Virgin ATR runs off runway

[Grogmonster]

I have heard a strong rumour that a Virgin ATR ran off the runway at Moranbah yesterday. Its currently parked up on the apron awaiting some sort of maintenance / inspection and doesn't appear damaged. Apparently took a fair downwind component for landing with the resultant run off. Any takers on this one????? By that I mean any confirmed facts? Its been kept very quite if that is in fact what happened.

Groggy

[Going Nowhere]

Investigation: AO-2013-114 - Runway Excursion involving a ATR72-600, VH-FVY, at Moranbah Aerodrome, Qld - 8 July 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-114.aspx)

[Jabawocky]

Groggie,

This post will ruffle feathers, but I can assure you and I expect it is no surprise, that the number of excessive downwind landings by Dash 8's around rural Qld are nothing short of alarming.

In fact I will go as far to say, if you work for QLink, or any other Turboprop operator, it is high time that you had a chat with the chief pilots about what is fair game and what is not.

Large downwind components Vs Head to head with local GA, you name it. I have seen plenty, and my friends (some on prune) in regional areas have observed the same. We do not have "Data" to back our observations, and we do not know the company limits, so we can easily be targeted for not knowing what we are talking about. But that does not explain bad circuit behaviour and long long landings (and take offs) with high speed, high energy dissipation (something I do know about) and the the result of.

I dare say the first few to complain and call me a w@nker will no doubt be the guilty as charged, so knock your socks off. This has been going on for a while, and when some of my heavy jet mates make the same comments, I have to wonder.

Time for a little less bravado and a bit more common sense before someone gets hurt.

And Groggie, this includes some of your industry sector too, although not as much. I assume you have seen it too.

[VH-FTS]

Tailwind or excessive float had nothing to do with this one Jaba.

[smiling monkey]

Have the cadets started line training? Sorry, just thought I'd ask .. :E

[Capt Fathom]

So Jaba, no doubt you and all your regional mates have submitted Repcons or Incident Reports to highlight this cowboy/girl behaviour ?

[Jack Ranga]

Captain F, what good would a repcon or incident report do? Have you ever heard of action being taken after either of those?

[Jabawocky]

FTS, thats fine, I am not specifically commenting on this incident, just what I have seen many times over, and some might be within limits, but geez....a downwind leg Vs. straight in landing is in the marginal cases probably a better choice. Airmanship is the word that gets used by the older folk watching.

Sumbag, No I do not, thought that was clear, my "Heavy" mates are not that heavy themselves, they generally fly two or 4 x turbo fan machines. Having said that one is a Dash 8 Captain with QL. ;)

No Fathom........we have not, but if we had the data and knew exactly where the line in the sand is we might. But you knew that didn't you :rolleyes:
Have you never seen a downwind landing where a lot of runway was used because the crew flew SI and not downwind for an into wind landing?. Against the local traffic at the time. Barging in, and then using the whole length, and not just rolling through. Airmanship Fathom, I would have thought that was something you had pride in.

Fathom, I have gone out on a limb here to raise a point where some may just want to think twice about cutting the margins so slim and showing poor airmanship, and the best you can do is be a smart ar$e. I opened myself up willingly to be taken shots at I suppose. But maybe you are one of the guilty ones? No probably not, you are too perfect for that.

[Jenna Talia]

We do not have "Data" to back our observations, and we do not know the company limits, so we can easily be targeted for not knowing what we are talking about.

Enough said.

[GoDirect]

The ATR aircraft limit is 10 knots of downwind permissable, subject to runway, weight and temp limits.

[Jack Ranga]

No, he just has to fly amongst you tools Jenna. He fly's for business which is no less a reason to be in he air than you folk. In fact he contributes more to local business than the companies, or should I say company, that rape the locals with their garbage service.

I was tooling around once at a fairly big regional airport, practicing some approaches when a REX flight called inbound. I was outbound on an approach and called the REX & told him I'd knick off for his landing. He said 'no worries, finish your approach we'll slow down for you' a little bit of common courtesy (airmanship) goes a long way.

[Tee Emm]

If you think that there is a safety issue then skip reporting it to CASA or the ATSB and go straight to the airline. They do take any report seriously, and will investigate if they think it is credible

Now there are the words of an aspiring airline manager:ok:

[megle2]

Jaba, agreed.
You can add the RFDS to the list

Standards are not what they used to be or is it the lower experience levels showing through

[TBM-Legend]

During landing, the aircraft's right undercarriage left the runway surface.
The investigation is continuing.

So how does this equate with an overrun when the incident report says this?

[alphacentauri]

It is statistically safer to land straight in then to conduct a circuit

Sorry, I call Bulls**t on that one.

I would say that it is statistically safer to land with a head wind.

[Ultralights]

have to agree with that one, landing with 20kts tail wind, touchdown at say, 80kts, speed on the ground 100kts. great for brakes.
20 kt headwind, 60kts rollling speed.. how can a SI with tail wind be safer? quite a large percentage increase in speed to stop from..

sadly it quite common in regional NSW as well, i mean, why bother joinging other traffic on a corrct circuit direction, when you can just barge on in head to head with a tailwind, and demand everyone else get out of your way, because, you know, im RPT and all.

