Mike Pence's plane skids off runway at LGA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Premonitions and quotes from inside the aircraft:
The moments Pence?s plane flirted with disaster - POLITICO
YRP - AP Wire Photo. Look ma, (apparently) no landing flaps, but slats are out:
PJ2: At F5 perhaps, but beginning with 15, the tilt down begins to be obvious from the rear.
For months, reporters traveling aboard Mike Pence’s campaign plane have joked about the hard, bone-shaking landings from small Iowa airports to major metropolitan hubs as the Republican vice presidential candidate has crisscrossed the country. The “Make America Great Again"-emblazoned 737 has been bumping its way across the swing states, prompting one reporter to joke morbidly a few weeks ago that a “Pence plane veers off the runway” story had been pre-written.
Over the course of a few seconds Thursday night, those jokes became a jarring reality as the Pence plane slid off a rain-slicked runway upon landing at LaGuardia airport, injecting near-disaster in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Over the course of a few seconds Thursday night, those jokes became a jarring reality as the Pence plane slid off a rain-slicked runway upon landing at LaGuardia airport, injecting near-disaster in the 2016 presidential campaign.
YRP - AP Wire Photo. Look ma, (apparently) no landing flaps, but slats are out:
Could be camera angle aligning with the extended flaps.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 28th Oct 2016 at 06:59. Reason: Added reply to name from quote
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aquaplaning?
The Guardian newspaper quotes a passenger:
and describes how the press corps accompanying Pence have experienced a lot of "rough landings".
“When we landed here we had a pretty hard landing and then we felt the back of the plane start to fishtail and you could just feel the plane moving in a way that was not straight on the runway like a normal landing would go,”
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers screamed in terror as ...
"Objects left on seats and armrests began to tumble as the plane thundered down the runway."
How does one thunder down a runway? That's pretty dramatic!
Another question might be, "How did the flaps end up where they are shown to be?" That's hard to understand. Why would they be set that way for landing, but how could they have been retracted if they had been set differently?
How does one thunder down a runway? That's pretty dramatic!
Another question might be, "How did the flaps end up where they are shown to be?" That's hard to understand. Why would they be set that way for landing, but how could they have been retracted if they had been set differently?
Just an educated guess.
But no slides deployed so decided not to evacuate. Decision made to disembark via rear doors. So whilst there had been an "incident" the crew decided to action the appropriate after landing scan/procedure. Also this would allow any fire services better access to wheel/engine areas.
Hence flaps retracted and thus why flaps not in the 40 position.
But no slides deployed so decided not to evacuate. Decision made to disembark via rear doors. So whilst there had been an "incident" the crew decided to action the appropriate after landing scan/procedure. Also this would allow any fire services better access to wheel/engine areas.
Hence flaps retracted and thus why flaps not in the 40 position.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, a sensible post by back to Boeing. I'd put my money on the fact that the flaps were retracted after the event and thus have no bearing on the reason for the overrun.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 737 crushed across the EMAS field to come to rest on the grass.
2016-10-27 Eastern B737 with VP nominee Pence ran off runway at La Guardia » JACDEC
2016-10-27 Eastern B737 with VP nominee Pence ran off runway at La Guardia » JACDEC
Looking at the photo in post #31, it appears the paved surface has suffered significant damage. Is this a specially designed frangible surface designed to retard an aircraft in the event on an overrun?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, never heard of EMAS before, but it seems it's been around a while. Not sure if it's used outside the USA?
I wonder if the fact that they went off the edge was due to not wanting to go right off the end, maybe not knowing about the EMAS? It doesn't look very obvious where it starts, just a black line of the on-ramp.
So do airports with it installed carry spare blocks to replace the damaged ones rapidly when this happens?
Is the runway closed until it's repaired, as it's no longer 100% covered?
I wonder if the fact that they went off the edge was due to not wanting to go right off the end, maybe not knowing about the EMAS? It doesn't look very obvious where it starts, just a black line of the on-ramp.
