ERJ 145 off piste at O’ Hare [Archive]

reverserunlocked

11th Nov 2019, 15:01

https://abc7chicago.com/plane-slides-off-runway-at-ohare-airport-officials-say/5689573/?fbclid=IwAR2hD_8eR7UoTl3xLI7S6nVb9jOLJb9SUJ8Fm0Ws75PDU2MHcp Vv_gaag8A

Does the 145 have thrust reversers?

https://youtu.be/sfK8AtLjc4Y

OldnGrounded

11th Nov 2019, 15:10

That runway surface looks suboptimal.

reverserunlocked

11th Nov 2019, 15:39

The inboards came up though. Does it have outboard spoilers?

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 15:42

Also Spoilers, which would have been very helpful. Had they deployed.....

It looks to me like the ground spoilers did deploy and were stowed as the plane went off the side of the runway.

JumpJumpJump

11th Nov 2019, 16:19

From the Newspaper

"There was no visibility at all," said passenger Luis Torres Curet. "The first visibility of the city we got it maybe 50 feet from the ground? That's dangerous. You don't need to do that."

I assume that Luis Torres would be the first to complain when he can't fly anywhere in winter due to weather at the destination airport....

neilki

11th Nov 2019, 16:20

It looks to me like the ground spoilers did deploy and were stowed as the plane went off the side of the runway.

I'n not a 145 driver but a quick search showed the Ground Spoiler System consists of 4 panels. 2 Inboard, 2 out. While I was watching the video on a phone and the low contrast between the wings and sky made it hard to see the inboards, the outboards absolutely did not pop....

OldnGrounded

11th Nov 2019, 16:23

I'n not a 145 driver but a quick search showed the Ground Spoiler System consists of 4 panels. 2 Inboard, 2 out. While I was watching the video on a phone and the low contrast between the wings and sky made it hard to see the inboards, the outboards absolutely did not pop....

That's right. I was able to watch in slow motion and frame-by-frame on my big, hi-res desktop monitors and the outboard spoilers didn't deploy.

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 16:32

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1421x911/erj_145_2_9edfcb126c0e5f3cac8bed1d39d85dfad7d39912.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1419x941/erj_145_6397bd47dccd4312bbefc8530c2f98ce9ae1a0bd.jpg
That's right. I was able to watch in slow motion and frame-by-frame on my big, hi-res desktop monitors and the outboard spoilers didn't deploy.

The outboard spoilers on an ERJ-145 aren't supposed to deploy on landing, right?

neilki

11th Nov 2019, 16:35

Looks like they got sideways early on in the incident.. very reminiscent of the Delta Mad Dog aiming for Bowery Bay at LGA a few years ago. Loss of directional control due rudder blanking...https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1602.pdf
Some discussion over at APC..https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/envoy-airlines/125327-envoy-aa4125-slides-off-ord-runway-video.html
Glad to see everyone got off OK, I'd characterize it as a 'Racing Incident' Landing (or taxying) on icy runways can be frightening...

OldnGrounded

11th Nov 2019, 16:36

The outboard spoilers on an ERJ-145 aren't supposed to deploy on landing, right?

I don't know.

Edit: Ah. The images in your post just now appeared on my screen, Bubba.

Feathers McGraw

11th Nov 2019, 16:42

Anyone else think that the flaps looked to be nearer to a takeoff setting than a landing one? I will state that I'm not familiar with the 145 flap settings available.

neilki

11th Nov 2019, 16:42

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1421x911/erj_145_2_9edfcb126c0e5f3cac8bed1d39d85dfad7d39912.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1419x941/erj_145_6397bd47dccd4312bbefc8530c2f98ce9ae1a0bd.jpg

The outboard spoilers on an ERJ-145 aren't supposed to deploy on landing, right?
I stand corrected, 20:20 -just the inboards.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yThA-BlBwLQ

West Coast

11th Nov 2019, 16:43

I like the comment, “I think we landed” after coming to a stop.

Technically correct.

