767 Overrun Miami KMIA

[Eric Janson]

https://avherald.com/h?article=540409db&opt=0

News reporting 5 dead - aircraft ended up crashing into parked vehicles.

Flightradar shows 112kts at the Runway end (!) and a long landing - not sure how accurate the data is.

Landing on a shortish runway with a 15kt tailwind is asking for trouble imho.

B767 also has a pretty high Vref.

[lostav8r]

https://avherald.com/h?article=540409db&opt=0

News reporting 5 dead - aircraft ended up crashing into parked vehicles.

Flightradar shows 112kts at the Runway end (!) and a long landing - not sure how accurate the data is.

Landing on a shortish runway with a 15kt tailwind is asking for trouble imho.

B767 also has a pretty high Vref.

Could be false info but the fatalities are on the ground as of now, imagine how you'd feel as a crewmember?

[BTD]

We have to get away from this as an industry. Accepting short (ish) runways in thunderstorms and wet conditions with tailwinds. It keeps happening.

I’ve been in this exact position from South America to Miami, heavy ish 767, although we didn’t have a tailwind. Told them we couldn’t accept due to operations. They mumble a bit and then give us 26L. Obviously we don’t know many details, but 767, runway 30, wet, is already enough for me to say no.

It keeps happening. For those starting out. Tell them no, and spend 5 extra mins going around to the other side or a longer runway.

WestJet Halifax
Skylease Halifax
Southwest Burbank 2018

Among many others.

[7ECA]

Information subject to change rapidly, but according to AvHerald:

According to ADS-B data the aircraft touched down 4000 feet (1130 meters) past the (displaced) runway threshold with about 4500 feet (1380 meters) of runway remaining at 160 knots over ground. The aircraft crossed the runway end at about 112 knots over ground.

The media is also reporting that along with 5 fatalities on the ground, there are 5 people injured with 3 in critical condition.

The METAR at the time of the incident:

KMIA 061753Z 19017G26KT 10SM TS SCT020CB BKN048 BKN150 BKN250 30/22 A2994 RMK AO2 PK WND 18026/1752 WSHFT 1737 SLP137 TSB12 OCNL LTGICCG E-S TS E-S MOV E CB DSNT NW T03000222 10333 20261 55003 $=

[khedrei]

We have to get away from this as an industry. Accepting short (ish) runways in thunderstorms and wet conditions with tailwinds. It keeps happening.

I’ve been in this exact position from South America to Miami, heavy ish 767, although we didn’t have a tailwind. Told them we couldn’t accept due to operations. They mumble a bit and then give us 26L. Obviously we don’t know many details, but 767, runway 30, wet, is already enough for me to say no.

It keeps happening. For those starting out. Tell them no, and spend 5 extra mins going around to the other side or a longer runway.

WestJet Halifax
Skylease Halifax
Southwest Burbank 2018

Among many others.

Cargojet YVR most recently. Though I think that one had some slat/flap issues and the longer runway was closed.

It looks like there is a roadway and on the other side of that an Amazon warehouse parking lot. Judging by the pictures, I dont think it made it past the road.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

[Blackdog0301]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

Yes, but only 7900 of landing distance available with the displaced threshold. Should still be more than enough though.

[BTD]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

As mentioned, with the displaced threshold it is less than the 9300. So that is shortish for a 767 that is heavy. Then throw in wet with thunderstorms nearby. Plus a tailwind. It’s not that it can’t be done, the question is why even try when other options are available? I’m of course assuming at least one of the other runways was open. As said above, I’ve said no to runway 30 in the 767 in MIA when heavy and it’s no big deal.

The shortish runway likely won’t be the cause, but when other things start stacking up against you, we should be looking for other options. It’s the same with the accidents I listed above.

Plus it doesn’t take much to overheat the brakes on the 67. Landing in Atlanta or 24L Toronto I routinely exit at the end if heavyish.

Again, this is general discussion as I don’t know many of the facts in this specific case.

[canadianfly]

Trying to outrun a TS, we've all been there at least once in our career.
Had they had other options? Probably yes, but we don't have all the pixels from the comfort of our homes...

My prayers for the victims and thoughts for their loved ones

[Orion's Fannypack]

The wheels were in contact with the ground, but that aircraft still wanted to fly. The internal pressure to push through a bad approach is one of our biggest self-imposed demons in this business.

Landing footage:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dy_QMnph5TE

[airway]

Looks like a dry runway to me.

