Vindication for the Pinnacle TVC Crew

[Stifler's Mom]

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...View.aspx?itemid=5330&ModuleId=3052&Tabid=256

 

[purduej]

We used to use ref+5 at Skywest but switched to ref a little more than 6 months ago due to something like this. Bombardier simply told the company that ref+5 was not how the landing calculations were done so everything we were doing was for naught. We have a gust factor we can use on top of the ref speed, but nothing more. Seems to work out great, feels like I have twice the runways as I used to, especially in the -700. Only thing is no more power to idle at 100'. Now it's at 50' (for me at least).

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

We used to use ref+5 at Skywest but switched to ref a little more than 6 months ago due to something like this. Bombardier simply told the company that ref+5 was not how the landing calculations were done so everything we were doing was for naught. We have a gust factor we can use on top of the ref speed, but nothing more. Seems to work out great, feels like I have twice the runways as I used to, especially in the -700. Only thing is no more power to idle at 100'. Now it's at 50' (for me at least).

No disrespect to you sir.....

Another ALPA benefit for OO.

 

[DC8Driver]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilots’ decision to land at TVC without performing a landing distance assessment, which was required by company policy because of runway contamination initially reported by TVC ground operations personnel and continuing reports of deteriorating weather and runway conditions during the approach. This poor decision-making likely reflected the effects of fatigue produced by a long, demanding duty day, and, for the captain, the duties associated with check airman functions. Contributing to the accident were 1) the Federal Aviation Administration pilot flight and duty time regulations that permitted the pilots’ long, demanding duty day and 2) the TVC operations supervisor’s use of ambiguous and unspecific radio phraseology in providing runway braking information.

 

[www.]

Everybody does it the same... they all carry thrust to the 50ft call and beyond... bleed the energy off in ground effect as they sail down the runway and past the first and second turn off.... so they can get a smooth landing... it is the human desire to "look good" under the pretense that THAT is what defines a good landing...

IOW that is the perceived cultural value within pilot groups of a "good stick"....

No they don't. Experience is the difference.

 

[Stepclimb]

(Also posted in Majors Forum)

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I was curious if a Pinnacle pilot would be willing to share what contaminated runway data they have in their books (MU / braking action) vs landing weight and runway required.

I believe the Pinnacle data goes above and beyond the minimum 121.195 (d) DRY and WET factored data that most airlines have. I'm curious what exactly is in the charts.

Would a Pinnacle Pilot be willing to share exactly how they perform landing distance assesments? I am interested if your charts compare braking action reports or mu values and give multipliers to factored dry distances or are something completely else......

 

[sinkrate]

(Also posted in Majors Forum)

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I was curious if a Pinnacle pilot would be willing to share what contaminated runway data they have in their books (MU / braking action) vs landing weight and runway required.

I believe the Pinnacle data goes above and beyond the minimum 121.195 (d) DRY and WET factored data that most airlines have. I'm curious what exactly is in the charts.

You are correct. The Data in Pinnacle's manuals is supplied by Bombardier. In order to comply with JAR certification standards Bombardier has always had Tabular tables for 'Actual Landing Distance' on contaminated runways. There are several different tables for different contanimates, ie compacted snow, 1/4" slush etc. There are also guidelines for correlating them with MU's and braking action reports. These tables are in Bombardier's QRH volume 1 and the FOM.

After SouthWest's incident at MDW the FAA tried to force all US operators to include the JAR contaminated landing data in their ops manuals the following winter. A few did it, most did not. It was not required by FAR or rule. All foriegn operators certified under JAR rules have the data in their manuals.

Pinnacles TVC incident highlights a problem. If it is in your manual the NTSB expects you to use it. The company is not required to since it is not required by FAR.

 

[Flyer1015]

A Dude did that on Rwy 33 at DCA back on 2000. He was yanking the TR's to deploy all while doing the "wheelbarrow". Finally got it stopped at the end... the jumpseater chewed him out... the FO was speechless...

That's my biggest pet peeve. There's no reason to be poppin a wheelie down the runway when it's not even that long to begin with. Put the effin nose, get on the brakes, and TRs out.

Facts:

1. You do not look "cool" popping a wheelie down the runway.
2. This is not a Cessna 172.
3. Nor is this a Jetblue incident of LAX from 2005.
4. You prove NOTHING by doing a wheelie, and your "mad skillz" at holding the control yoke aft and more aft do nothing to impress anyone.

/rant

 

[xjcaptain]

That's my biggest pet peeve. There's no reason to be poppin a wheelie down the runway when it's not even that long to begin with. Put the effin nose, get on the brakes, and TRs out.

Facts:

1. You do not look "cool" popping a wheelie down the runway.
2. This is not a Cessna 172.
3. Nor is this a Jetblue incident of LAX from 2005.
4. You prove NOTHING by doing a wheelie, and your "mad skillz" at holding the control yoke aft and more aft do nothing to impress anyone.

/rant

You may have missed the point. A "wheelbarrow" is when you force the plane down the the runway, hit nose-wheel first with no mains on the ground. Not holding it off like it was a soft field.

