B737 Utair runway excursion upon landing, in Sochi, Crimea,
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't approach speeds generally higher than on the A320? Also high winds could mean flaps 30 and higher speeds or am i mistaken?
Also the A320 undercarriage has more travel i believe sitting higher above the ground.
Maybe the bus calling people retard helps who knows.
Just because everyone is talking about type prevalence i thought i'd throw some ideas around so it's not just a yes/no game.
Also the A320 undercarriage has more travel i believe sitting higher above the ground.
Maybe the bus calling people retard helps who knows.
Just because everyone is talking about type prevalence i thought i'd throw some ideas around so it's not just a yes/no game.
But there are so many other factors - where flown, quality of crews and training, willingness to push tailwind limits, SOP flaps choice, etc. I leave it to experienced 738/9 drivers to comment - but it is true that if I see "737 overrun", I'm never surprised if it's an 800/900.
Indeed - the 738 can usually be comfortably brought to a stop within around 1000m once on the ground, and operates daily into many airports with 1000m less to play with than Sochi, so there must be far more at play here.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 800/900 do land fast and it's uncomfortably at times, Boeings fix for shortcomings and stretching out the fuselage. Having said that this runway length should not have been a factor at all. Delayed reverser/braking with hydroplaning maybe. I know a lot more focus is coming down on briefing and discussing where the go-around decision should be executed if not planted on the runway. Easier said then done when the WX is ugly, the last thing you want to do is go back up and fly around some more.
I have lived through a fleet transition fron Classic NG-s to NG NG-s (I'm old enough to remember when the -300 was called the NG and the -200 the Classic), in the first couple of months it was quite common to float 200-300 metres on flare due to the highly efficient wings. It took a while to become accustomed to a much more assertive touchdown. I don't know when UT did the transition, but last time I looked they still had quite a few classics around...
Last edited by andrasz; 1st Sep 2018 at 20:05.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-800’s does seem to show up more often when it comes to overruns.
Why? I has a high approach speed. You need to land it where it is supposed to be landed, at the correct speed, or it will eat runway like few other aircraft. Under adverse conditions you need to maintain positive stopping efford all the way until it stops. If you use autobrakes and disconnect them, the system will need time to start braking again if you brake manually. This is really an issue on contaminated runways.
If you use high reverse and unreverse quickly, you will get positive thrust when the reversers stow.
An maybe it is flown by a lot of P2F and low experienced pilots? I flew with one of our new, low hour pilots. Flying is so easy, he said. Well, yes, AP B CMD, push som buttons, and you can fly from A to B in LNAV/VNAV. Easy!
But landing 60 something tons of 737 on a contaminated runway in adverse weather conditions is a difficult as it always has been.
The flat attitude on approach with the -800 make it very easy to end up high when you get close to the runway. The tendency is to raise the nose a bit to get into a more familiar «nose high»attitude. I still do this from time to time and need to maintain forward pressure to get back on profile.
I am never shy about using AB 3 on a dry runway, or max on a contaminated runway.
I also fly -700. Easy aircraft compared to the -800.
I treat the -800 with the respect it deserves and have never had any close calls, despite flying it into some really interesting places with limited runway lengths and bad weather.
Why? I has a high approach speed. You need to land it where it is supposed to be landed, at the correct speed, or it will eat runway like few other aircraft. Under adverse conditions you need to maintain positive stopping efford all the way until it stops. If you use autobrakes and disconnect them, the system will need time to start braking again if you brake manually. This is really an issue on contaminated runways.
If you use high reverse and unreverse quickly, you will get positive thrust when the reversers stow.
An maybe it is flown by a lot of P2F and low experienced pilots? I flew with one of our new, low hour pilots. Flying is so easy, he said. Well, yes, AP B CMD, push som buttons, and you can fly from A to B in LNAV/VNAV. Easy!
But landing 60 something tons of 737 on a contaminated runway in adverse weather conditions is a difficult as it always has been.
The flat attitude on approach with the -800 make it very easy to end up high when you get close to the runway. The tendency is to raise the nose a bit to get into a more familiar «nose high»attitude. I still do this from time to time and need to maintain forward pressure to get back on profile.
I am never shy about using AB 3 on a dry runway, or max on a contaminated runway.
I also fly -700. Easy aircraft compared to the -800.
I treat the -800 with the respect it deserves and have never had any close calls, despite flying it into some really interesting places with limited runway lengths and bad weather.
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 1st Sep 2018 at 20:31.
