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....