[pelmet]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

As mentioned, with the displaced threshold it is less than the 9300. So that is shortish for a 767 that is heavy. Then throw in wet with thunderstorms nearby. Plus a tailwind. It’s not that it can’t be done, the question is why even try when other options are available? I’m of course assuming at least one of the other runways was open. As said above, I’ve said no to runway 30 in the 767 in MIA when heavy and it’s no big deal.

The shortish runway likely won’t be the cause, but when other things start stacking up against you, we should be looking for other options. It’s the same with the accidents I listed above.

Plus it doesn’t take much to overheat the brakes on the 67. Landing in Atlanta or 24L Toronto I routinely exit at the end if heavyish.

Again, this is general discussion as I don’t know many of the facts in this specific case.

Then why do you keep telling us that the runway was wet when it appears that it was dry?

[pelmet]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

As mentioned, with the displaced threshold it is less than the 9300. So that is shortish for a 767 that is heavy. Then throw in wet with thunderstorms nearby. Plus a tailwind. It’s not that it can’t be done, the question is why even try when other options are available? I’m of course assuming at least one of the other runways was open. As said above, I’ve said no to runway 30 in the 767 in MIA when heavy and it’s no big deal.

The shortish runway likely won’t be the cause, but when other things start stacking up against you, we should be looking for other options. It’s the same with the accidents I listed above.

Plus it doesn’t take much to overheat the brakes on the 67. Landing in Atlanta or 24L Toronto I routinely exit at the end if heavyish.

Again, this is general discussion as I don’t know many of the facts in this specific case.

Then why do you keep telling us that the runway was wet when it appears that it was dry?

If you don’t know much stop talking like you do.

[BTD]

Shortish? Isn’t that runway like 9000ft+ at sea level?

This is a long landing with a tailwind. Bad choices.

As mentioned, with the displaced threshold it is less than the 9300. So that is shortish for a 767 that is heavy. Then throw in wet with thunderstorms nearby. Plus a tailwind. It’s not that it can’t be done, the question is why even try when other options are available? I’m of course assuming at least one of the other runways was open. As said above, I’ve said no to runway 30 in the 767 in MIA when heavy and it’s no big deal.

The shortish runway likely won’t be the cause, but when other things start stacking up against you, we should be looking for other options. It’s the same with the accidents I listed above.

Plus it doesn’t take much to overheat the brakes on the 67. Landing in Atlanta or 24L Toronto I routinely exit at the end if heavyish.

Again, this is general discussion as I don’t know many of the facts in this specific case.

Then why do you keep telling us that the runway was wet when it appears that it was dry?

If you don’t know much stop talking like you do.

You are quite funny. You post non stop on accident threads. Often you give your specific inputs on checklist usage and get into debates with others who disagree. I concede the runway does appear dry. So I made an error discussing an accident less than 24 hrs old. This is a discussion board not CBC or CTV. Tell me is it only you who gets to make suggestions to flying techniques. I mentioned we don’t have all the facts. And I’m sure more will come to light and/or change. So that likely removes wet runway as a contributing factor.

However, my point still stands. Reference above accident reports and this one will likely add to the list. Don’t accept short runways, when other factors start stacking up. Including, tailwinds, wet runways, thunderstorms, winter weather, low visibility, when there may be other options available. The accident reports bear this out. Some of these factors may or may not be a factor in this specific instance but the lesson can be learned non the less.

Quick. If you have flown a 767 into Miami and landed on runway 30 both heavy and light raise your hand.

My advice goes to the overall instance of runway overruns. There will likely also be other factors too that I could harp on. Eg. Don’t cross the threshold well above 50ft, don’t leave thrust on in the flare, make sure the speed brakes deploy after touchdown (instead of assuming), don’t be above vref when margins are tight. Some, all, or none, of which may be factors here.

Edit:
Pelmet, looks like in your first post on the Vietnam 787 takeoff overrun, you are discussing how weight miscalculations are typically what would lead to a takeoff overrun run with under performance. And now it looks like it is a brake related issue. And not related to weight at all. Seems we all make certain errors in general discussion.

However, I think you were correct, in that it is typically WAT calculation errors that lead to those circumstances. Again, the reports bear that out. So it is a good discussion to have regardless of the specific cause in that incident.

[propfeather]

Tell me is it only you who gets to make suggestions to flying techniques.

Pelmet is always right! Always gets the last word too.

Question from someone who doesn't fly large 705 jets: I assume you're running landing distance numbers with the prevalent conditions for each landing? And are these landing numbers calculated without reverse thrust? How much extra runway would you estimate a heavy 767 should have on that runway with the tailwind component?