[BreakNeckSpeed]

Although I still don't agree with the blind acceptance of a tailwind, at least for the turbo props they have beta range/reverse to assist with stopping if required (and reverse parking if you swing that way :hmm:).

I am aware of an operator in the Top End with a "spoken policy" to accept anything up to 25 knots tailwind in a C210 for takeoff or landing!? Apparently it saves unnecessary track miles.
Great idea! Save money by cutting out those unnecessary track miles caused by climbing upwind to 500' then turning to intercept track. Those precious minutes saved will ensure enough money is in the kitty to pay for a new aircraft when one has an over-run!

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting thread, kinda shows the anger out there for whatever reason.

Shame really I thought that pilots had a kinship amongst themselves but I guess with a high pressure world we now live in where cutting corners is needed to satisfy the commercial aspect of it all where safety at times comes second the reality is 'bugger you jack' reigns. (Sorry JR not you buddy)

I've done it all, turbo prop with critically ill patients aboard, GA where time is money & heavy metal Airlines where suttle pressure is there but ATC dictate how & when we land but I always looked at the big picture OCTA & made sure any TW Ldg wasn't outside any limits or the most common sense limit, AIRMANHSIP, the latter lacking a lot these days sadly:-(

YMIA was the typical drome where this got abused a LOT but good old Jack Funnel (may he RIP) showed the highest of Airmanship I've ever seen/heard:ok:

Good onya Jabba for speaking out, just hope you can take the punching bag results.

Wmk2

[Capt Fathom]

Jaba, I don't see what my airmanship and alleged perfection has to do with it.

If you want something done about it, and not prepared to submit an Incident Report or REPCON, then what?

Venting your spleen on pprune will make you feel better, and you'll get cheers from other pruners, but it won't achieve much else.

If sufficient official complaints are received, then it will filter back to the airlines.

Despite your prediction, no one has called you a w@nker yet!

[DH164]

I am aware of an operator in the Top End with a "spoken policy" to accept anything up to 25 knots tailwind in a C210 for takeoff or landing!? Apparently it saves unnecessary track miles.
Great idea! Save money by cutting out those unnecessary track miles caused by climbing upwind to 500' then turning to intercept track. Those precious minutes saved will ensure enough money is in the kitty to pay for a new aircraft when one has an over-run!

The ONLY thing wrong with the above is the fact that people are flying some atrociously big circuits to the point where you could actually factor in track miles. Thats just laughable. If you've got the length and the pilot has some idea as to what hes doing, sure, take the tail wind. The few dollars saved aside, you're taking it to get the job done clinically and to save time so you can get back to beverages at home base sooner.

[j3pipercub]

As time consuming and annoying as it may be Jaba, one of the only ways you can be guaranteed of making an impact is to put in paperwork. Furthermore, within your network, start gathering data, times, dates, flight numbers, actual weather conditions, circuit traffic. Otherwise there will be large levels of animosity towards the regional guys when they may in fact be following 'worlds best practice' as stipulated in their SOPs.

Reports are submitted between regional organisations also. Just like the dash 8 that took 30secs to go from a 10nm final to a 5nm final whille I was backtracking.

May I also make a point that in quite a lot of regional centres, good airmanship is lacking on the 'locals' side also. It might just be the case that the 'rude' captain of the dash has had more than his/her fair share of close calls and would rather accept a legal and perfectly safe tailwind than mix it with traffic doing half their speed on downwind that are an unknown quantity as far as airmanship is concerned. Just offering an alternative viewpoint.

j3

[the_rookie]

Why are they landing with a tailwind? Just doesnt make any sense to me. A circuit takes all of 5mins in a warrior, must take half that in a ATR or D8. For the sake of saving a tiny amount of fuel, why would they risk it?

[Wally Mk2]

'rookie' Commercial pressure & ego's, yr two main reasons.
A couple of mins saved on every other Arrival/Ldg per A/C over a year adds up especially with fuel guzzling turbo props/jets so I can see that commercialism has a huge impact on the Cmd'ers decision making that often overrides commonsense & good 'old Airmanship/courtesy.

Sure submit the paperwork as there is an avenue there for rectification but I think we all know that 'paperwork' does little at times & can in effect set up a culture of 'dob in yr mates', something Aussies are hard pressed to do, culture I guess, right or wrong it does exist.

As for poor Airmanship in the GA fraternity out there well it exists obviously (for a whole heap of reasons outside of the scope of this thread) but that's where a good skipper will factor in that anomaly & 'fit in' rather than display the same poor Airmanship.



Wmk2

[Anthill]

In regards to this ATR incident, I think that it's best to wait for more information to become available before engaging in conjecture. From the available facts (ATSB), there is no evidence at the moment that a tailwind landing had anything to do with this.