So do airports with it installed carry spare blocks to replace the damaged ones rapidly when this happens?
Is the runway closed until it's repaired, as it's no longer 100% covered?
So suppose you're in an overrun, after a landing with flaps 30. Why would you retract the flaps afterwards? And IF you decide to retract them, why not until they are completely up?
Unless of course...if they landed with shown slither of tiny extension.
Unless of course...if they landed with shown slither of tiny extension.
So suppose you're in an overrun, after a landing with flaps 30. Why would you retract the flaps afterwards? And IF you decide to retract them, why not until they are completely up?
On the other hand, if everything is fine and dandy and you decided to perform a normal APU start, After Landing Check List, and Secure Cockpit Checklist, why wouldn't you retract the flaps and leading edge devices all the way if for no other reason than to reduce speculation by people like us?
I don't get it.
Longtimelurker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: killington Vt
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ HDRW...
Take a look at this Google Earth link below (hope it works) and you will see that without EMAS an aircraft going off the end of runway 22 at high speed would most likely end up on a major 8 lane highway.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.76879.../data=!3m1!1e3
Take a look at this Google Earth link below (hope it works) and you will see that without EMAS an aircraft going off the end of runway 22 at high speed would most likely end up on a major 8 lane highway.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.76879.../data=!3m1!1e3
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10010G15KT 3SM RA does not make the wet 2100m Rwy 22 sound a wise choice to me. Maybe in the dry, but wet too? Kinda stacking the odds, that is.
Equally retracting flaps after ploughing through EMAS would be extremely foolish unless they had been thoroughly checked for damage and debris first.
Stable approach, was it?
Still, with the incomprehensibly garbled RT from the controller its a wonder anyone gets anything right there.
Equally retracting flaps after ploughing through EMAS would be extremely foolish unless they had been thoroughly checked for damage and debris first.
Stable approach, was it?
Still, with the incomprehensibly garbled RT from the controller its a wonder anyone gets anything right there.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've never flown the 737 except as a pax. I have operated into La Guardia in years past in bizjets and airline 727's.
This article excerpt claims that the MD-80 and 737 are more challenged by the short runways at LGA than other types (I guess e.g. the A320 family):
Though no flight would legally operate unless within those specified limits, there are two aircraft types that serve LGA that are more strained by the runway length than others, and one may surprise you.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a powerful aircraft, and a workhorse for several airlines. Though reliable and safe, the low-bypass engines respond slower to input than other aircraft types with larger engines. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to build speed when rolling down the runway, demanding a longer takeoff distance. This is exacerbated on hot summer days when the air is thinner, requiring more speed to develop lift over the wings.
Airlines that operate this type into LGA encounter a difficult time on those dog day afternoons, and they usually deal with it by removing passengers to bring the aircraft’s weight down. A passenger headache? Perhaps. A safety issue? No. It’s actually an example of safety measures working to keep you safe.
The other aircraft that sometimes needs special consideration at LGA is a more modern type; the Boeing 737-800/900. The reason goes back to the late 1960s when the first, much shorter, -100/200 versions were birthed. You’ll notice that the 737 is a “low rider,” with its fuselage very low to the ground. This is because many airports that the aircraft served at that time did not have jet-bridges, and needed to board passengers walking up to the aircraft. Like a few models back then (such as the Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9), the early 737s offered built-in stairs that appeared from underneath the forward door, making boarding and deplaning simple for any airport.
The problem came years later, as newer versions of the 737 offered a lengthened fuselage. With the main landing gear still residing in the same place, the tail of the aircraft came very low to the ground when raising the nose on landing, risking a tail strike.
This resulted in the aircraft needing to keep the nose lower than it might otherwise aerodynamically prefer while on approach. This smaller angle of attack creates a faster approach speed, which can sometimes be around 15 knots faster than most other jets. The affect on runway length comes into play because the higher speed means it needs more stopping distance. But again, the math is done in advance. If it can’t stop within 60% of the strip, it won’t be allowed to take off to begin with.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a powerful aircraft, and a workhorse for several airlines. Though reliable and safe, the low-bypass engines respond slower to input than other aircraft types with larger engines. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to build speed when rolling down the runway, demanding a longer takeoff distance. This is exacerbated on hot summer days when the air is thinner, requiring more speed to develop lift over the wings.
