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 12th Jan 2020, 23:04
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,657
The problem in Australia is numerous RPT aerodromes are CTAFs so there is no way of getting any sort of runway condition statement.

Last edited by neville_nobody; 12th Jan 2020 at 23:50.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 00:55
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Posts: 276
Very useful insights, fellas.
I like where you are coming from with the assessments, though I don't know what your company calls Runway Condition Code 2.
Boeing and 'Bus have 6 RWY condition surface options from which to choose inflight.
Once the RWY condition goes from Wet to Contaminated (above 3mm of standing water), operations are prohibited in most companies in Oz, as far as I remember.
So, it would be useful to apply the RF in a fashion similar to Curtain's procedure to figure out a Contaminated cutoff value.
The other percentages you are suggesting, though, isn't so flash.
Once a RWY has been assessed as Contaminated, then it's game over.
Buttscratcher is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 06:06
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Regional flying in Western Australian is the Wild West. No RFF. Few grooved runways. Metars not TTFs. GNSS approach if your lucky. Landing weight limited most of the time and limited alternates. Very limited ground support.Throw in a cyclone and Bingo! Some of the most challenging flying I’ve done in 20,000 hours. Stay safe out there people!
George Glass is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 07:49
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
Once the RWY condition goes from Wet to Contaminated (above 3mm of standing water), operations are prohibited.
My opinion is that it is important to be aware of what is good ‘classroom knowledge’ and what is good ‘operational knowledge’. ( and I imagine you are, I’ll just put this out there in case it helps someone or adds value to the conversation).It’s certainly handy to know that above 3mm of standing water is considered contaminated when you’re being tested in the classroom, but it is next to useless on an eight mile final when Tower says “ABC new ATIS Foxtrot issued, only change visibility 2500 meters in rain, wind 270 five knots cleared to land”. The Tower controller doesn’t know if there is more than 3mm of standing water on the runway and neither do RFS or the bird man. So at this point the decision is completely human. No book or computer can tell you ‘land’ or ‘don’t land’ because the inputs to the equation are unknown. If you are 60T onto a 3000m runway you can probably safely decide to continue. If you are 66T onto an 1800m runway the decision is a very important one. How each pilot decides to build in a conservative element is up to them to figure out and apply. Curtain has given his example which I’m sure would work very well for many. My way of deciding is a bit different ( it involves excess landing distance available) but it works for me in the heat of the approach which is what matters to me. If you develop a method that works for you and allows for a conservative decision when you are under pressure then you can refine it over the years. ( I’m going to play with CT’s method as a kind of two-step approach and see how that goes).
Once a RWY has been assessed as Contaminated, then it's game over.
Unless there is snow on the runway, who is going to assess it as contaminated in this part of the world? Like I said before, nobody knows if there is more than 3mm of standing water on the runway and I’ve never heard ATC declare that the runway is now contaminated. You’ll get visibility and precipitation type and if you’re very lucky they’ll tell you that the rain is heavy ( in which case I’d just hold til it went through).
Anyway, I’ve learnt something so thanks for that.
If any Tower controllers read this can they report back observed precipitation rates and corresponding visibility’s? I understand that there will be variables such as humidity etc that will bring varying results but it would still be helpful to get a few examples.
Cheers
73qanda is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 08:31
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 65
Posts: 2
73qanda, there is no tower. That’s the point. In this part of the world you’re on your own.
George Glass is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 08:39
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 65
Posts: 2
I had the honour (????) of operating into YGIA and YSOL early on in their existence with an FO with no GA experience. Had a lot of trouble convincing him that a B737 was just an overgrown C402. It really was that basic. Don’t know how it got past the regulators...............
He said it was like landing on the moon ! LOL
George Glass is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 09:56
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 48
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by Blueskymine View Post
No idea, I don’t work for network. I fly something a little larger.

Obviously though a crew isn’t going to land if the performance figures indicate it won’t work. On the airbus we used flysmart for every landing. On the Boeing the OPT. That is what autobrake and reverse thrust usage is based upon. Along with the preferred exit.

What do network use?
What happens if someone puts the wrong figures in??? Flysmart or OPT I suspect like anything cowpoo in means cowpoo out...
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 10:11
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 547
What happens if someone puts the wrong figures in??? Flysmart or OPT I suspect like anything cowpoo in means cowpoo out...
It should be picked up when you cross check the results.
wishiwasupthere is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2020, 11:53
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 448
As a tower controller, we won't say anything about contamination. We will use damp, wet, water patches and flooded.

