A Real Discussion About the Dreamlifter Accidental Landing

[ndakcfi]

Assuming reversers dont get deployed on the descent....I probably wasnt clear or asking my question in the best manner....,So say I am descedning at a rate of 'x' fpm and I am now 'y' feet agl, at what point am I committed to touching down. Or at what point is it too late for the engines to spool back up and go around without touching down....

I believe the current ATP written provides some (hilariously stupid) guidance on that situation.

According to the ATP written, what you're supposed to do if you go-around after touching down is figure out how many seconds it will take for the engines to spool up and the aircraft to accelerate to rotation speed. Once that's done, you figure out the average groundspeed during that process (keeping in mind that a nautical mile is 6076ft), how many feet of runway remain, and then do the math to figure out whether you have enough runway to lift off.

If the aircraft happens to go barreling off the end of the runway while all this math is being done, clearly the PIC should have paid more attention in math class.

 

[Sol Rosenburg]

You are the first person to ever make that joke.

did so last night at a military field, I just laugh, nod, then read back

 

[Sol Rosenburg]

At night, they often only have one runway with the lights on even with dual runways. Saves electricity. So, dual runways, at night, might not be a good way to identify the airport cause only one runway might be illuminated. Also, at night on a long straight in approach, it can be pretty hard to tell a 6000 foot runway from a 12000 foot runway.

Vance AFB typically will have their entire field dark with just maybe one taxiway or ramp area lit at varying parts of the night and non-military have landed their by mistake. If the whole field had been lit perhaps not.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

I wish. That's the only FCTM I had on hand. YMMV, void where prohibited.

I can dig out the EMB 145's books, but I wouldn't go around once a TR is deployed. It just sounds like a common sense thing.

I wouldn't either, but we did discuss backing out of a gate with TR. 8)

 

[MikeD]

I wouldn't either, but we did discuss backing out of a gate with TR. 8)

Have seen MDs and DC-9s doing that a few times in my day.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I wouldn't either, but we did discuss backing out of a gate with TR. 8)

I'm told that the Brasilia can be backed up.

I -have- backed a Martin 404 into its parking spot...


AFIS LINK ACK

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Have seen MDs and DC-9s doing that a few times in my day.

I have too, remember I'm older then you. I've been with my Dad backing up a 747, but that was a maintenance taxi.

 

[MikeD]

I have too, remember I'm older then you. I've been with my Dad backing up a 747, but that was a maintenance taxi.

You post made it sound like that info was something new that you hadn't seen; hence my reply.

Unless its no longer normal practice.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I use my ND a lot, and constantly cross check my DME when below 10,000 feet (as well as above for outstations) for energy planning (I always do manual mental math for that every flight despite the glass- the cross check is invaluable). They were cleared an RNAV approach, which of course has distances as required (!!!) altitudes. I've been tempted and even bit off on starting toward the wrong airport before, but the cross check has snagged it no problem quite early in the process.

I'd love to know if these guys had done an ocean crossing before this and what kind of duty day was involved. I get landing at the wrong airport is something that you can visually bite off on to... but I am confounded as to how this happened on a modern EFIS (similar to how the NW crew did it at Ellsworth) with all the cross checks available. This airport appears to be about 6 miles away... that is a major altitude deviation from planned path, and they must have had quite the time getting the energy managed for that much shorter of an approach.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

I believe the current ATP written provides some (hilariously stupid) guidance on that situation.

According to the ATP written, what you're supposed to do if you go-around after touching down is figure out how many seconds it will take for the engines to spool up and the aircraft to accelerate to rotation speed. Once that's done, you figure out the average groundspeed during that process (keeping in mind that a nautical mile is 6076ft), how many feet of runway remain, and then do the math to figure out whether you have enough runway to lift off.

If the aircraft happens to go barreling off the end of the runway while all this math is being done, clearly the PIC should have paid more attention in math class.

I got that question on my ATP test. I thought that was the most ridiculous question ever.

 

[ndakcfi]

There are actually two versions of that question. One version asks how much runway would be used by the takeoff, and the other version asks not only the whether enough runway remains, but how many tenths of a second late the decision was made if insufficient runway remains.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

You post made it sound like that info was something new that you hadn't seen; hence my reply.

Unless its no longer normal practice.

Our discussion was about backing up on the runway to get all usable space, but then turned to backing out of a gate. NEITHER is recommended here. We can do a turn out (with room).

