ERJ skids off icy runway in CLE

[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.