Westjet runway excursion at YUL

[pelmet]

I have to admit that I made a reading error. I thought you meant 100 feet from the end of the touchdown zone(ie.2900' from the threshold which is frequently acceptable). The error was my fault and it was due to reading that particular post too quickly.

Thinking 2900 feet as acceptable for a Boeing scares me. As per the TSB... 1500 feet is a normal touch down point... 2900 feet is almost twice that and is not acceptable whatsoever regardless the runway length.

I fly 737s into 5000 foot gravel runways and 13,000 foot runways and everything in between. A 1000 to 1500 foot touch down point is what is acceptable.

You might remember that my answer was...it depends. Your example of what you do proves my point exactly. For a 6,000 foot runway(for which 2900' would be outside the touchdown zone by the way) is not acceptable. On a 13,000' runway...absolutely, I would continue the landing.

Would you really go-around if you were going to touchdown at 2900'(three thousand foot marker just barely visible under the nose) from the threshold on a 13,000' runway?

[FICU]

Would you really go-around if you were going to touchdown at 2900'(three thousand foot marker just barely visible under the nose) from the threshold on a 13,000' runway?

Not the point... having a mindset that a long landing is acceptable because it's a long runway is. In a King Air with a briefing to the PM you are going to land long on 18 in Winnipeg because you are exiting at the end is fine. In a Boeing it is not.

As for the incident... A fast approach and once the AP was disengaged the flight path resulted in a long/fast landing and then relying on minimum autobrakes and idle reverse on a very wet runway. Stowing the speed brakes above 100 kts boggles my mind unless it was for the sole purpose of disarming the autobrakes, which still boggles my mind, but then not using manual brakes immediately...? Poor visibility may have led the PM to not realize where he was on the runway or how fast he was decelerating.

[pelmet]

Your incident comments seem quite reasonable along with your desire for touchdown at 1000 to 1500'. But.....

Your F/O screwed up and didn't do as you asked and you are now going to touch down 2900 feet into the 13000' runway. Would you really go-around if you were going to touchdown at 2900'(three thousand foot marker just barely visible under the nose) from the threshold on a nice 13,000' runway? This is a quite likely event coming up in your career like most of us. Not answering the question answers the question. You aren't going around.

[crazyaviator]

at a speed of 103 kt., with 4,940 ft. of runway remaining, the PF manually stowed the speedbrakes, which disarmed the autobrakes. Nine seconds later, at 1458:17, the PF applied manual braking; the speed was 92 kt., with 3,320 ft. of runway remaining.

With over half the runway behind them, on a slippery wet runway, knowing their was a tailwind and knowing they were a little high and long,,,,, They waited NINE SECONDS to apply braking. Whatever happened to ASSURING you will stop on the available runway BEFORE catering to unimportant matters like stowing speed-brakes and being a cowboy and gliding to the end of the runway at just the perfect speed?

[crazyaviator]

A good landing from a passenger perspective is one that touches down on the numbers AND the pilot uses everything he has ( within reason) to get the plane to taxi speed. High speed on any runway is an UNNATURAL environment for an airplane just as a highly de-rated takeoff thrust is just asking for problems! There are a thousand more things that could go wrong with high speed floats along a runway than a taxi along the same runway!

[crazyaviator]

Thinking 2900 feet as acceptable for a Boeing scares me. As per the TSB... 1500 feet is a normal touch down point... 2900 feet is almost twice that and is not acceptable whatsoever regardless the runway length.

I fly 737s into 5000 foot gravel runways and 13,000 foot runways and everything in between. A 1000 to 1500 foot touch down point is what is acceptable.

Totally agree, This complacent attitude about oh, its a little high and fast,, no worries, and oh, we have lots of runway left,, and oh I'm sure we will have good braking action later on, we don't need high thrust reverse or speed-brakes, finally crept up and BIT THEM in the arse.

Did EITHER pilot know that stowing speed brakes would disarm the auto-brakes? and why the hell would you need to touch them while on the runway? Is this a cowboy move?

[Rockie]

Did EITHER pilot know that stowing speed brakes would disarm the auto-brakes? and why the hell would you need to touch them while on the runway? Is this a cowboy move?

Moving the speed brake lever up slightly is a common method of disengaging the auto brakes on a Boeing. Doing so would be normal once stopping is assured especially when clearing at the end as is usual on that runway. Actually stowing the speed brakes is not required, usually the lever is moved down just enough to disengage the auto brake then moved right back up to retain maximum brake efficiency. I don't know why they would stow them, or why they would do so at 100 knots.

