in just the same way that others have done so, some with much more severe outcomes.
It is not the outcome that is important; it is the crossing of the line and the reasons why.

LULU. Look into the reasons why, Understand the issues, Learn from them, Utilise the knowledge gained.

[MountainBear]

It appears that this operation crossed this lineit is not the outcome that is important;I'm a surprised to see this type of muddled thinking from you of all people.

Upon what basis does it appear to you that this operation crossed the line if not the outcome? The outcome is at this point in time all anyone has to work with, unless you know something about this incident that others don't.

Or is it your position that negative outcomes are important (a wheel in the mud) while positive outcomes (passengers delivered safe and sound) are unimportant. :ugh:

[Teddy Robinson]

Mr Bear,

whatever your gripe with the media, this "occurrence" is of interest to this community. It is thankfully an "occurrence" rather than an accident, however the dividing line between the two has historically proven to been a fine one.
Whether it is regarded as newsworthy or not is another matter, however as a notifyable event it stands, an aircraft left the end of an adequate landing surface for reasons yet to be determined, the runway was taken out of service, and occurrence reports will have been filed so that the facts may be determined.

[Lon More]

There's a photo here (http://www.nufoto.nl/fotos/170935/corendon-komt-naast-baan-terecht-op-schiphol.html) which can't be linked to for copyright reasons.

WX
021855Z 16015KT 9999 FEW006 BKN009 OVC012 17/16 Q1006 BECMG SCT008 BKN012=
021825Z 16013KT 9000 -DZ FEW004 SCT006 BKN011 16/15 Q1006 NOSIG=
021755Z 15012KT 5000 -DZ FEW003 BKN005 BKN016 16/15 Q1006 BECMG 8000=
021725Z 14007KT 110V170 3200 RADZ FEW003 SCT005 BKN007 16/15 Q1007 RERADZ BECMG 6000=
021655Z 14009KT 2500 DZ FEW004 SCT007 BKN011 16/15 Q1007 REDZ TEMPO BKN007=
021625Z 13009KT 100V160 4500 DZ FEW006 BKN011 BKN025 16/15 Q1007 TEMPO 2500 BKN008=

In Airwork (http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/showthread.php?p=228888) there was speculation that 24 might have been closed for inspection after a birdstrike but it was later confirmed that it was in use for departures

[tocamak]

Something doesn't add up. Runway 22 is only used for GA traffic. Either the wrong runway was given in post 1 or they made a visual approach (unlikely)to the wrong runway.

It really is annoying when people make postings like this. The author clearly has no idea what they are talking about making such absolute statements such "is only used for GA traffic" etc. Rwy 22 is longer than a lot of runways that are used as standard for aircraft larger than 737/A320 and is used when required by atc or especially during very strong southwesterly winds (no ILS on 24 only circling). If you are just going to make things up don't bother as plenty of people are a bit more familiar with operations at Schiphol than you are and your ignorance will show you up!

[Dairn]

Normally I just read this stuff with interest and don't bother replying, but I have to agree with the above. People do write a crock occasionally and make all knowing statements.

I have flown to AMS for 14 years and have landed on 22, always due to severe SW winds, which have been present recently. It's rare, but it happens. So 22 is not just a GA runway (I fly B737).

[76-er]

On 'De Telegraaf's website the airline now points to aquaplaning as a possible cause.

Link (in Dutch):
Gebruik Oostbaan ter discussie - Reizen en vakanties | U leest er alles over op Reiskrant.nl van De Telegraaf [reiskrant] (http://www.telegraaf.nl/reiskrant/7829844/__Gebruik_Oostbaan_ter_discussie__.html?sn=binnenland)

Not sure if 04/22 is grooved.