Check Airman

11th Nov 2019, 16:48

I'n not a 145 driver but a quick search showed the Ground Spoiler System consists of 4 panels. 2 Inboard, 2 out. While I was watching the video on a phone and the low contrast between the wings and sky made it hard to see the inboards, the outboards absolutely did not pop....

The spoilers deployed. The tiny bit you can see in the video is the outboard spoiler.

The big part you’re looking at that covers most of the wing isn’t a spoiler.

OldnGrounded

11th Nov 2019, 16:48

Landing (or taxying) on icy runways can be frightening...

In the pax video, that runway looks very slick. It will be interesting to learn what preceding pilots had to say about braking effectiveness.

Lots of flights apparently canceled at O'Hare due to weather, this a.m. Passenger on the incident flight told the local CBS station that they had missed and gone around once before the slippy-slidey landing.

RVF750

11th Nov 2019, 16:50

Remember the Bristol BaCitiExpress EMB145 incident. When the wheels locked, didn't teh spoilers auto stow or something which hastened the departure from the end?

FrequentSLF

11th Nov 2019, 16:59

From the news
The FAA issued a statement saying, "At approximately 7:45 am this morning, an Embraer 145 regional jet arriving from Greensboro, NC, landed at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on Runway 10 Left and slid off the runway while attempting to exit at Taxiway P4. The aircraft's right main landing gear collapsed. Passengers deplaned via air stairs and were placed on a bus to the terminal. No injuries were reported. The FAA will investigate."
Is P4 the last Taxiway?

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 17:25

Is P4 the last Taxiway?

No, it's not even halfway down the 13000 foot runway.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/999x268/ord_p4_2155f3d0a44a71717038c3f1f77bf5f6a6ba2d05.jpg

ivor toolbox

11th Nov 2019, 17:29

Remember the Bristol BaCitiExpress EMB145 incident. When the wheels locked, didn't teh spoilers auto stow or something which hastened the departure from the end?
Erm, no, and it didn't go off the end of Bristol runway, rather the side, it was the second 'off' we had during that day, an ATR did same earlier, root cause was shoddy runway resurfacing. Its all in the relevant AAIB report.

Super VC-10

11th Nov 2019, 17:55

Aviation Herald says that braking action was reported as "medium" at the time, changed to "poor" post-accident.

bigduke6

11th Nov 2019, 17:55

Does the ERJ have rudder blanking when too much reverse is used, like the MD-80’s do? Looks similar to the MD 80 going off of the runway in LGA with a crosswind last winter.

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 18:01

In the pax video, that runway looks very slick. It will be interesting to learn what preceding pilots had to say about braking effectiveness.

Tower gave Envoy 4125 braking action medium to poor. Wind was 360 at 17 knots gusts to 24 in the tower landing clearance. If they were really going for P4 it is away from the terminal to the right and the plane left the runway to the left. Perhaps they weathervaned into the north wind as the plane slowed down on the slick runway.

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 18:25

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/812x674/p4_2__51c3a8e1e5cef4ecb0d386f7367837405889da90.jpg
In the video you can see the plane departing the runway to the left prior to the 8 thousand feet remaining and P4 taxiway signs. Were they trying to exit N1 perhaps?

BRUpax

11th Nov 2019, 18:27

If they were really going for P4 it is away from the terminal to the right
If I'm reading above chart correctly, P4 extends to the left of 10L too. If that is so, then they were indeed making a left turn into P4. Looks quite a tightish turn in slippery conditions. Might have been better to continue to N3.

Edit: In fact that left turn is N1. Missed that somehow.

Airbubba

11th Nov 2019, 18:33

If I'm reading above chart correctly, P4 extends to the left of 10L too.

It's a case of 'find the faces in the picture' but I think the pavement on the other side of the runway from P4 is N1. N2, N3, N4 and N5 are also on the north side of 10L.

