Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I still can't believe someone actually thought to start an airline out of Carlsbad 
Delta off the Runway - LGA
- Thread starter tbstanto
- Start date
Get-home-itis
Well-Known Member
The autobrakes don't work until the spoilers deploy....this is true whether they deploy automatically after being armed or deployed manually. After they deploy, there is a one second delay when using MAX brakes and a 3 second delay when using MIN/MED brakes (nobody ever uses MIN and they aren't recommended). If the spoilers are armed for landing, they should deploy at either main wheel spin up or nosegear ground shift. While it's not an everyday occurence for the autospoilers not to deploy if armed for landing, it's also something that every maddog driver sees from time to time and we should be spring loaded to deploy them manually if the autospoilers don't work. The autospoilers are a fairly common MEL on the dog.
According to what the NTSB has released so far, the way this went down was : Autospoilers were armed for landing. At touchdown, they don't deploy, therefore autobrakes don't work. Trusty F/O notices spoilers don't deploy and manually moves them (hopefully up-aft-up). One second after F/O moves them, the MAX autobrakes should kick in.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Not a problem.
Your options are to land or go around. The implication is that you think these guys should have gone around.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
We have similar issues with non deploying spoilers on the 717. It's not a common occurrence but it certainly happens. No auto brakes on any of ours though (well, the ones that do have them are deactivated) so that's never an issue. What do you mean by "up-aft-up"? I've had issues where when I went to manually deploy them after landing I had to hold the lever in place because the system logic was trying to auto stow it. Is there a way to lock them in deploy on the -80?
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Get-home-itis
Well-Known Member
To deploy them manually on the ground, you have to pull the handle slightly up, then move the lever all the way aft, and lastly give them a second jerk up to lock them in place. If you don't do the second "UP" on the -88/90, the lever will just retract and move forward. I can't say if it's the same on the 717. It's a very different movement from simply using the handle inflight as a speedbrake, and they used to demo it in the simulator to allow folks to get the hang of it.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Huh. I'll have to ask around to see. It would be nice to not have to fight it the whole time.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Somewhere between 1% - 2% of unstable approaches end in a go-around, and those are probably the ones that are so ugly no one can justify continuing. So you'd be the guy who threw the BS flag and go-around even with a good braking report?
I call BS as a result of hindsight bias!
Edit- I just saw your post to JTrain, and his responses. I'm not putting words in your mouth either. I just think it's very easy to look back and say they made a mistake when I'm sure it wasn't so obvious at the time.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I landed 04R at EWR that same day about 4 hrs later. We were the last ones to land on 04R at that particular moment when they were going to close 04R for cleaning and just use 04L for takeoffs/landings. It was a covered runway but we went with previous aircraft BA reports of good. It was a little bit of a tailwind IIRC but well within limits. I sent off Aerodata numbers for the runway with "Fair" braking action, runway condition 3, no thrust reverser credit (I use max, but to be conservative for number calculation), anti ice on.
Point being, lets not be quick to judge. I physically saw 04R based on all available information decided to land on it. I have no doubt that the Delta pilots did the same just 3.5 hrs prior at LGA.
Point being, lets not be quick to judge. I physically saw 04R based on all available information decided to land on it. I have no doubt that the Delta pilots did the same just 3.5 hrs prior at LGA.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
My balls are bigger and I don't chew, and I would have continued.I wood'a gone round too!
*spits chew, grabs junk*
Oh, and
My balls are bigger and I don't chew, and I would have continued.
Dick move. Don't steal my thunder.
Mark815
Well-Known Member
I was only making the observation in the report that one of the pilots reported a "white runway". I found it interesting and it stood out to me, that's it. I never said I'd go around. I never blamed the pilots. I never said I'd do it any different, just made an observation.Not sure why it's being blown out of proportion.
In MY experience, speaking for nobody else, landing on a white runway when heavy snow has been falling all day means the runway will be slick, and requires a careful rollout. AGAIN, not saying I'd do anything any different. If the guys ahead of me said braking was good then we're putting it down.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
No one is blowing it out of proportion. It's cool. I think most of us are really careful to protect the pilots in scenarios like this. Monday morning quarterbacking is very easy and very prevalent.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
Reading about his balls made your dick move?
