The 737 and 757 are the two Boeings that I have not flown. I vaguely recall an old overrun incident involving a 737 that was a combination of a gentle touchdown on a wet runway. The airplane skated on the water surface which prevented the wheels from spinning up which stopped the spoilers from popping up and also prevented the crews from getting reverse thrust. All safeguards put in place to prevent inadvertent deployment in flight. No braking due to hydroplaning and no reverse, pretty much along for the slide at that point which makes a go around look more and more like a good idea. The issue is that crew has already selected reverse thrust( even though it won't happen) and, as mentioned in a previous post, there is a prohibition in the 737 FOM that a go-around is no longer an option after reverse thrust is selected.
Incidentally, that prohibition was a direct result of a crash in Cranbrook, British Columbia.
The technique to use, of course, was to forcefully plop it onto a wet runway, to overcome the surface tension of the water and get the main wheels down to the runway surface...
If You're Still Hauling Ass, Halfway Down the Runway ...
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
Theorizing you have touched down and can't safely go around.. Would it help to pull back and get some aerodynamic drag or does that cause problems in a big plane?
I would think that might move the gravity vector back and get more force on the mains against the runway too.
I would think that might move the gravity vector back and get more force on the mains against the runway too.
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4717.msg12200#msg12200 date=1477880790]
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]
In any large jet a go-around is prohibited once the reversers have been selected.
A rejected landing (anything below 50') is not something that is regularly trained. It's not quite the same as a go-around. I imagine that is about to change.
We have a lot of parameters that are recorded - descending below the glideslope or landing long will generate a report to the safety department. They will then contact the Pilots.
I've had our safety department get upset with me for not calling a go-around (I wasn't even flying - I was sitting on the jumpseat).
It's mandatory for us to calculate our landing distance and add 15%. You'll see very quickly how critical things are. Landing downwind on a contaminated runway isn't something I'd be comfortable with.
It's not clear what happened in this accident - I'm sure we'll find out.
It's not correct to compare landing an L-39 to landing a large jet - the energy levels involved in stopping a large jet are [b]much[/b] higher.
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]
In any large jet a go-around is prohibited once the reversers have been selected.
A rejected landing (anything below 50') is not something that is regularly trained. It's not quite the same as a go-around. I imagine that is about to change.
We have a lot of parameters that are recorded - descending below the glideslope or landing long will generate a report to the safety department. They will then contact the Pilots.
I've had our safety department get upset with me for not calling a go-around (I wasn't even flying - I was sitting on the jumpseat).
It's mandatory for us to calculate our landing distance and add 15%. You'll see very quickly how critical things are. Landing downwind on a contaminated runway isn't something I'd be comfortable with.
It's not clear what happened in this accident - I'm sure we'll find out.
It's not correct to compare landing an L-39 to landing a large jet - the energy levels involved in stopping a large jet are [b]much[/b] higher.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Yep.
"Better to be thought a fool and say nothing, than open ones mouth and remove all doubt".
"Better to be thought a fool and say nothing, than open ones mouth and remove all doubt".
-
TundraTire
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:42 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4717.msg12231#msg12231 date=1477975431]
[quote]a go-around is prohibited once the reversers have been selected[/quote]
So, you are obligated to crash in order to keep your paperwork in order.
You four bars live on a different planet than I do.
[/quote]
Maybe you are too young to remember Cranbrook?
Have you attempted a go-around with a reverser out?
You pick your battles, and I'll pick mine. But I guarantee you, once reverse has been selected, I am committed to landing.
[quote]a go-around is prohibited once the reversers have been selected[/quote]
So, you are obligated to crash in order to keep your paperwork in order.
You four bars live on a different planet than I do.
[/quote]
Maybe you are too young to remember Cranbrook?
Have you attempted a go-around with a reverser out?
You pick your battles, and I'll pick mine. But I guarantee you, once reverse has been selected, I am committed to landing.
-
Big Ears Teddy
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:51 pm
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4717.msg12231#msg12231 date=1477975431]
So, you are obligated to crash in order to keep your paperwork in order.
You four bars live on a different planet than I do.[/quote]
Um, whut???
So, you are obligated to crash in order to keep your paperwork in order.
You four bars live on a different planet than I do.[/quote]
Um, whut???
