Long Landing Thread

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by photofly »

Probably not very fast. Once you lock the brakes the braking action is fairly minimal, and 100’ is fewer than three wingspans.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

From Google Translate.....

C-GIOX, a Pilatus PC-12 operated by Airmedic Inc, was on a flight rules flight at
instruments (IFR) departing from Québec / Jean Lesage, Qc (CYQB) to Sept Îles, Qc
(CYZV) with 2 crew on board. The aircraft made an approach to runway 09 which
was wet and touched down approximately 3,250 feet past the runway threshold. The landing race
continued past the end of the runway before the pilot flying could stop
the aircraft and proceed to join the Delta taxiway.

http://www.gcmap.com/diagrams/pdf/CYZV.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

C-GHDI, a privately registered Piper PA-28-151 Warrior, was conducting a flight from
Vancouver/Boundary Bay (CZBB), BC to Langley (CYNJ), BC with the pilot and 1 passenger on
board. When approaching the CYNJ control zone, the tower controller advised the pilot the runway
had not been plowed since a recent snow fall and the runway remained partially snow covered with
ice patches. The pilot overflew the airport and requested landing on Runway 19. The aircraft
touched down with approximately 850 feet of runway remaining. While attempting to exit the
runway onto Taxiway A, directional control of the airplane was lost and it departed the paved
surface striking an airport sign with the right wing. The aircraft's right wing sustained substantial
damage. There were no injuries, and the ELT did not activate.
The aircraft was moved to the ramp and will be inspected to determine the extent of the repairs
required.
---------- ADS -----------
 
karmutzen
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by karmutzen »

Can't find a CADORS from the usually trigger-happy CYNJ crew. Where did this summary come from?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1619
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pdw »

The long landing to safely eliminate taxi time on a long runway, or the accident from float-bungling a short field landing at a shorter strip airport (usually single runway) are two entirely different worlds.

Regarding the ‘minimal float acceptance’ ? Innovative idea!

Mind you, by the second try for the threshold in that unfamiliar off airport approach with small aircraft you can also “tell yourself “ to ‘cease and go back to home base’. Sometimes it could be futile to target some of those thresholds in certain conditions, if next try maybe same thing. You could also be getting too slow on the next approach if there’s invisible high ground speed for final-approach in the works (like the Duncan instructor/student example) despite a windsock at the surface suggesting only breakeven. IMO the dates would enable substantiating that this is so often the case.

Reports of short field practise examples that go wrong need the revealing dates included to help bring to life why “float” threat has transpired unbeknownst to an unexpecting PIC. If you can reveal to a researching reader/pilot a reasoning for the extra floating and subsequently (in some cases) the degraded take-off performance accident that has followed, it can portray that profile better. The WX history date for each occurrence becomes the assist needed in developing more solid narrative on this in working on prevention.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by complexintentions »

Eric Janson wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 11:08 pm It's very simple - land in the Touchdown Zone or Go- around. No ambiguity.
Yep. And it's not because of a "dumbing down" or because the Chief Pilot is a big meanie or some other such nonsense alluded to. It's simply due to the fact landing performance data is predicated on landing in the touchdown zone. Go outside it and you can throw the numbers out. Sure, there are large margins built in but they're not there to protect against wilfully landing long. And for some field/landing weight combinations the margins can be uncomfortably tight.

I've seen it many times with people transitioning from a B737/A320 to the B777, being casual about where they place the wheels. Not always, some narrowbody operators have just as disciplined SOP's regarding the TDZ as heavy operators, especially in Europe. But often enough for me to be alert until I see how an FO new to the type operates.

Who cares what someone in their private Super Cub does, could probably land across the runway if they want. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

complexintentions wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:31 pm
Eric Janson wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 11:08 pm It's very simple - land in the Touchdown Zone or Go- around. No ambiguity.
Yep. And it's not because of a "dumbing down" or because the Chief Pilot is a big meanie or some other such nonsense alluded to. It's simply due to the fact landing performance data is predicated on landing in the touchdown zone. Go outside it and you can throw the numbers out. Sure, there are large margins built in but they're not there to protect against wilfully landing long. And for some field/landing weight combinations the margins can be uncomfortably tight.