I've been guilty of continuing a fast approach or excessive float, but only in good VMC and onto runways with 10x length required. It can be somewhat common when teaching brand new FOs.
On the really short strips: any excess speed, float, or bounce is an automatic go-around unless it's a one way strip. It's really important to know just how much float you can accept when the margins are tight.

[BTD]

At my operator yes, we run a calc for every landing. Some may have certain stipulations about if it’s dry and over 10000 ft etc. Usually our inputs do not assume reverse thrust. It is an option we can select. Keep in mind reverse won’t stop you any quicker with autobrakes unless the antiskid is cycling. Auto brake commands a deceleration rate. Reverse will just decrease the brake pressure applied.

Rwy 30 has an LDA of 7913 ft.
At 140 T (max 147ish), flap 30, dry, wind calm, no reverse, max auto will require about 6900 ft, brake 4 will be about 7100 feet. In either case you are arriving at the gate with the brake temp lights on.

With a 10 kt tailwind, max auto will be around 7800 ft.
With a 10 kt tailwind and at 120 T will need about 7100 ft.

Some things to consider. Max manual braking on Boeings will stop much shorter than max auto. But if max auto doesn’t do it for you and you are considering max manual, find another runway. The “normal” landing flap on the 67 is 25. I’d guess 75-80 % of landings are done flap 25. That will add about 2-300 ft stopping distance and 2-3 mins more brake cooling.

My rule of thumb is if the distance remaining drops below 1000 ft, I’m upping my auto brake setting. If that means I bump from 4 to max or even sometimes otherwise if it is 30+ degrees out, I’m looking for a longer runway. Normal would be considered flap 25/30 brakes 2. 3 is fine. 4 works although if things are good after touchdown I disarm it and back off a little on the brakes to roll to the end with max reverse until 60 kts or so.

[Eric Janson]

@propfeather

I've been using airbus flysmart software for landing calculations.

Standard calculation is for landing distance using medium autobrakes and no reverse. You can manually change both parameters.

I don't have numbers for the 767 - but for the A340 at maximum landing weight with a 10 knot tailwind (max allowed) we'd have about 1800' remaining. That's with idle reverse.

I've been guilty of continuing a fast approach or excessive float, but only in good VMC and onto runways with 10x length required. It can be somewhat common when teaching brand new FOs.

That's a very bad thing imho. A new FO will think it's ok as long as the runway is long enough. New FOs should be learning to do it correctly or go-around regardless of runway length - but that's me. I like keeping things simple.


KMIA Runway 30 has an ILS.

LDA 7913' beyond the Glide Slope 7440' with a TCH of 71'. (Source Jeppesen 10-9A)

This is short for a widebody aircraft - there isn't much room for error.

I wouldn't be accepting any factors that would increase my landing distance on this runway. Any tailwind is not acceptable.

Then it's on speed, on profile and land close to the 1000' markers. Anything else is a go-around.

The video of the 767 landing on runway 30 shows a fast approach (low aircraft pitch), an early flare followed by a long float.
This is followed by nose gear touchdown while the main bogies are still tilted. The video doesn't show spoiler or thrust reverser deployment.

[propfeather]

@propfeather

I've been using airbus flysmart software for landing calculations.

Standard calculation is for landing distance using medium autobrakes and no reverse. You can manually change both parameters.

I don't have numbers for the 767 - but for the A340 at maximum landing weight with a 10 knot tailwind (max allowed) we'd have about 1800' remaining. That's with idle reverse.

I've been guilty of continuing a fast approach or excessive float, but only in good VMC and onto runways with 10x length required. It can be somewhat common when teaching brand new FOs.

That's a very bad thing imho. A new FO will think it's ok as long as the runway is long enough. New FOs should be learning to do it correctly or go-around regardless of runway length - but that's me. I like keeping things simple.


KMIA Runway 30 has an ILS.

LDA 7913' beyond the Glide Slope 7440' with a TCH of 71'. (Source Jeppesen 10-9A)

This is short for a widebody aircraft - there isn't much room for error.

I wouldn't be accepting any factors that would increase my landing distance on this runway. Any tailwind is not acceptable.

Then it's on speed, on profile and land close to the 1000' markers. Anything else is a go-around.

The video of the 767 landing on runway 30 shows a fast approach (low aircraft pitch), an early flare followed by a long float.
This is followed by nose gear touchdown while the main bogies are still tilted. The video doesn't show spoiler or thrust reverser deployment.

Thanks Eric and BTD. Similar to what I was assuming, hard to see why they wouldn't have gone around after that first attempt of a flare. We'll find out when the report comes out I suppose.

