Waterski went waterskiing off the runway again in YOW

[Dornier 335]

I have about 4000 hours in the EMB-145 and I never really trusted Embraer's brake-by-wire system. I am currently following last year's incident which appears to have been caused by a fault in the BCU and by a similar overrun by Flybe in STR in 2009. Both incidents appear to have been caused by the brakes not responding.

Another thing I could never figure out... There's no landing performance difference between a TR and non-TR equipped 145, yet only one TR can be deferred. Weird.

 

[glasspilot]

Another thing I could never figure out... There's no landing performance difference between a TR and non-TR equipped 145, yet only one TR can be deferred. Weird.

Do you honestly believe that there is no landing performance difference? I don't mean to sound rude, but common.

Quite possibly the dumbest comment on FI or anything else I've ever read. Weird.

 

[Sammy]

Do you honestly believe that there is no landing performance difference? I don't mean to sound rude, but common.

Quite possibly the dumbest comment on FI or anything else I've ever read. Weird.

I believe he means for actual/planned purposes only. Obviously there is a difference. My company has data for landing with and without TR's, but we have to use the no TR landing data for actual/planned performance even though I know the landing distance will be less using TR's. And yes you do mean to be rude.

 

[say again]

Do you honestly believe that there is no landing performance difference? I don't mean to sound rude, but common.

Quite possibly the dumbest comment on FI or anything else I've ever read. Weird.

The plane I fly has no landing data for TR's, yet they are installed. Of course landing distance will be shorter, but it's not in our books.

 

[Dornier 335]

I believe he means for actual/planned purposes only. Obviously there is a difference. My company has data for landing with and without TR's, but we have to use the no TR landing data for actual/planned performance even though I know the landing distance will be less using TR's. And yes you do mean to be rude.

Thanks, you beat me to it. The only planned difference between the TR vs. non-TR was the wet V1 correction. Not sure if things changed in the meantime, I haven't flown this thing for over two years now.

 

[rettofly]

The plane I fly has no landing data for TR's, yet they are installed. Of course landing distance will be shorter, but it's not in our books.

If memory serves, the certification protocol in FAR 25 doesn't give credit for TRs. Landing plan must be done without considering TR.

 

[flyn96]

While that would be a good thing, I don't see any other airlines sailing off the end...

American in the Caribbean last year, I believe a few in Brazil? ICAO needs to adopt grooved and crowned runways as a global standard!

 

[say again]

If memory serves, the certification protocol in FAR 25 doesn't give credit for TRs. Landing plan must be done without considering TR.

Correct. :beer:

 

[CaribPilot]

Lol @ the name of this thread.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Dont know 'bout their ops, but we'd have to use wet data on an ungrooved runway should it be raining. You must use it if they are reporting 'runway(s) bare and damp', or 'bare and wet'..

Pretty sure by using the thrust reverser credit vs. no credit would improve the numbers by quite a bit. TSA should use either operator-factored (post MDW) or actual landing lengths before landing.