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.

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

In hindsight, yes it is. I'm sure we've all landed and later on thought that perhaps we should have gone around or thought we would have gone around a second later.

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.

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.

did you all see that DELTA doesn't consider this an accident?

I also read that a prelim report will be issued within a week.

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.

EMB 170 Reversers
 

Certenly the 170 has reversers and the creww of Delta use them.

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

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.

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 have mutt!!!!;)

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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? :confused:

To my knowledge, AC 25-7A does not require slope values to be included in stopping distances.

Do certain OEM's included it anyway?

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)

"...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?

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)