ERJ skids off icy runway in CLE

[Sierra-Hotel]

Flaps

I sure one of the pilots who fly ERJs could answer this better,but I think they have to use Flaps 22 on CAT II approaches.....something about better go-around performance

 

[Mickey]

I don't know the info on the Cat II flap configuration but, if they were landing on 6L it is a CAT I 6800' x 150' with a slight upslope.

 

[IAHERJ]

At Continental Express, all Cat II landings have to be performed at flaps 22. I don't know if this was a cat II landing or even if that runway is equiped for cat II (don't think it is). A missed approach on a cat II will result in the wheels touching the ground sometimes depending on how quickly you get the nose pitched up. A flaps 22 landing insures that the nose will already be up at least 2 degrees the whole time and probably a bit more depending on weight and speed.

Cleveland does indeed see at least 1 aircraft per year go off the end. Delta, American and Continental have all run MD-80's off in the past 4 years. The ERJ has no auto-brakes and reverse and anti-skid are a must for CLE in the winter months. I've flown through 2 of CLE's crazy winter storms in December and I can tell you it is dicy in fair to poor braking conditions. Then you have to find your way up to the terminal and hope the brakes work at the gate so you don't put the nose through terninal C or D.

 

[EagleRJ]

The NTSB has some interesting details in their preliminary report about this overrun accident:

[http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20030109X00039&key=1]

The aircraft touched down with 1770' of runway remaining, at an airspeed of 150 KIAS. When it was 270' from the end of the runway, it was still going 100 KIAS.

This was a tricky approach; right at minimums into a 6800' runway with a gusty direct crosswind. This should remind all of us that we should never be too proud to go around!

 

[ultrarunner]

The NTSB has some interesting details in their preliminary report about this overrun accident:

[http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20030109X00039&key=1]

The aircraft touched down with 1770' of runway remaining, at an airspeed of 150 KIAS. When it was 270' from the end of the runway, it was still going 100 KIAS.

Yes, a tricky approach indeed. But in this case, the 5000 feet of runway the pilot left behind did no good.

With the preliminary data, what occured is what would be expected.

 

[Jump Pilot]

It appears a "Tapely" reading is some sort of traction measurement. Is a higher or lower number better?

 

[Fitzy]

EagleRJ-

Great comment, "don't be too proud to go around", that attitude will make you an old rich Pilot, if your not already!!!!

peace my fellow "bad timers"

 

[EagleRJ]

Yes, Tapley meters are commonly used to judge braking action. I don't have the breakdown in front of me, but around 30 would be fair, and 15 would be poor. A Tapley of 60 is very good, akin to dry concrete. The runway had been broomed, and chemically deiced, so it was in good shape.

 

[HighSpeed]

Suen1843,

Not exactly. If you read the weather around the time of the incident off of the NTSB report, the visability was only 1/2 mile.

When your moving that fast, its gets a little tough when the visability is so low to see exactly how much runway is remaining. Im gonna also venture a guess that the runway distance signs were obscured in snow as well.

On a clear day, I'm pretty confident that this professional flight crew would not have landed so far down the runway.

 

[flx757]

A Tapley of 60 is very good, akin to dry concrete. The runway had been broomed, and chemically deiced, so it was in good shape.

This is a true statement, as of 1147, one hour prior to the accident. However, the wx was deteriorating. The METAR from 1051 shows 1 1/2 miles in light snow. The METAR from 1151 shows 3/4 mi in snow and blowing snow, and at 1242 it was down to 1/2 mi in snow and blowing snow. The Tapleys taken at 1259, 10 minutes after the accident, show readings of between 25 and 30 on all areas of the runway. I think the runway, at the time of the accident, was not "in good shape". The conditions were probably closer to those indicated by Tapleys of 25-30, than to those indicated by Tapleys of 60.

Obvisously though, the last available infomation to the crew was the Tapley readings of 60,60 and 60, which led them to believe the runway was "in good shape". They may or may not have had the most current METAR from 1242, and may have been going on the 1151 wx. HighSpeed's statements about the visibility issue are valid. However, I have to believe that if I still haven't touched down several seconds after breaking out on a low approach that I would be aware that significant runway was now behind me.

It is also a valid statement that on a clear day, this crew would likely not have landed so far down the runway. But, it was not a clear day when everything was good. It was a day when the wx had deteriorated to minimums; with strong, gusty crosswinds; and runway conditions that had also deteriorated to that well below what the crew had been advised. Combine this with a touchdown at excessive speed well down the runway, and you have enough links in the chain present to result in an accident.