BA Connect EMB145 - Ouch... what happened here?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a mere layman in this part of the site, it is by no means the first time the EMB has overun at a number of EU locations in addition to similar incidents worldwide for the reasons stated. My concern that with the law of averages this could or will lead to a fatal accident.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northern England, United Kingdom
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HLZ
Except this is not an overrun, therefore you should not include it in your average calculation as you attempt to stirr this slightly embarrasing but in terms of risk, non event.
Except this is not an overrun, therefore you should not include it in your average calculation as you attempt to stirr this slightly embarrasing but in terms of risk, non event.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 18A
Age: 38
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well said Kirkwall,this was obviously a silly accident and wrists will be slapped,but are the management going to turn around and tell us they are perfect?i think not!!still dont see how reversers would help seeing as it was a slip off a taxiway not a runway overrun
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Sunny South
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmmmmh, the proximity of the aircraft to the turning area in the foreground (left) suggests to me that the crew may have started the turn correctly but quickly discovered that the steering deflection on this aircraft was limited to 50 degrees (i.e. pre-mod SB 145-32-0002) instead of the normally available 76 degrees.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Denti
TXL is at the moment (dunno if they changed it today) restricted to the southern runway (08R/26L) and 08R was in use. On taxi for departure they apparently missed the taxiway to 08R and tried a 180 to return to 08R. Unfortunately the taxyway isn't very big.
Error? Better stated as "what they heck were they thinking?" It's hard enough doing a 180 on a taxiway with a small single engine a/c. Don't even think about it with a wheelbase that long.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Sunny South
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the crew thought so too ? As the company manuals draw attention to the mod, this suggests that not all ac have been modded otherwise, why mention it ? There is no list of modded airframes in the manual
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, don't know about the EMB145 since i dont fly it, but i am impressed with the large turning radius. My good old 733 is listed with a turning radius of 43.3 ft (nose gear radius, wingtip and tail is a bit more of course) and needs a minimum pavement width of 64.6 ft for a 180.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
I've got to say that this is a total balls up on the crews part. Looking at the picture, the nosewheel on the 145 sits in front of the pilot. For it to have left the taxiway by such a distance is simply incredible!! They should have realised they were going to leave the paved surface long before they stopped.
zzz
I've got to say that this is a total balls up on the crews part. Looking at the picture, the nosewheel on the 145 sits in front of the pilot. For it to have left the taxiway by such a distance is simply incredible!! They should have realised they were going to leave the paved surface long before they stopped.
zzz
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Location Location
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I read this thread got me thinking
Our company minimum is 30m but had to look up the actual the min pavement required on my current type (DHC8 400) and its 84ft 5in (25.7m)
Our company minimum is 30m but had to look up the actual the min pavement required on my current type (DHC8 400) and its 84ft 5in (25.7m)
