Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

German Do328 ran off runway

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

German Do328 ran off runway

Old 20th Mar 2008, 13:42
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
detailed in one of those links at start of thread.
glad rag is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2008, 18:02
  #22 (permalink)  
sto
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Europe
Age: 37
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/panAccess207/adclick.php?bannerid=866&vblocal=13&zoneid=211&sou

Also frequently fly into Mannheim.
Twins need a special permission to fly into EDFM.
It's also on the **** list of "Vereinigung Cockpit"

http://www.vcockpit.de/images/attach...lliste2007.pdf (in german)
sto is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2008, 18:24
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mannheim runway has 1066 meters.

I'll ask again.

3,500' you must be kidding right? how is that even legal?

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...ild/specs.html

Fairchield Dornier 328 Landing Field Length - 1,166m (3,825ft)

Last edited by MU3001A; 20th Mar 2008 at 19:15.
MU3001A is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2008, 21:55
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EDDF
Age: 52
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
switch on your brain buddy...

this is an advertisment, sample calculation, maybe req landing distance with MALW ISA...etc.... not handbook or performation guide.....

for airline ops you dont take the add from a webpage to check your landingdistance req...

even a 13 year old kid with FS2000 rating knows which factors are relevant for perf calculation, why not you?

why not just shut up and wait for the facts..

blue skies

Lars
warmkiter is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2008, 01:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More than a few people on a hair trigger with the insults around here

for airline ops you dont take the add from a webpage to check your landingdistance req...

even a 13 year old kid with FS2000 rating knows which factors are relevant for perf calculation, why not you?

why not just shut up and wait for the facts..
The quoted distance was indicative is all.

I have since found information which suggests the Mannheim City runway would indeed fit the factored runway length requirement for a Do 328 at an operational weight very close to Max. Landing Weight.

http://www.328support.de/downloads/328-Turboprop.pdf

EDIT

Oops maybe not.

EDFM runway 27 LDA 3323 feet according to worldaerodata.com, not 3500 feet.

The accident aircraft with 24 pax onboard was probably around 3-4,000 lbs under the max landing weight, but without an AFM I don't know how much runway length that translates into.

Last edited by MU3001A; 21st Mar 2008 at 05:56.
MU3001A is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2008, 10:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Whatever the causes of this mishap - just how many incidents have Cirrus had during the last 12-24 months??? They are certainly mounting up!"

What incidents do you kow then?


Iīm operating in and out of Mannheim, but not with Cirrus nor on a DO328...

Mannheim is really bad in bad weather. Lighting is...well it leaves a lot to be desired. Is If weather isnīt an issue, then its just short with weird obstacles surrounding the field. There is an ELEVATED 4 lane road crossing THR 27, an earth wall surrounding the RWY in the east, south and partly west. What the wall does not cover in the west, the LOC antenna does.

I have been flying in and out of Mannheim for many years in KingAirs 200, they have IMO a relatively comparable rwy performance to the 328. I canīt see a prob there without either a technical or a malfunction between the ears of the PF. Remeber that the RWY dist in the AFM is without the use of reverse or beta. When our KA manual indicated something like 1800ft and youīd use heavy braking and heavy reverse, the thing stopped within nearly half that distance. Now apparently there is a history of beta/reverse troubles. If you land a little long and then have to fiddle with the levers AND donīt start braking, then.... and btw. I donīt know it, but I just cannot believe that they would operate with less than 1,67. I mean thats a regular airline, based there, serving Berlin, Geneva and other places...
Iīm pretty sure that a A/S u/s would put one in trouble as well.
BTW, RWY is grooved.
APPR available is either LOCDME or GPS 27, 09 is circling only.

Amongst based airplanes are:
Falcon 2000
CJīs of all types
C550B
C560XL
C680
CL300
LJ31
LJ35 (without T/R this one! Brave men in their flying boxes....)
LJ45
These are all non commercially.

DO328
His dudeness is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2008, 18:27
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remember that the RWY dist in the AFM is without the use of reverse or beta

Remember also that the unfactored landing distances quoted in the AFM are Reference Landing Distances executed by a factory test pilot tasked with demonstrating the aircraft's utility to potential customers, achieved by maximum effort under controlled circumstances. Hardly an accurate simulation of routine airline operations where pilot ability varies, braking systems wear etc. That's why regulatory authorities impose factoring on required landing distances for airline operations.

The factored landing distance at max. landing weight for the Do 328 on a DRY runway is 3,525 feet. The ratio of aircraft weight to runway length requirement depicted in aircraft performance charts is a straight line of a certain slope. In the case of the B717-200 that slope represents about 29lbs per foot. I don't know the actual ratio in the case of the Do 328 but by my calculation given an estimated weight of the accident aircraft of 26,400lbs (BOW 20,000lbs, 1 hours fuel and 24 pax), the slope has to get down to below 15lbs per foot in order to qualify the LDA of runway 27 at EDFM of 3,323 feet which is a pretty flat slope.