Regarding landing with a tailwind, Airmanship 101 says that this is a bad idea. Landing with a tailwind and not performing a Landing Distance Required calculation (and factoring in 1.67/1.92 buffer) is pure negligence, even on a familiar RWY. Do these Dash-8 crews do this every time?

The AIP requirement for a straight in approach is that the actual wind be determined and that you don't conflict with other traffic. With regards the later, how many pilots actually do this? Airmanship, common courtesy and compliance with the rules state that you must give way to circuit traffic. You aren't being 'smart' by landing with a tailwind and conflicting with circuit traffic; you are being a prat.

Landing with a tailwind adds wear on brakes, airframe and tyres. In terms of risk management, it is a poor strategy. What will say at the inquest when you run off the end of the RWY? How will you defend your actions and decisions?

I would say that it is statistically safer to land with a head wind.

Good one Alph, you beat me to it. :ok:



suttle


The is a subtle difference in how I spell this word.

[Oktas8]

There seem to be two issues that are creeping into this discussion. I think they should be kept quite separate.

1) failing to conform to the existing traffic pattern, and

2) landing with a tail wind within (or not) aircraft performance limits.

Unless you have on-type competence, I dare say it's inappropriate to comment on the second point except in the most general terms.

Regarding DH8 ops Anthill, yes we do determine actual wind every time. No we don't do a landing distance calculation before landing, because apparently every runway we operate to, except emergency diversions, has been found to meet wet, ice protection on, flap 15, max tailwind, LDR criteria. It says so in the Book of Words, so it must be true!

Perhaps the ATR is the same, but it's inappropriate for me to comment...:ok:

[Jabawocky]

j3, you are no doubt correct, some of the "locals" are terrible, have no idea where on the planet they are, and no doubt not transponder equipped so you cant blame the -8 guys for wanting to sneak in and land as quick as possible.

Other places like YBCV this is less an issue. But at places you and I know quite well, this is quite different, and some locals should not be in the air....period!

Fathom, you are correct, I circumvented that occurrence by making the prediction, playing clever posting like you do. At least your last post is more constructive to the conversation, so lets engage constructively.

Venting on pprune has not really made me feel better, but it has motivated me to take more notice, and perhaps make the effort to write to a CP, so this venting and dialogue is worth it after all.

I notice Jenna making the "Enough Said" comment. He too is correct, enough said...I have no data collected nor Met data, nor company limits....so what do I put in a REPCON? It would be pretty lame would it not? I am always hammering folk on data, so I openly declare when I have none. What I do have is a valid observation, and when other pilots, lets call them "Professional" pilots stand there and cringe saying....that should have been the other way, and it happens more than once or twice, you get a basis for the opinion shared here.

So....lets not get all our knickers in a knot....those who fly for several of the regionals, if you are not doing these things who cares, or if you are, all I ask is think a bit more about it. Is a shorter landing and a back track to the taxiway and terminal building that much of an inconvenience? What about when some tyre damage or something leaves you a bit compromised and you run off the end. How will that look?

Lastly, you guys who are the pro's can get on here and slag management (often deserving) or your competitors, or ultra lighters or Bonanza owners :E or whoever, and that is all fair game. So a few constructive comments from observations should not raise such an amount of protest, unless of course you are the ones making the spectacular arrivals. This is all about discussion amongst peers for everyones benefit. I did not mean to create a slanging match, let alone a massive thread drift, so lets keep it sensible and if you are a Dash 8 pilot, why not bring it up internally yourself that folk outside the company have this observation. Its not a witch hunt, its constructive comment from the folk around you.

[Jabawocky]

Oktas.....good post, and I do not believe they are way over the limit, but some must be awfully close.

In those cases, the spectacular ones, I do feel a far more conservative and fitting in with any point 1 approach would be safer and more sensible. It is also a nicer feeling for the punters down the back. You should listen to the "opinions" and "perceptions" of the uninformed pax who might well be scared of running off the end, not knowing they are on the limit of the aircraft and runway limits but still safe.

Passenger opinions right or wrong are what puts their bums on seats, and they keep you in a job.

So within limits Vs what is more sensible may well be poles apart.

Just helping keep you guys employed with happy customers :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

......gee Jabba these guys have got to ya buddy!:E



Wmk2

[Jabawocky]

Nahh mate.....I am just trying to help them, not wind them up, but as predicted it ruffled feathers and that is fine, it stimulates a good robust debate. Everyone learns stuff even us bugsmashers :ok:

[the_rookie]

Or you can attempt to join a circuit with an 80kt aircraft while travelling at 170kts yourself, then try and avoid flying over the top of them or in a position that they are likely to fly into your wake (Q400 is a Medium cat aircraft). You may also then need to backtrack after landing further delaying aircraft in the circuit.

They are able to fly over the top with a different circuit height? ADR's with RPT show cct heights for this.
Thanks for the reply wally

[j3pipercub]

How do you propose a crew would maintain visual contact and separation rookie?

