EMB 170 overrun at KCLE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
angry fool
being aware of book learning, doesn't always translate to real flying...add to this NO ILS glideslope and one might have been a bit fast a bit high and a bit long...if not down in the first third, go around is still a good rule
being aware of book learning, doesn't always translate to real flying...add to this NO ILS glideslope and one might have been a bit fast a bit high and a bit long...if not down in the first third, go around is still a good rule
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
angry fool
being aware of book learning, doesn't always translate to real flying...add to this NO ILS glideslope and one might have been a bit fast a bit high and a bit long...if not down in the first third, go around is still a good rule
being aware of book learning, doesn't always translate to real flying...add to this NO ILS glideslope and one might have been a bit fast a bit high and a bit long...if not down in the first third, go around is still a good rule
As with most accidents, as might be found out later on in this investigation, there are usually a number of causes. I know that this is a rumour forum, but how about we wait for the prelim findings otherwise this speculation could and will run into several pages.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
angryfool
I think we miscommunicated...the book learning I was talking about was reference the visual illusion of landing on a downsloping runway...you mentioned, I think, that you felt professional pilots would know that...I am not so sure.
yes, the investigation will take a year, but we will hear something within a week like touchdown point, airspeed on touchdown etc.
I think we miscommunicated...the book learning I was talking about was reference the visual illusion of landing on a downsloping runway...you mentioned, I think, that you felt professional pilots would know that...I am not so sure.
yes, the investigation will take a year, but we will hear something within a week like touchdown point, airspeed on touchdown etc.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember the definition for an accident or incident. I could be incorrect, but if an aircraft is damaged then I believe it's an accident. Most probably wishful thinking from Delta.
Time to read Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing again.
Also see the article on the perception of risk. In particular note "People call these crises wake-up calls …. but they're more like snooze alarms. We get agitated for a while, and then we don't follow through." Isn’t this accident another one that is likely to join the list but there is no follow through action?
Other relevant links:
Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival.
Runway Friction Accountability Risk Assessment.
Slippery when wet.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Procedures for Accounting for Runway Friction on Landing.
Also see the article on the perception of risk. In particular note "People call these crises wake-up calls …. but they're more like snooze alarms. We get agitated for a while, and then we don't follow through." Isn’t this accident another one that is likely to join the list but there is no follow through action?
Other relevant links:
Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival.
Runway Friction Accountability Risk Assessment.
Slippery when wet.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Procedures for Accounting for Runway Friction on Landing.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA certified E170's do not have ANY information in either the ECAFM or AOM regarding the use of thrust reversers on contaminated runways! This applies for takeoff and landing!
Have any of you read OB-170-001-06??
Mutt
Have any of you read OB-170-001-06??
Mutt
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every one is talking about the runway slope. With vis @ 1/4, I wonder what the runway friction index was? How much snow was on the runway at the time? Both of those factors will contribute to a longer roll out, or in this case being stopped by the perimeter fence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think when you couple no glideslope, poor visibility, a relatively short runway, visual illusion with downsloping runway, snow etc on runway you have a strong possibility of a long landing.
I don't know anyone who hasn't been taught...if you don't touchown in the first third, go around.
my guess is:
we will find out that runway touchdown was with 3000 feet remaining or so.
the real tragedy is how badly delta treated the passengers who trusted their lives to the odd mix of delta and their contracted emb carrier.
I don't know anyone who hasn't been taught...if you don't touchown in the first third, go around.
my guess is:
we will find out that runway touchdown was with 3000 feet remaining or so.
the real tragedy is how badly delta treated the passengers who trusted their lives to the odd mix of delta and their contracted emb carrier.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did the crew know?
Looking at Bomarc's post concerning the weather makes me wonder if the crew had this information:
"you have some points, however here is the wx, the first just prior to the landing and the second just after:
SPECI KCLE 181956Z 30016KT 1/4SM +SN BKN006 BKN015 OVC041 M07/M11 A3001 RMK AO2 P0000 $
SPECI KCLE 182017Z 33013G19KT 1/4SM +SN BKN003 BKN010 OVC015 M08/M11 A3003 RMK AO2 P0000 $ "
Did tower update them with the special, inluding the term "heavy snow?" What braking action report did tower give them? How old was it?
Decision-making is only as good as the accuracy of the information we receive and use to choose a course of action.
"you have some points, however here is the wx, the first just prior to the landing and the second just after:
SPECI KCLE 181956Z 30016KT 1/4SM +SN BKN006 BKN015 OVC041 M07/M11 A3001 RMK AO2 P0000 $
SPECI KCLE 182017Z 33013G19KT 1/4SM +SN BKN003 BKN010 OVC015 M08/M11 A3003 RMK AO2 P0000 $ "
Did tower update them with the special, inluding the term "heavy snow?" What braking action report did tower give them? How old was it?