If there is a heavy shower approaching I will often say something but to be honest you can usually see it as well as, if not better than, us (particularly passing showers).
Awol57 is online now  
Old 15th Jan 2020, 01:37
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PER
Posts: 1,170
The problem in Australia is numerous RPT aerodromes are CTAFs so there is no way of getting any sort of runway condition statement.
Nothing to stop the airlines setting up a process with the aerodrome operator though.
topend3 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2020, 01:44
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PER
Posts: 1,170
73qanda, there is no tower. That’s the point. In this part of the world you’re on your own.
The ARO would have done a serviceability inspection prior to this aircraft arriving. Be surprised if this isn't looked at by the ATSB re runway surface condition reporting.
topend3 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2020, 03:40
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
73qanda, there is no tower. That’s the point. In this part of the world you’re on your own.
Yeah sorry George, I understand what you’re saying. I got caught up in a generic kind of discussion that wasn’t specific to the Newman incident ( in my mind at least).
I’m sure it’s it’s own kind of interesting west of Adelaide. I just hope that we manage to e extract and promulgate all the learnings from this one.
73qanda is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2020, 22:45
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Still moving forward
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by bazza stub View Post
They could have popped the slides and disembarked onto a wing full of spoilers and turning engines I guess.
Nearly right, though the Fokker evacuation calls for flaps full down if evacuation required.
They just tidied her up...
WINJA is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2020, 23:10
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Still moving forward
Posts: 21
I guess we all assume the 'stable approach' criteria was met?
WINJA is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 00:17
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 476
BB, redefining global standards.

From today's The Australian:

The risky business of landing on wet runways
By BYRON BAILEY

Last week in Perth Airport, as I waited to board a Qantas flight, I heard a passenger address announcement that Newman Airport was closed and that passengers should contact their company to make arrangements to travel the next day. Cyclone Blake had passed through the Newman area previously and I assumed that was the cause.

Later, I saw on television the picture of a QantasLink aircraft, due to a slight overrun on landing, sitting off the end of the sealed Newman runway with its nose gear apparently bogged in the non-sealed surface. It was raining heavily.

Heavy rain presents a visibility problem when landing at around 200km/h and it also presents a braking action problem when landing, due to surface water on the runway.

A wet runway is defined as water up to a depth of 8mm. Over that it is defined as contaminated and manufacturers cannot guarantee adequate stopping performance.

The problem is hydroplaning (or aquaplaning) where — above a critical speed — the wheel is lifted off the surface and rides on the film of water, causing the plane to skid. The general formula for working out hydroplaning speed is nine times the square root of the tyre pressure. However, the Federal Aviation Administration recently reworked the formula due to some overruns. The dynamic (aircraft taking off) wheel-rotating hydroplaning speed was lowered slightly, but in the static hydroplaning landing case of stationary wheels the FAA reduced the formula for hydroplaning onset speed to about 7.5 times the square root of the tyre pressure.

This means for a typical jet with a tyre pressure of around 200psi and a landing speed of around 130 knots the pilots should, after a firm landing to break through the surface water to ensure tyre contact and wheel spin up, use lift dump and thrust reversers as soon as possible and then, when below the hydroplaning onset speed of around 100 knots, apply one firm brake application and let the aircraft’s brake antiskid system do its job.

Car drivers as well need to be aware that in heavy rain with tyre pressures of around 35psi, in the interests of safety, speed should be reduced, especially with under-inflated tyres.

Also, once hydroplaning starts and the wheels lock up, the skidding due to hydroplaning can continue down to a much lower speed.

Byron Bailey is a former RAAF fighter jet pilot and flew B777s as an airline captain.
My bolding.
MickG0105 is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 00:35
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 48
Posts: 800
”Later, I saw on television the picture of a QantasLink aircraft, due to a slight overrun on landing, sitting off the end of the sealed Newman runway with its nose gear apparently bogged in the non-sealed surface. It was raining heavily.”

Hang on a minute... Even an armchair expert could see that there was not a lot of broken surface from the very first pic... However the aircraft rolled into the hard over run area does not sound anywhere near as dramatic.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 01:39
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 756
It's a sad day when ex-military aircrew journalists can't get their reporting right or let errors slip through the editor. "Apparently bogged"?? In the only picture I've seen, the one earlier in the thread, the nose gear is obscured by a firie standing in the foreground. It is 'apparently' raining however.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 02:21
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer View Post
In the only picture I've seen, the one earlier in the thread, the nose gear is obscured by a firie standing in the foreground.
That picture appears to be a still taken from a short video posted to social media by ABC Perth. Between 0:14 - 0:17 sec you get a pretty good look at the nose gear. It doesn't appear to have broken the surface of the RESA.
MickG0105 is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2020, 17:11
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Question What guidance was/is available to the Pilot's?

The following is from the Aircraft Operating Manual for a similar weight and configuration aircraft from a different manufacturer. I've added the bolding for emphasis. One of the previous posters indicated that as ATC, they simply report the presence of standing water.



I offer this purely to ask, was similar guidance in the F100 manuals, if not, why not; and, why hadn't CASA picked up on it, or the Company SMS?



The pilot's can only do what they're trained to do.





Without measured runway water depths, on runways with standing water, use the following information to determine the possibility of hydroplaning:
  • Rain reported as light - Dynamic hydroplaning unlikely, but viscous and reverted hydroplaning possible.
  • Rain reported as moderate - All types of hydroplaning are possible. Smooth tires will likely hydroplane.
  • Rain reported as heavy - Hydroplaning will occur.
Noeyedear is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2020, 23:09
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 196
A wet runway is defined as water up to a depth of 8mm
I thought a wet runway was water to a depth of 3 mm ???

Mick is right - BB redefining global standards
Arctaurus 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.