[muffman]

Some alternative airmanship points of view:

- The less time we spend in a CTAF mixing it with other aircraft, the lower the risk is to the 70 odd people behind us.

- We can usually only backtrack from the runway ends, and our taxi speed is limited to 25kts. In many places we operate (Emerald, Bundy are examples), if we join the circuit to land 06 or 14 at those airports, it will mean rolling through, turning around, backtracking at 25kts for up to 2km. The whole process from mid downwind to being clear of the runway may be up to 5 or 6 minutes. A straight in opposite direction approach may require someone to extend downwind but it won't be for that long because we'll just vacate at the taxiway and be out of your way.

- Straight in approaches allow us to fly with autopilot coupled most of the way down the approach. This leaves both pilots free to maintain a higher level of situational awareness than if we fly a circuit. Also assists us to ensure a stabilised approach as per ICAO's guidance.

- Any tailwind component we choose to accept will only be accepted if it is within all of the relevant performance limitations, and additionally does not require any additional braking compared to going the other way. Keep in mind that the landing performance of most turboprops is quite incredible considering their size. Braking requirements can be offset by considering different flap settings and/or propeller RPM settings for the landing.

- Jaba mentioned pax comfort. Firstly, see above - it is not going to be even noticeable to them. But secondly, pax comfort ranks below pax safety and if I feel a straight in is safer, we're doing it.

- The Q400 is a medium wake turbulence category aeroplane and having us fly around the circuit in front of you puts the responsibility for separation on to the pilots behind us, and often they seem blissfully unaware.

- On the pax comfort subject, buzzing around at 1500ft in summer is no more fun in a Dash than it is in a Jabiru. A straight in allows us to get through those bumps a bit quicker.

There are many reasons why a straight in approach (potentially with a tailwind component) is preferred by turboprop operators, and it has a lot less to do with time saving than you might think. And absolutely nothing to do with ego as suggested earlier.

Nobody can excuse the poor airmanship of people muscling their way in and ordering aircraft around but I really don't hear of that happening very often these days.

[Jenna Talia]

I think the answer to this is plain and simple airmanship. Provided the straight in approach is legal and in compliance with company sops, all is needed is some courtesy and a request to circuit traffic to fit in. If that cannot be accommodated then just join the normal circuit with some speed control for separation.

Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.

As for just barging in :=

As for the ATR, there is no evidence of a tail wind or even a straight in approach at this stage.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Jaba, admittedly your experiences are a little more current than mine as I have not been out and about as much in the last couple of years as I have in the previous 10 or so. However, my experience does not agree with yours.

I have always found Qlink and FlyDoc crews to operate to a very high standard of professionalism. Haven't had much to do with Virgin ATRs.

I always try to make way for these guys as it is no skin off my nose to do so, but have never got the impression that they expected me to.

Perhaps things have deteriorated somewhat in more recent times. :confused:

Dr :8

PS: Oh yeah, ..... and I fly straight-in approaches whenever it is appropriate to do so.

[5th officer]

In my day (here we go again) the General Manager or Boss was often an ex Pilot (Frank Ball etc) but today he or she is more often from an accounting background, so forgive my cynicism but I can't help thinking straight in approaches are mostly dictated by economic reasoning rather than safety!!!

[Anthill]

My understanding of the ICAO comparison of circling vs. instrument approaches refers to circling at the MDA after an instrument approach, not a visual circuit. It is true that a straight-in instrument approach is safer than a circling manuoever, that is beyond doubt. The ICAO comparison assumes landing into wind I take it? Landing with a tail-wind entails more risk than a head-wind; there can be no arguments there.

[Jabawocky]

Jenna
I think the answer to this is plain and simple airmanship. Provided the straight in approach is legal and in compliance with company sops, all is needed is some courtesy and a request to circuit traffic to fit in. If that cannot be accommodated then just join the normal circuit with some speed control for separation.

Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.

As for just barging in

Yep...that works fine. :ok: But that is not all the time. The exceptions are rare no doubt, but the odd ones do happen.

Muffie
- Jaba mentioned pax comfort. Firstly, see above - it is not going to be even noticeable to them. But secondly, pax comfort ranks below pax safety and if I feel a straight in is safer, we're doing it.
When done with that in mind, I have no problem, heck I will take a tail wind component when it is suitable too. It makes sense.

But when the Dash 8 is using the whole strip and a lot of brakes and reversing the fan, the pax notice. I have been one, and lets just say my wife is one critic who is informed enough to know the difference. She did not get Silver status in a matter of months with the big Q from flying QL alone. So a lot of flights in regional Q. The anecdotal comments come from colleagues who clearly can tell the difference. So the PAX effect is real.

Notwithstanding, the SI may well be safe and within parameters, just the odd one here and there might be the lesser of the two choices. Maybe it is only ever someone else.

My observations have all been on the ground.

As for specific sites, how about YHBA, tail wind on 29.....long landing, and a long taxi back. And it usually is not the Q400's that I have noticed.

Basically though your kind of approach to things sounds fair and reasonable.