Regarding the fast approach and float - That would be a one and done, good debrief afterwards and if it happens again, go-around. I do agree though, do it right every time. Sometimes it is done (well briefed) to help traffic sequencing at large, busy airports (in a DHC6), with a planned exit taxiway far down the runway.

[ZBBYLW]

It's not accepting runway 30 that put them into the rhubarb, it was landing very long and very fast.

If they landed in the touchdown zone and on speed this would not be a news worthy accident.

They could have had some unusual fault pop up on final and we are all looking at the wrong thing (the Vietnam 787 in MUC comes to mind).. but based on the video, it looks like a reminder that you need to know when to throw in the towel and much before these guys touched down. I bet as soon as they touched down the selected max reverse which means the GA is out of the picture but with no WOWs they got no braking or reverse for a while.

[pelmet]

Edit:
Pelmet, looks like in your first post on the Vietnam 787 takeoff overrun, you are discussing how weight miscalculations are typically what would lead to a takeoff overrun run with under performance. And now it looks like it is a brake related issue. And not related to weight at all. Seems we all make certain errors in general discussion.

I didn't make an error. I said "typically" because it typically is a weight miscalculation. But I didn't say that it actually was a weight miscalculation or write it on a manner that makes everyone think that I was stating that it was a weight miscalculation.....only that it typically is. I chose my word carefully and I remember specifically choosing that word.

Pelmet is always right!

Almost.......:)

[rudder]

Any professional pilot watching that video recognizes an unstable approach. All of the publicly available data reinforces that fact. There is ADSB readout and vertical profile imagery. Beyond that, the crew had lots of information available to indicate dramatically increased ground speed (due excessive tailwind component). The ground speed issue wouldn’t necessarily make the approach unstable - but thrust not stabilized in the normal range would (and excessive vertical speed to maintain profile).

Then below 50’ AGL it went all to hell due to everything that was going on above 50’ AGL. Premature flare (probably due to excessive vertical speed). Float well beyond the touchdown zone. Unusual attitude at touchdown. You don’t need a computerized voice telling you it is a deep landing - one of the two pilots should recognize and verbalize (same for stable approach criteria).

The correct call is “go-around” not “correcting”. We have spent years training to that standard. And then this happens.

I am relieved this did not end in a fireball and that the pilots are available to be interviewed. The DFDR will tell us what they did. The CVR will tell us what they said. And the pilots can tell the NTSB what they saw and what they were thinking.

Hopefully not a repeat of MUC where it has been reported that the crew acknowledge that aircraft performance was not normal but they continued anyway. Mechanical and environmental factors are not controllable. Human performance is controllable. It reinforces that judgement is critical to mitigating risk while also a potential contributor to risk.

[Blackdog0301]

I have a hard time imagining this 767 was anywhere remotely close to max landing weight. I do not believe that anything is shipped with Amazon LEAVING Puerto Rico. Looking at flightradar24, this aircraft was airborne in under 4000 feet. And then it took 13 or 14 minutes to reach FL380. This was not a heavy airplane.

[FL030]

I often wondered if I could operate a 767 out of the northern Reserve strips that are 3500 feet. It's an amazing STOL machine for a wide body jet. This is nearly as embarrassing as Jazz going off the end in North Bay. That's probably why this accident happened actually, it needs so little runway to stop that they kept pushing it.

[bobcaygeon]

We have to get away from this as an industry. Accepting short (ish) runways in thunderstorms and wet conditions with tailwinds. It keeps happening.

I’ve been in this exact position from South America to Miami, heavy ish 767, although we didn’t have a tailwind. Told them we couldn’t accept due to operations. They mumble a bit and then give us 26L. Obviously we don’t know many details, but 767, runway 30, wet, is already enough for me to say no.

It keeps happening. For those starting out. Tell them no, and spend 5 extra mins going around to the other side or a longer runway.

WestJet Halifax
Skylease Halifax
Southwest Burbank 2018

Among many others.

WJ YOW RWY 07 tailwind with reverser MEL.

[Eric Janson]

Thanks Eric and BTD. Similar to what I was assuming, hard to see why they wouldn't have gone around after that first attempt of a flare. We'll find out when the report comes out I suppose.

Regarding the fast approach and float - That would be a one and done, good debrief afterwards and if it happens again, go-around. I do agree though, do it right every time. Sometimes it is done (well briefed) to help traffic sequencing at large, busy airports (in a DHC6), with a planned exit taxiway far down the runway.

A lot of companies have an FDM (Flight Data Monitoring) program.

An unstable approach (without a go-around) or a long landing will trigger an event - followed by a call from the safety department.

Extreme cases or repeat events will lead to termination.