Porter Runway Overrun.

[jpilot77]

https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/ai ... rt-6863536

[FL030]

The dreaded 6000' strip

[Meatservo]

The dreaded 6000' strip

The horror. When will operators stop trying to make us push the limits?

[pelmet]

C-GLQB, a Bombardier DHC-8-402, operating as Porter Airlines flight 2691, departed Billy Bishop
Toronto City Airport (CYTZ), Ontario for a night flight to Sault Ste. Marie Airport (CYAM), Ontario.
Upon arrival, the flight crew performed the RNAV approach for runway 12; however, after
touchdown the aircraft overran the end of the runway. The aircraft came to a stop about 250
beyond the end of the runway and was stuck in soft grass/mud. There were no injuries, and no
damage to the aircraft.

[The Hammer]

Weather wasn't even an issue that night. Just a wet runway.

METAR CYAM 170200Z 18004KT 5SM -SHRA BR FEW007 SCT014 BKN044 BKN058 BKN086 10/10 A2940 RMK SF1CU3CU2CU2ACC1

[pelmet]

It is a cat 3 investigation, so we will find out if the approach was stable or if there was a malfunction of some sort.

[Canoehead]

It is a cat 3 investigation, so we will find out if the approach was stable or if there was a malfunction of some sort.

Report released.

The TSB is really hung up on the use of reverse (or lack thereof). It didn't need so much spotlight. Besides the mechanical issue (I won't spoil the reading), there were some questionable decisions in the approach planning and configuration in my opinion (Approach speed and flap selection). Touching down almost half way down a 6000' runway is never a great way to do it either.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... o0046.html

[Donald]

It was also a flight with a training captain and an FO under line indoc.

Not realizing that the end of the runway was coming up until 850 feet remained?

It's an interesting report in regards to Porter SOP's though.

[pdw]

Not realizing that the end of the runway was coming up until 850 feet remained ?

Amount of distance passed by can happen without keeping a precise track of it … and here the report mentions that now many runways have 1000ft markers for that reason …

(I read in there imo that the heaviest braking evidence yes starts 850 from the end which the pic only afterwards explained to investigators was at the same moment the runway’s end lights became obvious.)

[pelmet]

Still reading the report but it is the typical overrun scenario. Wet runway, tailwind, speed faster than required. For some strange reason, they actually chose to intentionally fly at a speed significantly higher than Vref. Used partial flaps for landing instead of full flap. Landed long. Didn't use full reverse, even when it was discovered that they needed maximum braking. It appears that focus may have been more on avoiding a tailstrike than distance remaining.

Why not use full flap? Less likely to have a tailstrike and a lower approach speed(if you decide to use that speed).

[pdw]

For some strange reason, they actually chose to intentionally fly at a speed significantly higher than Vref.

That a tailquartering situation existed isn’t easily seen here with data available; yet it appears to me it may have been a significant one starting (or intermittent) somewhere within those few miles out from the threshold (and IMO similar also in the Vancouver incident of this past week). Pilots involved could maybe add airspeed values for us to have on top of each groundspeed hit, as they know exactly the airspeed values they were using … and where the approach groundspeed crept up fast in reaching the touchdownzone.

[pelmet]

Porter changed their procedures to require flaps 35 landings on runways 6000 or less. It would be interesting to know how much that reduces Vref. Still, if you choose to land significantly faster than Vref(thinking it is ok because it technically is still considered stable) in rainy conditions with a tailwind at a faster than required airspeed, the risk is increased.

I suspect they floated because of the increased approach speed but I am not sure how susceptible this type is to floating. Best to be ready to use lots of reverse as well, this option was not utilized. Max braking was used when they became aware of the runway end but due to some air in one line, was not fully effective.

[braaap Braap]

Porter changed their procedures to require flaps 35 landings on runways 6000 or less. It would be interesting to know how much that reduces Vref. Still, if you choose to land significantly faster than Vref(thinking it is ok because it technically is still considered stable) in rainy conditions with a tailwind at a faster than required airspeed, the risk is increased.

I suspect they floated because of the increased approach speed but I am not sure how susceptible this type is to floating. Best to be ready to use lots of reverse as well, this option was not utilized. Max braking was used when they became aware of the runway end but due to some air in one line, was not fully effective.

The Dash handles differently between flap 15 and flap 35. Ref differences are ~7-10 knots. As the report said, Porter culture is to add 10 knots to the ref speed for flap 15 to bring the nose down and reduce the pitch angle, or at least give more room in the flare, away from the 5 degree call. The extra distance is captured in the performance icing numbers since those are based on ref + 20 (increase ref switch on).

[pelmet]

Porter changed their procedures to require flaps 35 landings on runways 6000 or less. It would be interesting to know how much that reduces Vref. Still, if you choose to land significantly faster than Vref(thinking it is ok because it technically is still considered stable) in rainy conditions with a tailwind at a faster than required airspeed, the risk is increased.

I suspect they floated because of the increased approach speed but I am not sure how susceptible this type is to floating. Best to be ready to use lots of reverse as well, this option was not utilized. Max braking was used when they became aware of the runway end but due to some air in one line, was not fully effective.

The Dash handles differently between flap 15 and flap 35. Ref differences are ~7-10 knots. As the report said, Porter culture is to add 10 knots to the ref speed for flap 15 to bring the nose down and reduce the pitch angle, or at least give more room in the flare, away from the 5 degree call. The extra distance is captured in the performance icing numbers since those are based on ref + 20 (increase ref switch on).

That would mean that they could have been as much as 20 knots slower on approach than they were.

Sounds to me like the flap 15 with additional speed is a good Vref for long runways, maybe Ottawa or Montreal where you might have jet traffic behind you on approach and want to keep the speed up.

The TSB did not do a good job with this report as they never even discussed the decision about approach speed and landing flap selection on a contaminated runway with a tailwind.

[digits_]

Porter changed their procedures to require flaps 35 landings on runways 6000 or less. It would be interesting to know how much that reduces Vref. Still, if you choose to land significantly faster than Vref(thinking it is ok because it technically is still considered stable) in rainy conditions with a tailwind at a faster than required airspeed, the risk is increased.

I suspect they floated because of the increased approach speed but I am not sure how susceptible this type is to floating. Best to be ready to use lots of reverse as well, this option was not utilized. Max braking was used when they became aware of the runway end but due to some air in one line, was not fully effective.

The Dash handles differently between flap 15 and flap 35. Ref differences are ~7-10 knots. As the report said, Porter culture is to add 10 knots to the ref speed for flap 15 to bring the nose down and reduce the pitch angle, or at least give more room in the flare, away from the 5 degree call. The extra distance is captured in the performance icing numbers since those are based on ref + 20 (increase ref switch on).

I guess the FTU's have been on to something after all