Porter Airlines-Off end of Runway

[GyvAir]

Almost too funny. I just hope none of this is actually coming from a pilot seat.

[AOW]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Dispatch requirements ensure that a prop driven airliner can land in 70% of the LDA, so the actual landing distance calculated for that flight was (at most) 0.7*3988 = 2791.6 ft. So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem. Don't the landing distance calculations also assume max brake, but no reverse? So adding in reverse should make this a non-event.

My (marginally educated, somewhat opinionated) guess is this was a case of braking too little and too late.

[Cat Driver]

Almost too funny. I just hope none of this is actually coming from a pilot seat.

My best guess is pdw is sitting in a cubicle somewhere in the T.C. quagmire working on the new written exam questions and is casting them out to sort of give the industry a heads up on what is soon to be part of being a pilot.

[Colonel Sanders]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:



Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

[AOW]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:

Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

I'm not saying that its smart, but the regs require that the airplane be able to cross 50 ft over the threshold of a 2792' long runway at Vref and stop before the end, without the benefit of reverse, so touching down with 2788' to go shouldn't be a show stopper.

[Colonel Sanders]

touching down with 2788' to go shouldn't be a show stopper

Possibly the Jazz crew at YYB that ran off the end of a
10,000 foot runway thought the same thing

I guess the difference between me and the gold bars
crowd is that I'll still get laid if I overshoot every once
in a while.

[tbaylx]

Col Sanders.

I too happen to fly a jet off short strips (5000' gravel, but it weighs a bit more than yours and refs 120-140 ish so about even's out). Landing distance is based upon flying the glide slope to the 1000' markers and touching down. No need at all to drop below the glide slope and try and plant it on the numbers..as a matter of fact you're more likely to land short and rip the gear off trying that since it's a ways behind you and below where you sit in a nose up attitude. You can't fly a med/large jet like a twotter without getting into issues. In any modern airline with a decent training program stabilized approaches are key. There is no stigma to a go around at all. If you're floating it and going to land long, you go around, no questions asked. As long as you haven't pulled reverse the thing will spool and go around well after a touch down. I would bet that you'd use a lot less runway going around from 100 kts after touch down than trying to stop. And if the old bird that i'm flying will spool those old JT8's up and do it from low energy, then sure as hell a q400 will. No idea what performance numbers are on the Q but i bet a 4000' strip is way more than enough for that aircraft if flown on speed and on profile to a 1000' touchdown.

PDW i'm not sure if you're actually a pilot or not, but really? It doesn't matter one bit what the wind and airspeed are doing once you are on the ground..all about g/s, weight and braking after touch down. Smaller changes in wind don't make much difference in the flare either. 5 kts moving around in any direction isn't going to affect an aircraft of that size in the last few seconds. It's really very simple as Col. Sanders says...if you aren't on profile and speed and on the ground not far after the 1000' markers then you better be going around. Any aircraft that i'm aware of will do a low energy go around even after touch down quite safely, especially a turbo prop.

[altiplano]

The Q400 has more than ample power to go around low energy hot and heavy and spool up is a non issue, even with reduced np selected. Despite all the mumbo jumbo being spewed on this thread it is very capable of stopping fast without any pucker-factor even if it did touch down 500 feet long in YTZ. These guys must have been way long or forgot where the brakes were to end up down there....

[fanspeed]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:


Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

[Boreas]

These guys must have been way long or forgot where the brakes were to end up down there....

I got it from someone that was on the apron that morning that they touched-down past Foxtrot (<2000' remaining)... for what its worth...

[Colonel Sanders]

kinetic energy

Sorry if I used big words and upset your tummy.

Here is some more reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy
which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined
as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given
mass from rest to its stated velocity.

Conversely, it is also the work needed to de-celerate
a body of a given mass from it's stated velocity to rest.

Oops, used another big word. Here you go:

http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/conversely

Kinetic energy, even though there are pretty big word for
pilots, is important to understand because it is a function
of the square of velocity.

Let's take an aircraft of given mass M and approach
at 60 knots groundspeed. The amount of kinetic energy
that we will have to dissipate either via aerodynamic
braking or via heat into the brakes is:

1/2 M 60^2 = 1800M

Now, let's approach at 80 knots - groundspeed. We could
do that either by indicating 80 knots at a density altitude of
sea level - TAS increases with DA - or we could approach at
70 knots with 10 knots of tailwind. Doesn't matter:

1/2 M 80^2 = 3200M

That's an amazing 77% increase in the amount of kinetic
energy that has to be dissipated during the landing rollout.

I know kinetic energy has some big words in it, and it can
upset your tummy, but what you are doing is in fact applied
physics, so understanding a little bit about what you are doing
can keep you out of the CADORs.

