Porter Airlines-Off end of Runway

[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"?

[swordfish]

Is landing at CYTZ considered "off airport"?

That all depends on your definition of what a 4000', paved surface with approach aids, approach lighting, and control is. If that's a "runway", you might as well land on IT, not that 100' at the far end.

[Cat Driver]

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,

A DC6 is way more into TC's 705 category than a Q400.....and for sure we operated them into far more difficult places than the Toronto Island Airport.

[swordfish]

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)

There was nothing "relative" or "comparative" in my post. It was a criticism of trash performance - an egotistical, absolute, categorical statement - which I am perfectly qualified and experienced enough to make. A case of the plane flying the pilot, not the other way round.

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

[Cat Driver]

he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour

As long as that does not get you aroused while you are punishing him it is O.K.

[Donald]

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

Nice...sure glad I don't work with you (7F??)



I assume you are the ultimate aviator then?

[swordfish]

Well actually it works 2 ways: if I miss the 1000' mark, he's briefed to say: "I have control"....

[TG]

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

The French have a very good saying for that:

"Enculage de mouche"

[fanspeed]

kinetic energy

Sorry if I used big words and upset your tummy.

I'm quite comfortable with physics thanks. It was the flawed idea that your little jet and a Dash had equivalent kinetic energy.

[GyvAir]

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:

(Image of jet 1/5ish the size of subject turboprop)

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 had to read that about 6 times to figure out that you weren't making a direct comparison between the L-39 and the Q400 in terms of kinetic energy on landing.

[Colonel Sanders]

you weren't making a direct comparison

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to mass - see above.

Maybe I should work on contract for TC crafting incomprehensible
questions for the written exams?

[iflyforpie]

I had to read that about 6 times to figure out that you weren't making a direct comparison between the L-39 and the Q400 in terms of kinetic energy on landing.

I only had to read it once.

The word was 'a' which could be any jet instead of 'my' or 'the jet I fly' or 'an L-39'.

The other qualifier was 'with equivalent kinetic energy' which shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out excludes the L-39.

[GyvAir]

CS: As another poster mentioned, you may have to compete with pdw for for that position.

IFP: Given the paragraph context, I hoping you'll find our initially mistaking the "a" to be referring to the jet described in the preceding two sentences forgivable.

[Colonel Sanders]

37. Which of the following is the least correct answer:

a) The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

b) Coriolis force is responsible for wind backing with
increasing altitude in the southern hemisphere.

c) None of the above.

d) All of the above.

PS I re-read "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
over the weekend. Hadn't read it in decades. What a pompous
weenie. If you can't get a PhD in Philosophy, write a self-serving
vindicating long-winded book about being tossed out of the graduate
program. No wonder 122 publishers turned it down. It's crap.

[AOW]

37. Which of the following is the least correct answer:

a) The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

b) Coriolis force is responsible for wind backing with
increasing altitude in the southern hemisphere.

c) None of the above.

d) All of the above.

d) is the least correct....

[Slats]

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

Sure, but probably not in such benign conditions on a large paved runway with approach aids and weather reporting and certainly not in an aircraft descended from a long line of STOL aircraft, and possessing all the latest trappings of wiz-bang technology designed to ensure the pilot has as easy a time as possible doing their job, including keeping it on the runway.

Under the described conditions, it doesn't seem that there could be much excuse for over-running the ample landing area. That being said, no aircraft damage, no passenger injuries...not a huge deal I suppose. Pretty embarrassing for the crew though, and rightfully so, if things were indeed as simple and benign as they appear to us armchair quarterbacks.