Delta Incident at Savannah, GA
 

Another mishap for Delta - thankfully stopped in the nick of time!

Weather causes landing problems for Delta's ATL-Savannah flight | ajc.com

Not news worthy at all.

Aviophage re “Not news worthy at all.”
So ”Flight 339 landed "long" or past the point it could turn and taxi back to the airport, … There was heavy rain around Savannah as the plane tried to land.”
.. why is this not of interest?

What about the landing distance safety margin.

Why was the entire landing distance used? Was the runway limiting, if not then more distance might have been used than allowed by the performance data … why?
At least there should be some explanation as this might help others avoid similar circumstances and help improve flight safety in an operational area suffering many overrun incidents.

Oh please. Putting scary quotes around "tug" and "long" leaves me a-shaking in my boots. Oh noes! Run for the hills everyone! :rolleyes:

In the context of the unusually high number of landing incidents in the last few weeks/months around the world, especially when marginal weather is involved, I would say this is very newsworthy.

I absoluteley agree with Doors to Automatic !

Runway Excursion is the new number 1 in the accident statistics. I am very interested in what happened and why.

Nic

edit:
Now this is so ignorant, it makes me shudder. Had there not been some stopway but a ravine, it could and would have ended like Mangalore!
They overshot, and at about 4/5th of the airports I fly into that means disaster!

The first question should be:
Did they land deep (why no go-around) or did they have some kind of braking problem such as aquaplaning or no reverse thrust.

There will be lessons to be learned but at the moment there is no real information.

Even before the first question; what was briefed, what was the plan, what information did the crew have about the conditions, what was considered in the decision to land, what performance information was supplied?

Could this be an example where FAA advice to use a minimum factor of 1.15 for the pre landing check provides insufficient distance margin for inaccurate runway condition information?

TAG, I hope that pilots consider aquaplaning a ‘hazard’ requiring ‘what-if’ forethought and mitigation, opposed to considering it as a braking problem or failure.
Similarly failure of reverse, if not used in the certificated landing distance, should not contribute to this result.

I was criticizing the techniques the paper used to sensationalize the incident not the incident itself. :oh:

More scare tactics. You work for the press, don't you?:mad:

The crew used the runway that was available to them; that's what it's there for.

Bravo MB.

Just to clarify, the safety margin for landing and rollout can be compromised. To the extent of it being compromised is then an issue. In this case, the aircraft never experienced a runway excursion and simply required tug assistance to help taxi it back to the gate.

For those who fly out of Luton in heavies in a bit of miserable weather, surely you've used tug assistance before (either due to missing A1 turn off rwy 08 landing or B1 turn off rwy 26 landing).

Like I've already stated, this is NOT news worthy whatsoever.

Ok, I just looked at the airport on google earth and found that all RWY ends are connected with taxiways, not so the displaced thresholds. These are not taken into account when calculating landing distance, but maybe used for takeoff performance as stopway/clearway.
I do keep up my opinion that mere luck kept this from turning into an accident. It is definetley an incident. The aircraft overshot LDA, assumably in bad weather.
So I am interested in wether it happened due to a long landing, hydroplaning, ungrooved RWY,... And I would like to know what kind of information the airport passed on to the crew during approach.

Nic

This aircraft did NOT stop within the available runway, which ends either at the end of the threshold or the displaced part. It stopped within the over-run area (or stopway) which is not considered part of the runway.

To see the difference look at figure 2-3-6 here: Section 3

There is an important distinction in that one part of the runway is used in landing calculations and the other isn't.

This crew was lucky - had they been somewhere like Chicago Midway and travelling a few knots faster the outcome could have been a lot different.

once again ...
 

this is a wait and see.

@ DTA I see the relevence in flight safety and awareness terms, the airport that comes immediately to mind from personal experience is LCY.
Unless the performance calculation / aircraft handling / servicability was compromised, the aircraft should have been able to stop within the calculated distance, if not why not seems a fair question.

If one was to delay the arrival of a flight, and the subsequent departure by 35 minutes because of such an incident, one might consider filing an occurance report perhaps ? it would go some way to explaining to interested parties an additional tug fee appearing on a handling invoice, and why an active runway was not available for use during recovery.

It would also make life less awkward when ATC's version of events is brought to the attention of the CP/FM/DFO.

Presumably, this will be the chain of events which will supercede the account given by the press, which quite correctly is viewed with initial scepticism.

So what you telling me is that a safely feature of the airport worked as intended.

More breaking news at 11:ugh:

Of course it's a fair question. But is it a newsworthy question? I think not.

perhaps you should read the last line eh ? chook

I thought that the DC9 was capable of reversing using the Buckets, may have been then that they did have a reverser problem.

erm what ?
 

so run out of runway, pop the buckets and back up while nobody is looking ? ah so that's what they are for .. I always wondered :ugh:

”The crew used the runway that was available to them; that's what it's there for.” (#9)
”… the safety margin for landing and rollout can be compromised. To the extent of it being compromised is then an issue.” (#10)

The issue is how the available length is viewed and then used by the crew – what is the extent of the compromise.
If a crew’s attitude is to use all the distance available then there is no margin for any unplanned occurrence during the landing – high risk.
Alternatively if some of the safety margin is used by applying less than maximum brake, but more than that needed to avoid using all of the length, then some of the safety margin remains – lower risk.

Whatever strategy this crew used for the landing, the result was not was not as planned. Furthermore it would be reasonable to assume that for the latter part of the landing the crew were not in control of the situation – ever had that feeling that the aircraft will only stop when it wants to stop.

As a minimum, the crew and operator should ask why the situation occurred; this still may warrant a formal inquiry. There could be valuable lessons to be learnt, for them and others.

If the ‘non newsworthy’ contributors are suggesting that this thread should be posted in safety, OK, but if the suggestion is that there is no interest, then IMHO this represents a poor attitude to the safety aspects of Pprune – information exchange and an opportunity to gain experience, even from the misfortunes of others.

“… a safely feature of the airport worked as intended.” (#14),
but why was the safety feature used?
“… only surpassed the normal safety zone of the runway. “ from this report.

An indication of the weather at the time of landing, approx 1215.
Which runway was used – 28?

I was refering to a paragraph from the news report in the first posting and wasn't suggesting that they pop the buckets and back up while nobody is looking, as you sarcastically claim but it could have been an option if available and approved. I'm pretty sure that the tug would have backed them up.

from the weather report ...
 

the option of sitting in the hold for 20 minutes, or perhaps slowing down during descent to let the "Heavy Thunderstorm / Rain" move elsewhere could also have come into the equasion ? I have yet to see " you must land in a TS" in the FCOM.