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]I guarantee you, once reverse has been [u]selected[/u], I am committed to [s]landing[/s] crashing[/quote]
at 132 knots with 2300 feet remaining, you surely are.
You guys keep bouncing all over the place. I thought
the theory was that reverse thrust had been selected
[i]but not actuated[/i], which is supported by the fact that
virtually no speed had been lost from Vref at 250 AGL,
to 4600 feet down the runway.
So, your concern is that a thrust reverser which had
not been actuated, might not de-actuate?
I think I know how reporters that talk to Hiliary Clinton
must feel. All sorts of words, but they don't make
any sense.
at 132 knots with 2300 feet remaining, you surely are.
You guys keep bouncing all over the place. I thought
the theory was that reverse thrust had been selected
[i]but not actuated[/i], which is supported by the fact that
virtually no speed had been lost from Vref at 250 AGL,
to 4600 feet down the runway.
So, your concern is that a thrust reverser which had
not been actuated, might not de-actuate?
I think I know how reporters that talk to Hiliary Clinton
must feel. All sorts of words, but they don't make
any sense.
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
With regard to the video of St Barts. I have flown into that airport at least a 100 times. And it never got easier. Even took the special training and got the mandatory for com ops , French check ride for there and Sabo.
In both islanders and twin otters.
You come down the hill about a wingspan above the ground, with a typically wicked crosswind hitting the hill and bouncing you all over the place. pretty much impossible to touch down at the end of the runway.
For a new pilot trying it without any previus training , it can be so distracting trying to maintain the glide path , that it is easy to understand that the go around option is not in their thoughts..,like the old saying of remembering the objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators.
A few feet to high. A few extra knots..power pulled back to idle...and the brain says get er on the ground boyo....
There have been pilots try it with a tailwind because they thought they could not approach from the other end.
Lots of videos of overruns there. The approach is not intuitive.
Easy to strut around and say I would have done this or that..or.they should have done this or that...
As to the heavies landing long. That is an issue of energy management, and like others have mentioned, lets wait for the facts..
In hindsight, we can all puff out our chests, and say stupid pilots.....it really accomplishes nothing except making ourselves feel superior..
Humans make mistakes. And in those few seconds, our brains and training can let us down...
Everyone knows if you can execute a missed or an overshoot, if things are not looking good, you do it. But the reality is that the brain does not always think rationally in such situations.
I am not praising anyone for an accident, but this armchair. "Shouda, Coulds, I woulda " stuff.....
Btw. As a better suggestion than the condescending...what were you thinking, A good prelanding briefing, even to ourselves if we are flying solo, in these circumstances can put the go around option in our head, and make it more automatic if things are not workingbout like they should.
In both islanders and twin otters.
You come down the hill about a wingspan above the ground, with a typically wicked crosswind hitting the hill and bouncing you all over the place. pretty much impossible to touch down at the end of the runway.
For a new pilot trying it without any previus training , it can be so distracting trying to maintain the glide path , that it is easy to understand that the go around option is not in their thoughts..,like the old saying of remembering the objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators.
A few feet to high. A few extra knots..power pulled back to idle...and the brain says get er on the ground boyo....
There have been pilots try it with a tailwind because they thought they could not approach from the other end.
Lots of videos of overruns there. The approach is not intuitive.
Easy to strut around and say I would have done this or that..or.they should have done this or that...
As to the heavies landing long. That is an issue of energy management, and like others have mentioned, lets wait for the facts..
In hindsight, we can all puff out our chests, and say stupid pilots.....it really accomplishes nothing except making ourselves feel superior..
Humans make mistakes. And in those few seconds, our brains and training can let us down...
Everyone knows if you can execute a missed or an overshoot, if things are not looking good, you do it. But the reality is that the brain does not always think rationally in such situations.
I am not praising anyone for an accident, but this armchair. "Shouda, Coulds, I woulda " stuff.....
Btw. As a better suggestion than the condescending...what were you thinking, A good prelanding briefing, even to ourselves if we are flying solo, in these circumstances can put the go around option in our head, and make it more automatic if things are not workingbout like they should.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 15 Replies
- 4411 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 2 Replies
- 4080 Views
-
Last post by Nark
-
- 7 Replies
- 1604 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