As Forkie has noted, in the air I find the various crews from RFDS, QF, VA all quite good be they prop or jet, so no problems there. The level of co-operation has been great. But that was not the topic of my massive thread drift.

As usual, if you can take something from the thread ...great, if not...so be it.

[Mach E Avelli]

This thread started with a report that the ATR had an excursion to one SIDE of the runway. How did we get to straight-in approaches, landing in tailwinds and circuit protocols?

If the thing had speared off the far end, I could understand a debate about the risks of landing with a tailwind. But off to one side - unless he tried to ground-loop it to stop - is an unlikely outcome from any of the above.

Steering failures are not unknown; neither are brake lock-ups, flat tyres etc etc, so wouldn't we be better to await the final report?

[Jabawocky]

Mach E.......sorry, that was my fault completely :sad:

You still sailing or back at KCY?

[Grogmonster]

Well guys to dispel some theories here is the info from Flightaware.

11:08AM -22.0684 148.0790 Course 354° North Speed128 Kts or 237Kmh ALT 900 -720 FPM Descending Aus ATC (RADAR)

So that is landing on Runway 34 which has an elevation of 770 feet. Someone out there could provide the WX at the time and we could then all be armchair experts.

Groggy

[chimbu warrior]

The Q400 is certified with up to 20kts on the tail.

Landing with a 20 knot tailwind gives you a 40 knot higher groundspeed than landing (from the opposite end on the same runway) with a 20 knot headwind.

Personally, I'd prefer to fly the circuit. ;)

[Capt Fathom]

Personally, I'd prefer to stay on the ground, and avoid all the threats posed by aviation. Unfortunately, my boss has as different view! :{

[Chadzat]

So do the mods think because it has Virgin on the tail this turboprop ATR issue is in the GA threads? How about all the Qlink posts in Airline reporting points?!:hmm:

[Mach E Avelli]

Jaba - back at KCY for the winter.

Back to subject - once I came very close to dropping a Viscount off the side of a wet, short and narrow runway because the antiskid on one side failed and the wheels lost traction while the good side tried to haul it into the mud.

After changing underwear I walked back to look at the tyre marks and they were within about three inches of the edge. Had it gone off it probably would have ripped the gear off because the runway was built up over a swamp.

So, any number of mechanical issues could have contributed to the ATR event.

[Wally Mk2]

Hey 'Mach' in light of the fact that there's no real evidence of how why the machine went for 4x4 drive in the first place most threads like this tend to diverge (no pun intended) onto other aspects of the consequences of such an event regardless, so we are here a zillion posts on thrashing out all sorts of reasons as to why man does what he does when he's behind the steering wheel of a plane:-).
Airmanship has been the flavour of the month here & rightly so in many ways so until the boffins figure out what actually went wrong we shall all pontificate the ways of the world of aviation:ok:

Wmk2

[VH-FTS]

Latest Weather Observations Moranbah Airport (http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94397.shtml)

The ATSB site says 8th July @ approximately 11am local. The above shows an easterly 15-20kts. Very close to all x-wind, maybe five knots of downwind (but probably too much downwind for some people on this thread!).

Chatting to some ATR guys last night, max x-wind component is 30 knots, max downwind 10 knots. Experienced crew onboard. The narrow undercarriage makes them a bitch in a x-wind compared to a Dash, but something odd must have happened to make it pull so severely to one side. One wheel went off the side of the runway, not great I know, but the ATSB labels it a serious incident...

[Mach E Avelli]

Gents, the problem with thread drift that heads off into discussions about tailwinds and crosswinds, straight-in approaches etc is that the great unwashed public read these posts. Also some less-than-intelligent Prooners.
Such people will draw wrong conclusions about the application (or otherwise) of airmanship - because they know little if anything about such matters.

Spare a thought for the unfortunate crew, no doubt sitting in the sin bin pending an enquiry. No doubt reflecting on what part they may have been able to play in preventing the incident.

If we are to have a discussion about airmanship, let's do it as a subject in its own right, and not connected to something not yet fully investigated

[Fuel-Off]

Well said that man!

Fuel-Off :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

All true there 'mach' & well said but we are on a public forum where rumors, thread drifting & way out NTTP (Not To The Point) comments are all part of the main fodder for stories of all denominations, pilots & wannbe's of all creeds & races don't discriminate when it comes to these events.

It would be good to do as you say but it simply won't happen.
Humans are curious creatures & seek 'entertainment' in all it's forms & this site like all public forum sites are perfect for that fulfillment, right or wrong we (we as in humans) crave attention:-)

I feel for the crew involved, having their 'event' aired in public can't be easy on them but this sort of thing happens the world over in all walks of life.


Wmk2

[john_tullamarine]

I must say that I find this thread quite confronting .. my, how things have changed over the years ...

Echoing Mach E Avelli's thoughts and not commenting on the ATR incident .. but the following observations may help stir up further debate on the peripheral things under discussion.

Against the local traffic at the time. Barging in, and then ..