[lederhosen]

Based on the metars and the preferential runways I cannot see an obvious advantage to landing on 22 rather than 18c or 18r. Can anybody in the know explain why they might have been using it. If I remember correctly these guys had/have an aircraft based more or less permanently in Amsterdam, so they ought to be familiar. This is not an extreme runway by any means particularly with an ILS. Maybe a bit of complacency played a role. Whilst fortunately no big deal in itself we can all learn from this kind of incident. Reminds me a bit of the Ryanair that went off the end in Charleroi I think, where the captain said she was trying to expedite clearing the runway and skidded whilst trying to turn off too fast at the end.

[Avman]

Guilty as charged! In my haste I omitted the word "generally". Yes indeed 22 is used at times but, other than GA traffic (by the way, by stating GA I didn't exclude larger types), rarely by the airlines. The winds in question at the time didn't seem to indicate a specific need for 22.

[sleeper]

Avman, Guilty again!


Yes indeed 22 is used at times but, other than GA traffic (by the way, by stating GA I didn't exclude larger types), rarely by the airlines


In my B737 time, with Ams as home airport, I landed my Airliner numerous times on rwy 22. This together with all the other medium jet airline operated aircraft. The runway is limited to max B767/A330 type of aircraft.
With soutwesterly storms either rwy 22 is in use, or rwy 27 break off to 24. The word rarely is thus not true.
Sometimes however 22 is in use without any strong wind present, but because of the runway allocation system.

[The Ancient Geek]

Runway excursions are not a trivial issue.

Over the last 30+ years there have been enormous improvements in aviation safety, mainly due to technologies such as GPWS and better understanding of CRM issues. All of the low hanging fruit has been picked and runway excursions have risen to the top of the incident statistics, accounting for a substantial proportion of fatalities.

Only by fully understanding every incident can we make progress in reducing one of the most stubborn causes of accidents.

[8846]

Teddy Robinson, Safetypee.. good points both and well made - thank you for contributing to my knowledge.

Menir Bear..

One of the great benefits of pprune is the opportunity to learn a little here and there from professionals with knowledge and experience greater than our own. When learning anything it's a good idea, not to mention good manners, to listen.

There are some great great guys contributing to this forum, from Harrier test pilots downwards (sideways?) and the greatest of them contribute in a rational and measured way. There is a significant correlation between the stance they adopt, the attitudes they assume and the professional positions they hold.

An a/c has departed the runway/taxy-ing surface, thankfully no one was hurt and the a/c probably sustained minor damage.

This is outside the normal expectation of airline operation and therefore warrants investigation.

If you believe that we should all breath a sigh of relief and walk away with nothing more said, then you are at variance with the vast majority of professional pilots and aviation professionals contributing to this forum.

Our collective attempts to throw some light on your erroneous perceptions have been with the best of intentions - to show you and others how this incident will and should be handled.

[poldek77]

This day we landed on 22 at AMS about 20 minutes before the Corendon flight and weather was some worse then stated in METARS - it was raining with some gusty wind from SE. We had no idea what was the reason for choosing 22 for arrivals.
Neverthless I like the idea of using rwy 22 for small and medium airliners - performance is OK and comparing to 18R the taxi time to C or D gates is significantly shorter.

[fireflybob]

I expect they had charts, but I've flown with people who have not mentioned the less than expected length of runway when briefing.
I (from the middle seat) have raised this point sometimes.

dixi188, yes have spent a fair amount of time in that seat too so know what you mean. But I find it somewhat astounding that professional pilots would be landing on any runway and not be aware of the landing distance and whether or not a particular landing is "limiting" in the given conditions - surely this should be part of the briefing (which I am sure is the point you are making)?

(My post here is no comment on this incident since we don't have the facts yet)

[XLNL]

Interesting comments by the airline and captian of the flight in the telegraaf article linked by 76-er.
Wonder if it would have been wiser not to comment...
Here is the (google) translated and slightly corrected english version:

Schiphol - Airline Corendon wants clarification from the airport on the use of short Oostbaan in bad weather after a Saturday night an aircraft by the Turkish company immediately after the landing went of the runway.


