Commute Air Off Runway at ROA

bp said:
the minimal amt of variation in landing weight does not bury an rj 400ft into the emas, that definitely went off the end with plenty of kinetic energy.. either missed the tdz or braking action was nil after they already had the buckets out or a combination
Click to expand...

I wasn’t clear.

I’m wondering if they actually had the performance numbers to land in the first place. 16/34 is a short runway.

EDIT: I haven’t flown that airplane in years and I honestly don’t remember anything about runway performance on that aircraft.
 
It's been a while since I flew a 145, but I remember it stopped very well and landing distance was almost never a problem. Granted ours had 30 seats instead of 50 so the ZFW was quite a bit less and I'm sure that makes a difference. BUR and SNA were bread and butter airports, and the shortest field we operated into was CCR, with 1L/19R at 5000ft and 14L/32R at 4600ft. I wish I still had the APG subscription on my iPad to run some landing field lengths. I remember doing CCR 19R wet all the time, and at our weights the only time it was an issue was if you assumed RCC 3 due to the rain shower being so intense that it overwhelmed the grooving and caused standing water. With RCC 5 it was always good, but not a lot of margin to play around and float. Looking at the visibility from the precip, it could very well have been the case. SJI recommends running RCC 3 numbers if heavy showers are expected over the field at your time of arrival for this exact reason.
 
Kingairer said:
Chautauqua had some of these as well. They were X-European models that were stripped over any extras in order to save weight to pay less taxes. The MP models that CHQ had not only didnt have thrust reversers but had smaller brakes (same size as the E140). I remember it was so weight restricted that they tried pulling galley carts out and all we had was water and coffee. Automatically a 44 seat airplane despite there being 50 seats. What a giant POS.

This plane just makes me mad seeing it again. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6798350
Click to expand...
I remember working those as a ramper. 977 and 978 were even universally dreaded and loathed among us and the gate agents.
 
Murdoughnut said:
For us light GA folks, would extreme precip alone be a go around condition. I’m guessing not if two of the three continued
Click to expand...
Maybe. As a 121 crew for a marginal runway with precip, what you would do is run landing distance numbers and figure out a minimum runway condition code/braking action that works for you. Then you would correlate that to a precipitation level and that would become your go-around/cutoff. Does that make sense?
 
Roger Roger said:
Maybe. As a 121 crew for a marginal runway with precip, what you would do is run landing distance numbers and figure out a minimum runway condition code/braking action that works for you. Then you would correlate that to a precipitation level and that would become your go-around/cutoff. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

It does. Just wasn't sure if that was like windshear where it was an automatic no-go.
 
killbilly said:
I wasn’t clear.

I’m wondering if they actually had the performance numbers to land in the first place. 16/34 is a short runway.

EDIT: I haven’t flown that airplane in years and I honestly don’t remember anything about runway performance on that aircraft.
Click to expand...

I've never flown the 145, but I've taken the 175 in there on numerous occasions, and it seemed unthreatening. I'd probably bang flaps full for 34, but we fly to a lot of runways shorter than that.

Are the 145s that anemic on the brakes?
 
Murdoughnut said:
For us light GA folks, would extreme precip alone be a go around condition.
Click to expand...
Rain? No. Hail, yes. Snow, yes.

That said, sometimes really wet runways have surprisingly less adhesion than you expect, especially if you don't get WOW, or touch down too long, or with too much energy.

Most overruns come down to "probably should have touched down firmer/sooner/got on the brakes harder, sooner," but you never really know until the details drop.
 
🦈💜 said:
I've never flown the 145, but I've taken the 175 in there on numerous occasions, and it seemed unthreatening. I'd probably bang flaps full for 34, but we fly to a lot of runways shorter than that.

Are the 145s that anemic on the brakes?
Click to expand...

Compared to what I'm flying now, yeah.

Weight's the big factor there for the 145. I don't know, but I'm guessing IAD was their alternate (as well as their origination point) which means they were probably on the fatter side if they had a full boat of pax. In my experience, that's likely. Runway is 5810'.

Without a TLR or their release, no way to know....but my gut says it was....maybe....very, very close.
 
BobDDuck said:
Also,outside the US, not all runways are grooved, even at bigger airports, so there are lots of places where heavy rain will make a long runway unusable.
Click to expand...
Which is funny because the most insane rain I have ever seen was landing in Hanoi Vietnam.
 
BobDDuck said:
Also,outside the US, not all runways are grooved, even at bigger airports, so there are lots of places where heavy rain will make a long runway unusable.
Click to expand...

It’s not so much the lack of grooving a runway has, but moreso the amount of, or lack of, lateral sloping of a runway from the centerline outward, to help prevent standing water conditions and facilitate drainage. And the area outside the runway edges where water would drain to. Lack of either, or both, will definitely facilitate some serious standing water under heavy precip conditions. Grooving does help channel water and thus help prevent hydroplaning. As long as a runway has the former features and they are sufficient to prevent standing water from the amount of precip, then even a non-grooved runway will still be useable. If these don’t exist, then seriously flooded runways can and will occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top