 

[mooneyguy]

At night, when you're cleared for a visual, it's easy to buy off on the first runway you see and just put the plane there. I almost did it once going into RFD at night. Saw a runway and called the airport in sight. Was given a visual to 7.. Had 7 backed up on the instruments but was working hard to get lined up on final and configured, so never noticed the instruments were not agreeing with the runway. At about 1000 feet ATC says we lined up on 1 instead of 7, oh well, cleared to land on 1. From the angle we were coming in, the first runway we saw was 1, so we went for it and were too busy to notice the instruments were telling us we were wrong.

It would be nice if ATC could have saved the day with the Dreamlifter. There was probably some complacency all the way around but it's not ATC's job to fly the plane. Specifically, with respect to a civillian beacon vs a military beacon question. They are very close to the same at night and pretty difficult to tell between the two. I fly at night a lot and runway lights and airport lights tend to blend in with the background. Surely McConnell had way brighter lights but you look over that way and you might just think it's part of the city. Really, the best thing to do at night is not do visuals. Always take ATC vectors to final and fly an instrument approach.

Yes! I realize its not atc's job to fly the plane, but how do you clear an oversized 747 to land when there is nothing in sight?

 

[Hacker15e]

I believe the current ATP written provides some (hilariously stupid) guidance on that situation.

According to the ATP written, what you're supposed to do if you go-around after touching down is figure out how many seconds it will take for the engines to spool up and the aircraft to accelerate to rotation speed. Once that's done, you figure out the average groundspeed during that process (keeping in mind that a nautical mile is 6076ft), how many feet of runway remain, and then do the math to figure out whether you have enough runway to lift off.

If the aircraft happens to go barreling off the end of the runway while all this math is being done, clearly the PIC should have paid more attention in math class.

I don't think that's hilariously stupid at all.

What's stupid is thinking that such an analysis and decision has to be made while the airplane is in a critical phase of flight, such as when you first realize you may not want to full stop on that particular runway you are approaching/on. That's like saying you should have your first look at computing your V1/VR/V2 and other takeoff data when you are rolling down the active for takeoff.

Aviators should know their aircraft performance well enough to have some general understanding of how much runway they need to stop or go when at typical landing weights and speeds. When doing a runway diagram review, either before a flight or before actually beginning an approach, it is not that challenging to add in a quick analysis of land/go around decisionmaking.

The amount of time that is spent holding short of the runway discussing what actions will be taken in the event of a rejected takeoff or other takeoff emergency should also be spent discussing "rejected landing" plans. This is a pretty typical piece of the puzzle in my corner of military flying.

 

[Chief Captain]

Yes! I realize its not atc's job to fly the plane, but how do you clear an oversized 747 to land when there is nothing in sight?

You think the tower always has you in sight when they clear you to land?

The phrase merely means the runway will be available for your use. Using it is at your discretion.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

I don't think that's hilariously stupid at all.

What's stupid is thinking that such an analysis and decision has to be made while the airplane is in a critical phase of flight, such as when you first realize you may not want to full stop on that particular runway you are approaching/on. That's like saying you should have your first look at computing your V1/VR/V2 and other takeoff data when you are rolling down the active for takeoff.

Aviators should know their aircraft performance well enough to have some general understanding of how much runway they need to stop or go when at typical landing weights and speeds. When doing a runway diagram review, either before a flight or before actually beginning an approach, it is not that challenging to add in a quick analysis of land/go around decisionmaking.

The amount of time that is spent holding short of the runway discussing what actions will be taken in the event of a rejected takeoff or other takeoff emergency should also be spent discussing "rejected landing" plans. This is a pretty typical piece of the puzzle in my corner of military flying.

The way it is worded on the test though is that you are doing these calculations while you are flying which would never happen. This is something you get from preplanning and understanding your aircraft.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

You think the tower always has you in sight when they clear you to land?

The phrase merely means the runway will be available for your use. Using it is at your discretion.

Of course. Through the fog on a CAT III.

 

[mikecweb]

Yes! I realize its not atc's job to fly the plane, but how do you clear an oversized 747 to land when there is nothing in sight?

I'm confused.

 

[Springer]

I doubt anyone gets fired. They have a union. I'd bet if you looked at other incidents like this the crew just got "retrained". Exception might be if there were preceding issues. I hope they don't get fired.

In the Frankfurt/Brussels DC-10 incident the CA was "asked" to retire, the FO was fired (he had a history), and the SO remained.

 

[jtrain609]

But not really.

I would classify "right on top of each other" as something like ELP and BIF, or even as a stretch, TUS and DMA (about 1 mile and 4 miles as the crow flies, respectively, from one another). IAB and AAO being over 9 miles from each other, is more difficult to classify as "right on top of each other".

The first time I went into ELP I couldn't believe that it wasn't one airport.