There is a balancing act between ensuring you can safely clear the runway where you want or are directed to, and minimizing your time on the runway. Runway occupancy times are an issue at major airports.

[pelmet]

This is about mindset and the fact you think landing a Boeing 2550 feet down the runway is ok because it is in the AIM defined touchdown zone.

Their touchdown point was slightly outside of the parameter of what credible sources would call a successful touchdown point for that particular runway ie; 2500'. It was other factors such as airspeed selection and decelerating action that caused the overrun. That being said, an earlier touchdown would have given them more margin.

[tailgunner]

We should also remember that the final 3000 feet of the landing runway is the touchdown zone heading the other way. There is a large amount of rubber deposits within that area. If it was warm out and with a little water, that area becomes as slippery as shit through a goose. Landing on that runway, I always ask the FO to be at a safe speed before we hit the opposite touchdown zone. It adds a few seconds to our runway vacancy time, but it helps to ensure that we can stay on the pavement and not 4x4 through the grass.
My two cents.

[pelmet]

This is about mindset and the fact you think landing a Boeing 2550 feet down the runway is ok because it is in the AIM defined touchdown zone.

Their touchdown point was slightly outside of the parameter of what credible sources would call a successful touchdown point for that particular runway ie; 2500'.

Expanding on what I previously posted....Airbus considers one of the definitions of a successful autoland(Boeing says similar for some models even though performance is calculated at 1500'), something that likely happens quite frequently as...."mainwheel touchdown occurs between 150m (500ft) and 750m (2500ft) from runway threshold, assuming a normal GS antenna location"

https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1480.pdf (see page 86).

So the guys were only 50 feet further than a successful landing yet the TSB(among others) seems to be re-defining what the appropriate touchdown zone is. This could have been the touchdown point(almost as it was 50 feet further) of a successful landing in very low vis weather. Would the TSB have made the same criticism if an automatic landing at this touchdown point was made? 1500 feet is preferred but there was plenty of room to stop.

[complexintentions]

pelmet, you sure do know a lot about airplanes you don't fly.

If my FO was getting right up to the edge of a 3,000 ft TDZ, hell yeah we'd be going around. On a 13,000 ft runway, let along a 9,600 ft one.

And then I'd be taking control for the next approach/landing. There would probably be a friendly chat at the gate as to why. Our calculated performance is based on landing in the centre of the zone, not the very edge of it. Sure, we could probably stop, but I'm not paid for "probably".

If you can't put it on the numbers, try again, or go home. A contaminated runway isn't the place to be 20 knots fast, high, long, and then casual about braking. It's every risk factor in one approach. Debate ICAO definitions all you want, the results of what happen when you fly like that are self-evident.

[Eric Janson]

A good landing from a passenger perspective is one that touches down on the numbers AND the pilot uses everything he has ( within reason) to get the plane to taxi speed. High speed on any runway is an UNNATURAL environment for an airplane just as a highly de-rated takeoff thrust is just asking for problems! There are a thousand more things that could go wrong with high speed floats along a runway than a taxi along the same runway!

Large jets are not landed 'on the numbers' - they are landed where the PAPI or glideslope intersects the runway which is normally about 1000' from the threshold. Due to the large eye-to-wheel height (34 feet on my aircraft - the wheels are 34 feet lower than my eye height) trying to land on the numbers is a good way to hit the approach lights.

Performance calculations take this into account.

There is nothing wrong with letting an aircraft roll to the end of a long runway - I do it all the time. Don't touch the brakes until around 50 knots. When you are dealing with outside air temperatures of 45C keeping the brakes cool is an important consideration.

I always do de-rated (Flex temp) take-offs if conditions allow. It's also company policy. Did one a few days ago at 274,000kg (MTOW is 275,000). It saves wear on the engines. On every take-off we have gradients that need to be met and these are still met with the reduced thrust. Maximum thrust remains available at all times should it be needed for any reason. The airbus FCTM specifically cautions about selecting max thrust after an engine failure due to potential handling issues.

[pelmet]

pelmet, you sure do know a lot about airplanes you don't fly.

If my FO was getting right up to the edge of a 3,000 ft TDZ, hell yeah we'd be going around. On a 13,000 ft runway, let along a 9,600 ft one.

