PDA

View Full Version : Virgin B738 off (well almost) the RWY in HBA


beaver_rotate
30th Nov 2010, 10:00
Forgive me if the extract below has already mentioned, but is this as serious as it reads??

Amazing how the QF bashing goes nuts over the slightest "non event" (granted the Indo A380 was NOT a non-event) and this just slips by.


SUMMARY:
During the landing, the aircraft came to a halt on the stopway. The investigation is continuing.

A report has not yet been released.

General Details
Date: 24 Nov 2010
Location: Hobart Aerodrome
Occurrence Type: Runway Event
State: TAS

Aircraft Details:
Aircraft Manufacturer: Boeing
Aircraft Model: 737-8FE
Aircraft Registration: VH-VUX

mates rates
30th Nov 2010, 21:41
You have to be very careful at HBA.The r/w is not that long and with a slightly wet r/w you slide on the slippery touch down zone at the other end.So don't let it roll through and brake to take the last turn off.Don't know if that's what happened here but I wouldn't be surprised !!

t_cas
30th Nov 2010, 21:51
It is no excuse. But I am sure there are some runway surface works underway in Hobart. Could be contributory.

go_soaring
1st Dec 2010, 04:38
hence the NOTAM I read for HB today..

C471/10 REVIEW C464/10
RWY SLIPPERY WHEN WET
PILOT REPORTS OF AQUAPLANNING DURING HEAVING RAIN
FROM 12 010311 TO 12 090630 EST


go_soaring! instead

Capt Kremin
1st Dec 2010, 21:59
Here is the Avherald report.

Incident: Virgin Blue B738 at Hobart on Nov 24th 2010, overran runway

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Nov 30th 2010 15:24Z, last updated Tuesday, Nov 30th 2010 15:24Z
A Virgin Blue Boeing 737-800, registration VH-VUX performing flight DJ-1326 from Melbourne,VI to Hobart,TA (Australia), overran the runway while landing at Hobart around 17:07L (06:07Z). No injuries and no damage occurred.

The Australian Transportation Safety Board reported, that the airplane came to a halt on the stopway.

Metars:
YMHB 240800Z 01005KT 9999 -RA FEW005 BKN110 OVC200 19/17 Q1013
YMHB 240730Z 36007KT 9999 FEW005 BKN120 OVC200 19/17 Q1013
YMHB 240700Z 35004KT 9999 FEW005 BKN120 OVC200 20/18 Q1012
YMHB 240630Z 33005KT 9999 FEW004 SCT065 OVC130 19/18 Q1013
YMHB 240600Z 35006KT 9999 FEW005 SCT065 OVC120 19/18 Q1013
YMHB 240544Z 02006KT 8000 -RA FEW003 BKN065 OVC100 18/17 Q1013
YMHB 240530Z 03005KT 3000 -RA FEW003 BKN035 OVC100 18/17 Q1013
YMHB 240509Z 03005KT 3000 -RA SCT003 BKN035 OVC100 17/16 Q1014
YMHB 240500Z 04005KT 5000 FEW004 BKN035 OVC100 17/16 Q1014
YMHB 240430Z 05005KT 5000 -RA FEW004 SCT040 OVC100 17/16 Q1015




This happened a couple of days before the SMH ran its main headline of "NEW QANTAS NIGHTMARE!!!!!" When a baggage belt broke in Melbourne. I guess bashing Qantas is a lot more fun.

No media reports either of the Cathay 747 that had a full depressurisation over Kazakhstan (Great Success!!) two days ago? Hmmmmmm funny about that.

Incident: Cathay Pacific B744 near Karaganda on Nov 28th 2010, loss of cabin pressure (http://avherald.com/h?article=433fd09d&opt=0)

F111
1st Dec 2010, 22:55
It stopped on the stopway, so it stayed on the hard stuff. The passengers wouldn't have noticed anything hence nothing on the media, which is a big difference to the Qantas incidents.

Skynews
1st Dec 2010, 23:15
It may have stopped on the hard stuff, it may also have been more luck than judgement, I think the point s a Virgin 737 is meters from doing damage with no media comment whilst a broken baggage belt is news.
As a passenger I would rather be waiting 15 mins long fr my luggage than sitting in a 737 heading towards the end of the runway.
You are kidding about the passengers not knowing anything was wrong aren't you? I suspect or at least hope the 737 was using max reverse and max possible braking in the conditions.
Any sensible passenger would recognize when turning and seeing no runway remaining, that's if they ad runway left to turn on, that it was close.

