Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

F100 - Overshot Runway at Newman Airport (9/1/2020)

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

F100 - Overshot Runway at Newman Airport (9/1/2020)

Old 11th Jan 2020, 07:31
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
Don't worry about those slagging off, as we say they are those that have and those that will.
Really? I wasnít aware exiting the end of the runway onto the dirt was that common

Last edited by Transition Layer; 11th Jan 2020 at 08:48.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 08:06
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,715
How do you know that they “slid” off the end of the runway?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 08:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
How do you know that they ďslidĒ off the end of the runway?
Fair point. Post amended. Itís still not a common occurrence whichever way you want to describe it.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 09:36
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,285
Fokker build pretty solid aircraft, with the position of the rescue worker it’s difficult to observe any nose gear damage, however the aircraft appears to be in a normal attitude.

No doubt being in QF colours and transporting mine staff, the investigation will be very thorough. Expect restrictions on weather conditions, crew retraining and possible increased minimum experience requirements IF this was a factor.
krismiler is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 09:54
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,756
Whilst Qantas want everyone to think that boarding a plane with a kangaroo on the tail is flying with Qantas..... Well I have news for you.

Perth to Newman is not the same as Sydney to Melbourne, or Brisbane to Mackay or Melbourne to Hobart The whole operation is a con. Buyer beware.

Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 09:58
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 38
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by Capt fathom
Whilst Qantas want everyone to think that boarding a plane with a kangaroo on the tail is flying with Qantas..... Well I have news for you.

Perth to Newman is not the same as Sydney to Melbourne, or Brisbane to Mackay or Melbourne to Hobart The whole operation is a con. Buyer beware.
So does that mean GT won't count this incident against Qantas' "Worlds Best Airline" rating? We wouldn't want him to lose his CL membership...
KRviator is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 09:58
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Interesting that flights to Broome were all cancelled when the system passed nearby however with a near identical forecast no flights to any of the mine sites or Newman were cancelled.

Shows the pressure and influence that the Mines have on the airlines (not just QF).
aussieflyboy is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 10:12
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by knackered IV View Post
It's interesting because they still had the presence of mind to complete the required actions after what would have been a rather unsettling experience. A good quality to have for a pilot.
The implication from the original poster was that there was something unusual about the aircraftís configuration!
As far as I can see, theyíve followed their SOPís after the incident and thereís actually nothing interesting here at all.
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 10:57
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 543
Originally Posted by aussieflyboy View Post
Interesting that flights to Broome were all cancelled when the system passed nearby however with a near identical forecast no flights to any of the mine sites or Newman were cancelled.

Shows the pressure and influence that the Mines have on the airlines (not just QF).

Or there are procedures for avoiding “cyclones” (ie up near Broome), where the region might be in yellow or red alerts; but not for “ex cyclones” and their associated weather as there aren’t yellow or red alerts for ex cyclones.

Mines don’t put on too much pressure, not in my experience anyway. Especially if you pull the safety card. Been there done that, they didn’t (and wouldn’t) complain.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 11:31
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
This post in no critique of the individuals involved, rather more of a post about mine procurement.

Qantas have spent a lot of time and energy to convince the traveling public that contractors and subsidiary aircraft and crew are interchangeable. (Again this is not directed at crew)
At least one big industrialist refuses the subsidiary "interchange" and insists on Qantas registered and Qantas crew operated aircraft: Mines are dangerous places, risk mitigation is a prime focus.

From sources in the industry, there may well be a review of Qantas "light" services being operated into mine sites that have been sold as Qantas to the companies concerned.
No indictment of the crews involved.... but thanks to your little ‘indiscretion’ earlier this week, the real pilots will take it from here thanks......

Love to know your source Rated? Or were you just wishfully stroking your epaulets and salivating at the thought of another stripe courtesy of Link, aka ‘light’s’ stuff up? I suspect the correct spelling is sauce and it refers to the mess you made.

All for one and one for one eh....
Arthur D is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 11:37
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Broome
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Whilst Qantas want everyone to think that boarding a plane with a kangaroo on the tail is flying with Qantas..... Well I have news for you.

Perth to Newman is not the same as Sydney to Melbourne, or Brisbane to Mackay or Melbourne to Hobart The whole operation is a con. Buyer beware.
What are you implying? That just because someone got through a HR interview with Main line that they are immediately a better pilot? That the training is better? Standards higher? Maintenance?
Getting paid more and flying around with your nose in the air doesn't mean S#it.
There are going to be weak links in every chain. Human mistakes will happen, minor and major, Mainline and subsidiary.
​​​​
YendorB is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 12:14
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
The brakes aren't fantastic in the F100 before you start when she's heavy, combined with idle thrust reverse and the possibility of standing water on the runway ...
Why only idle reverse? Is the F100 incapable of more than idle?