BRUpax

11th Nov 2019, 19:23

Agreed Airbubba and I did make an edit pointing out that I'd failed to see it. (Poor observation skills) :)

RVF750

11th Nov 2019, 20:36

Erm, no, and it didn't go off the end of Bristol runway, rather the side, it was the second 'off' we had during that day, an ATR did same earlier, root cause was shoddy runway resurfacing. Its all in the relevant AAIB report.
Thanks Ivor, the circumstances I know, they didn't groove the runway I believe. The point was the spoilers retract when the wheels lock up I seem to recall. Never flown them myself.

gearlever

11th Nov 2019, 20:39

I've watched the video over and over and got the impression they were way too fast to even consider a turn off to the nearest taxi way.

1208

11th Nov 2019, 20:49

An optional extra on the 145

havick

11th Nov 2019, 23:28

Anyone else think that the flaps looked to be nearer to a takeoff setting than a landing one? I will state that I'm not familiar with the 145 flap settings available.

Envoy has the numbers to land flap 22, that’s the typical landing config. Pretty sure the numbers stacked up where they could land flaps 22 on that runway if they wanted to, but on runway conditions like that.

I don’t know why you wouldn’t bring it in flaps 45 just to reduce the vref and plant it, not a requirement but probably makes more sense.

Flap setting probably wasn’t the cause, could’ve simply have been bad technique, centerline discipline, bad braking and rudder control, who knows. Honestly it’s probably just as simple as they hit a bad patch.

The crew was led to believe that the runway was 5/5/5 and braking action med. So well within allowable limits for that aircraft, sounds like a dud report of prevailing conditions.

havick

11th Nov 2019, 23:29

An optional extra on the 145

Envoy E-140/145’s definitely have thrust reversers, unless they were MEL’d of course.

OldnGrounded

11th Nov 2019, 23:44

Envoy E-140/145’s definitely have thrust reversers, unless they were MEL’d of course.

I think (not certain) the TRs can be heard on the pax video.

FIRESYSOK

12th Nov 2019, 03:01

Perhaps a bit of downwind thrust vector pushing the tail out

pattern_is_full

12th Nov 2019, 04:56

My impression from the video is that the aircraft acquired a slight left drift after touchdown, followed by a drift right almost to the right runway edge, followed by the left ground-loop (a bit hard to be sure with snow-covered markings and bare strips). Appears to have collapsed at least the right main gear in the final sideways skid (judder-judder-judder-Bam!), causing the wing drop.

See pictures at AH: Accident: Envoy E145 at Chicago on Nov 11th 2019, runway excursion on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cf1eedf&opt=0)

A tough day at the office - looking forward to more details. Shades of Continental 1404 in Denver (2009) - localized wind gust(s) outside the detected range?

I do not think this was an attempt to make an exit.

tcasblue

12th Nov 2019, 05:48

To be honest, it looks like a complete loss of control on ice. A good crosswind for sure. I see in the weather reports that the temp was -4 but you can see with the multiple reports that it is dropping fairly quickly even though it was morning where the temp might be steady or increasing soon.

This has the hallmarks of a cold front coming through a few hours earlier and what the local papers around here call a flash freeze. The temperature was a few degrees above freezing with a wet runway, perhaps some drizzle. Then the cold front hits with strong winds and snow which initially melts, then starts to freeze creating ice. Snow continues as we can see and it looks like snow over pavement but it is ice or ice patches below. Reminds me of the AC 767 that lost control in Halifax last winter.

Monitor the weather and beware of flash freezes. Looks like a situation where a diversion would be a good idea. Or let someone land in front of you and get a pirep. Early morning arrival after an overnight cold front passage.

jmmoric

12th Nov 2019, 07:03

From a controllers point of view.... oups.... runway closed for some time.

With the number of operations, and adding in winter conditions, this is what happens sometimes, and the reason safety zones are established.

On another note, I've been doing run ups on the runway, which is normally an absolutely nono... simply because the conditions on the taxiways and aprons didn't allow for it.... aircraft would start skidding when adding power. I've even seen slow taxiing aircraft being swung around in gusty conditions (the conversation was rather fun afterwards).

F-16GUY

12th Nov 2019, 08:01

Tomaski

12th Nov 2019, 09:53

I wonder why they elected the runway with the most cross wind component, during slippery runway conditions, when the airport has plenty of other options? Is it only runway 10/28 that offers landing aids for low ceiling/visibility?