And then I'd be taking control for the next approach/landing. There would probably be a friendly chat at the gate as to why. Our calculated performance is based on landing in the centre of the zone, not the very edge of it. Sure, we could probably stop, but I'm not paid for "probably".

If you can't put it on the numbers, try again, or go home. A contaminated runway isn't the place to be 20 knots fast, high, long, and then casual about braking. It's every risk factor in one approach. Debate ICAO definitions all you want, the results of what happen when you fly like that are self-evident.

Of course, that is your prerogative, but, I have to admit that I find it rather amusing when I hear these pilots stating 'hell yeah, I would go-around" when faced with a situation of touching down in the far end of the touchdown zone with only 10000 feet of runway left, and then go out the next day having no problem touching down under the exact same coditions and setup at the 1500 foot point on a 9000' foot runway and figuring that it is somehow safer based on touchdown point(only 7500 feet left).

I must know what I am talking about because I have practiced this a lot on my simulator downstairs by the way. Hell yeah.

[crazyaviator]

Perhaps I was misunderstood, by the numbers I meant where the A/C should touch down based upon NPA/ILS and SOP criteria not the actual heading numbers on the runway!

With re-rated thrust, will your decision speed be farther down the runway and therefore have less stopping distance if all hell breaks loose. Would it not be better to have full thrust until airborne, then auto de-rate for the climb out ?

With respect to braking, use of reverse and lift reducing devices,, Would it not be more prudent to use all available devices to get the A/C to a speed that is manageable if all hell breaks loose? Why wait to the end of the runway to find out if your brakes work?

[confusedalot]

We should also remember that the final 3000 feet of the landing runway is the touchdown zone heading the other way. There is a large amount of rubber deposits within that area. If it was warm out and with a little water, that area becomes as slippery as shit through a goose. Landing on that runway, I always ask the FO to be at a safe speed before we hit the opposite touchdown zone. It adds a few seconds to our runway vacancy time, but it helps to ensure that we can stay on the pavement and not 4x4 through the grass.
My two cents.

For you boys and girls that have never actually done the job, this is by far the most appropriate response to the subject.

That rubber is like clear ice with water on top. Have slipped on it under those conditions at 10 KTS.

[complexintentions]

Sorry, I didn't realize I had to spell it out so plainly.

For the overly pedantic, perhaps I should clarify as well that "on the numbers" means BY THE NUMBERS, i.e. the performance numbers, that assume on speed, 50' above the threshold, in the TDZ, and appropriate use of spoilers, reversers, and brakes. Fail to comply with any of these, and you are negating your performance calculations. Can you get away with it? Sure. Usually. There are large margins built into landing data, but relying on them to save your ass isn't my idea of a competent pilot.

But fail to comply with ALL of them? I guess we'll be reading about you on AvCanada too.

Eric, of course there's nothing wrong with rolling to the end of the runway, if that's what the brief was, the performance predicated on, and cleared by ATC. After years of operating in the desert constantly at MTOM and MLM I'm quite familiar with brake energy management. But this is the overriding principle that pelmet doesn't seem to grasp: you fly what you plan and brief, or you throw the approach away and do it again.

Of course, that is your prerogative, but, I have to admit that I find it rather amusing when I hear these pilots stating 'hell yeah, I would go-around" when faced with a situation of touching down in the far end of the touchdown zone with only 10000 feet of runway left, and then go out the next day having no problem touching down under the exact same coditions and setup at the 1500 foot point on a 9000' foot runway and figuring that it is somehow safer based on touchdown point(only 7500 feet left).

You just don't get it. The touchdown point absolutely IS related to the safety of the landing. In small aircraft, of course there are far larger margins than in larger, heavier aircraft but that doesn't excuse a complacent mindset. If you're that close to the end of the TDZ, and you're not 100% certain you're going to be in it, or actually are outside it, you go around. Not just assume that you have "X number of feet left so everything will be fine". It has nothing to do with the length of the runway. It's just totally unprofessional, throwing your landing performance calculations out the window. I think we may have quite different perspectives based on the equipment we fly. You probably wouldn't find it quite so amusing, watching an FO float along at 153kts at MLM, waiting and hoping they'll find the end of the TDZ, trying not to subconsciously nudge the controls. Incidentally, do you know what the absolute latest point is at which a go-around can be initiated?

It all raises the question, why are you unable to land where you intend, and why justify poor flying ability?