I've seen it many times with people transitioning from a B737/A320 to the B777, being casual about where they place the wheels. Not always, some narrowbody operators have just as disciplined SOP's regarding the TDZ as heavy operators, especially in Europe. But often enough for me to be alert until I see how an FO new to the type operates.

Who cares what someone in their private Super Cub does, could probably land across the runway if they want. :mrgreen:
This thread was meant more for light aircraft but......

From an airliner point of view....I wouldn't even necessarily fully agree with the above. One can be landing in the touchdown zone and be almost 3000 feet down the runway. Combine that with some slipperiness at a heavy landing weight and you might be going off the end of the runway. Touching down in the touchdown zone is not a guarantee, especially when a few knots fast and a small tailwind. One should consider each landing as its own situation which can change from day to day on the same runway, in the same aircraft, at the same weight.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

C-FFIN a Cessna 152, operated by Lachute Aviation (6800009 Canada Inc.), was landing on
runway 25 at the Alexandria Aerodrome (CNS4), ON. During the approach, the speed was reported
to be higher than anticipated, and the aircraft touched down with about 2/3 of the runway
remaining. The pilot initiated a go-around, however, before becoming airborne the go-around was
rejected. The aircraft went off the end of the runway and struck an embankment located about 120
feet from the runway end. The aircraft came to rest on its nose; there were no injuries.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

From TSB......

C-FZKK, a Cessna 172N operated by Acadia College/AAA Aviation, was conducting circuit training
at Langley (CYNJ), BC, with 1 student pilot on board. After touchdown, the pilot reported
experiencing an unusual wobble in the landing gear and elected to attempt a full stop landing
rather than the intended touch and go. The aircraft overran the end of the runway and traversed
approximately 70 feet of grass before the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft collided with the
airport perimeter fence. The pilot exited the aircraft without assistance. There were no injuries, but
the aircraft was substantially damaged.
Maintenance crews recovered the aircraft. They will examine the aircraft and assess the extent of
the damage in general and in particular to the propeller, engine cowling, wing strut, and landing
gear.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by Eric Janson »

pelmet wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:44 pm From an airliner point of view....I wouldn't even necessarily fully agree with the above. One can be landing in the touchdown zone and be almost 3000 feet down the runway. Combine that with some slipperiness at a heavy landing weight and you might be going off the end of the runway. Touching down in the touchdown zone is not a guarantee, especially when a few knots fast and a small tailwind. One should consider each landing as its own situation which can change from day to day on the same runway, in the same aircraft, at the same weight.
We use the airbus Flysmart software on an iPad.

We get very detailed information about every landing including the factored landing distance and the go-around climb gradient available.

A very important number is the margin remaining - this gives a good indication of whether landing at the end of the touch down zone will give issues.

If something changes a new calculation can be done very rapidly.

I'm surprised that this calculation still isn't mandatory at some Airlines.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

From TSB...

C-FUGU, a privately registered Cessna 172H, was returning to Michael's Bay Field, a private grass
runway approximately 17nm SW of Manitoulin East Municipal Airport (CYEM), ON, after a local
flight with only the pilot on board. During the landing flare on Runway 19, the pilot encountered an
unexpected tailwind (winds were observed, based on the appearance of the water, to be from the
west at approximately 20 knots), resulting in the aircraft floating along the runway. The pilot
decided that he was too far along the runway to make a successful go-around due to obstacles,
including a house, beyond the end of the runway. The pilot landed and used maximum braking
before steering the aircraft into nearby trees to avoid colliding with the house. The nose aircraft
received substantial damage to the nose, and the nose gear collapsed after hitting a rock. The left
and right wingtips received damage from contact with trees. The pilot was not injured.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

From TSB...

