Come on Moderators, MODERATE. Throw the muppets above off this thread.

For the professionals, see the commentary ‘Runway overruns must be addressed.’

Also, helpful information here ’Overruns on Landing’.

PEI_3721,

The incident occurred while taxiing. It was not an overrun.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/eu...ands.plane.ap/

That is just a piece of journalism I fear.

The aircraft went off the end of the Polderbaan (18R) at low speed and the nosewheel went on the grass. If that is classed as "taxiing" then so be it.

It seems to me, the runway was wet (only wet at Schiphol 6 times a year so we are told) and the aircraft was vacating at V3. For some reason, for the investigation to find out, the braking was too late and the runway too wet. A friend of mine was on board the aircraft as a passenger and apparently there was no reverse thrust until just before the incident.

Either draw your own conclusions or wait for the report to come out. Of course there is absolutely no similarity to the BCN incident in this case.

Incident took place when vacating at V4 (not V3) which is at the very end of the runway.

Any info on what the consequences could be for the crew of this airplane? Also any knowledge on what happened to the crew of the Transavia plane that slid off the runway on 25-12-1997? In this job every day could easily be your last day on the job.:{

Sleeper, V4 is not a runway vacating point for runway 18R. It is a runway entrance for 36L. If the aircraft was trying to vacate at V4 then something had seriously gone wrong as the last opportunity to vacate would normally be V3. The LDA to V3 is something like 3200m. The Polderbaan is the longest runway at Schiphol with almost 4km of concrete.

I suspect that the crew were trying to vacate ANYWHERE (even V4) if it meant they would not go off the end of this very long runway!

http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/06...AM-ADC-A2s.pdf

It is not unusual for landing aircraft to actually aim for an exit at V3 if there's no traffic behind, in view of the long taxi-times from RW18R. In this case, it seems like the crew aimed at V3, but misjudged the braking effectiveness on that part of the runway, where the rain was pooring down. (Note 1: I doubt if the tower had reported braking action being less than GOOD. Note 2: V3 is not a high-speed exit; it is a rather steep turn that has been misjudged by other crews in the past.)

Here is a photo of another aircraft, landing on another runway on that same day; more photo's of the KLM incident are also shown there. Missing V3 is inconvenient for sure, but certainly not catastrophic, as the remaining runway to V4 still offers enough room to correct such a mistake.

It appears that this crew did exactly that: given the fact that the nosewheel entered the grass by only a few feet, their taxispeed at V4 must have been perfectly normal, even cautious. (I can imagine what this crew must have experienced: a few years ago I have personally witnessed a landing in Japan from the flightdeck, where a 150 ton aircraft started to skid uncontrollably towards the grass edge when vacating the runway. That happened at a staggering groundspeed of 4 (four!) whole knots, in conditions with taxiway braking action being reported MED. Differential thrust was needed to bring that aircraft back under control before the nosewheel could enter the grass.)

In case there's still any doubt: this KLM incident bears no resemblence with the BCN and Transavia accidents, since this airplane did not skid off the runway during the landing phase. It skidded off a taxiway during the taxi phase.

Stop Stop Stop

I was just correcting a previous message.
Fact remains that the incident took place at V4.
As to the reason: That is up to the board of inquiery.
Let's hope our law enforcement (OM) stays out of this. They haven't in the past.