B737 off the runway in YUL

[Pivot]

It was too dark to get a good picture of it yesterday morning. Anyone else land in YUL around the same time?

[xxx]

Hey all you smart performance pilots out there.

There appears to be a rash of 737-800 over runs in the last couple of years.

I read somewhere, as a maker stretches an aircraft, the potential for a tail strike

is greater and therefore the approach speeds have to be higher to have a shallower approach

to prevent smacking the tail.

I would assume the A321 would be in a similar situation.

I have flown a stubby 737 and remember that one had to get on the thrust reversers early to get them deployed.

The thrust levers on a 737 are huge and and get them into reverse can be tricky at times.

Looking at this photo would indicate a landing on 24L in YUL were they usually tell aircraft to clear at the end.

This 737-800 did!!

Comments

XXX

[Kip Powick]

Luckily no one was injured

Probably pilot error ...pilot inattention ..... stowing their laptops after bidding for New Years off

Could be maintenance ...failing to put winter tires on an American aircraft heading to the Great White North.

Maybe terrorists moved the taxiway signs

One comment on the INet..(commenting on the AA Press release).

As a passenger on this flight, this report by AA is inaccurate. All three landing gera exited the runway and were buried up to the bottom of the fuselage and the engines.

[Pivot]

Hey all you smart performance pilots out there.

There appears to be a rash of 737-800 over runs in the last couple of years.

I read somewhere, as a maker stretches an aircraft, the potential for a tail strike

is greater and therefore the approach speeds have to be higher to have a shallower approach

to prevent smacking the tail.

I would assume the A321 would be in a similar situation.

I have flown a stubby 737 and remember that one had to get on the thrust reversers early to get them deployed.

The thrust levers on a 737 are huge and and get them into reverse can be tricky at times.

Looking at this photo would indicate a landing on 24L in YUL were they usually tell aircraft to clear at the end.

This 737-800 did!!

Comments

XXX

It was runway 24R. As you can see in the picture it was not "buried up to the bottom of the fuselage or engines"! But the grass would have been pretty soft with all the rain they had.

[W5]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4340b3c3&opt=512

[mo32a]

Looks like there was a pretty good wind blowing.

[Pivot]

Looks like there was a pretty good wind blowing.

I landed at 20:30Z. Same conditions, wasn't a problem in the 737NG. But I sure wouldn't have tried to make a high speed exit of the runway. The night before tower told us to exit on E even though we were committed to going past it.

[Guest ACSideStick]

whoa big fella!

[apple]

Maybe they didn't have a flow chart.

[J.O.]

70 kts onto a high speed in heavy rain? If it's true it certainly explains it. As an old friend used to say, "Hold on to 'er Knute, she's headin' for the rhubarb patch!"

[Kip Powick]

Perhaps you could expand on your difficulty on getting the thrust reversers to deploy on this type. Never heard of that before.

Has anyone else had difficulty doing this?

On conversion to the 737-200 I found that, initially , as a FO, it was sometimes difficult to get the ^*&%$ reverse levers UP and over the detent.....especially with the left hand and.... if you were in a hurry!!!!

More time and experience and the problem went away.(sorta like unhooking those bra hooks with one hand!)

[Guest alkaid]

On conversion to the 737-200 I found that, initially , as a FO, it was sometimes difficult to get the ^*&%$ reverse levers UP and over the de-dent.....especially with the left hand and.... if you were in a hurry!!!!

Ooops, erased my original post by accident.

I'm sure you have plenty of time in the old 737-200, so for my knowledge of JT8D operation(which I used to do but has become somewhat vague); if you are selecting reverse in a hurry, are you not coming up against the interlock which will stop further aft lever movement until the buckets actually start to deploy(at which point you can move the levers further aft and increase thrust) or is this some other form of difficulty in terms of getting reverse thrust?

[Kip Powick]

On the -200 if one was to slide the thrust levers rearward, they would hit a slight detent and had to be lifted just a bit to get them back to reverse.

The problem was that if one was in a hurry, the rearward pressure one was using at the detent made it hard to get the Thrust levers over the "hump" and into reverse. In no case did the thrust levers just slide back............ there was always a slight lift involved.

[blues deville]

Always listen to your Crew Chief. Another "round of wedge" in the right main probably would have kept that baby on the track.......uh...I mean high speed exit.

http://www.stockcarracing.com/techarticles/39742_what_is_wedge/index.html

bd

[mo32a]

Kip - are you trying to say detent, or am I mistaken?

[Kip Powick]

Kip - are you trying to say detent, or am I mistaken?

You are NOT mistaken......My mind got stuck in an indentation, not my intention, but as how you mentioned it .... it did . Thanks for the correction . Almost through the entire yere without an error.

[GDR]

Listening to all this sure makes me appreciate what a great machine the DC Neuf was.

[Seeker]

As for the B737, the only thing I can tell you is that it's damn scary sitting in the jumpseat of a heavy B739. I had the 'pleasure' of doing just that on a DEL-BOM flight. V1 was around 165kts and Vref was into the 150s!!! For a guy who is used to V speeds at least 20kts slower, sitting closer to the ground with the higher speeds was eye-opening!