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
They are, but on this one issue (and I mean this one issue, because we probably disagree on 99.95% of everything else), we concur.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Copied from another thread. NTSB update, looks like too much reverse and possible blanking of rudder:
Looks like high EPR for a contaminated runway. I thought MD issued an advisory that 1.3 should be the max due to rudder blank and asymmetrical thrust possibility?<br />
<br />
Found the reference. Looks like it was back in 1996 that MD issued the 1.3 notice after LIT accident?<br />
<br />
https://books.google.com/books?id=C...nepage&q=md-80 reverse thrust&f=false<br />
<br />
From the NTSB update (bold emphasis by me):<br />
<br />
o The airplane was aligned with the runway centerline during the approach to the runway.<br />
o The autopilot was engaged until the airplane was about 230 feet above the ground.<br />
o The airspeed during the final approach was about 140 knots.<br />
o The main landing gear touched down close to the runway centerline, at a speed of about 133 knots.<br />
o Two seconds after main gear touchdown both thrust reversers were deployed and engines began advancing in power. <br />
o The spoilers were fully deployed within 2.5 seconds after main gear touchdown.<br />
o The nose gear touched down and brake pressure began to rise in a manner consistent with autobrake application 2.8 seconds after the main gear touchdown.<br />
<b>o About six seconds after main gear touchdown, the airplane’s heading began to diverge to the left. At this point, both the left and right engine EPR were about 1.9 with the reversers still deployed.<br />
o The engines reached peak recorded reverse thrust of 2.07 EPR on the left, and 1.91 EPR on the right, between six and seven seconds after touchdown. Engine thrust decreased after this point.</b><br />
o The thrust reversers were stowed nine seconds after main gear touchdown when the engines were both at about 1.6 EPR.<br />
o The airplane departed the left side of the runway approximately 14 seconds after main gear touchdown.<br />
<br />
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150402b.aspx<br/>
Looks like high EPR for a contaminated runway. I thought MD issued an advisory that 1.3 should be the max due to rudder blank and asymmetrical thrust possibility?<br />
<br />
Found the reference. Looks like it was back in 1996 that MD issued the 1.3 notice after LIT accident?<br />
<br />
https://books.google.com/books?id=C...nepage&q=md-80 reverse thrust&f=false<br />
<br />
From the NTSB update (bold emphasis by me):<br />
<br />
o The airplane was aligned with the runway centerline during the approach to the runway.<br />
o The autopilot was engaged until the airplane was about 230 feet above the ground.<br />
o The airspeed during the final approach was about 140 knots.<br />
o The main landing gear touched down close to the runway centerline, at a speed of about 133 knots.<br />
o Two seconds after main gear touchdown both thrust reversers were deployed and engines began advancing in power. <br />
o The spoilers were fully deployed within 2.5 seconds after main gear touchdown.<br />
o The nose gear touched down and brake pressure began to rise in a manner consistent with autobrake application 2.8 seconds after the main gear touchdown.<br />
<b>o About six seconds after main gear touchdown, the airplane’s heading began to diverge to the left. At this point, both the left and right engine EPR were about 1.9 with the reversers still deployed.<br />
o The engines reached peak recorded reverse thrust of 2.07 EPR on the left, and 1.91 EPR on the right, between six and seven seconds after touchdown. Engine thrust decreased after this point.</b><br />
o The thrust reversers were stowed nine seconds after main gear touchdown when the engines were both at about 1.6 EPR.<br />
o The airplane departed the left side of the runway approximately 14 seconds after main gear touchdown.<br />
<br />
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150402b.aspx<br/>
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
This is probably a stupid question, but how difficult is it to monitor EPR while also dealing with the other challenges of a low vis rollout combined with crosswinds? I've just never encountered a situation where I had to fine tune something in the cockpit while dealing with potentially challenging rollout conditions... The only thing I really monitor on rollout is airspeed, for TR limitations. Even then, I'm not having to look at anything until well into the decel stage.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
This. In the pax biz, if it takes you more than 2 seconds to explain who you work for, then you have yet to achieve career zen.
Richman