Porter Airlines-Off end of Runway

[TheFrankestFrank]

The last time I experienced a loss of headwind I lost my erection.

[Cat Driver]

I have been posting on this forum for a long time and as time passes it seems to me that aviation in general is getting so dumbed down with micro-managing of every tiny detail it is getting to be scarey, real scarey.

Maybe I am getting senile?

[Meatservo]

You know what, Cat Driver? VIA rail offers some pretty good deals from time to time. I don't feel scared at all when I travel.

[Cat Driver]

I can remember when flying by airline was something so special people dressed up for the occasion.

Now when you go to an airport you are at risk of some security moron undressing you and probing your private parts.

If I never see an airport terminal again I will die happy.

[Cough Syrup]

"Yes, as it starts to flare for touchdown ... a bit tardy (on account of the faster GS picked up in the smooth final approach-course over the lake) the high GS then meets NNW/underpinning offshore flow (Windsock headwind) that is boosting IAS briefly during flare-out/touchdown, also not expected ("so subtle")."





I'm sure Transport and Porter will look no further than the entries on this thread to do their research.

[double-j]

Here is a novel approach to a subtle headwind-to-groundspeed-to-late-touchdown situation...

Goaround!

[pdw]

Goaround!

Touching down still within the first 1000ft and the braking cycle starts immediately (1300Z metar ... 34004kts "300V360) ... but then it's quickly too late to react to upward fluctuating airspeed forced up as headwind rises again following '290 veers 020' or so on final ( 1400Z metar ... "290V020") where actually ~ 34004kt on the ground. The braking quickly loses a (resulting) spike in airspeed (the same high airspeed necessary for a quickly-chosen goaround) leaving no time to reload thrust at their high GS and 'short remaining' ... to even attempt it.

Safer to stay down in this case as RWY depletes too quick for "Goaraound". PIC would have needed to know about a subtle "290V020" ahead of time, but the 1400Z metar where this shows up is in the next hour's metar. The other two stations on the island (Wunderground history) aren't showing any data ... so not sure if they were even reporting (this info would have shown the wind reversal on the lake as is evidenced by all the other stations around the lake).

(Thanks Frank, ... yes ...the viagra above doesn't always help the limp windsock on the ground, .. deceptive even to approach-control.)

The limp windsock isn't indicative of what's going on above the deck on this particular final ... where GS rises while holding a tailwind airspeed and an early-enough flare wasn't possible to achieve in the deceived limitation (under these circumstances). Very tricky here to win on the steeper glideslope when the change in winds for the approach-area is not possible to see soon enough.

[Cat Driver]

This forum is getting so dumb ed down I actually look forward to how low it can go.

[golden hawk]

This forum is getting so dumb ed down I actually look forward to how low it can go.

Agreed

[GyvAir]

pdw... I've just gotta ask. Are you serious, or is this your version of trolling?

[Colonel Sanders]

DHC-8-400 was landing on runway 08 CYTZ. The aircraft landed long

I'm not sure how this got to be so complicated. With a 120K (estimate) short final speed, and only 4,000 feet of runway, you simply can't afford to discard pavement by landing long.

Ask Air France about landing long at YYZ. Pax got out on the 401.

In both of the above, the pilots knew they screwed the pooch before touchdown, but for their own reasons decided to push a bad approach into a bad landing.

[pdw]

DHC-8-400 was landing on runway 08 CYTZ. The aircraft landed long

In both of the above, the pilots knew they screwed the pooch before touchdown, but for their own reasons decided to push a bad approach into a bad landing.

There was unknown in both. Both unware their negative windvector on the glideslope would lengthen the flare (delay the point of contact with the pavement) to the extent it happened. (AF was extreme windshear, a nearby lightening strike and water on the pavement.) A lot faster to arrive at the decision point whether to stay down, but a lot more RWY goes by in the touchdown where braking can start taking down the higher speed of a still-negligible RWY headwind component on the ground.

(GyvAir, the local high-time CFI at the old flying club is a good guy to ask about 'the "subtle" windsock' of this situation.)

Must admit, felt a little "dumb ed" in contemplating appropriate detail to make the point.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's weird how so many pilots would rather crash than overshoot.

There must be a terrible stigma associated with the overshoot, which
would force pilots to make such horrible decisions. My problem is that
I stopped giving a sh1t what anyone thought decades ago, so I guess
I don't fear the social stigma of the "dreaded overshoot". The crew
room catcalls. The hooting and hollering in the bar. The career-ending
email from the CP.