I'm a tad out of touch but, in times gone by, it was first come, first served OCTA, other than where agreed at the time between crews ?

Do the present rules provide for RPT (or whatever) to demand a priority other than in the case of a declared emergency ? I think not.

CAR(1988) 116B(2)(b) and AIP ENR 48.6.6.a and b appear to be pretty definitive.

He said 'no worries, finish your approach we'll slow down for you' a little bit of common courtesy (airmanship) goes a long way.

.. the routine experience in years gone by when the great majority were reasonable folks.

It is statistically safer to land straight in then to conduct a circuit

You don't, by any chance, happen to have any verifiable and accredited data to back up such a contentious (and, I suggest, rather silly) claim ?

The only words I can find are at CAAP 178-1(2) 5.2 and that comment clearly refers to straight-in approaches compared to the hazards associated with IFR circling approaches in poor weather conditions. Then again we used to do them quite routinely without any problems other than the occasional divert.

Routine VMC operations are a different kettle of fish altogether.

The Q400 is certified with up to 20kts on the tail

May well be the case.

Historically, the initial certification for an aircraft normally limits tailwind to 10kt. With additional certification work this can be increased (typically to 15 or 20kt). There exist some hazards (and occasional surprises) with tailwind operations which, then, need to be addressed by the operators and the Regulators.

when you can just barge on in head to head with a tailwind, and demand everyone else get out of your way, because, you know, im RPT and all

If the aggressor is being a bit over the top and commonsense has departed the scene then, ref the rulebook provisions, one might be tempted to respond with a curt comment along the lines of "go away" (or words to that effect) and continue with one's approach ?

I am aware of an operator in the Top End with a "spoken policy" to accept anything up to 25 knots tailwind in a C210 for takeoff or landing!?

I don't have a POH to hand to confirm .. but I will happily put money on the table that such an operation is outside the certification for the aircraft which exposes both crew and operator to potential unpleasantness and embarrassment.

Regarding landing with a tailwind, Airmanship 101 says that this is a bad idea

I would prefer to opine that such operations have their own problems which need to be addressed and the risks mitigated. On any given occasion, it may be a good or a bad option ...

How can any of you comment on landing a transport category aircraft with a tailwind, having LDA calculations completed etc, if you are beating around in a C172 or Jabiru?

While there are numerous certification differences, the problems associated with tailwind operations are much the same, I suggest.

How often does ATC make us land with a tailwind in order to minimise noise for nearby residents?

make us ? The Commander retains the right (and obligation) to decline ATC instructions which he/she might consider unacceptable.

Why wouldn't they? http://lnk.nu/google.com.au/2hjf(First (http://lnk.nu/google.com.au/2hjf(First) Article) According to ICAO straight in approaches are 25 times safer than circling approaches.

Come now, your statement is fatuous to the point of being obfuscatory - certainly grossly misleading.

We all acknowledge that low weather IFR circling approaches are hard work and have significant risks to manage. However, garden variety VMC circuits are glossy white to the other's black ...

[thorn bird]

JT here bloody here!!

[GADRIVR]

"Gents, the problem with thread drift that heads off into discussions about tailwinds and crosswinds, straight-in approaches etc is that the great unwashed public read these posts. Also some less-than-intelligent Prooners.
Such people will draw wrong conclusions about the application (or otherwise) of airmanship - because they know little if anything about such matters.

Spare a thought for the unfortunate crew, no doubt sitting in the sin bin pending an enquiry. No doubt reflecting on what part they may have been able to play in preventing the incident.

If we are to have a discussion about airmanship, let's do it as a subject in its own right, and not connected to something not yet fully investigate"

Journos, CASA types ,Pollies...they all read this website. The views expressed here by the majority of fools contributed towards James copping a hiding from both industry and the media. **** me ,this industry attracts some real pieces of work!!!!
And Wally.....how about we expose you to the consequences of the logic you espouse and see how you go :ugh:

[004wercras]

A lot of emotion on this thread.
Interesting;
Spare a thought for the unfortunate crew, no doubt sitting in the sin bin pending an enquiry. No doubt reflecting on what part they may have been able to play in preventing the incident
Really?? VA has a Just Culture policy, well they should. ICAO mandated it and CASA regulates against it;
SKYbrary - Just Culture (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Just_Culture)

So by all rights if anything, initially the pilots may have been stood down pending an investigation, and they should have been DAMP tested immediately, thats it. No demotion, no sackings, no retribution. The 'innocent until proven guilty' comes into effect.
• If the Pilots weren't DAMP tested then CASA should have an issue with VA.
• If the pilots have not been treated fairly and justly while the incident is being investigated, then again CASA should have an issue with VA.

At the end of the day 'root cause' must be identified if lessons are to be learned, mitigation undertaken and improvements made. No doubt VA are running their own internal investigation parallel but separate to the ATSB, so the outcome is being eagerly awaited. In the meantime I would hope that the pilots are being supported by their fellow drivers and the Unions, and being protected from any potential knee jerk reaction by the HR and executive management knobs that tend to stick their feet in their mouths.