With the ongoing construction, ORD only has one runway (4R/22L) that is not east/west and it is only a little over 8000 feet long.

golfyankeesierra

12th Nov 2019, 11:21

Wind 360/17g24 on rwy 10 with braking action Med-poor? Is that really true? Because for that there would be only one word: cowboys!

On my type it would be way out of limits (limit for med would be 20 cross).
Anyone the croswindlimits for that type?

Sailvi767

12th Nov 2019, 11:59

The crosswind component was well over the limit for my company on any aircraft with a reported runway condition of medium to poor.

OldnGrounded

12th Nov 2019, 13:02

Crosswind, maybe too fast, big-time slippery . . . Doesn't this kinda-sorta look like, "Maybe we should go somewhere else?"

Has anyone confirmed the pax report of a go-around before this landing?

Salina Chan

12th Nov 2019, 13:35

Crosswind, maybe too fast, big-time slippery . . . Doesn't this kinda-sorta look like, "Maybe we should go somewhere else?"

Has anyone confirmed the pax report of a go-around before this landing?

According to the plot on FR24, they in fact went around once...

Time Traveller

12th Nov 2019, 13:35

The crosswind component was well over the limit for my company on any aircraft with a reported runway condition of medium to poor. except it was reported medium, wasn't it? (Just within my company/type limits)

OldnGrounded

12th Nov 2019, 14:07

except it was reported medium, wasn't it? (Just within my company/type limits)

Just listened. They were told "medium to poor."

Airbubba

12th Nov 2019, 14:19

except it was reported medium, wasn't it? (Just within my company/type limits)

The tower controller reported braking medium to poor but the next part sounds like 'up to N3 and N4 paths' or was it 'up the N3 and N4 paths'?

I'll attach a .zip file with edited audio from LiveATC.net The file will open on a computer but will not open on most tablets or phones.

Zeffy

12th Nov 2019, 15:16

The tower controller reported braking medium to poor but the next part sounds like 'up to N3 and N4 paths' or was it 'up the N3 and N4 paths'?

I'll attach a .zip file with edited audio from LiveATC.net The file will open on a computer but will not open on most tablets or phones.

The Twr also reported "5-5-5" Condition Code for 10L - does that jibe with "Medium-poor" ?

Is this situation (crap braking reports with good CCs) common?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1760x2000/screen_shot_2019_11_12_at_11_07_20_am_e10abc61a3cdc3208654a1 f8cf6e01a123ad942a.png
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-79A_Chg_2.pdf

Time Traveller

12th Nov 2019, 15:23

Sounds like the latter to me (up the taxiways). Certainly, on it's first approach, the condition was reported as medium. RPB 5/5/5 - is that a pirep? .. of good BA?

safetypee

12th Nov 2019, 15:40

Zeffy, your descriptor of the braking reports should have considered the likely accuracy of the runway report, and the role which pilots have in judging the associated conditions - the big picture.

One weather report indicted 1/8 in of contaminant. That value and less, is termed ‘good’ (for contaminants - not the same as on a dry runway). However, just a small increment deeper than 1/8 could change the runway condition to 3 or even 2.

As much as the ground services might be limited by the measurement and reporting capability, so too piloting interpretations unless the larger picture is considered; think about it.

A pre-landing assessment of runway condition should consider both the reported conditions and lower values as ‘what if’, ‘just in case’, and particularly with a crosswind, likely gusts - taken as a limit.

FIRESYSOK

12th Nov 2019, 15:43

Exacerbated by reverse thrust. Why anyone would double down on reverse as the plane slides is beyond me. Those winds and BA should have set off alarm bells.

Zeffy

12th Nov 2019, 16:03

Exacerbated by reverse thrust. Why anyone would double down on reverse as the plane slides is beyond me. Those winds and BA should have set off alarm bells.

No disagreement here -- that's a ton of crosswind for slick runway operations.

Q: why wasn't the airport operating on 4's instead of 9's/10s?

A: Arrival rates (AAR) drop by nearly 2/3.

