BACX E145 off rwy @ HAJ
 

rumour has it a BACX e145 (G-EMBD) has come off the rwy at HAJ, after having braking difficulty on a wet runway....

anyone got more info?

just made it into the online media. Embraer 145 overshoot on the wet runway, 49 people evacuated, seems noone was injured.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,369758,00.html

Thats in German for everybody else that plans to click on the above link

BBC Story is also available here

Jordan

Wasnt going to post here but, as usual, the media have got it wrong. To stop people diving down the wrong bunny hole... the problem is less of a "downpour" / pilot error issue more of a total system failure issue. Shouldnt be too long before the facts come out. The bit they did get right was that everyone is OK.

Presumably you're hinting at a total brake failure as the BACX Embraers don't have reversers fitted?

Glad to see everyone got off, although I have to say if I was sitting by the overwing exit I would have opend it!

Why? Aircraft is upright on its wheels. I'd take the steps, thanks. ;)

I understand that a BA 757 encountered a slippy runway at FRA on Sunday evening.

I imagine lots of aircraft encountered slippery runways in Europe on Sunday. Where's the news?

MR

I didnt say I would have got out of it, but I would have opened it just in case. :ok:

Embraer 145 overrun at Hanover
 

Can anyone tell me why it overran? Was on the 14th of August, but can't find anything about it here

Farrell

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/open.file?i...=907552&size=L

God I\'m such a T@SSER! - thanks!

For sure the runway was not long enough

Surprising lack of take-up on that comment. I'll admit I've no idea if BACX have reversers fitted, though.

Often looked at the shirt-button tyres on the 145, added to which the phenominal approach speed and considered that not having reversers really is asking for the inevitable. Maybe not applicable here. But if it is, then it warrants discussion, IMHO.

Why no thrust reversers? Cost, weight penalty maybe?

Certainly a cost/weight penalty.

Also they can't be taken into account for performance calculations so runway has to be long enough to land without them regardless.

Carbon brakes on the ERJ wear far less when hot so one is supposed to brake v.firmly anyway to reduce brake wear. Thrust reversers leading to light brake application will therefore actually increase this brake wear.

All in all a no win situation (Unless the brakes fail, along with the accumulator pressure and the emergency/parking brakes too - but then why stop there, why not have parachutes and anchors in case the reversers fail.....:} )

Ropey,

can you get a quote on your statement on brake wear for EMB 145 (I presume the same is on 140, 135)?

I can not bet my life on it but a combination of loads from thrust reverser + light breaking is on some other a/c resulting in LESS wear on brakes.

I presume you have hands-on experience for that statement, or if not a good quote.

It seems strange, however, they opted out thrust reversers. I've never seen that been done on comparable CRJ 200 fleet (1000+ a/c).

ACBUS - No t/r on BACX 145 a/c as it adds half a tonne at the back end. This would mean we had to kick off 10% of our pax when MTOW restricted.

GRUNF - RP is right with the 145 carbon brakes they wear less when halfway up the amber band than when cold (source 145 maintenance conference)

It appears Embraer have a problem here. I understand the German AIB are investigating another 145 which overran a week or so before in similar conditions.

The aircraft will not allow "normal" pressure to be applied to the wheel brakes until the wheels are rotating at 50 knots. The 145 tyre pressure makes them prone to aquaplanning....so you can be pressing/releasing like hell and nothing happens.

The emergency brake does bypass the normal system but also bypasses the anti skid and on a dry surface is like hitting a brick wall if you apply at 10 knots...you really would not want to use it.

HAJ is built on a marsh and it has some of the worst CBs / rain showers in Germany. Apparently there had been a huge downpour just before the incident and the reports of poor braking action were not passed onto the BACX crew.

I think the thrust reverser option adds 130 kg,s per side so nearer to .25 tonne heavier which is still significant with only 21 tonnes max all up.We almost always had to carry ballast to get the c of g rearwards.The brakes are excellent if you use them as designed,and i never aquaplaned one in over 2000 hrs.The windshield wiper system is the best ive seen ,why did Boeing put those "moggy minor" ones on 73,s?
I thought (may be wrong) that the ammount of pressure used when you select the emergency brake was proportionate to the ammount you displace the lever.