EMB 170 overrun at KCLE
 

sunday an EMB 170 over ran the runway at Cleveland Ohio during a snow event.

plane appears to have landed on the shorter runway, 28, some 6017feet long...and it SLOPES DOWNHILL some 29 feet.

no injuries.

I cant understand why Embraer operate this aircraft without the use of thrust reversers for landing on contaminated surfaces:confused:

Mutt

What will happen next time
 

WHAT ARE THE ON BOARD LIBARY USE FOR.

Is it commercial pressure that the aircrarft perfomance libary is not used fully and understood?? (If this is the case could the bood figures be missinterpretated?

At least no loss of life but how many more times will this happen.

Commercial pressures plays a big part in these low cost carriers.

As so often the aircraft is operated by an airline few of its passengers will have heard of, in this case "Shuttle America".

It had a Delta Airlines DL flight number. You check in at the Delta desk and it is shown in the Delta departures. The aircraft is painted in Delta livery. The FAs wear DL uniforms. There's the Delta magazine in the seatbacks. The pax will be on DL tickets.

Yet when an accident happens it is immediately announced as a carrier nobody has heard of. To the pax it would seem a technicality that it was some different operator, as far as they are concerned it's a Delta flight.

The reversers seem to be deployed in the video clip. Are you sure you are not confusing the 170 with the 145 on which reversers are an optional extra?

I am not saying that the EMB 170 couldn't land on a 6017' runway...if anyone has the data I hope they will post it.

HOWEVER, when it is snowing and the runway slopes downhilll that much, a pilot who hasn't checked the slope of the runway (and it isn't readily available, one must compare the difference between elevation on both ends of runway, which is available) will FLARE and if not done in a way to counter the slope effect will end up floating away quite a bit of runway.

Even if the winds were more favorable for runway 28, I would have used the longer runways 24 and accepted the greater, but still safe, crosswind.

I am pretty sure the thrust reversers were used, but my computer isn't up to the task of the video clip, if anyone can post the still photo that would be nice.

Bomarc, are you implying that the pilot's in this accident didn't perhaps check the runway slope or that it would have perhaps been more prudent to use runway 24? I'm sure you appreciate that with a contaminated runway there are different crosswind limitations for aircraft. Perhaps they were not able to land on 24 because of this restriction, who knows? Doesanyone have the actual weather at the time of the accident and the runway braking coefficients?

If in terms of performance they were able to 'legally' land on runway 28, then what needs to be determined are the factor(s) for the overrun, and i'm sure no amount of 'guessing' will be able to determine that until the data from the FDR and pilot's information is analysed.

This was posted over on Flightinfo.com - in no way am I vouching for it, but one other poster said he was flying into CLE that day and this was applicable:

Huck

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 $


The information about the situation with glideslope is very interesting.

the 300 degrees at 16 knots should have been fine for runway 24, which is longer.

even with braking action as medium or fair.

do you have the operational x wind limits for the EMB?

8 minutes prior to landing a braking action with no problems was reported (whatever that means).

And your point is? It carries FAA authorisation and submits itself to the relevant safety audits. Sounds like pseudo-unionist BS to me.

Sorry you are down the wrong path. From the passengers point of view there is all the emphasis by the main carrier about their vast network, which includes their commuter affiliates. Fine, it is all being operated in a seamless manner. But when something goes wrong there is this grand distancing operation, all prepared in advance, along the "nothing to do with Delta" lines. Look this one up in the accident stats for Delta and it won't appear. Yet it was operating entirely as a Delta flight.

It's no comment on the flying aspects of the incident, but on the corporate distancing that seems to happen in these cases. Shuttle America say it was a Delta flight involved; Delta say it was a Shuttle America flight involved.

"Shuttle America say it was a Delta flight involved; Delta say it was a Shuttle America flight involved"

Both are correct.

if anyone knows the % slope LDA and contamination type or WED and the landing weight I will run the numbers but I can tell you it's well within the types capabilities except that contamination=50%guesswork+50%science and that applies to every aircraft.

I am sure the landing was "legal". Fe Hoopy and Angry fool, I am raising a question in terms of pilot knowledge of different illusions with sloping runways and their effect on landing distance. We all would aim for touchdown where the glideslope brings us or the 1000' fixed distance marks...

My point about the downslope of the runway isn't for calculating the stopping.

instead it is to warn pilots that a normal "flare" on a downsloping runway will likely result in a prolonged float and thereby reduce the runway available for stopping.

if there are any questions, I will be happy to explain further...ask yourselves if the slope is always considered in terms of the visual illusion during flare in your cockpit?

Dear Mutt, there are no limitation on the use of thrust rev. for landing. What is worth noting as regards its ops. is that the rev. must reach fully deployed position before the thrust can be increased above idle.

e flier

thanks for telling us all you can about the emb170. any other views are appreciated. what do you think happened?

The type is well capable of operating onto a 6000ft runway. In fact its landing requirement at MLW and Sea Level is 4117ft so it must have touched down late or suffered some sort of braking problem

makes for a slope of 0.5%

Fair enough. I would hope that most professional pilots are aware of these factors, especially where the gradient may be significant and have landed on these types of runway before. There are numerous airfields/runways around Europe where the same phenomenum might occur ie Zurich r/w 14, Lisbon r/w 03.

Bomarc, with reference to your point, what I believe may be of interest, is whether this crew were familiar with the airfield and in particular, this runway. The other point(s) is the 'visual perception' of landing on a snow covered runway. What effect can it have on the touchdown point? Is the tendancy to over flare or have a shallow flare if there are less visual cues due to the snow?

It may have been fast as well, thrust reversers deployed later than normal. On 'shorter' runways and in instances of snow/water reducing the braking, speed over the threshold becomes even more critical than normal.