Pressures induced by "pushing the tin" ATC policies are a factor as well.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x791/screen_shot_2019_11_12_at_11_56_00_am_8bda215cb3610b26007444 25290ddc259dbdf321.png

Tomaski

12th Nov 2019, 17:01

No disagreement here -- that's a ton of crosswind for slick runway operations.

Q: why wasn't the airport operating on 4's instead of 9's/10s?

A: Arrival rates (AAR) drop by nearly 2/3.

Pressures induced by "pushing the tin" ATC policies are a factor as well.

Rwy 4L is closed during construction of the new 9C, so the only non-east/west runway is 4R which is 8075 feet and only CAT I for approaches. Considering arrivals and departures and periodic snow removal issues, ORD would basically shut down if the east/west runways were not available.

Zeffy

12th Nov 2019, 17:46

Rwy 4R is closed during construction of the new 9C, so the only non-east/west runway is 4R which is 8075 feet and only CAT I for approaches. Considering arrivals and departures and periodic snow removal issues, ORD would basically shut down if the east/west runways were not available.

Bring back the 14/32s ! :) :}

Airbubba

12th Nov 2019, 18:09

RPB 5/5/5 - is that a pirep? .. of good BA?

Actually RCC - Runway Condition Codes for each third of the runway. According to a table posted above these represent the runway condition description as reported by the airport operator. I believe this system was put in place in response to Southwest's fatal 737 runway overrrun at MDW in 2005.

There are pages of conditions and qualifiers for these runway numbers in bulletins and ops manuals.

For example:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1142x367/rcc_45a47a912261a219bbf5f8b0c73328ac24ac258e.jpg

tcasblue

12th Nov 2019, 19:56

Peter Fanelli

12th Nov 2019, 21:15

That's right. I was able to watch in slow motion and frame-by-frame on my big, hi-res desktop monitors and the outboard spoilers didn't deploy.

Shame your big high resolution monitors didn't show you all the screws holding that "outboard Spolier" firmly in place. The spoliers are ahead of the inboard flap only.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Aircraft_wing_flaps_full_dsc06835.jpg

OldnGrounded

12th Nov 2019, 22:56

Shame your big high resolution monitors didn't show you all the screws holding that "outboard Spolier" firmly in place. The spoliers are ahead of the inboard flap only.

Well, I was watching a cellphone video, but . . . I guess I should have done a bit of research on the type, huh?

tcasblue

13th Nov 2019, 02:26

This incident has exposed what I think could be a major disaster waiting to happen at O'Hare. If the aircraft had been landing on 10C instead of 10L. They would have had their excursion between taxiways P3 and P5. Take a look on Google Earth to see what is located at that position, a major dropoff on an exposed section of an underground roadway that crosses under the runways. It amazes ma that the FAA would approve this and every time I pass by it, I wonder if an airliner will drop into it at some point.

FIRESYSOK

13th Nov 2019, 02:58

When I listen to the ATC communications, I hear the tower give the RVR, the 5/5/5, then braking action as medium to poor up until taxiway N3, then something else that I cannot understand(does anyone know what she said?). Isn't 5/5/5 a direct conflict with braking action of medium to poor?

Thats the difference between ‘measured’ RCAM and BA reports. A braking action report from a transport category aircraft should carry more weight than RCAM.

RCAM is more for planning, and when actual reports aren’t available. When an A320 reports medium-poor and you have an event like this, the investigation won’t be kind if you attempt to fall back on the RCAM report.

I have never actually heard a tower controller report the RCAM to an aircraft along with a braking action report. These were, in essence, contradictory. I’m sure this will come up during any inquiry, and is hopefully addressed.

West Coast

13th Nov 2019, 15:57

If you’re the first arrival in hours during a weather event, the RCC codes are operational limits as well.

ARealTimTuffy

13th Nov 2019, 21:32

For those who don’t often operate in these types of conditions, I’ll offer some humble advice. Contaminated runways (even wet) don’t leave the centreline and try to turn off until at taxi speed. It’s not a good feeling to start a turn and realize you don’t have the traction to finish it. Do all the slowing down in a straight line.

