Scudrunners

Maybe it's time to go around?

[youtube][/youtube]

I know, I know, bad example from a [b]Bad Person[/b].  No
one lands at such a silly place.

Or do they?

[url=http://avherald.com/h?article=49ff6bcc]http://avherald.com/h?article=49ff6bcc[/url]

[quote]Eastern Air Lines B737 at New York on Oct 27th 2016

... the aircraft was on a normal approach profile descending
through 250 feet AGL at 135 knots over ground, after touch
down was still doing [b]132 knots over ground[/b] 4600 feet
past the runway threshold [b] with 2300 feet of runway
remaining[/b].[/quote]

[img width=500 height=312][/img]

Now, I'm not too bright, but how many people would try
to land a 737 on a 2300 foot runway - like at St Barts?

Why, oh why, is it such a bad idea to shove the throttles
forward and get the hell out of there?

Were either of the above aircraft on fire, or out of fuel?

The four bars won't like this, but:

[quote]KLGA 272351Z 10010G15KT[/quote]

Gosh, on runway 22 isn't that a "variable tailwind on final"
that similarly trashed a 777 recently?

Call me jaded but that sort of thing must happen all the time there.  I wonder if they have a crew there who are masters at getting overrun airplanes out of the sand in a hurry?

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4717.msg12191#msg12191 date=1477847994]
Maybe it's time to go around?

[youtube][/youtube]

I know, I know, bad example from a [b]Bad Person[/b].  No
one lands at such a silly place.

Or do they?

[url=http://avherald.com/h?article=49ff6bcc]http://avherald.com/h?article=49ff6bcc[/url]

[quote]Eastern Air Lines B737 at New York on Oct 27th 2016

... the aircraft was on a normal approach profile descending
through 250 feet AGL at 135 knots over ground, after touch
down was still doing [b]132 knots over ground[/b] 4600 feet
past the runway threshold [b] with 2300 feet of runway
remaining[/b].[/quote]

[img width=500 height=312][/img]

Now, I'm not too bright, but how many people would try
to land a 737 on a 2300 foot runway - like at St Barts?

Why, oh why, is it such a bad idea to shove the throttles
forward and get the hell out of there?

Were either of the above aircraft on fire, or out of fuel?

The four bars won't like this, but:

[quote]KLGA 272351Z 10010G15KT[/quote]

Gosh, on runway 22 isn't that a "variable tailwind on final"
that similarly trashed a 777 recently?
[/quote]


Just curious if that was the entire Metar for that time. I read there was some heavy rain as well which rather changes the story, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps,  Hydroplaning.  Also read the temperature cold enough to be conducive to a wet ice type of condition on the runway.


Corrrect me factually if wrong but I think there is more to this story than an idiot 4 bars. I wonder if true how comfortably  one could land an L-39 in indentical conditions for that matter -- heavy rain, semi frozen, night, slight tailwind, 6000 foot runway.


Let's see the entire METAR -- not just the wind, then go after the pilot.

I never ever could understand the mindset of the people who I used to watch land in Nanaimo, my hangar was on the south end of the runway and almost every time a Navajo or Cessna 400 series airplane landed they did not touch down until past the 1000 foot markers where the approach slope lights were.


Then they would pound on the brakes trying to get slow enough to turn off at the taxiway at the north end.


When I would ask them why they did not touch down just inside the start of the runway and use the thousand feet they just flew over they said the rules said they had to touch down at the place the slope lights were located.


For sure the IQ requirements to be a commercial pilot are not very high.

Chuck,


Article says they were doing 132 knots GS after 4600 feet.  Doesn't in any way implied they hadn't touched down way, way before that.


Facts strongly imply hydroplaning. 


Question if runway iced over / and they got a lousy RSC report from tower or prior arrival, (calling it Good) touch down, no braking effectiveness, do they get a break at all? Short runway. Blow a go around and its fatal.


I'm as hard as the next guy on poor decisions ect.  Not sure that's the case here, and for sure is a little different than the Asiana accident.

Santos Dumont airport in Rio is 4300 feet long and is used regularly by Boeing 737's.


I flew out of Santos Dumont many times and believe me it can rain there.



Poor weather and or wet runways is not an excuse for two pilots to land 4600 feet down a runway and run off the end...period.

Rookie,


Do you normally touch down 4600' from the threshold?   


I wonder if their ILS suddenly "broke" on shortfinal.. or maybe, just maybe,, they just plan suck..

Maersk Airlines in the early 80's operated 737 out of the Faroe Islands at 1250 meters in length (approx 4000') on a scheduled basis. I'm sure that no pilot at that time didn't duck the glide path a little. I know I would. To land that far down the runway is a total brain fart. Yes downwind and a wet runway but the cardinal rule is hit the target. Doing this sometimes turns a landing into an arrival but that is what needs to be done to stop safely. They would have been light. I'm thinking someone was going for the greaser and was carrying a little thrust. After operating at max landing weights onto 6000 feet in the dark in a 727 getting into a 737 was like going back to a super cub. Full flap and chop the thrust and 5000 feet is not an issue, even slippery runways, especially at light weights. They fucked up and should have got out of there. Hanging on for the ride and hoping for the best is just stupid. Damn 

[quote]They fucked up[/quote]

I don't fault them for getting themselves into the
position of going 132 knots with 2300 feet remaining.
People make mistakes.  It happens.


[quote]... and should have got out of there[/quote]

This is what pisses me off - trying to push a really
bad situation to save face and avoid a go-around.

That's the really shitty decision, even if they wear
very bleached white shirts with braided gold bars.

I'll bet that 737 had burned off fuel and was light
as hell and could have climbed vertically at the end
of the runway if either of the button-pushers had
the courage to simply jam the levers all the way
forward. 

There is simply no way that the harrumphing
four-bars can claim that a go-around was
"not an option".

[b]IT'S ALWAYS A FUCKING OPTION[/b] - unless you're
on fire, or completely out of fuel, in which case
you're just choosing the best place to crash, as
gently as possible.


[quote]Maersk[/quote]

Hey!  That's an old customer of mine.  I made an
awful lot of money, from them, even if I'm a really
stupid engineer and a crappy pilot.  Good times.

[quote]how comfortably one could land an L-39 in identical conditions[/quote]

Beats me.  With 125 knots Vref, I am comfortable with 4000 feet
at sea level, and if I do it right, I can stop in around 3000 feet.

[url= where I normally touch down[/url]

Note how gentle I am in the braking - as if I was on a wet
or icy runway - because I have to do the brake job myself. 
I don't abuse hardware like a four-bars.  I don't have reverse
thrust, either.

But I'm willing to admit that I'm a really shitty pilot compared
to the average Canadian.  Or so I'm told.  I'm sure you could
fly an L39 far better than I.


[quote] they said the rules said they had to touch down at the place the slope lights were located[/quote]

More nonsense from TC that detracts from aviation safety.

Land long and hot like a TC Inspector, I guess, and hope
for the best.