Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

New caution for pilots landing on wet runways

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Airtran Fanatic

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Posts
52
New caution for pilots landing on wet runways

Recommendation comes after plane overran runway and boy died
Friday, January 27, 2006; Posted: 2:13 p.m. EST (19:13 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board is urging that commercial airplane pilots change the way they calculate stopping distances on slippery runways to avoid a crash, such as the one in Chicago that killed a child.
"We believe this recommendation needs the immediate attention of the FAA since we will be experiencing winter weather conditions in many areas of our nation for several more months to come," NTSB Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker was quoted in a news release issued by the board.
The NTSB wants the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit airlines from calculating the effect of a plane's thrust reversers into the formula that figures what distance is needed to land when runways are slick.
The urgent recommendation comes from an NTSB investigation into what caused a Southwest Airlines flight, landing at Midway Airport in a snowstorm on December 8, to roll off the end of the runway -- where it tore through two fences and stopped in an intersection, hitting two cars. A 6-year-old boy in one of the cars was killed.
The pilots had used a laptop computer to calculate how far the plane needed to go to land, the NTSB said. When the runway's condition was entered as "wet-poor," the computer calculated they would be able to stop with 30 feet to spare.
But the calculations took into consideration that engine thrust reversers would be deployed at touchdown. Instead, the NTSB said, "flight data recorder information revealed that the thrust reversers were not deployed until 18 seconds after touchdown, at which point there was only about 1,000 feet of usable runway remaining."
Without the thrust reversers, the calculation would have shown a safe landing was not possible, it said.
"As a result," the board said in its recommendation letter to the FAA, "a single event, the delayed deployment of the thrust reversers, can lead to an unsafe condition, as it did in this accident."
The NTSB said the FAA already prohibits the inclusion of thrust reversers in calculations in some cases.
 
the investigation is on going..
 
[quote/]...when the runway's condition was entered as "wet-poor," the computer calculated they would be able to stop with 30 feet to spare.

The NTSB said the FAA already prohibits the inclusion of thrust reversers in calculations in some cases.[/quote]

I thought required landing distance was calculated using no reverse thrust, and under part 121, the require landing distance can be no more than 60% of the runway length. Also, multiply this number by 1.15 for wet runway ops. What 30 feet are they talking about?
 
The NTSB wants the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit airlines from calculating the effect of a plane's thrust reversers into the formula that figures what distance is needed to land when runways are slick.


Whoever changed the rules to allow for this on the latest Boeings should be hung too.
 
Cardinal said:
30 feet at 130kts, that's about one blink or so....

That's 30 within the requirement to land within 60% of the usable runway I'm assuming. At 130 knots you'd travel 3250 feet in 18 seconds. I'm not sure when manual braking began or how effective it was. Without the TR's deploying promptly those guys were between a rock and a hard place. It will be interesting to see how much emphasis the NTSB places on perfromance requirements.
 
Hi!

I didn't know that thrust reversers were allowed at all to calculate the stopping distance.

What R the conditions where you ARE allowed to use TRs in your landing data?

Cliff
ABY

PS-My plane doesn't have any (some of ours used to have them, but they were removed), but I know our DC-9s LD can't be calculated using TRs in the equation.
 
These landing distance rules are the source of much confusion. So here is my take (might as well add to the confusion). First you have to distinguish between dry and wet. We all know that you have the 60 or 70% safety factor thrown in and also assume no reverse thrust. No, here is where is gets tricky: A contaminated runway is a whole different ball of wax. You can still plan a flight to a destination with a runway that you are unable to land within the 60 or 70% distance. You just have to include an alternate. Now when you arrive at your destination, you can forget about the 60 or 70 rule. On a contaminated runway, you can take into account reverse thrust, and you just have to be able to stop in the available landing distance. This has no margin for error. This is nuts! I imagine the rules will be changing in the future.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top