Vindication for the Pinnacle TVC Crew

[Mario]

Good post,

I've always wondered why 9E Rjs usually landed long. I used to flight instruct in TVC, seen a lot of landings on 28 and very rarely did I see a 9E RJ touchdown within the first 1500 feet. They usually looked like nice smooth touchdowns, but long. Not sure what the Blue Ridge/AirWis guys did different but they were considerably more consistent at hitting the mark.

Just an observation.

I did a whole month of TVC when I was at ACA/blue ridge out of ORD. That was of course before Independence and we all know what happened with that. I dont recall TVC being any more difficult than anywhere else. When I was flying the CRJ Into an airport with a shorter runway I didn't mess with it much just got it on the ground. While it has been sometime I dont recall adding any speed, just putting the numbers from the speedcards for the weight. Thrust reduction started at 100' with full idle by 50'. Just a tiny bit of back pressure and let it fly onto the runway If it is not pretty so what.
I had a CA float halfway down the runway at CRW, not the place to land long. I STRONGLY urged him to go around fortunately he was a pretty decent guy, but new to the plane. So he went around and landed fine coming back.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Good discussion... Much of this is basic airmanship that no one seems to have the time to teach (or listen to) anymore. One factor many pilots overlook on contaminated runways is the need to get the airplane stopped sooner rather than later.

Most on this thread are making excellent points about how to get the airplane on the ground. I would add that once on the ground many pilots let the airplane coast another 1,000 feet or more before they get on the brakes.

When the runway is contaminated, a firm, constant and even brake application as soon as the spoilers deploy will generate the most stopping power with less heat.

Going 80 down the last 1,000 feet of runway is a bad time to realize the braking action is fair to poor.

Save your really nice landings for the clear, uncluttered runways. In the weather, safety comes first.

 

[Jmoney]

Skynation.....

Idiots like Skynation don't realize how important a union is in situations like this. If these guys had not had help from ALPA they would have been hung out to dry, and more importantly, we would only know the "company version" of it is all the stupid pilot's fault-always the pilot's fault, and nothing else matters.

-You truly are a shortsighted fool-Sky!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Idiots like Skynation don't realize how important a union is in situations like this. If these guys had not had help from ALPA they would have been hung out to dry, and more importantly, we would only know the "company version" of it is all the stupid pilot's fault-always the pilot's fault, and nothing else matters.

-You truly are a shortsighted fool-Sky!

Its ok.... OO pilots went off the runway a while back and everything was ok.... I am still waiting for CFIT to answer the tough questions... but he always seems to avoid those.... those bitchin' Rose colored glasses!

 

[nethan]

A few years ago I did a few days of initial sim training in Montreal due to the local sim being broken. one of the instructors up there was talking about how the 200 was designed to land almost 3 pointed in anything but a dead calm wind. Basically if you look at the spoiler logic, as soon as the mains spin up, you are done flying and the unless you are really cranking in the back elevator, the nose is going to drop. Because of that he recommended taking out about 20% of your power between 100 and 50 feet and then taking out the rest between 50 and 40. All it takes is arresting your descent rate to about 150 fpm and the nose will be about 1 foot higher then the mains. Also, you'll be REF-5 to REF-10 as the mains comes down. Works pretty well for me, but then again, I don't expect too much from my landings anyways.

 

[bluefishbeagle]

A vref of 142+5 and a tailwind, snow, unknown runway conditions and nightime ops should cause any pilot with enough experience alarm bells to go full volume.

This is a case where following proceedures was the wrong thing to do as I read this thread. Pilots are not allowed to "do their own thing" and if you do and it turns out bad "shame on you."

Screw the company GO to your alternate, don't be a hero because you will be fed to the wolves if anything goes wrong.

One other thing guys, lose the ego, it will hurt your decision making skills. I'd rather be sleeping peacefully at my alternate than staying up three days stright trying to figure out what went wrong.