In the incident of the 167 passengers aircraft 737 no one was injured, but the Inspectorate and the Safety Board have suggested an immediate investigation.
"We wonder whether this runway should be used with huge rainfall such as last weekend," says the company, indicating that the experienced British pilot could not stop in time because there was aquaplaning.
A sitting aboard KLM technician would have witnessed the dangerous situation. Sources around Schiphol stress however that the situation was safe and the 2014 meter long track, although not often, but frequently used. "Even in bad weather like Saturday, where the incident Corendon also several aircraft without any problems on the East Runway landed." The pilot would not have indicated not wanting to Oostbaan for landing when he was unexpectedly assigned. "He also made a neat landing. Only, the aircraft then didn't stop, for unknown reasons, and was driven into the grass a few meters at the end of the runway." Reports the airport.
According Corendon -that today brings a lawyer to Schiphol- the pilot however is furious about the incident. "We also point the finger at ourselves. We could have refuse landing on this runway. More importantly, the airport should not use the Oostbaan during weather like Saturday. Then you just wait for such an incident." The crew of the unit underwent a breath test after the incident, but were not drunk. The British pilot today will simply resume its flight schedule.

[andrasz]

Discuss we may till all the bone is sucked dry, but whenever an aircraft ends up on landing beyond the firm bit, it can ONLY be down to two causes:

Aircraft landed long, given prevailing conditions and published performance parameters, and it was physically impossible to stop the plane within the available runway remaining (eg. AF/YYZ, IB/UIO). In this case the moment reversers are selected, the overrun is a 100% certainty.
Aircraft landed within theoretical limits, but due to some action (or lack of) by the crew or technical malfunction, the plane did not decelarate as it should have.Unfortunately all of the above with the possible (rather remote) exception of a brake/reverser failure (of which we would probably be aware of by now) logically points to at least some error in jugement from the part of the crew. We had regular 767 operations into airports with runways of around 2000m, for a 738 such runways are the norm in many parts of the world.

[Avman]

:ok: OK sleeper. Interestingly enough the hundreds of times I've been through SPL (in all sorts of weather) I have personally never seen 22 used for airline traffic. But if you are an AMS based pilot then I conceed that you would of course know better and I retract my comments. Btw, I have many times experienced the appr to 27 with a break-off for 24, but I only ever experienced it (or saw it) with turboprops and mainly (but not exclusively) with KLM CityHopper or other Dutch commuter airlines (of the time). Do they offer this option to larger a/c too?

[Surferboy]

22 is used a few times a year, mostly with heavy SW winds. But also for other reasons, could be due showers in the TMA wich might rule out the 18R/18C combination during the inboundrush.

24 is also offered with heavy SW-winds to heavy (Anything bigger than A321 if i'm not mistaken) traffic, because they aren't allowed to land 22.

[sleeper]

Avman,

Yes they would, if (t/o)traffic allows it.
I personaly watched B747's land on rwy 24 after circling from 22 (!) in southwesterly gales with ceiling's around 400 feet. It was very interesting to watch, having just vacated 22 and having to hold for their circling.
Normally though only the medium size aircraft do the 27 to 24 brake off, because of their gates being on the south side of Schiphol.

[hetfield]

circling from 22 (!) in southwesterly gales with ceiling's around 400 feet.

Sporting, isn't it?

[sleeper]

Yep especially when a, not to be named, airline's 747 did the last 600m to the threshold 24 at about a 100 feet. ( He probably kept on descending on the 22 ils gp) We were waiting for the touchdown in the grass, but he made a definite arrival on the piano keys!

[PBL]

The chatter is fun, but the safety questions come from safetypee and the article referenced by 76-er.

The safety concern is the reason as to how a safety margin of at least 3100 ft (6610 ft LDA – wet factor) was used up
when according to De Telegraaf the PF put it down where he should have.

Anyone who thinks this issue isn't worth addressing lives on a different planet from me.