What about when it rains and the factored length goes up by 500 feet, how do you run a regular scheduled service dependent on whether or not it rains ?

In my opinion it would appear that airline operations at Mannheim City with the Do 328 was an accident waiting to happen. But that's just my opinion.
MU3001A is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2008, 20:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well MU, we certainly would like a bigger runway and nonobstacle environment.
There is an american army field just a few miles north (the CTZ touch each other), Coleman, that would be perfect to be build into a regional airport. But then there is the green party and all the guys living around said airfield that do oppose such plans. In fact the green party already made a statement after this incident to the effect that they want City to be closed down because it is a thread to the citizens of Mannheim. No word of a replacement/contingency plan.

An accident waiting to happen? Mhhh lets see, if they operate within the given parameters (factor 1,67) then I fail to see what the problem is. The factor is there exactly to cater the things you mentioned...the rwy is grooved and is considered dry unless there is standing water. Thats within regulations btw.
Granted if the runway would have been 600 feet or so longer, there most probably the accident wouldnīt have happend...
His dudeness is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2008, 21:48
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
His Dudeness

Perhaps I'm just used to flying in the States where every Podunk town that has an airport has an airport with at least a 5,000 foot runway and I can't believe an airline here would even consider operating a regular scheduled service with a Do 328 or similar into an airport with only a 3,500 foot runway, regardless of the regs.

You make do with what you have I suppose, but look what happened to SWA at MDW.
An accident waiting to happen? Mhhh lets see, if they operate within the given parameters (factor 1,67) then I fail to see what the problem is.
The problem is the accident, regardless of whether the flight was operating within the regs or not. You're safe and operating within the regs. until there's an accident/incident which attracts the attention of the various advocacy groups forcing the hand of the regulatory authorities to determine that you're not safe anymore. Now you need an expensive project to lengthen the runway which may not be practical, or an EMAS which chops 600 feet off the end and you're done.

Last edited by MU3001A; 22nd Mar 2008 at 00:39.
MU3001A is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 10:37
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: always airborne
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to add something about EDFM: The runway IS short, but the DO328 by Cirrus are operating there regularly several times a day without incidents so far. But what you can see is in the same regularly manner an approach "too fast and too high" so that they land late and brake very hard. Sometimes they just come to a stop at the very end of the runway, where a turning pad is used then. You can see those "thrilling" approaches in at least two of ten times, as mentioned this is not an unusual thing, but of course led to concerns in the past for how long this will work without an incident or accident.

Runway 27 (also in use that day) has a LOC/DME approach only, with quite a high minimum, due to the road directly in front of the threshold and some power lines on short final.

About this approach in particular, several people saw that plane also coming in high with a late touchdown. If this is the reason for the overshoot or not, other people get paid to investigate this issue.

By the way: you can see clearly skid marks becoming more intense towards the end of the runway... i don't know if the DO328 has antiskid or not - but if, why are there skid marks then?
Mshamba is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 11:42
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Turboprop Landing Field Lenght

It has been a while since I last flew turboprops and I can't be bothered to go and look at JAR OPS but I seem to remember that the 1.67 factor applies to turbofan (jet) aircraft, while turboprops use something like 1.43.

Apart from that I agree that Mannheim is a very marginal airport for such commercial ops.
733driver is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 19:09
  #32 (permalink)  
pasoundman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
His dudeness
In fact the green party already made a statement after this incident to the effect that they want City to be closed down because it is a thread to the citizens of Mannheim.

Well ... no surprise there since the greens don't like aviation generally.

Oh ... and you know all the fuss about how much CO2 airliners emit ? I gather that shipping produces something like TEN times as much.
 
Old 22nd Mar 2008, 19:12
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
733driver, youīre right, itīs 1,43 for props... (60% vs.70%). Sorry for the mixup.
His dudeness is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2008, 15:54
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
His Dudeness/733driver

It would seem that this is one area where JAA/FAA regulations are not harmonized.

As a regular scheduled airline the Cirrus Airlines flight would have been required to operate under FAR Part 121 in the US and unlike JAR OPS 1.515, FAR Part 121.195 does not differentiate between jets and turboprops in determining destination airport landing field length requirements for preflight planning purposes. The FAA regulation requires that turbine engine powered aircraft (jets and props) be able to land within 60% of the effective runway length.

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GU...B?OpenDocument

The only allowance for turboprop aircraft is that they can be dispatched without meeting the 60% destination airport requirement on the most suitable runway if an alternate is specified that allows a landing within 70% of effective runway length, for turbojets the alternate requirement is the same 60%. Also the 115% requirement for wet or slippery runways only applies to turbojet aircraft.
MU3001A is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.