The pilots will be feeling ****ty enough as it is, worrying about employment, career status and reputation.
I hope it all works out for you lads.

[Angle of Attack]

It would have been an easterly pretty much across the strip on the 9th so tailwind has nothing to do with it. I landed there on the 9th and there was about 2 knots head and 15 knots from the right....(on rwy 34)

[Mach E Avelli]

004 my use of the term 'sin bin' was an attempt at levity to really mean 'stood down on full pay pending an initial enquiry'. Levity is wasted on Pprune - I should know better....

In no way am I suggesting that Virgin sends its crews to the firing squad when incidents occur.

As well as DAMP etc., after an incident where handling or procedural error may have been causal, it is usual to send crews for remedial simulator or require them to have further line training and another line check. A 'no blame' culture does not extend to 'no action'.

While requiring remedial training is in itself not punitive, for pilots it does carry with it a certain stigma. It may also indicate something lacking in the airline's initial training program.

BUT, in this case, we do not know HOW it happened or WHY it happened, so it is too early to be suggesting that the wind or crew technique were factors.

[maverick22]

For jabba's info, a Q400 will often have to roll through to the full length of a runway, regardless of what the wind is doing as a lot of the runways we use are less than 45m wide without intermediate turning nodes, so we are only allowed to turn around at the runway end. Most crews will communicate this though prior to touchdown to allow other aircraft to separate appropriately.

[Prince Niccolo M]

My reaction to this little discussion mirrors JT's.

First: being 'legal' quite often does NOT mean safe or sensible :ugh:

Second: working for an airline does NOT convert a pilot into a professional - what they learn and how they behave are the characteristics of that transition :=

Third: there are rapidly declining numbers of technically qualified aviation professional among AOC managers these days, matched by increasingly inept regulatory oversight and increasingly uncritical acceptance by undereducated pilots of procedures driven by business rather than safety imperatives :eek:

Fourth: all of the rules, regulations, SOPs and industry folklore do NOT change the fact that PIC is the last line of defence :ok:

whoooop1991,

It doesn't appear anyone has heard much about the Rex Saab340 that had a runway excursion at Taree during a "crosswind landing in wet conditions" on the 22 march

Was it reported to Rex or the ATSB? :uhoh:

004wercras,

ICAO mandated it

can you just point out the standard where ICAO made 'Just Culture' mandatory? :confused:

[Sunfish]

I normally extend a leg and give the RPT right of way as a courtesy.

Try and take it as a right and you will wind up with an incident report and more.....

[004wercras]

"Mandate" is a little excessive, i retract that. But ICAO have a policy on Just Culture, in turn Regulatory bodies around the world are adopting that policy as an element to look at when auditing. A Just Culture can indicate whether an organisation has a generative or pathological structure. A pathological organisation in turn tends to be filled with rogues, rule breakers and shonks. None of these attributes normally produce a safe environment.
In essence you can tell a lot about a safety culture by seeing how employees are treated when they stuff up.
Hope all goes well for the ATR crew :8

[Lookleft]

Nice précis of ICAO Doc 9859 Oleo but unfortunately a lot of Flight Ops managers in this country have never read it. I have seen Just Culture in action at Jetstar and have heard about how it has been (mis) applied at QF and VA. A bit like CASA doing SMS audits on Pelair.

[Capt. On Heat]

Chatting to some ATR guys last night, max x-wind component is 30 knots, max downwind 10 knots.

Guessing they weren't ATR guys you were talking to FTS

Max x/w dry is 35kts, wet 28kts and max aircraft (not company) downwind for take-off and landing is 15kts (used to be 10 a few years ago).

[VH-FTS]

I think the weak link in the chain was my memory. Yes, 35 knots x-wind is correct after some further research, but 10 knots tail wind still stands for a 72.

[CAR256]

Actually max tailwind is 15 knots for ATR72.

Maybe 10 is the operators limit?

[neville_nobody]

A pathological organisation in turn tends to be filled with rogues, rule breakers and shonks. None of these attributes normally produce a safe environment.

Except when the rules get so excessive/numerous and contradictory that you have to break them to just operate the aircraft in a safe manner. We are at the point of regulatory overload in this country with way way too many people all want their input to operations and a pathological regulator who is out of control.
'Just Culture' is a great idea but unfortunately the rules these days are way to numerous to make it work.

[VH-FTS]

Thanks again for the clarification, proves you shouldn't trust what you read on pprune :ok:

Despite the tailwind limit, the argument still stands tailwind had nothing to do with the ATR becoming a lawn mower.

[CAR256]

Nice recovery VH-FTS... :)

[Wally Mk2]

Am amazed at the thought that just because the T/W limit is there & set by a manufacturer that it's written in stone as usable.
I'd like to think that every Commander would make the decision to land with ANY TW component on an individual basis. Just 'cause it's written doesn't mean it's acceptable & safe.


Wmk2

[fl610]

I am very wary of taking off or landing with any tailwind at all.