Decision-making is only as good as the accuracy of the information we receive and use to choose a course of action.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomarc,
Talk about hanging the crew out to dry before the investigation
Are you qualified on the E170? Do you know anything about the aircraft? Have you read OB-170-001-06 regarding thrust reversers??
e-flier, remember this was an FAA certified aircraft, not JAA!
Mutt
Talk about hanging the crew out to dry before the investigation
Are you qualified on the E170? Do you know anything about the aircraft? Have you read OB-170-001-06 regarding thrust reversers??e-flier, remember this was an FAA certified aircraft, not JAA!
Mutt
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mutt:
no, the EMB 170 is not high on my list of planes to fly and I don't fly it.
please send me a copy of the ops bulletin on the thrust reversers so I can read it.
My point is this: any pilot, not just these pilots, who did not take into account the items I mentioned might have gone off the end. Let us all ask ourselves right now, what would we have done differently?
wx, visual illusion with downsloping runway, no glideslope...how would you have handled that approach?
tell me, honestly now, how many of you out there in internet land brief the slope of the runway? be honest now.
I've written the slope on my apch charts since 1994. try landing at binghamton, new york some time.
no, the EMB 170 is not high on my list of planes to fly and I don't fly it.
please send me a copy of the ops bulletin on the thrust reversers so I can read it.
My point is this: any pilot, not just these pilots, who did not take into account the items I mentioned might have gone off the end. Let us all ask ourselves right now, what would we have done differently?
wx, visual illusion with downsloping runway, no glideslope...how would you have handled that approach?
tell me, honestly now, how many of you out there in internet land brief the slope of the runway? be honest now.
I've written the slope on my apch charts since 1994. try landing at binghamton, new york some time.
Last edited by bomarc; 24th Feb 2007 at 17:44.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accounting for slope
Bomarc,
Agree that slope is an important component of approach briefing and planning for landings. Jeppesen spot elevations on their airport charts frequently provide clues about slopes, but the information is not as complete as it could be.
Mutt -- would you mind sharing the Ops Bulletin with me via email or PM?
Fortunately, (for operations in the U.S.), runway slope information is now available in the online AF/D:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd
"...try landing at binghamton, new york some time."
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ne_131_18JAN2007.pdf
Runway 16-34: 0.9% up NW
Runway 28 at KCLE.
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ec_202_18JAN2007.pdf
RWY 10.28: 0.5% up E.
But, what exactly is the crew to do with the slope data? Experience and intuition tell us that slope can be very significant to stopping distances, especially when the runway is not clear and dry. But I've not found approved performance data (for that matter neither have I found "advisory data") that take into account the effects of runway slope.
Why is that?
Agree that slope is an important component of approach briefing and planning for landings. Jeppesen spot elevations on their airport charts frequently provide clues about slopes, but the information is not as complete as it could be.
Mutt -- would you mind sharing the Ops Bulletin with me via email or PM?
Fortunately, (for operations in the U.S.), runway slope information is now available in the online AF/D:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd
"...try landing at binghamton, new york some time."
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ne_131_18JAN2007.pdf
Runway 16-34: 0.9% up NW
Runway 28 at KCLE.
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ec_202_18JAN2007.pdf
RWY 10.28: 0.5% up E.
But, what exactly is the crew to do with the slope data? Experience and intuition tell us that slope can be very significant to stopping distances, especially when the runway is not clear and dry. But I've not found approved performance data (for that matter neither have I found "advisory data") that take into account the effects of runway slope.
Why is that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what can the crew do with slope data...
first off, the slope is part of the airline's calculations and I am sure they meet approval.
the real thing for me is the pilot's handling of the flare. you must create a mindset for a downsloping runway of flaring less...if you flare the normal amount the runway is going away from you and you float.
going uphill if you flare normally, you will get a harder landing as the runway is coming up to meet you.
(over simplified, but useful)
and yes, JEPPS don't show slope, but one can calculate difference between touchdown zone elevations for both sides of the same runway.
landing at binghamton new york really got my attention...fortunately I landed up hill the first time.
the first time I landed downhill there, I pretty much didn't flare and got on the brakes right away.
remember, it is not the landing calculation I am talking about...that must be ok or your airline would not be approved to use it.
BUT all calculations assume no prolonged float...so be careful.
first off, the slope is part of the airline's calculations and I am sure they meet approval.
the real thing for me is the pilot's handling of the flare. you must create a mindset for a downsloping runway of flaring less...if you flare the normal amount the runway is going away from you and you float.
going uphill if you flare normally, you will get a harder landing as the runway is coming up to meet you.