PBL

[lederhosen]

Most of us who fly it, know the 737 can stop on occasion in under 1000 metres if you try hard, so I agree with andrasz about the most probable areas to be looking. As safety pilot I would be asking:
. did they use flaps 40
. was autobrake 3 or max selected
. was speed within limits, with appropriate vref
. was the approach fully stable
. did they touch down firmly in the touchdown zone
. did they immediately select full reverse
. was there any premature use of the steering tiller
Going around when it is still possible is with hindsight normally the best option and strongly recommended everywhere, but still pretty rare. Fortunately nobody got hurt on this occasion. But there have been quite a few 737 overruns with perfectly serviceable aircraft recently and the Air India Express accident demonstrates what can happen in the worst case. If we all decided we could not land on wet 2000 metre runways we would be out of a job pretty quick!

[Green-dot]

With reference to post #45, judging Lon More's linked photograph: this aircraft departed nowhere near the end of runway 22 but rather beyond the halfway point at or near the intersection of the third taxiway (one intersection farther than the old perpendicular runway which is the second intersection out of a total of four along rwy 22). If you'll notice the hangar in the background, that is KLM Hangar 14, approximately 1/3 along rwy 22's length. If the aircraft departed at the end of rwy 22, Hangar 14 would not have been in the picture when taken from this angle. Perhaps this was an attempt to turn on to this taxiway which, for whatever reason, left them digging in the dirt?

Rgds,

Green-dot

[BOAC]

2000 metres is plenty of runway to land a 737 on- apologies for joining the fray late, but 2000m is nowhere near enough for a 737-400 with poor braking action. It would use all of that - and about 4-10m more, I would guess.:) Have we had any BA reports on the thread?

I cannot fathom how people are quoting "3310ft " etc for this landing. Piltdown man asked for an LDA a while back - no-one has answered. It is certainly in excess of 2000m with 'poor' BA. You just cannot do it, even at F40 and full reverse. I would hazard two guesses:
1) Either the crew did not plan for a 'poor' BA
2) The crew did not know about a 'poor' BA

The fact that the Captain is reported to be 'angry' points me at 2)

EDIT: Thanks to Green-dot I now wish to reserve judgement - I had a nagging question about the 'exit point' before.

[safetypee]

Mountain Bear re#43, (my #42); this is not so much ‘muddled thinking’ as poor or incomplete communication with my use of the word ‘outcome’.
I was referring to the severity of an unacceptable outcome; and 12 ft beyond the end of a paved surface (or even off the side) is an unacceptable outcome for whatever reason.

Re ‘… negative outcomes are important …’ My view involves both negative and positive outcomes.
Negative outcomes, accidents and incidents, are rare events usually involving several contributing factors, amalgamated and triggered by circumstance, and often human behaviour is a central element. These aspects are investigated and the industry has to apply the lessons to be learnt to a wider range of operations.

The positive outcomes are the everyday successes of operations where humans contribute to safety. These operations contain much more information about how safety is achieved. Unfortunately this information is rarely gathered and analysed, reducing the availability of the lessons to be learnt. However, individuals and crews can reflect on their performance and learn from ‘good’ or ‘not so good’ performance in daily operations by debriefing and thus reconsidering their behaviour.
------ ------ ------
A positive aspect of the statistics of runway excursion accidents is that there are relatively few fatalities with respect to other scenarios. Whilst this is good news for some of areas of operations and airport design, it often hides the actual risks and reasoning involved. This is not helped by using safety statistics based solely on fatalities which may have evolved from the public (human) interest which directs the general perception of safety.

Unfortunately modern media focuses on the sensational; this aspect has evolved with culture and technology, and possibly reflects a poor understanding of aviation operations.
We have to live with this and where possible ‘manage’ it. Remember, public perception can be swayed by media sensationalism and our industry might suffer the result (recall the turboprop ‘vendetta’ in the 1990s).
Many threads in this forum offer good advice – don’t feed the trolls, but the media are not trolls (some sciolists, maybe). The attention seekers will wane – get use to it, the others require education, knowledge, awareness, - an explanation of the operational context – an understanding of our (industry’s) point of view.