Call me old fashioned, however there was an accident in the UK many years ago (can't remember type or airline) where an accident which was totally survivable ended up with a large amount of fatalities because the subsequent fire after the runway overrun engulfed the aircraft as the crew had chosen to land downwind.

Had they landed into wind the flames would have been blowing away from the aircraft and the survival rate would have been much higher.

[Username here]

Just 'cause it's written doesn't mean it's acceptable & safe.

Sorry but I disagree, that's exactly what it means.

It's not my job to interpret the flight manual limits, that's for the test pilots. If the AFM says I can do X if I do A, B, and C, then if I do A, B and C then X is safe.

[Wally Mk2]

No worries 'user' we shall have to agree to disagree:)

I use my 'judgment' not just what's written in the book on every occasion.
All these book figures are done using new machines, well experienced test drivers & in some cases under 'ideal' conditions but we don't live/fly in an ideal world so that's where good Cmd decisions make the difference:-)

The man behind the steering wheel isn't a 'book' he's a living thinking person whom at that split second makes a decision based on the best info at the time.

Wmk2

[noclue]

What if taking the tailwind meant you could use an approach to a lower minima and subsequently land instead of holding/diverting??
Canberra
Mackay
Cairns etc

[TBM-Legend]

Call me old fashioned, however there was an accident in the UK many years ago (can't remember type or airline) where an accident which was totally survivable ended up with a large amount of fatalities because the subsequent fire after the runway overrun engulfed the aircraft as the crew had chosen to land downwind.

Had they landed into wind the flames would have been blowing away from the aircraft and the survival rate would have been much higher.

The aircraft was British Airtours B737-200 which aborted a take-off after an engine failure. It was not a downwind landing at all.

TV doco on it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_series)

[john_tullamarine]

It's not my job to interpret the flight manual limits, that's for the test pilots

Actually, in respect of handling limits, the TPs determine them ..

If the AFM says I can do X if I do A, B, and C, then if I do A, B and C then X is safe.

A novel approach to life, death and the Universe.

A bit like saying that a speed limit on a particular section of roadway ALWAYS represents the "safe" limit, regardless of any other considerations .. and just as silly, I suggest.

The (approved section of the) AFM, being an extension of the CofA (historically) is a source of limitations and prescriptive requirements. Whether it be sensible to apply some conservatism on any given occasion is a matter for risk assessment.

As a wise and grey-bearded checkie observed to me during a post check debrief decades ago in respect of the ops manual (similar philosophy) ... "to be read with a modicum of commonsense, young John"... thanks, Brian G, should you be a PPRuNer.

What if taking the tailwind meant you could use an approach to a lower minima and subsequently land instead of holding/diverting??

Then such would be one of the range of considerations the commander takes into consideration in making his/her risk assessment and decision.

[fl610]

Thanks TBM - that's the one, although clearly my memory had faded :{ on what actually happened!

Also I could't get your link to work.

This one seems to :AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: British Airtours Flight KT28M (http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-bakt28m.shtml)

[Ejector]

Pics of this ATR?

[gutso-blundo]

Nil damage, so a fairly boring pic to look at. From what I've heard they're waiting for ATR to give the OK to ferry it back. Probably should have ferried it back and then asked ATR what to do about it...

[Anthill]

Tailwind accident in Europe? Which one??

Do you mean:

14 September 1993; Lufthansa A320-200; Flight 2904; Warsaw Airport, Poland: Aircraft landed with a tail wind. Landing performance and aircraft design led to a late deployment of braking devices. Aircraft overran the runway. One of the 6 crew and 1 of the 64 passengers were killed.

A320-211 Warsaw Accident Report (http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/warsaw-report.html)

Another:

ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A320-233 EI-TAF Tegucigalpa-Toncontin Airport (TGU) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080530-0)

Some light reading:

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1148.pdf

Nice post Johnny T. The AFM specifies what is safe under optimal circumstances. Just as a 30km/h corner on the road is safe when it is dry, daytime and your car is roadworthy, the same corner may require a slower speed when conditions are wet and your tyres are bald.

Anything that you do in an aeroplane can be safe, or dangerous. Just make sure that you bring your brain to work with you and don't leave it in the boot of your car.

Remember that a PA18 (Piper Cub) is the safest aeroplane ever built....it can only just kill you.

[john_tullamarine]

Remember that a PA18 (Piper Cub) is the safest aeroplane ever built....it can only just kill you.

.. ah, but having cut my teeth on glider towing with the Super Cub many decades ago ... it sure can frighten you very effectively from time to time as only a young and foolishly overconfident chap knows ... real good for wave soaring after all the plastic fantastics have launched for the day though ..

Definitely the best fun one can have with clothes on.

As has been said in various places, the only differences between killing oneself in Aircraft A versus Aircraft B are ..

(a) the size of the hole and the amount of smoke

(b) whether, and on which page, the news is recorded the following day.

[717tech]

Nil damage but it hasn't been flown out?