As you say, it's your prerogative. But if I can't land according to Boeing's guidance I think I'll try again. That's just me, I guess.

[pelmet]

Eric, of course there's nothing wrong with rolling to the end of the runway, if that's what the brief was, the performance predicated on, and cleared by ATC. After years of operating in the desert constantly at MTOM and MLM I'm quite familiar with brake energy management. But this is the overriding principle that pelmet doesn't seem to grasp: you fly what you plan and brief, or you throw the approach away and do it again.

Well that's interesting. You always fly what you plan and brief. It seems to me more like you are the one that doesn't get it. What I've been saying is the obvious....if the situation changes significantly...you don't necessarily fly what you planned. That is the dangerous mindset and that exactly why these guys went off the end of the runway. I suggest that you read my first post here that said....

Best to change plans when the heavy rain starts falling. If you are going to continue and land in the heavy rain...change to max autobrake and max reverse and spoiler retraction upon exiting onto the taxiway. And grooved runways don't guarantee good braking action in heavy rain. Disengaging autobrake with your feet might be a better idea as well to hopefully be more immediately aware of the braking action.

As for your statement....

You just don't get it. The touchdown point absolutely IS related to the safety of the landing. In small aircraft, of course there are far larger margins than in larger, heavier aircraft but that doesn't excuse a complacent mindset. If you're that close to the end of the TDZ, and you're not 100% certain you're going to be in it, or actually are outside it, you go around. Not just assume that you have "X number of feet left so everything will be fine". It has nothing to do with the length of the runway. It's just totally unprofessional, throwing your landing performance calculations out the window. I think we may have quite different perspectives based on the equipment we fly. You probably wouldn't find it quite so amusing, watching an FO float along at 153kts at MLM, waiting and hoping they'll find the end of the TDZ, trying not to subconsciously nudge the controls.

As you say, it's your prerogative. But if I can't land according to Boeing's guidance I think I'll try again. That's just me, I guess.

I don't think anything has changed what I said for most cases under normal conditions(excluding extreme cases). Each situation is different of course. You will be just fine on a nice day on your 13000' runway. You might just want to try nudging the control column forward slightly like you said you resisted doing. It works well on many jet types big and small. But feel free to go-around in a 737, even on Denver's 16000 foot runway. It just seems to get more and more extreme with some people. It probably starts with very good technique such as on 5000 foot runways like YCB and continues up to longer and longer runways which is just fine to a point. But next thing you know, your F/O doesn't plant the 737(which is the aircraft we are talking about) on at the 1500 point(but touches down in the touchdown zone) on a 13000 foot runway and that same person is saying that the PIC is dangerous if there is no go-around. Sorry but give me a break.

Anyways, we went off on a tangent simply because I posted that the pilot in YUL did land in the touchdown zone which he did(despite a claim to the contrary by someone who should know better) and the landing performance did give him plenty of room to stop using normal deceleration actions. All that needed to be done is not what you say of sticking to the original plan but changing plans whether it is waiting out the weather or if deciding to continue, maximize your deceleration capabilities and in this extreme case of heavy rain, touching down on speed and not floating. Not so easy in a thunderstorm which may be why you want to wait out the weather.

[pelmet]

Incidentally, do you know what the absolute latest point is at which a go-around can be initiated?

Ask the snowplow driver at the Cranbrook Airport. He is alive because there was no guidance about it back in '78.

[BTD]

Incidentally, do you know what the absolute latest point is at which a go-around can be initiated?

Ask the snowplow driver at the Cranbrook Airport. He is alive because there was no guidance about it back in '78.

It's hard to tell if you are against the guidance about going around after reverse selection or if you are just trying to be cryptic. I suppose text doesn't convey that well.

However, if the pilots in cranbrook had followed our current guidance the snowplow may or may not have been hit, the driver may or may not have been killed, but likely a significant number if not all of the 42 deaths wouldn't have occurred.

As a comment, I maintain current deceleration rates right down to around 50 kts even on a dry runway. If I need to coast along, I'll do it at that speed not 100+kts. I'll clear the runway "when I'm goddam good and ready".

[crazyaviator]

As a comment, I maintain current deceleration rates right down to around 50 kts even on a dry runway. If I need to coast along, I'll do it at that speed not 100+kts. I'll clear the runway "when I'm goddam good and ready".

Common sense !! Bravo!