Public forums such as Pprune offer a unique opportunity to demonstrate how safe and successful our industry is, but to maintain this position we need to provide balanced and well judged view of events and occurrences, most of which we may not understand due to lack of fact.
This requires all of us to consider our perceptions of events carefully, to think about what we know (or don’t know), and how or why we apply these thoughts – biases or false belief.
Thus, everything we should be doing ourselves, and would wish for the media (education, awareness, and application), probably applies to us in daily flight operations, less we over-sensationalise our capabilities as operators.

[Lon More]

Re posts 65 and 66; one of the newspapers mentioned a Schiphol spokeswoman as stating that it was not a landing incident but a taxiing incident. It seemed like a bit of journalese at the time so I didn't mention it but maybe it's closer to the mark than I thought

[decurion]

The runway was most likely wet. With normal runway maintenance in place this would mean a braking action of good in Boeing terms. Poor braking action in Boeing terms means an icy runway.

[Potcake]

previous post suggest RWY22 is used rarely but is an option when conditions are suitable and some pilots have landed when a strong S/W wind blowing.

021725Z 14007KT 110V170 3200 RADZ FEW003 SCT005 BKN007 16/15 Q1007 RERADZ BECMG 6000=
021655Z 14009KT 2500 DZ FEW004 SCT007 BKN011 16/15 Q1007 REDZ TEMPO BKN007
021625Z 13009KT 100V160 4500 DZ FEW006 BKN011 BKN025 16/15 Q1007 TEMPO 2500 BKN008=

Wind for RWY22 is 80o off the nose and with 110V170 could have given a tailwind.
Wind for RWY18R/C is 40o off the nose with no chance of tailwind.
Ok so its operational but posts suggest 'when conditions are suitable' RWY22 is used. So what makes the use of RWY22 more suitable than RWY18R/C which is used frequently. METAR reports before this time and perhaps when the crew got a report suggest the weather was a little better than at the time the A/C approached the runway. Now bear in mind a cloud base of 300FT or below makes RWY22 unusable as its not CATII rated due to lighting (no centreline lighting). So now RWY22 is on operating limits at the time of landing - 1705Z. I ask again given the amount of runways avaliable in those conditions - why would conditions be suitable for the use of RWY22?

[BOAC]

indicating that the experienced British pilot could not stop in time because there was aquaplaning. - decurion -we obviously have different interpretations of 'good' braking action? I'll stick with mine, if that is ok?

Now bear in mind a cloud base of 300FT or below makes RWY22 unusable as its not CATII rated due to lighting puzzled by '300ft'/'CATII' where on earth do you get that from?

22 well within cloud/wind and vis limits, BA permitting - it is, of course, possible the crew elected to use it to avoid the cross-country taxy from The Hague

[Potcake]

I didnt mean to suggest 300ft is CATII, RWY22 is not CATII.
plate 10-1P1 (general) Schiphol. LVP Low visibility proc are in force with cloudbase = to or less than 300FT. Phases A & B LVP dictate a CATII landing which if you look at the plates for Schiphol, RWY22 is not certified for CATII landings which I believe is due to the absence of certain lighting. (Centre line). You will not find CATII plate for rwy22.
Yes wind is within limits - a 4 knot tailwind is within limits but if you had a choice of good runways to use and better judging by the wind, why would airport use 22.

[BOAC]

Potcake - I can see no mention of a CATII requirement for LVP A. Can you give me the page reference please? It seems odd, does it not, that the DH is 200ft when you are saying you cannot use it below 300ft?