Inappropriate use of reverse thrust was a factor in the QF1 overrun at Bangkok in 1999.
FGD135 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 12:23
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
It's not uncommon to see everything left hanging out after an incident like this. Sure, as you say they're supposed to put it all away, but the original poster's touch of sarcasm may have been lost on you.
knackered IV is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 12:32
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: mars (Celebrating 20 years on PPRUNE)
Posts: 49
Lookout - GT the airsafety investigator is in the house...

A snippet of wisdom from the West Australian that the Airline Ratings guru has penned.
Wow.
Was it 'well within QLink limits'? Interesting. Can anyone clarify from the Q group?
Was the approach commenced within required AIP limits?
Was it inside aircraft manufacturer recommended limits? (Fokker drivers?)

GT is drinking as usual from the Q coolaid - and clearly still cannot contribute a concise, unbiased, objective honest piece of so called journalism to save himself. What a joke.
Would this plane spotting ex baggage handler even have the slightest clue as to what 'the weather was bad at time of landing' even means? What does it mean? A disgrace that news publications (print) and tv networks succumb to and use such trash sources to report to the masses.

Clearly the ATSB have no use here, as GT is on the job as usual.
(info gleaned so far is Flap 25 landing, approach speed 160 knots)


It is understood that while the weather at the time of landing was bad it was well within QantasLink limits.
ifylofd is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 12:43
  #55 (permalink)  
-41
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: a
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
Why only idle reverse? Is the F100 incapable of more than idle?

Inappropriate use of reverse thrust was a factor in the QF1 overrun at Bangkok in 1999.
Structural stress on the tail ?

You can use max reverse - if stopping solution / reject requires, with a restricted zone 57-75%N1 you canít spend more than two seconds in without a fan inspection, so the Fokkers are normally idle reverse.
-41 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 14:41
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by -41 View Post
Structural stress on the tail ?

You can use max reverse - if stopping solution / reject requires, with a restricted zone 57-75%N1 you canít spend more than two seconds in without a fan inspection, so the Fokkers are normally idle reverse.
You canít be in that range of 57 to 75% for two seconds but full reverse would normally pass through that range.. Max reverse does not require a fan blade inspection. The AoM calls for engineering to be notified and that is all.

In any case, if I saw the end of the runway coming up Iíd be pulling that reverse lever off the hinges..
Monopole is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 15:55
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,285
The safety standards mines apply are very high and demanding. Regular audits are carried out on air service providers and contracts terminated when expectations aren’t met.

I remember a case where a Bandit hit a kangaroo on landing, this resulted in the strip being fenced and an inspection having to be carried out prior to any aircraft arriving, with the patrol vehicle remaining at the airport on standby whilst the flight turned around.
krismiler is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 16:27
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault View Post
Newman is about 200m longer than the full factored LDR for a F25 wet runway landing in the Dutch oven, whilst I don't know all the extenuating circumstances, parking a jet in the mud is most definitely not a good result and I'm pretty sure most of the inhabitants of BS Castle would agree
Interesting, the relatively slender margin of the "black and white" wet landing distance assessment. As the FAA have now discovered, black and white factoring isn't so clear cut and won't protect you. Highly relevant is the FAA SAFO 19003 Subject: Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways.

In a nutshell, the FAA are saying you need to add 30 to 40% factoring, not 15%. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of even moderate rainfall on ungrooved runways, should be considered contaminated for braking action. Heavy rainfall is defined as >50+ mm in the last 24 hours by the World Meteorological Organisation.

I do also note that the BOM rainfall figures for Newman on the 9th Jan indicated 70+ mm of rainfall between midnight and 0900 and 140+ mm in the previous 24 hour period. The ATSB incident status page indicates the incident occurred at 0723 WAST, the BOM observations are posted below with the rainfall since 0900 in the far right column.

Unfortunately, all too predictable over-runs in similar circumstances on short wet ungrooved runways will continue to occur until the operators start taking the SAFO recommendations into account and increase factoring during arrival periods of moderate to heavy rainfall.











BOM Mount Newman observations 09-Jan-2020, rainfall since 0900 far right Column


CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:59
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Monopole View Post
You canít be in that range of 57 to 75% for two seconds but full reverse would normally pass through that range.. Max reverse does not require a fan blade inspection. The AoM calls for engineering to be notified and that is all.

In any case, if I saw the end of the runway coming up Iíd be pulling that reverse lever off the hinges..
Apart from the N1 restriction more than idle is not used because it does not add that much the stopping effort. We only had to use it in case of contaminated runways.
As for stowing the reversers, pulling both reversers is the backup for liftdumper activation on the Fokker, and you certainly don't want those barn doors sticking out when evacuating.

If it's almost never wet there, I'd assume a bit of rain after a long dry spell would result in extra slippery conditions.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 22:03
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Unfortunately, all too predictable over-runs in similar circumstances on short wet ungrooved runways will continue to occur until the operators start taking the SAFO recommendations into account and increase factoring during arrival periods of moderate to heavy rainfall.
All too much an impact on the commercial viability.
Rated De is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.