[swordfish]

U-all gotta remember that Cat & I were trained & flew in the days when you had to land in the first 1000' of the runway, and be "under control" in 1/3 of it, so we got no frigging sympathy for guys who go off the end of a runway with a plane designed to go in-&-out of short spaces, reversing props, hydraulic brakes like you wouldn't believe, electronic aids up the ying-yang, and room for an overshoot.

A Q-400 going off the end of T-O Island, and a Dash-8 going off the end of Thunder Bay are totally pathetic examples of today's command....no matter how damned long - or short - the runway is.

[swordfish]

New training video for Q-400 crew: http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jul/ ... ar-437276/

from viewtopic.php?f=118&t=82841

[Cat Driver]

U-all gotta remember that Cat & I were trained & flew in the days when you had to land in the first 1000' of the runway,

You forgot to mention if we had a runway it probably was snow ploughed off the ice and the runway lights were flare pots they lit up just before we got there.....our weather info was usually what ever the guy/gal thought they could see from the village.

Winds were judged by how much blowing snow there was.



If someone had asked us about PDM...SOP's ....SMS...CADOR's and all this new age stuff we wouldn't have had the faintest idea what they were talking about.

But we understood the importance of thinking ahead and the meaning of good airmanship.

[pdw]

These guys must have been way long or forgot where the brakes were to end up down there....

I got it from someone that was on the apron that morning that they touched-down past Foxtrot (<2000' remaining)... for what its worth...

I got the PPL "decades ago", and some grass-stripping experience early on [On a day in the 172 had shifty winds approx 220V330 landing North/downslope on 1800ft (Staff's field 30nm south of CYTZ) in 29010kts [tricked me a bit and got into an overrun after the third overshoot (no veering info then).]

I discover WX info for that day/time (Wunderground) and get into figuring: "How IAS bounces to 80 knots after 65kts full flap (shortfield) over the trees into roundout ? As the bystander put it then: "but you got down in the in the first quarter" (450ft) what happened ?

[So in my own incident I see 8-10kts tailwind (invisible to me as well) followed till after clearing south-end trees and after the stretched-out flare-period (3 seconds seemed long as pitot airspeed boosted in meeting west crosswind component mid-runway) allows the old red 68 Cessna to touch soon enough I guess. But now it was too fast on airspeed and quickly I realize 3/4gross is not letting it slow on this downslope ... evident in ~ 5 seconds of still relatively high groundspeed. I have full power on again at 60knots past halfway but aircraft now is very slow to accelerate on the grass but at the same time it's also hard too to see what's left of RWY over the (small) knoll ahead. At this point I 'dread the overshoot' and pull power off [facing a reality that the ACnow skids on the green grass ... eventually over the road into the vineyard where I am somewhat lucky for high wing (it clears the posts and wire, where the only rotten endpost is downed easily by the left strut and the prop-nick fixed for $80).]

Boreas, I dropped off some aircraft painters there at the hangar a few times last year and also observed the landings one after another.

The 600ft point (widest rubber mark) would be about where commonly touching (both directions 08/26), 2 seconds more to 1000FT, and 3 to 1200 ...

The warning for veering crosswind (300V360 at 1200Z) must be a greater concern for landing short ... over there.

I understand tbaylx, the small winds are little effect to the large aircraft ... though I'm still not sure though how fast the buoyant air over the city iss actually moving overhead as it very suddenly changes westerly (for a short period) on the hour across the lake (and very strongly so toward the east) while the early morning runway direction was still landing east.

[HavaJava]

Quite possibly the most painful post I have ever read...like a train wreck I just couldn't look away.

[Cat Driver]

We have reached a new high in a deep thinking post.

[Donald]

U-all gotta remember that Cat & I BLA BLA BLA

And "U-all" gotta remember that lots of airplanes got wrecked back in the day by guys landing short, long, sideways, etc etc.

Cat, what were you taught in Toulouse when you spent some time in the 'Bus sim? Put it down on the numbers, or else go around?

[Cat Driver]

And "U-all" gotta remember that lots of airplanes got wrecked back in the day by guys landing short, long, sideways, etc etc.

Some of us didn't have those problems........however there is no doubt at all we operated under far more risky conditions flying airplanes with far less performance envelopes.

And for sure they are still wrecking lots of airplanes in today's world of flying.

Cat, what were you taught in Toulouse when you spent some time in the 'Bus sim? Put it down on the numbers, or else go around?

What does my Airbus training have to do with flying airplanes off airports?

There was no off airport training done at Airbus that I know of.

[Donald]

What does my Airbus training have to do with flying airplanes off airports?

There was no off airport training done at Airbus that I know of.

Well since you and others are on your respective soapboxes about how to operate airplanes in to short-ish runways without going off the end, I thought it would make more sense to compare airliners to airliners (and since the mighty Q-400 falls under TC's 705 subpart it would flown using the same performance calculations as an airliner), instead of DC-6's, privately operated L-39's, C-185's, DHC-6's, etc etc.

Is landing at CYTZ considered "off airport"?