Airlines that operate this type into LGA encounter a difficult time on those dog day afternoons, and they usually deal with it by removing passengers to bring the aircraft’s weight down. A passenger headache? Perhaps. A safety issue? No. It’s actually an example of safety measures working to keep you safe.
The other aircraft that sometimes needs special consideration at LGA is a more modern type; the Boeing 737-800/900. The reason goes back to the late 1960s when the first, much shorter, -100/200 versions were birthed. You’ll notice that the 737 is a “low rider,” with its fuselage very low to the ground. This is because many airports that the aircraft served at that time did not have jet-bridges, and needed to board passengers walking up to the aircraft. Like a few models back then (such as the Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9), the early 737s offered built-in stairs that appeared from underneath the forward door, making boarding and deplaning simple for any airport.
The problem came years later, as newer versions of the 737 offered a lengthened fuselage. With the main landing gear still residing in the same place, the tail of the aircraft came very low to the ground when raising the nose on landing, risking a tail strike.
This resulted in the aircraft needing to keep the nose lower than it might otherwise aerodynamically prefer while on approach. This smaller angle of attack creates a faster approach speed, which can sometimes be around 15 knots faster than most other jets. The affect on runway length comes into play because the higher speed means it needs more stopping distance. But again, the math is done in advance. If it can’t stop within 60% of the strip, it won’t be allowed to take off to begin with.
I'd say the ATC comms were pretty clear and normal for the EWR, LGA, and JFK area.
Last edited by Airbubba; 28th Oct 2016 at 14:33.
back to Boeing:
Re,
I realize that's just a guess.
(Not sure of your experience but,) landing flap is either 30 or 40. Normally one leaves things as they are in such events. There are no statements in the FCOM or QRH that require changing configuration (for the reasons offered). The B737 FCOM Evacuation checklist states that the Captain sets the park brake and the F/O extends the flaps to 40, etc., (i.e., nothing about retracting them again).
ed to add:
JACDEC(linked previously by another poster), provides an unverified statement indicating:
Flight phase: LDG – Flare, Landing Roll, Aborted Landing after Touchdown
The recorders will tell us soon enough about flap position, reverse use, (there is no high engine noise on the video of the landing I heard), stability of the approach, approach speed, touchdown point, tailwind component, etc.
Re,
Just an educated guess.
But no slides deployed so decided not to evacuate. Decision made to disembark via rear doors. So whilst there had been an "incident" the crew decided to action the appropriate after landing scan/procedure. Also this would allow any fire services better access to wheel/engine areas.
Hence flaps retracted and thus why flaps not in the 40 position.
But no slides deployed so decided not to evacuate. Decision made to disembark via rear doors. So whilst there had been an "incident" the crew decided to action the appropriate after landing scan/procedure. Also this would allow any fire services better access to wheel/engine areas.
Hence flaps retracted and thus why flaps not in the 40 position.
(Not sure of your experience but,) landing flap is either 30 or 40. Normally one leaves things as they are in such events. There are no statements in the FCOM or QRH that require changing configuration (for the reasons offered). The B737 FCOM Evacuation checklist states that the Captain sets the park brake and the F/O extends the flaps to 40, etc., (i.e., nothing about retracting them again).
ed to add:
JACDEC(linked previously by another poster), provides an unverified statement indicating:
Flight phase: LDG – Flare, Landing Roll, Aborted Landing after Touchdown
The recorders will tell us soon enough about flap position, reverse use, (there is no high engine noise on the video of the landing I heard), stability of the approach, approach speed, touchdown point, tailwind component, etc.
Last edited by PJ2; 28th Oct 2016 at 15:50.
