Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 16, 2017, 03:34:09 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: hydroplane + long landing = short runway
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: hydroplane + long landing = short runway  (Read 695 times)
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394

« on: November 14, 2016, 01:20:21 PM »

This is one that might catch even a relatively short landing Cessna like those in the CAP fleet.   According to the report the "pilot's improper decision to land long (past the midpoint) on a wet runway and his failure to conduct a go-around when the airplane did not touch down at the approach end of the runway... resulted in an overrun."  The long landing turned a nice 4128' runway into something a lot less.  Short field capable aircraft aren't immune, for example, this Cessna 182T pilot's experience on a too-short for conditions wet runway.  According to the pilot (in the NTSB Factual Report) the C182T "...veered off the side of a 2,942-foot long, 40-foot-wide, asphalt runway. ... witnesses [reported that] a thunderstorm had recently passed over the airport, and though no precipitation existed at the time of the accident, the runway was still wet from the storm."

[unborked the links]
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 02:23:03 PM by SarDragon » Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 683

« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2016, 10:08:19 PM »

Quote
Airframe Total Time: 240 Hours

Ouch. Nothing like breaking your Squadron's new plane.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,755

« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2016, 12:19:57 AM »

Quote
Airframe Total Time: 240 Hours

Ouch. Nothing like breaking your Squadron's new plane.

Yeah, read the report. It involved a Beech 58P in Texas. CAP does not own any Beech 58P's.
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,522
Unit: of issue

« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2016, 01:04:07 AM »

The 182T was the one with 240 hours, Phil. Read the report, indeed.

Not CAP owned, too.
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394

« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2016, 02:19:29 AM »

The 182T was the one with 240 hours, Phil. Read the report, indeed.

Not CAP owned, too.

Yep.  The point was we (CAP) could easily have that happen since some pilots fly hot landings, AND the weather be a changing...  :)  So, heads up, be ready and willing to do a go around, fly a stabilized approach on the airspeed, and pay attention to the winds (cross winds, and otherwise).  Low time AND high time pilots can succumb.
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,522
Unit: of issue

« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2016, 07:56:53 AM »

Yep.  The point was we (CAP) could easily have that happen since some pilots fly hot landings, AND the weather be a changing...  :)  So, heads up, be ready and willing to do a go around, fly a stabilized approach on the airspeed, and pay attention to the winds (cross winds, and otherwise).  Low time AND high time pilots can succumb.

Totally. Its not like there's a sign on final that says "runway may be wet" like on the highway when it says "bridges freeze first".

I'm always surprised when people decline to go around when the situation clearly dictates.  Floating the plane over half the runway is one of those "OK, time to admit defeat, apply power and try again" circumstances anyway, and then we add the "less than optimal runway conditions" to a bad situation.  I mean, sure, you can land the plane on the last half of the runway when conditions and your skills are perfect (ie. look at what gets done at Oshkosh), but make any of those "not perfect" and your chance of success went downhill quick.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,918
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 10:52:30 AM »

There were two different incidents noted in the post. The second was a Cessna, but I have no evidence that it was or ever has been a CAP-owned aircraft. I think the OP was just making a comparison between that incident and our possible fleet operations. The August incident in SoCal was a dry short runway situation.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Robert Hartigan
Forum Regular

Posts: 180
Unit: each

« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2016, 11:09:06 AM »

I'm always surprised when people decline to go around when the situation clearly dictates.  Floating the plane over half the runway is one of those "OK, time to admit defeat, apply power and try again" circumstances


NIN, You should not be surprised, your comment indicates part of the systemic problem. Those that consider go-arounds as a defeats and not what they really are, the exercise of good judgement are part of the problem. Comments like this that allude to negative outcomes because of faulty approaches only add to the psyche of a pilot being less than his or her peers if he or she can't "save" the landing. A true safety culture would dictate go-arounds as a practiced maneuver and not as a something to be admonished.

I ask pilots when was your last go-around? If they tell me they haven't done one in awhile that opens the door to talk about stabilized approaches. Almost every pilot I have talked to that doesn't fly professionally will begrudgingly admit they have "salvaged" approaches and landings when they should have gone around. At work, I tell everyone to plan for the worst and be surprised by normal! Flying should be done the same way.

Fly better,
Logged
<><><>#996
 GRW   #2717
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,522
Unit: of issue

« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2016, 12:11:03 PM »

[NIN, You should not be surprised, your comment indicates part of the systemic problem. Those that consider go-arounds as a defeats and not what they really are, the exercise of good judgement are part of the problem. Comments like this that allude to negative outcomes because of faulty approaches only add to the psyche of a pilot being less than his or her peers if he or she can't "save" the landing. A true safety culture would dictate go-arounds as a practiced maneuver and not as a something to be admonished.

I ask pilots when was your last go-around? If they tell me they haven't done one in awhile that opens the door to talk about stabilized approaches. Almost every pilot I have talked to that doesn't fly professionally will begrudgingly admit they have "salvaged" approaches and landings when they should have gone around. At work, I tell everyone to plan for the worst and be surprised by normal! Flying should be done the same way.

Perhaps my words were not well chosen. You are correct: a go-around is not defeat.  But it is certainly an admission that the current landing picture is "non-optimal" and, discretion being the better part of valor, time for another crack at it.  For some pilots, this is tantamount to an admission of defeat in their mind, and they're incapable of showing that to others. I prefer not to fly with those guys, as they will tend to try to use their "superior skills" to try to get us out of the situation that their "superior judgement" should have kept us out of 60-90 seconds ago. :)

I have been in the crew when a go around is called. I have made the "go-around" call (and had it adhered to by the pilot flying). Better to burn some more gas and figure out why the picture wasn't right than to press a less-than-advantageous position which should come out OK, but then again might not.

In my part-time job, I'm an instructor in a demanding aviation discipline.  If the picture ain't right to start, it seldom gets better as our altitude decreases. Better to sort out the problem before we start than press a bad position that only gets more critical as time goes on.  I hate to run out of the proverbial "Airspeed, altitude and ideas." I like keeping a little extra of all three when I need it, instead of finding myself short on one when another runs out.
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394

« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2016, 12:23:08 PM »


I have made the "go-around" call (and had it adhered to by the pilot flying). Better to burn some more gas and figure out why the picture wasn't right than to press a less-than-advantageous position which should come out OK, but then again might not.

...  If the picture ain't right to start, it seldom gets better as our altitude decreases. Better to sort out the problem before we start than press a bad position that only gets more critical as time goes on.  I hate to run out of the proverbial "Airspeed, altitude and ideas." I like keeping a little extra of all three when I need it, instead of finding myself short on one when another runs out.

Agree on all counts, and also with other comments that the maneuver is not often practiced as a routine event.  A technique for developing and maintaining a 'Go Around is OK' mindset I use is to invite any pilot, observer, etc. who might occupy the right seat to say at any time "Go Around - simulated deer on runway" or some similar problem or potential issue.  The word "simulated" is helpful, but not entirely essential.  The mechanics of the maneuver are complex and demanding.  IMHO, low, slow, and close to the ground with a declining energy state is one of the more hazardous situations we fly into and through.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 683

« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2016, 06:45:24 PM »

If I don't think I'll be able to make the first taxiway, I'll go around. I like turning off on the first taxiway. I've begun to take pride in that. Doesn't mean they are always squeakers by a long shot. But I really try to be stabilized and slow enough to have the wheels touching on the numbers or just after. Good practice to set a goal of that first taxiway.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: hydroplane + long landing = short runway
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.27 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me