Landing a 120 knot aircraft on 4000 feet, if you're still in the air at
1000 feet down the runway, the throttles go forward. I know a little
bit about this particular scenario.

Now, the "experts" here will tell me that it's impossible to go around
if you're still flying at 1000 feet down the runway. Not enough energy,
they will say.

I guess when they take off they are always already airborne by 1000 feet

[Cough Syrup]

This forum is getting so dumb ed down I actually look forward to how low it can go.

Dumbed-down or nerded-up? Maybe a bit of both...

[pdw]

I guess when they take off they are always already airborne by 1000 feet

130kts GS over the chevrons at the 08 numbers is 4.5 seconds for 1000ft (220ft/sec).

Those engines are great climbers (flew porter to St Johns last year), .. not surprised up in 1000ft.

I imagine that spool-up takes a few seconds though if I recall ...

[GyvAir]

Almost too funny. I just hope none of this is actually coming from a pilot seat.

[AOW]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Dispatch requirements ensure that a prop driven airliner can land in 70% of the LDA, so the actual landing distance calculated for that flight was (at most) 0.7*3988 = 2791.6 ft. So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem. Don't the landing distance calculations also assume max brake, but no reverse? So adding in reverse should make this a non-event.

My (marginally educated, somewhat opinionated) guess is this was a case of braking too little and too late.

[Cat Driver]

Almost too funny. I just hope none of this is actually coming from a pilot seat.

My best guess is pdw is sitting in a cubicle somewhere in the T.C. quagmire working on the new written exam questions and is casting them out to sort of give the industry a heads up on what is soon to be part of being a pilot.

[Colonel Sanders]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:



Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

[AOW]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:

Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

I'm not saying that its smart, but the regs require that the airplane be able to cross 50 ft over the threshold of a 2792' long runway at Vref and stop before the end, without the benefit of reverse, so touching down with 2788' to go shouldn't be a show stopper.

[Colonel Sanders]

touching down with 2788' to go shouldn't be a show stopper

Possibly the Jazz crew at YYB that ran off the end of a
10,000 foot runway thought the same thing

I guess the difference between me and the gold bars
crowd is that I'll still get laid if I overshoot every once
in a while.

[tbaylx]

Col Sanders.

I too happen to fly a jet off short strips (5000' gravel, but it weighs a bit more than yours and refs 120-140 ish so about even's out). Landing distance is based upon flying the glide slope to the 1000' markers and touching down. No need at all to drop below the glide slope and try and plant it on the numbers..as a matter of fact you're more likely to land short and rip the gear off trying that since it's a ways behind you and below where you sit in a nose up attitude. You can't fly a med/large jet like a twotter without getting into issues. In any modern airline with a decent training program stabilized approaches are key. There is no stigma to a go around at all. If you're floating it and going to land long, you go around, no questions asked. As long as you haven't pulled reverse the thing will spool and go around well after a touch down. I would bet that you'd use a lot less runway going around from 100 kts after touch down than trying to stop. And if the old bird that i'm flying will spool those old JT8's up and do it from low energy, then sure as hell a q400 will. No idea what performance numbers are on the Q but i bet a 4000' strip is way more than enough for that aircraft if flown on speed and on profile to a 1000' touchdown.

PDW i'm not sure if you're actually a pilot or not, but really? It doesn't matter one bit what the wind and airspeed are doing once you are on the ground..all about g/s, weight and braking after touch down. Smaller changes in wind don't make much difference in the flare either. 5 kts moving around in any direction isn't going to affect an aircraft of that size in the last few seconds. It's really very simple as Col. Sanders says...if you aren't on profile and speed and on the ground not far after the 1000' markers then you better be going around. Any aircraft that i'm aware of will do a low energy go around even after touch down quite safely, especially a turbo prop.

[altiplano]

The Q400 has more than ample power to go around low energy hot and heavy and spool up is a non issue, even with reduced np selected. Despite all the mumbo jumbo being spewed on this thread it is very capable of stopping fast without any pucker-factor even if it did touch down 500 feet long in YTZ. These guys must have been way long or forgot where the brakes were to end up down there....

[fanspeed]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:


Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

[Boreas]

These guys must have been way long or forgot where the brakes were to end up down there....

I got it from someone that was on the apron that morning that they touched-down past Foxtrot (<2000' remaining)... for what its worth...