(over simplified, but useful)
and yes, JEPPS don't show slope, but one can calculate difference between touchdown zone elevations for both sides of the same runway.
landing at binghamton new york really got my attention...fortunately I landed up hill the first time.
the first time I landed downhill there, I pretty much didn't flare and got on the brakes right away.
remember, it is not the landing calculation I am talking about...that must be ok or your airline would not be approved to use it.
BUT all calculations assume no prolonged float...so be careful.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accounting for slope
"...first off, the slope is part of the airline's calculations and I am sure they meet approval."
Oh?
And what data would be used for those calculations?
To my knowledge, AC 25-7A does not require slope values to be included in stopping distances.
Do certain OEM's included it anyway?
Oh?
And what data would be used for those calculations?
To my knowledge, AC 25-7A does not require slope values to be included in stopping distances.
Do certain OEM's included it anyway?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sadly I don't have my airport analysis data at home...it is carried aboard our planes and there is a calculation made by our engineeering department and approved for each runway at our normal airports.
I don't know how your airline does it...mine is a big airline, very big airline that begins with a vowell, that is all I will say.
there is even a formula for penalites using slope for both landing and takeoff for non routinely used airports.
again I don't have it in front of me.
and again, if you aren't down in the first third of a runway, go around...that goes back to private pilot days ( of course there are exceptions...15,000 feet of runway, I suppose most planes could overfly the first half and still be ok, but let's keep it real)
I don't know how your airline does it...mine is a big airline, very big airline that begins with a vowell, that is all I will say.
there is even a formula for penalites using slope for both landing and takeoff for non routinely used airports.
again I don't have it in front of me.
and again, if you aren't down in the first third of a runway, go around...that goes back to private pilot days ( of course there are exceptions...15,000 feet of runway, I suppose most planes could overfly the first half and still be ok, but let's keep it real)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...a formula for penalites using slope for both landing and takeoff for non routinely used airports."
Thanks.
One would assume that those penalties are predicated on approved landing data.
I just ran an analysis for 10-28 at CLE for my Dassault trimotor (F900EX).
The limiting weights (wet) are the identical in both directions, so I am inferring that the absence of OEM-provided corrections for slope is at the root of the dilemma.
AC 25-7A doesn't require much in the way of published landing data - obviously, the following directly states "as a minimum":
Does anyone know if the E-170 performance data includes corrections for slope?
How unusual is the case of the F900 performance data not providing corrections for slope?
Thanks.
One would assume that those penalties are predicated on approved landing data.
I just ran an analysis for 10-28 at CLE for my Dassault trimotor (F900EX).
The limiting weights (wet) are the identical in both directions, so I am inferring that the absence of OEM-provided corrections for slope is at the root of the dilemma.
AC 25-7A doesn't require much in the way of published landing data - obviously, the following directly states "as a minimum":
g. Airplane Flight Manual Landing Distances.
(l) As a minimum, the AFM must include data for standard temperature and zero runway gradient showing the variation of landing distance with weight (up to maximum takeoff weight), altitude, and wind. If the airplane is intended for operation under Part 121 of the FAR, the distances presented should include the operational field length factors for both dry and wet runways required by § 121.195.
(l) As a minimum, the AFM must include data for standard temperature and zero runway gradient showing the variation of landing distance with weight (up to maximum takeoff weight), altitude, and wind. If the airplane is intended for operation under Part 121 of the FAR, the distances presented should include the operational field length factors for both dry and wet runways required by § 121.195.
Does anyone know if the E-170 performance data includes corrections for slope?
How unusual is the case of the F900 performance data not providing corrections for slope?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zeffy
I think that most runways fall in the acceptable catagory of slope and that there is not a correction for actual performance (at least runways that most airline would use) certainly corporate planes are much more flexible in their destinations.
check your limitations section in your manual and you will find something of interest. I checked the nearest manual I had, a bae 146 and there is a limit to runway slope +- 2%
in this way you are covered...but again, my discourse is on the prolonged float and visual illusion part of the slope.
smack it down on the 1000' marker, hit the brakes and thrust reversers and you should stop (ice...well)
but indulge in a prolonged float due to visual illusion, and you might not stop on the runway (think air france yyz)
I think that most runways fall in the acceptable catagory of slope and that there is not a correction for actual performance (at least runways that most airline would use) certainly corporate planes are much more flexible in their destinations.
check your limitations section in your manual and you will find something of interest. I checked the nearest manual I had, a bae 146 and there is a limit to runway slope +- 2%
in this way you are covered...but again, my discourse is on the prolonged float and visual illusion part of the slope.
smack it down on the 1000' marker, hit the brakes and thrust reversers and you should stop (ice...well)
but indulge in a prolonged float due to visual illusion, and you might not stop on the runway (think air france yyz)