C-FYMK, a Cessna 208B operated by Superior Airways, was conducting a VFR flight from Red
Lake (CYRL), ON to Pikangikum (CYPM), ON with 1 pilot and 6 passengers onboard. During the
flare for landing on Runway 27 at CYPM, the aircraft entered fog and landed long. The aircraft
experienced a runway excursion when it rolled off the end of Runway 27. The aircraft sustained
damage to its propeller. There were no injuries. The ELT did not activate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by Eric Janson »

PilotDAR wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:33 am I've also been clear to land to hold short of an intersection, to me, that has the potential for a similarly bad outcome if not accomplished as intended.
We are not allowed to accept these clearances - called Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). For the reason stated above.

I've never worked for an Airline where this was approved.

Seems to be a North American thing - don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

Eric Janson wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:36 pm
PilotDAR wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:33 am I've also been clear to land to hold short of an intersection, to me, that has the potential for a similarly bad outcome if not accomplished as intended.
We are not allowed to accept these clearances - called Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). For the reason stated above.

I've never worked for an Airline where this was approved.

Seems to be a North American thing - don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else.
Works well. Greatly increases airport efficiency. Many times, the intersection is so far down the runway, one would never have gotten that far anyways.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by digits_ »

pelmet wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 4:13 am
Eric Janson wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:36 pm
PilotDAR wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:33 am I've also been clear to land to hold short of an intersection, to me, that has the potential for a similarly bad outcome if not accomplished as intended.
We are not allowed to accept these clearances - called Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). For the reason stated above.

I've never worked for an Airline where this was approved.

Seems to be a North American thing - don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else.
Works well. Greatly increases airport efficiency. Many times, the intersection is so far down the runway, one would never have gotten that far anyways.
LAHSO is mainly used with intersecting runways, right? I'm wondering: if plane A is landing, touches down, but then goes around for whatever reason, after plane B on the other runway has gotten its LAHSO clearance, and also goes around, are both planes protected not to hit each other?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

digits_ wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 10:53 am
pelmet wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 4:13 am
Eric Janson wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 8:36 pm

We are not allowed to accept these clearances - called Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). For the reason stated above.

I've never worked for an Airline where this was approved.

Seems to be a North American thing - don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else.
Works well. Greatly increases airport efficiency. Many times, the intersection is so far down the runway, one would never have gotten that far anyways.
LAHSO is mainly used with intersecting runways, right? I'm wondering: if plane A is landing, touches down, but then goes around for whatever reason, after plane B on the other runway has gotten its LAHSO clearance, and also goes around, are both planes protected not to hit each other?
A go-around can lead to a collision regardless of whether LAHSO operations are in effect. I remember one time we were taking off out of Chicago from 14L with a clearance to turn left to something like 090 degrees. The winds were out of the south at 30 knots. While we were on the roll an A330 was instructed to go around from 14R due to a dead bird reported on the runway. Meanwhile, an RJ landing on 10C decided to go around as well due to the effects of the wind. So double go-around and us taking off. Let's just say that it got interesting with plenty of confusion, mostly for the controllers. With two towers in operation, I was only able to piece things together later on by downloading the communication tapes from the internet. 14L did not intersect with 10C but the centerlines did.

Even a go-around from parallel runway ops can lead to a collision with the parallel. Happened recently in Paris....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5CFhVvMTkk

Anyways, when all is said and done, I don't remember any collisions due to LAHSO ops. Doesn't mean it won't happen though.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Long Landing Thread

Post by pelmet »

C-GEOW, a Pilatus PC-12/45 aircraft operated by North Star Air Ltd., was conducting a flight from
Sioux Lookout Airport (CYXL), ON to Kasabonika Airport (CYAQ), ON. During the landing on
Runway 03, the aircraft experienced a runway excursion when it overran the end of the runway.
The aircraft came to rest approximately 350 feet past the departure end of the runway and the
aircraft was substantially damaged. The pilots and passengers were uninjured. The ELT activated.


.....from TSB.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”