Trans States runway over-run. Again.

ChasenSFO

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
...Rochester this time. No injuries.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/...slips-off-Rochester-airport-runway/53231196/1

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) – Authorities say no one was injured when a passenger jet with 45 people on board ran off the runway at Rochester's airport shortly after landing.

Officials at the Greater Rochester International Airport tell local media outlets that United Airlines Flight 3350 from Chicago landed during a snow storm around 11:35 p.m. Wednesday and ended up 50 to 75 feet off the runway.
Click to expand...

Funny how Trans States, despite operating the least United Express flights of any of United's regional partners(almost an understatement), manages to have yet another over-run while meanwhile all the other United Express carriers with their hundreds of daily flights combined in recent years have had but one. Skywest -700 in ELP, no injuries, aircraft back to service almost instantly. Guess those reversers don't seem like such a bad idea now.
 
That's nuts that they still don't have reversers. The added mx cost for the reversers can't be that much compared to the insurance cost of running off the end of the runway every 2 years, can it? :)
 
inigo88 said:
That's nuts that they still don't have reversers. The added mx cost for the reversers can't be that much compared to the insurance cost of running off the end of the runway every 2 years, can it? :)
Click to expand...

More often than that. They parked one off the runway in Ottawa within the last year also, though I think that was a nosewheel steering runaway.
 
inigo88 said:
That's nuts that they still don't have reversers. The added mx cost for the reversers can't be that much compared to the insurance cost of running off the end of the runway every 2 years, can it? :)
Click to expand...
I do wonder where the lines would cross.

It'll be an interesting investigation to follow.
 
Before we throw stones at TSA for the off road excursions let's look at the airports where they are going, as well as the runway conditions. I can say that I have had some interesting landings at Rochester when there is ice on the runway. I cannot speak for Ottawa but that seems to be a mechanical issue. It is quite unfortunate for those pilots and I wish them all the best in what seems to be a crappy time at their airline.
 
For every one incident / accident you read about, 5 (if not more) others happen under the radar.
 
amorris311 said:
Before we throw stones at TSA for the off road excursions let's look at the airports where they are going, as well as the runway conditions. I can say that I have had some interesting landings at Rochester when there is ice on the runway. I cannot speak for Ottawa but that seems to be a mechanical issue. It is quite unfortunate for those pilots and I wish them all the best in what seems to be a crappy time at their airline.
Click to expand...

No one is saying anything about the pilots at TSA. The TSA planes with the old brakes and no TRs should not be flying. My guess is their landing data puts them 1.5K-2K longer then planes with the better brakes and TRs.
 
TR's cannot be factored into landing distance calcs. If they are going off the end they either have bad landing landing data in their books, worn out brakes (below min wear), or most likely pilot error (landing too fast, too far down the rwy, over landing weight for a runway, and or apply insufficient brakes.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
TR's cannot be factored into landing distance calcs. If they are going off the end they either have bad landing landing data in their books, worn out brakes (below min wear), or most likely pilot error (landing too fast, too far down the rwy, over landing weight for a runway, and or apply insufficient brakes.
Click to expand...
You're right that TRs can't be factored, but in practice they can be your "ace in the hole" when it comes to being on the edge of the envelope.

I'm guessing because TRs aren't used for landing calcs, many OALs have an advantage because those reversers help some
 
Those TSA airplanes are in rough shape. They have had 4 incidents in 3 years. I know they are suppose to be a launch customer for that Mitsubishi RJ but who knows if or when that will happen.
 
Gonzo said:
No one is saying anything about the pilots at TSA. The TSA planes with the old brakes and no TRs should not be flying. My guess is their landing data puts them 1.5K-2K longer then planes with the better brakes and TRs.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask for some data on +1.5K to 2K landing distance because of no TRs
 
It does happen. At least the XJT ones have TRs. I fly for TSA. I won't name any specific flights, but when we were flying into Canada we've had a number of crews that felt they were going to break the seat or the pedals they were pushing so hard to stop landing on a wet or icy runway and nothing happens. Along for the ride at that point.

With regards to this most recent incident, I spoke with the crew today and they were on profile. The entire shadow of the airplane was only about 3 feet off the end of 22 in ROC, but still well off. The second YOW incident the plane landed during a squall and basically touched down on a temporary lake right in the middle of 32. Apparently there is CCTV video from the tower that shows the whole thing (according to Canadians).

I think big changes are coming down the pipe for our planes w/o TRs. Our FSDO has always been a little out there with their rulings. (We are the only EMB operator in the country to my knowledge where we can't wear our own headsets even if they're TSO'd for example), but I think this one is going to go above their heads. Either they're going to re-open certification of the 145 w/o TRs, or bar us from landing w/contamination. Either way, gonna be an interesting couple months.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
TR's cannot be factored into landing distance calcs. If they are going off the end they either have bad landing landing data in their books, worn out brakes (below min wear), or most likely pilot error (landing too fast, too far down the rwy, over landing weight for a runway, and or apply insufficient brakes.
Click to expand...

True. However, we all know that contamination reports can be pretty subjective. I've landed on runways with "good" braking reported only to find it fair. Landed on runways reported fair only to find it good. At surejet our ACARS has all sorts of different discriminators that can be put in the for runway condition. It can result in some pretty vast differences on whether or not we can get in.

Bottom line, its pretty stupid not to have them as an ace in the hole.
 
Jump do you have any idea what the landing weight was?
I just looked and at 41K without TRs flaps 45 I am at 6,900 fair and that is with the good brakes.
 
n57flyguy said:
I'm going to ask for some data on +1.5K to 2K landing distance because of no TRs
Click to expand...
MLW is a 44K card and the no TR hit is 1380-1830 feet based on braking action, the lowest hit is a 30K card and it is 1030-1380 and we have the better brakes. I would add 500-1000 for just the brakes.
 
I'm looking at the dispatch paperwork for a similar flight and we have the performance for it all the way to MGW even with a wet runway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top