Boeing publishes a yearly statistical summary of commercial jet air carrier accidents. Link below to the 2017 publications by Boeing and by Airbus, (for 2016):
From the Boeing document:
Fleet Type........................................Hull Losses......................Hull Losses w/fatalities..................Hull Loss Accident Rate - All.....................Hull Loss Accident Rate w/fatalities
B737-300/400/500........................................50............... ......................................19.................... .................0.25....................................... .......................0.66
B737-600/700/800/900..................................15..................... ..................................7......................... ...........0.09............................................. .................0.19
Airbus A320/A319/A231/A318........................25.............................. ........................12.................................. ..0.11...................................................... ........0.23
Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2016
A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958 / 2017
From the Boeing document:
Fleet Type........................................Hull Losses......................Hull Losses w/fatalities..................Hull Loss Accident Rate - All.....................Hull Loss Accident Rate w/fatalities
B737-300/400/500........................................50............... ......................................19.................... .................0.25....................................... .......................0.66
B737-600/700/800/900..................................15..................... ..................................7......................... ...........0.09............................................. .................0.19
Airbus A320/A319/A231/A318........................25.............................. ........................12.................................. ..0.11...................................................... ........0.23
Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2016
A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958 / 2017
Last edited by PJ2; 1st Sep 2018 at 20:35.
Either way, it seems like the RFFS team did a good job.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys all this discussion about the -800 having "high approach speeds" and be prone to "getting off the runway" is just plain ridiculous. There are landing performance calculations that can be based on a 130 kt or 160 kt or 190 kt or whatever Vref it just does not matter as long as You put in the correct landing data and the landing technique is appropriate. The theory that if on a classic You f#ck up the landing You can still probably make it without veering off the runway is better left out for a pub talk please. Nonsense. Let's focus on the root causes and contributing factors and let's try to learn something beneficial for ourselves.
From the photos above and the map on AvHerald, at least 02/20 is surely usable, although on lineup for 20 the pax would get an interesting view of the remains.
Accident: UTAir B738 at Sochi on Sep 1st 2018, overran runway on landing
Re # 9 - 11. Not to drift too far from the thread, nor A vs B; the FAA doc ‘Normal Operational Landing Performance’ (http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar077.pdf) illustrates how similar aircraft can have different performance capabilities for given situations. This reinforces the need to know and understand the implications of aircraft operating performance, and how to adjust operations for different landing conditions.
Relevant to this accident might be Figs 20 / 21, ‘difference in speeds at the threshold’, “The difference in the actual speed and the reference speed over the threshold has a strong influence on the airborne distance.”
And Fig 31 ’influence of autobrake setting’, particularly if normal values for 737 are markedly different from other types, and similarly from Fig 32 for wet conditions where one aircraft type has a greater deviation from the norm.
Irrespective of the aircraft type, the weakest link may still be the human in judging the conditions and adapting for them, particularly where there are differences in safety margin; this may require more skilful judgement and knowledge, and greater adaptation from the norm in order to retain an adequate safety margin.
This view should not conclude ‘crew error’, but is an opportunity to consider the wider human factors in the event. Two previous approaches were discontinued; apparently good awareness, judgement, and decisions for the conditions, thus what factors in the third approach changed this process.
Relevant to this accident might be Figs 20 / 21, ‘difference in speeds at the threshold’, “The difference in the actual speed and the reference speed over the threshold has a strong influence on the airborne distance.”
And Fig 31 ’influence of autobrake setting’, particularly if normal values for 737 are markedly different from other types, and similarly from Fig 32 for wet conditions where one aircraft type has a greater deviation from the norm.
Irrespective of the aircraft type, the weakest link may still be the human in judging the conditions and adapting for them, particularly where there are differences in safety margin; this may require more skilful judgement and knowledge, and greater adaptation from the norm in order to retain an adequate safety margin.
This view should not conclude ‘crew error’, but is an opportunity to consider the wider human factors in the event. Two previous approaches were discontinued; apparently good awareness, judgement, and decisions for the conditions, thus what factors in the third approach changed this process.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
URSS 010000Z 23004MPS 5000 1800E R02/P3000N TSRA BKN006 OVC030CB 21/21 Q1014 WS ALL RWY R02/250350 R06/250350 NOSIG RMK R06/19004MPS QBB200 MT OBSC QFE759=
URSS 312330Z 10010G22MPS 030V140 0500 0250NW R02/1200U +TSRA VV013 19/19 Q1014 WS ALL RWY R02/250350 R06/250350 TEMPO VRB10G22MPS 0500 +TSRA BKN006 BKN020CB RMK R06/11015G24MPS MT OBSC QFE759=
The overrun happened at 2357Z
URSS 312330Z 10010G22MPS 030V140 0500 0250NW R02/1200U +TSRA VV013 19/19 Q1014 WS ALL RWY R02/250350 R06/250350 TEMPO VRB10G22MPS 0500 +TSRA BKN006 BKN020CB RMK R06/11015G24MPS MT OBSC QFE759=
The overrun happened at 2357Z
Preliminary report is out, details on AVH. In summary, repeated ignoring of windshear warnings, app speed well above vref, landed long, late T/R...
Sounds familiar from several previous accident reports.
Sounds familiar from several previous accident reports.
Last edited by andrasz; 6th Nov 2018 at 20:53.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in the Northern Hemisphere it's once again time for hoary old chestnuts:
737 runway overruns
Aaaah that warm wet sense of security with Vref+20 kts and the far end of the runway approaching even faster.........!!!
737 runway overruns
Aaaah that warm wet sense of security with Vref+20 kts and the far end of the runway approaching even faster.........!!!