 

[Stepclimb]

You are correct. The Data in Pinnacle's manuals is supplied by Bombardier. In order to comply with JAR certification standards Bombardier has always had Tabular tables for 'Actual Landing Distance' on contaminated runways. There are several different tables for different contanimates, ie compacted snow, 1/4" slush etc. There are also guidelines for correlating them with MU's and braking action reports. These tables are in Bombardier's QRH volume 1 and the FOM.

After SouthWest's incident at MDW the FAA tried to force all US operators to include the JAR contaminated landing data in their ops manuals the following winter. A few did it, most did not. It was not required by FAR or rule. All foriegn operators certified under JAR rules have the data in their manuals.

Pinnacles TVC incident highlights a problem. If it is in your manual the NTSB expects you to use it. The company is not required to since it is not required by FAR.

Thanks for the reply. There is a slight error in your post regarding the fallout of the SWA overrun at MDW.
It was the NTSB that STRONGLY advocated more accurate landing data anaylsis. The FAA stopped short of issuing new rulemaking and instead published SAFO 06-012 that only included recommendations to improve operators contaminated landing data.

I believe Pinnacle is in the minority of regional operators that have access to tables that correlate braking action/mu/contaminate depth etc and yield more accurate landing distance required (or at least more conservative numbers).
There are several airlines out there still landing on contaminated runways with only Wet factored distances (without the FAA recommended additional 15%). DRY and WET factored distances are the bare minimum data to be available to crews per 121.195.
Be careful out there....

 

[aa73]

I was always taught to keep power in until at least 10ft, if not through the touchdown, in a swept wing jet. You guys are absolutely crazy to reduce to idle at 100ft. I guess a couple of slam landings will probably reinforce that view... Not sure if the CRJ is any different than any other jet (I can't see why it would be).. but even on a clean wing jet such as the F100 or DC-9-10/15, you kept the power in until at least 50 ft. On the Mad Dog and 75/76, you WILL go CRASH with a loud noise pulling it to idle at 100ft...

 

[BoilerUP]

You guys are absolutely crazy to reduce to idle at 100ft. I guess a couple of slam landings will probably reinforce that view... Not sure if the CRJ is any different than any other jet

Yes, it does land differently than other jets...the nose-down attitude throughout approach is just one example of it.

Personally, I did a major power reduction at 100ft (maybe 70-80% of what was in) and then pulled the rest out a couple feet above the runway; this allowed for a 'normal' nose-high flare and many, many rollers onto the runway.

 

[aa73]

Gotcha, thanks. Did not realize it was that different.

 

[Stepclimb]

I was always taught to keep power in until at least 10ft, if not through the touchdown, in a swept wing jet. You guys are absolutely crazy to reduce to idle at 100ft. I guess a couple of slam landings will probably reinforce that view... Not sure if the CRJ is any different than any other jet (I can't see why it would be).. but even on a clean wing jet such as the F100 or DC-9-10/15, you kept the power in until at least 50 ft. On the Mad Dog and 75/76, you WILL go CRASH with a loud noise pulling it to idle at 100ft...

The fact that it has swept wings has no bearing on the particular way an aircraft will decelerate when power is reduced to idle.
In the CRJ, the low drag of no leading edge devices and low AoA coupled with a higher ratio of idle thrust to weight all combine to validate the technique of beginning a power reduction at 100ft. Also, most operators still choose to add 5 kts to Vref on approach with a goal of crossing 50 ft above the threshold at Vref......

 

[Top Gum]

About an inch of reduction on the power levers at 100' and then to idle at 50'. That's what most are doing on the CRJ-200. That will keep it on the gs and still touch within 1,000' to 1,500' down the rwy.

 

[Flyer1015]

You may have missed the point. A "wheelbarrow" is when you force the plane down the the runway, hit nose-wheel first with no mains on the ground. Not holding it off like it was a soft field.

I apologize. I misunderstood, thaks for clarifying that previous post.

 

[xjcaptain]

I apologize. I misunderstood, thaks for clarifying that previous post.

No problem. I do agree with your comments on how some people insist on holding off the nose until the elevator runs out of steam. Much better to fly it down to the runway. Nothing says it can't be done smoothly, but you do want to get it down fairly promptly.

 

[ultrarunner]

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.

You just can't take the 'double penalty'.

 

[andyd]

So where is the capt flying now? Heard a rumor that he's in India flying RJ's.....true? Hoping the best for him. Maybe he could get on with the FAA and put the squeeze on the mindless thugs that tossed him to the wolves to save their own skin?

 

[Flyer1015]

No problem. I do agree with your comments on how some people insist on holding off the nose until the elevator runs out of steam. Much better to fly it down to the runway. Nothing says it can't be done smoothly, but you do want to get it down fairly promptly.

True that! My even bigger pet peeve is guys who touchdown, then RUN the stab trip on the yoke to FULL nose up to help pop the wheelie. So then you're rolling down the runway with the nose wheel up, and the stab trim runaway noise "bbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" going off. Seriously people?