Bit like a taxi driver screaming to a halt, all wheels locked up, however stopping prior to the white line t the traffic lights saying, what's the problem, I didn't go through the light!

KittyBlue
1st Dec 2010, 23:42
Skynews, There is only 60 metres from ASDA and LDA. Reverse thrust on a wet day sounds loud normally, so rolling onto the Stop way wouldnt have been so pronounced to most passengers on the plane. Funny how you can use the stopway for take off and not for landing.. well this one did. As yes i know that the stopway is used for abnormal issues on take off.

Skynews
1st Dec 2010, 23:51
Yeh, I understand that. My point being that the aircraft would have been using max reverse, max braking, ( I assume) and come to a reasonably ubrupt halt with no runway remaining?

If it came to a gentle stop then this shouldn't be an issue.

After coming to a stop or if they could turn on the remaining runway, turned I am suggesting the pax, or the the smarter ones, would look and say, gee look there isn't any runway left, braking was very hard( all be it on a wet surface) that must have been close?

balance
2nd Dec 2010, 00:34
YMHB 240600Z 35006KT 9999 FEW005 SCT065 OVC120 19/18 Q1013


With those conditions in a B737 (I'm assuming it was - but could have been a E170 or 190), why would you need MAX braking? Autobrake 3 should have been more than sufficient to pull it up, generally by the second taxiway in on the left on rwy 30, even if it was wet.

All will come out in the wash I guess, but I would hazard a guess at a touchdown that was fairly deep.

I suspect though, that this thread was started to highlight the difference in the media attitude to QF incidents versus others, and in this case the point is valid, although the punters likely wouldnt have known much about it.

Skynews
2nd Dec 2010, 01:20
Balance, I disagree.

Max braking should not have been required, but when the runway end was approaching, whether due to deep touchdown or water on the runway, max braking for the conditions would have been used. Surely they had to, would you barke normally as the runway disappeared under the nose onto the stop way with what ever is past that, grass, fence, HIAL the next stop?

Then as I said due to heavy braking and the pax observing the runway end as they turned, even a dopey passenger would realize all was not normal.

I'm not sure why the media focusses on QF, tall poppy? Advertising revenue would o doubt affect the editorial input. Maybe QF should spend more money on advertising = less media scrutiny.

balance
2nd Dec 2010, 01:28
Sorry sky, i think you missed my point. Having viewed the metar at HBA at the time, I see no reason that more than autobrake 3 would be planned. The surface conditions dont appear threatening. Sure, as the piano keys at the far end dissapear under the nose it is a fair assumption that the lads will have been doing all they could to stop the bastard including max manual braking, but I cant see any adverse circumstances, weather wise.

Malfunction of autobrake perhaps?

would you barke normally

Bloody oath I'd be barkeing! Sorry mate, couldnt help myself.:ok:

Skynews
2nd Dec 2010, 01:41
I bet there was a lot of barking going on.:E

KABOY
2nd Dec 2010, 02:54
Aircraft use LDA for landing, ASDA also takes into account displaced thresholds. A Boeing 737 using all the LDA as well as the stopway would raise questions about the approach as well as system failures and decision making.

Autobrake is not a factor in landing as system failures would not take that into account.

kimir
3rd Dec 2010, 09:16
Anyone know which runway they were landing on? downwind 12 or 5kt headwind 30, low cloud suggests they may have opted for the ILS 12 with the downwind? It is a tanker route, therefore high LDG weights - up to 66.3 tonne, damp runway with rubber deposits in opposite touchdown zone with downwind could change things. Not sure whether the Autobrake was inop or not....new aeroplane so unlikely. Anyway at 65t - brakes 2 (steel brakes) would be ok to go through to the end with small override dry figures, brakes 3 adequate for good reported braking action. You would have to be there to know or wait for the report.....wish there was a qantas pilot on board.....back to my beer.

VBA Engineer
3rd Dec 2010, 10:18
Talk around the traps is that the airport used a sealant on the grooved runway to ensure maximum life.