 

[Minimaniac]

You have to know what conditions your performance numbers are based on!

Most every airplane we fly for a 121 carrier has landing data calculated upon crossing the runway threshhold at 50' at Vref. If you are doing anything besides that, you are a test pilot. Many newhires I have flown with or observed are under the impression that Vref must be maintained all the way to the runway. I have heard my share of "Ref minus5, Ref minus 10" while below 50' in the flare. Most of us have been there, so I'm not throwing any stones. I just want to encourage everyone, epsecially those who are new to an aircraft type or new to airliner operations, to ask where your landing data comes from and how the airplane was flown to acheive those numbers.

On the plane I fly, we used to use landing data based on Ref at 50'... the usual. However, the manufacturer who supplied those numbers also recommended that the airplane be flown at Ref plus 5 down to 50' with the autothrottles engaged, leaving power reduction techniques out of the equation. The result was we had numbers that did not match up to how we were supposed to fly the airplane. The FAA did not want to budge on using Ref at 50', but finally they did. Now we have numbers that reflect flying Ref plus 5 to 50'. Until then, every landing was either flown against company procedure or against performance data.

Even still, none of those numbers allow for flying Ref plus 20 (wind additive maximum) down to 50'. I think the timing and technique of speed reduction and energy management on windy days is something that is not being passed along to our less experienced pilots in a standardized way.

Like them or not, we are all going to be flying with low time guys. We need to make sure our training departments are preparing them thoroughly. Ask your check airmen how this is being taught, and ask your rookies what they think they were taught. Find the differences and let higher ups know (not rat people out, but take it up the correct chain). We are ALL responsible for safety, and we are all going to have to be more proactive about it.

Merry Christmas. Enjoy your friends, family, or holiday pay! Lets get holiday pay to cover the other observed holiday seasons as well!

 

[bluefishbeagle]

The above post is right on. Could this accident have been avoided if the approach had been flown at vref? The original poster thinks so but that's still cutting it close if 5 knots makes the difference in going off the end or not.

In my opinion if the same crew were faced with the same conditions (both known and unknown) they would most likely not elect to land. But that's hind sight. Also it's most likely if you, I, or the same crew HAD to make the approach and land due to an emergency it was do-able but not using vref+5 and using standard procedures.

In an emergency I'd be at vref on final and vref minus 5 to 10 in the flare and touch down in the first 500 ft.

If anything goes wrong be prepared to explain why you were using procedures not authorized by your company and the FAA, of course as this case proves even if you do everything right you can still end up off the runway and face a potentially career ending carpet dance.

Do you want to play "let’s bet your career" or just go to your alternate and let the company worry about the inconvenience to the passengers?

 

[Caveman]

Anybody that's flown more than 10 minutes in a CRJ knows you can not be fast over the fence. I disagree with that companys +5 policy, but according to the original post it looks to me like the crew flew a damn near perfect approach. More importantly, everybody got to go home that night. Good job guys.

I'm no ALPA fan, but this is one area where they excel. Nobody does a better job looking out for pilots involved in an incident/accident than ALPA. Period.

IMO ALPA should get out of the labor business. It should be a fraternal organization that provides aeromedical, legal, and insurance services and lobbying efforts on behalf of propilots. I'd gladly pay 1% of my check to have those resources available. Let each pilot group decide whether or not they want to be unionized and by whom (IBT? inhouse?). ALPA should be more like AARP. They should stick to advocacy and get out of the labor business. If they did you would eliminate all this BS infighting about scope and DFR. Each shop could negotiate for what they want. In theory the ALPA faithful will tell you this is how it's supposed to work. However, ALPA National always sticks their nose's into things and when they do they complicate the whole thing and usually make it worse. If they would just stick to things like safety and other nonlabor stuff they could quickly gather the hearts and minds of almost every propilot I know.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

, ALPA National always sticks their nose's into things and when they do they complicate the whole thing and usually make it worse.

For example?