[Potcake]

My mistake LVP are in force with CB 300FT or below (you can see that from the plate), however you can continue until 200ft DA if stable and visual. As low visibility proc's dont necessary mean you are into CATII - so in this case effectively you can proceed down another 100ft, but its still pretty tight and I think the origional point I was trying to raise is of all the Runways to use in Schiphol its strange to choose this one. Some people were suggesting when conditions are suitable, but infact conditions were more favourable for the lenghty Runways 18C or 18R. Ive operated into Schiphol many times and had RWY22 once - also with a strong SW wind but this was not the case here.

[decurion]

There is a lot of confusion about braking action amongst pilots and others. There are activities underway that will hopefully solve these problems (TALPA ARC initiative). If you maintain a runway to the friction levels cited by ICAO, a wet runway will perform like braking action good as defined in the QRH. I know that AMS does runway maintenance friction tests. Braking action poor typically occurs on wet melting ice runways and during special cases like revered rubber hydroplaning. Under normal hydroplaning you will have very low friction levels only at the higher speeds above the full dynamic hydroplaning speed.

Check out the following presentation: http://www.pilots.or.kr/upfile/aip/9AAAA_StoppingonSlipperyRwys2.ppt (http://www.pilots.or.kr/upfile/aip/9AAAA_StoppingonSlipperyRwys2.ppt)

[latetonite]

Potcake, I am afraid your perception of LVP and CatII is wrong.

[Hotel Tango]

4 pages but we don't really know what actually happened, never mind why.

[BOAC]

Well, with my 'armchair quarterback' baseball hat firmly put backwards on my head, and armed with Green-dot's post, I feel pretty sure that I can guess what 'happened', and I would say on that basis there are lessons to be learned by Corendon and the crew, and the only thing hurt, fortunately, was pride, company image and budget.

As they say "Not a single Corendon passenger was harmed in the making of this production".

No, I'm not going to 'publish' my 'findings'.:) I suspect most 'professionals' could guess too.

[andrasz]

Nice one, BOAC :ok:

Something similar happened in BUD a couple of years ago to a 73', they were asked to vacate runway asap with following a/c on short final, made the 90 deg turnoff at the rwy end at a tad higher speed than normal, forgetting in the process that the piano keys are slippery when wet...

[babemagnet]

I know what happend! they landed too far in the touchdown zone like a lot of 737 drivers do

[BOAC]

babe - have you read the thread - it says not?.

[RegDep]

Do we know by now which way the a/c went off the rwy? I mean there are three ways to go off at the piano keys and many other before you even get there.

[BOAC]

Read green-dot #65 and look at the pics?

[RegDep]

Yes, I had, and also tried to figure it out using the picture and GoogleEarth. Came to the same conclusion as Green dot just before I read #65.

Just wanted to know if the company spokesperson was correct or not that this is a taxiing incident. Just for one fact.

[Potcake]

latetonite - feel free to enlighten us!

[marsipulami]

"Potcake wrote: My mistake LVP are in force with CB 300FT or below (you can see that from the plate), however you can continue until 200ft DA if stable and visual. As low visibility proc's dont necessary mean you are into CATII - so in this case effectively you can proceed down another 100ft, but its still pretty tight and I think the origional point I was trying to raise is of all the Runways to use in Schiphol its strange to choose this one. Some people were suggesting when conditions are suitable, but infact conditions were more favourable for the lenghty Runways 18C or 18R. Ive operated into Schiphol many times and had RWY22 once - also with a strong SW wind but this was not the case here."

When visiting the tower, the controller told me about LVP coming in force when cloudbase below 300ft due to the fact that the tower controller is situated at 300ft and is unable by then to see the airplanes and has to rely on radar and therefore has to apply LVP.

Marsipulami

[latetonite]

When the controller talks about LVP in progress he is talking about HIS jurisdiction. That means taxi procedures with lower speed, runway infraction precautions, caution on the ILS sensitive area..Not your ILS minima. It does not change your Cat I into Cat II automaticly. If you have your charted minima, you can do the approach as per your chart.