Red Green
 

non canadian huge Red Green fan. He is on PBS stations in the US. Keep your stick on the ice.

AIP published surface type, texture and grooving
 

In AIP Norway you will find the surface type, measured runway surface texture and grooving published.

Log on to www.ippc.no / AIS publications / AIP Norway / Current AIP Norway . Tick off I Agree and enter the AIP. The published surface type and texture are located under AD 2 Aerodromes and found under EN?? textpages para EN?? 2.12 Runway physical characteristics, remarks.

Example ENZV: Surface type D, texture depth 1.0 mm, grooved.

That's what's on the main page as I log in, so guess I'd better add my two cents here.

From reading all the posts, it seems this is an acceptable aircraft in most respects, but the runway in question isn't. So.....if the crews flying these things into this particular airport/runway under adverse conditions know the limitations, WHY continue the approach and attempted landing? Go somewhere else.

There.....hope that fulfills my obligation.

GEMBD Hannover
 

Not forgetting G-EMBD @ Hannover


JetPhotos.Net Photo » G-EMBD (CN: 145039) British Airways (CitiExpress) Embraer ERJ-145EU by Tomek Kujawa

I have some 'skiing' time logged on the Barbie too unfortunately.

Before I give my two cents, I am a huge fan of the type - it was a fantastic little aircraft. I'd happily go back to her. That said, I have just heard a noticeably large number of stories of this aircraft aqua and viscous hydroplaning.

One snowy afternoon, after touching down on-speed, and on the marks we managed to consume all of an 11,000ft runway - and a little bit more.

Some factors were against us, the runway was concrete, was NOT grooved, and was also not cleared/deiced full length due to lazy airport management.

When we touched down the viz was low, the light was dim though it was day time, and we simply didnt realise the runway actually had a film of wet slush. At speed, it just liked like concrete as we expected.

Now I grant you that these factors were against us, but several aircraft landed in front of us with no issue. For us, it was an interesting rollout....

The brake system was mentioned earlier, after my incident I trawled the books. There is a 3 second pause following WOW activation before the brakes will bite - this allows the wheels to spin up, and also ignores any unintended brake application at touchdown.

The anti-skid uses an average speed of all 4 main wheels as a datum, deviation from this will command either a reduction or increase in brake effort on that wheel. If the average speed signal is lost (i.e. all 4 wheels lock), the anti-skid will no longer function. You must fully release, and then reapply the brakes. Use of the Emerg/Park brake bypasses anti-skid and can apply full system pressure to the brake units (3000psi), this will lock the wheels - drop the spoilers etc... Lastly, below 10ish kts the anti-skid will not function.

Report out
 

Report is out:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A10H0004

Thanks for the heads up notfred.

This investigation is taking wet runways seriously. All the elements of macrotexture, drainage, crossfall and friction are considered. The use of grooving in Canada is introduced. RESAs are being considered. Good to see.

Touchdown Point
 

Note the biggest single factor in the Emb -145 overrun above and also the Hannover overrun was failure to touchdown at the 300 m point ,I.e the fixed distance marking on most runways. In both cases above the landing was at almost double that distance. Good practice to land at 300 m every time, unless a good reason not to. Not enough emphasise generally on this,in my experience.

Good report.

It would have been easy to simply concentrate on the inappropriate configuration for a wet runway landing, but the investigators have taken it upon themselves to take a overview of all issues connected with landing on wet runways in Canada.

Not sure I agree completely. If one follows the glideslope/PAPI just until one starts the flare then by definition touchdown will not occur at the 300m point. The touchdown zone is just that. A zone and not a point.

On a 10.000ft (3000m) runway (haven't looked up the numbers) I don't see how touching down 2000ft (600m) past the threshold would be "the biggest single factor" in a runway overrrun when landing distance factors of 1.67 or 1.92 were used to determine required landing field lenght.

Touchdown Point
 

Landing performance on the Emb-145 and i,m guessing on a B737 and any a/c assumes a touchdown at the correct point for that particular airfield, i.e 300m in generally-fixed distance markings. If you land beyond this point you compromise the calculations. On a 3000m runway, practically it makes not much difference, apart from heating the brakes up too much with a flap 22 landing (standard these days if performance allows). Unfortunately to make the 300m point in a barbie jet the technique is more akin to a T/P aircraft, get low over the fence and drag it in. Not text book but reduces the risk significantly of ever running off the end. PAPIS and glideslope to touchdown works far better and is essentially set up for proper medium sized aircraft e.g 737. Conversley a very large aircraft e.g B747 would look to land beyond 300m so the main gear touches at 300m. See "Handling the Big Jets' for technique.

And the Indonesians get rubbished for less :ugh:

Overruns
 

I refer to my earlier posts. I think this is a training problem as well as line pilots accepting long landings. I see new and inexperienced and some experienced pilots landing long continually and because its a "greaser" they consider this a good landing. Admittedly most of the time it's on long runways, but never the less bad practice and on limiting runways potentially disastrous.