You oughta try the jump seat in a heavily loaded RJ! Now that's a traumatic event.

[Seeker]

I'm surprised that there have been this many posts and no-one has mentioned the fact that runway 06L/24R in Montreal is well-known for being slippery at the best of times. I have been surprised several times with the lack of traction for a runway that is merely reported as "wet". Once again we see an American pilot sliding off a Canadian runway (twice in YOW in the last few years and now in YUL) - doesn't anyone else see a pattern? The difference is that most runways in the states are grooved - tell an American pilot that it's raining and the runway is wet and he'll be expecting far better braking than will actually be present.

[Kip Powick]

I'm surprised that there have been this many posts and no-one has mentioned the fact that runway 06L/24R in Montreal is well-known for being slippery at the best of times. I have been surprised several times with the lack of traction for a runway that is merely reported as "wet". Once again we see an American pilot sliding off a Canadian runway (twice in YOW in the last few years and now in YUL) - doesn't anyone else see a pattern? The difference is that most runways in the states are grooved - tell an American pilot that it's raining and the runway is wet and he'll be expecting far better braking than will actually be present.

IF...what was reported, don't you think 70kts is a bit excessive for a turn onto the HS....especially when there was another one, one that most of us used, when going to the ramp??

[Seeker]

IF...what was reported, don't you think 70kts is a bit excessive for a turn onto the HS....especially when there was another one, one that most of us used, when going to the ramp??

Is that "70 knots" airspeed or groundspeed? Stupid question maybe, I dunno. Anyway I think the decision to go for the high speed is usually made above the planned exit speed anticipating that the aircraft will continue to decelerate, right? Sure, the pilot could have continued to B2 or even gone all the way to the end but my point is that that particular runway is slipperier than most and could (and obviously did) catch someone unaware.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

It will be a combination of the following (I suppose):

-sticking to a sub-optimal plan even though conditions aren't as anticipated

-poor braking characteristics of RWY 24R when wet, especially right around that exit point, which is well known by local (CDN) pilots, but may not be otherwise because that information is not published or reported by the airport authority.

-Canadian runways are not grooved

-as yet unknown serviceability level of the aircraft's systems

-exact wind and weather at time of touchdown

...and so forth. No doubt that is one way to get Christmas off. (Too soon? )

[Kip Powick]

Is that "70 knots" airspeed or groundspeed? Stupid question maybe, I dunno. Anyway I think the decision to go for the high speed is usually made above the planned exit speed anticipating that the aircraft will continue to decelerate, right? Sure, the pilot could have continued to B2 or even gone all the way to the end but my point is that that particular runway is slipperier than most and could (and obviously did) catch someone unaware.

Dunno about the "exit" speed..NAVCAN reported the speed and I don't know ifthey have ground radar with speed readout so I guess we wait until the FDR is read. Again, I think it was a combination of high speed, wet runway, weather cocking and more importantly a questionable decision to take that exit...."B" is a much gentler turn off the runway and as I was taught back in the dark ages...when landing..... the entire runway is yours, no matter what ATC or anyone else says. We all like to practice "good airmanship and say "yeh, we can do that" but at times it is better to say, "Negative, we'll clear further down".

The above prose does not indicate, nor suggest, what the actual cause of this minor incident and is based on pure speculation and is that of a personal opinion only....

[Seeker]

I think it was a combination of high speed, wet runway, weather cocking and more importantly a questionable decision to take that exit.

Right, and a runway that is far outside the norm for wet braking performance.

[Guest alkaid]

On the -200 if one was to slide the thrust levers rearward, they would hit a slight detent and had to be lifted just a bit to get them back to reverse.

The problem was that if one was in a hurry, the rearward pressure one was using at the detent made it hard to get the Thrust levers over the "hump" and into reverse. In no case did the thrust levers just slide back............ there was always a slight lift involved.

Sorry Kip,

But in my experience on the 737-200, there was no hump noticed that required lifting of the reverse thrust levers over top of(like a King Air). Just the interlocks that you bumped up against and had to wait until they moved out of the way. Yes the levers are angling upward through their arc of rotation but they stop at that mechanical interlock. Now a person might think that this was a "hump" and then they started trying to lift those levers over this theoretical hump at which time those interlocks just happened to move out of the way leading one to think that they had lifted up and over a hump, but that was not my experience. Then again maybe I just didn't notice it.

One has to wonder why nothing is mentioned in the Flight Crew Training Manual about this so-called "hump" that requires lifting over top of. It sounds like if it were to exist, it could be a very critical item. Yet nothing listed about it. And why would it be there anyways? And did you ever go back over the hump when coming out of reverse? I sure didn't notice it.

I could be wrong though. Perhaps a current 737-200 driver could confirm with us on their next flight.

http://skubert.net/1sk/b732/fctm_737-200.pdf

See pages 6.22 and 6.23