I’ve done this in ORD, LGA, BOS among other busy places right down to a crawl if the conditions are bad enough. Then I’ll poke along until the exit. I’ll worry about the guy behind me on a dry runway. Clear me to land on that crud, and I’ll take my time.

Note:
I am not sure if that is part of the circumstances here.

West Coast

13th Nov 2019, 22:26

jmmoric

14th Nov 2019, 07:09

DOVES

14th Nov 2019, 09:21

Professional Amateur

14th Nov 2019, 11:22

"Thats the difference between ‘measured’ RCAM and BA reports. A braking action report from a transport category aircraft should carry more weight than RCAM.

RCAM is more for planning, and when actual reports aren’t available. When an A320 reports medium-poor and you have an event like this, the investigation won’t be kind if you attempt to fall back on the RCAM report."

So by that logic if the aircraft in front reports conditions below what is required AND you prioritise the BA over an RCAM you can't land until a greater fool lands after the a320 and provides a better braking report.

Learning lots in this thread. Just trying to work out how to handle all this..... As I head into my first NE US winter season.

Sobelena

14th Nov 2019, 13:34

I’ll worry about the guy behind me on a dry runway. Clear me to land on that crud, and I’ll take my time.

And maybe a good reason for ATC to increase spacing by a mile or two to allow for that option and avoid G/As. But maybe they do already?

cossack

14th Nov 2019, 14:26

And maybe a good reason for ATC to increase spacing by a mile or two to allow for that option and avoid G/As. But maybe they do already?
We do but its a balancing act. Spacing is increased but not by so much that it wastes space and causes huge delays. If the preceding is in the exit just before you cross the threshold is ideal.
If your runway occupancy time is longer than the previously observed average you will cause a go around. If you go off the side, the result is much worse both for you and those following. Do your best but stay safe.

havick

15th Nov 2019, 15:42

What the public and management comments would have been if they had done it without any damage - Even after a gound loop -?
"Heroes! Only one in a thousand makes it!"
Those pilots will surely become I.P, C.P, Fleet Managers.
That's the reason why all of us, prudent pilots, injured in our professionalism, should shout at the scandal.
Airmanship is not the toss of a coin, nor a russian roulette.
Fly Safely

you obviously don’t know how Envoy management operates. They will most likely be fired by Envoy (directive rolling downhill from American Airlines), and the Captain will get his job back via arbitration about 9-10 months later. Same thing for the FO unless they are still on probation.

Pilot DAR

16th Nov 2019, 08:16

If your runway occupancy time is longer than the previously observed average you will cause a go around.

Obviously, no pilot would tie up a runway longer than they needed to. However, unless cleared to land with an acknowledged "land to hold short" or "clear by...", the runway is yours, until you clear, even if you decide to use the whole length. If your use of the runway during a normal, or unexpectedly long rollout causes a go around so be it. Focus on landing, stopping and clearing safely, not rushing off the runway for the pilot behind you, their spacing is not your concern.

When I have been in doubt about runway conditions/friction, I'm content to land and allow the plane to roll out the length of the runway, if doing so is the better way to assure control is maintained. If I anticipate this, I will tell ATC that I plan to land long. A few too many times I have been training a pilot who tried to rush to clear a runway to meet the hopes of ATC. Ruining tires, brakes, or the plane is not worth stretching your skills, in what may be unusually difficult conditions. I have reminded pilots under training that if they have a problem resulting from clearing in a rush, ATC is not going to come to their defense about it.

Nomad2

19th Nov 2019, 16:48

Back when I was a145 Capt, we used to joke that there wasn't a European runway that a Barbie hadn't been off the end of.

Now, it wasn't true, but you get the idea.

Our examples had no reversers, so you were on wheel brakes alone. If you landed on a real slick runway, the wheels didn't spin up, the jet didn't know it had landed and so it didn't change its 'WoW' condition to 'on the ground'.

This meant no spoilers and no wheel brakes, and of course we already had no reversers...

Once I landed at BRS to find absolutely no way to slow the thing down at all.