Not too good for braking in wet conditions however.

tasdevil.f27
3rd Dec 2010, 21:41
On a side note Hobart Airport have also just recently sacked all the electrical & maintenance staff and have contracted out all the work. Rumour has it the place is starting to fall apart.

PLovett
4th Dec 2010, 12:58
The runway at Hobart is in a shocking state with a badly deteriorating surface. After nearly every arrival and departure a vehicle has to do a runway inspection to see what bits have become dislodged. I noticed last week when I flew DJ from ML that the aircraft used most of the runway to stop and certainly rolled out full length to turn as I believe turning on the runway is now discouraged.

At least one passenger on the relevant flight noticed that they had "nearly run of the runway" as I was speaking to him. I didn't have the time to find out more unfortunately and I admit that at the time I thought he might have been mistaken seeing as aircraft are turning at the ends of the runway.

OverRun
4th Dec 2010, 15:28
VBA Engineer, the comment on the sealant has considerable and extraordinarily unwelcome significance. Does anyone have more information?

BTW, if what I suspect has happened is correct, the NOTAM about slippery when wet is an understatement. Eyes wide open time, I suggest.

Stationair8
7th Dec 2010, 23:19
What time of day did this incident occur?

murdoch_disliker
8th Dec 2010, 01:51
Can anyone explain why the runway markings in Australia have only the 500', 1000' and 1500' markings. If you land beyond the 1500' markers, you have got no idea how much runway length is left until approaching the other end.
Boeing mandates landing in the first 1/3rd of the runway or 3000' whichever is shorter, this is the end of the runway markings on an ICAO marked runway, but impossible to judge on an Australian marked runway.
Could be a factor in this otherwise unexplainable overrun situations.

VH-ABC
8th Dec 2010, 03:01
I find looking out my window usually lets me know a fair idea of the runway remaining Murdoch_disliker! Not trying (too hard) to be a smart arse, but good grief, how hard do we try and make our job out to be?

7378FE
8th Dec 2010, 03:37
I concur with ABC, the more green you see out the front, the less runway remaining.

Crew rest.
8th Dec 2010, 04:32
In the 'Good Ol'e Days" landing beyond the 1500' markers would fail your check ride.

Capn Bloggs
8th Dec 2010, 10:45
Boeing mandates landing in the first 1/3rd of the runway or 3000' whichever is shorter,
I suggest you have a read of your flight manual to work out how the landing performance is calculated. I'll tell you now, it doesn't allow for a 3000ft-in touchdown!

murdoch_disliker
8th Dec 2010, 18:52
B737 FCTM 5.5 stabilized approach recommendations: "positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the first 3000' or first third of the runway whichever is less)."
Touchdown will occur just before the 1500' markings if following glideslope set for 777, A380, B747 etc (AKL, SYD, MEL etc), therefore many touchdowns are possible beyond this point.
On a 3000m + runway such as MEL 16/34, does everyone really land before the 1500' markers:rolleyes:? I will have a look at the rubber pattern next time I am landing there.
I would prefer something more scientific than "less green in front of me" to assess landing distance available (such as ICAO runway marking system)

Capn Bloggs
8th Dec 2010, 21:53
But what is your landing performance actually based on?

Gas Bags
8th Dec 2010, 22:09
Who recalls the QF 737 (NG???) that ran off the side of the runway in DRW for about 800 metres during landing run around 2001-2002?? Not much media coverage on that one so maybe not too many people will recall.....I am going purely by memory about an event that had next to no media coverage whatsoever so I am more than happy to be corrected.

nitpicker330
8th Dec 2010, 22:12
The touchdown zone is 1000' to 2000'

At least in CX anyway!!

Some Airfields around the world had "Boeing short field markers" painted on the runway. If you weren't down by them it was a mandatory go around. Tawau in East Malaysia was one in the early 90's.

murdoch_disliker
8th Dec 2010, 23:59
Just out of interest for the Cathay people that have the 1000' to 2000' touchdown zone policy (which I think is a good one). How can you apply that policy in Australia when 2000' markers do not exist? Serious question.
Most short runways will only have markers for 1/3rd of the runway ie Queenstown, Wellington etc about 1800m long, therefore last marker at 600m/2000'.