Westjet runway excursion at YUL

[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!

[Eric Janson]

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?

Thanks for the clarification - I see my understanding of "On the Numbers" is different from what others understand this to mean. Apologies for any confusion.

Regarding a de-rated (or FLEX) take-off - you are correct about V1 being reached further down the runway. This is why V1 will sometimes be reduced to account for this and this is why you may see a large difference between V1 and VR on a performance chart. The important thing on any take-off is that engine-out gradients will be met. It's a huge cost saving on engine overhaul costs.

There's nothing that says I can't do a full thrust take-off if I feel conditions warrant it and in some cases it is mandatory.

I fly an aircraft that has a low power to weight ratio - initial rate of climb can be as low as 1200'/min and it's not unusual to start rotation where the centreline lights change to alternating red and white. At my previous company we'd be at 75' off the end of an 11000' runway.

With regards to landing on a long runway - I use similar techniques to what others have posted. At touchdown full reverse initially until the speed gets down below 100 knots then idle reverse. Initial use of brakes is well before the end of the runway and the speed is also around 50-60 knots. If the runway is wet or of there is a tailwind I will have autobrakes selected and will have the aircraft at low speed much earlier. I don't land and then do nothing about decelerating until the last part of the runway and I will modify things as conditions change.

Some of this is also airport specific - the long landing is something I only do at one specific airport where I do 50% of my landings and with which I am very familiar.

https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2263.pdf

The link will take you the the airbus performance book - has a lot of useful information.

[complexintentions]

Wow. So now we're using an accident with multiple fatalities as justification for ignoring manufacturer procedures. I don't even know how to argue with that level of illogic.

If the situation changes significantly...you don't necessarily fly what you planned.

Uh...yeah. Exactly. So if you're high, fast, barely in the TDZ, perhaps don't fly the approach to a landing as planned, and GO AROUND. Don't make up your own damn procedures. The WestJet flight pushed on and look where it got them.

I can't say how it's done everywhere, but in the my last couple of jobs all approaches are briefed precisely for which exit will be taken, and brake settings are set as such. The OPT clearly shows the landing distance for the prevailing conditions, and the charts clearly show the distance to the various exits - not all of which are always available to our aircraft class due to size. But it depends on correct technique, and again I ask - why are people trying to deflect from the importance of putting the airplane where you intend to?

As I mentioned, it seems there's a bit of variance on what types are being considered here. Sure, you can "get away" with more in a B737 than a B777 - it doesn't make it remotely professional.

In fact I read just the opposite in "I'll clear the runway when I'm goddam good and ready", nothing screams seasoned professional aviator quite like that. Although, I'd love to hear someone say that to Kennedy Tower, just to hear their response.

[pelmet]

.

[pelmet]

Wow. So now we're using an accident with multiple fatalities as justification for ignoring manufacturer procedures. I don't even know how to argue with that level of illogic.

You would have to give an example for people to know what on earth you are talking about. but I suspect that it comes from someone with a complete inability to even comprehend a simple statement of irony and misinterpret it as something else.

As I mentioned, it seems there's a bit of variance on what types are being considered here. Sure, you can "get away" with more in a B737 than a B777 - it doesn't make it remotely professional.

Further to my point(and already posted earlier) made about not necessarily going around if one lands in the touchdown zone, all other things being fine....

....as someone mentioned earlier, Boeing gives us guidance on when a go-around should be done. These are single issue reasons. In other words, if you have multiple issues such as also being being fast or contaminated runway or very high OAT, etc in combination, it is different. Below is one of the reasons Boeing says a go-around should be made...

"Landing cannot be made within the touchdown zone. This is defined as the first 3,000 feet (915 meters) or first third of the runway, whichever is shorter. Crews should calculate a landing distance based on current conditions and compare that distance to the runway available for every landing. Touchdown at the far end of the accepted first 3,000 feet (915 meters) or first third of the runway may not be appropriate if conditions change at the last moment during the flare or touchdown."

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 2014q2.pdf

So maybe you should call Boeing and tell them that their advice is "unprofessional".

Of course, they have the changing conditions proviso similar to what I posted on this thread more than once. In other words, don't stick to the original plan as I posted earlier(although I expand on this and say 'if conditions change even before the flare and touchdown').

And yes, your 777 example is included in this. It has very good braking on its six wheel bogies and nice individual anti-skid units for all twelve main gear wheels.

So let's consider this little discussion like our previous ones as closed

As for JFK ATC, it seems to be when the guys are on ground control that they are snarky.

[BTD]

Although I meant what I said with I'll clear the runway "when I'm goddam good and ready". I wouldn't actually say that in those words as it is incredibly unprofessional. I put it in quotes because it is a quote from TopGun.

[pelmet]

Although I meant what I said with I'll clear the runway "when I'm goddam good and ready". I wouldn't actually say that in those words as it is incredibly unprofessional. I put it in quotes because it is a quote from TopGun.

Unfortunately, some actually think that a quote like "nothing screams seasoned professional aviator quite like that" is professional. I suggest that something along the lines of "Unable for safety reasons" is the sign of a professional in RT.

We sure seem to be getting some interesting ideas on what is professional and unprofessional on this thread. Use your best judgement when it comes to this strange advice.

[crazyaviator]

Thank you Eric for your reply

"

Unable for safety reasons

AND

when I'm goddam good and ready".

are they not the same thing? one is just a little more polite than the other