World's Most Expensive Lawnmower.

[Don Hudson]

Moon...just from thinking about it from a few angles, I can see it for the Dash and similar types, but I suspect that "landing long, for the exit & gate at the end" is not the case. I've operated onto that runway many times on all types in both seats and, even informally, it was never a thought or consideration.

Also, a decision to land 'a bit longer' is an alteration of the certification performance data which puts one in no-man's land. That would be a organizational and cultural matter, likely one of record. It can certainly be done successfully, particularly when one has tons of experience on the airplane and on various runway conditions but it seems the days of choosing one's own procedures over the book are pretty well gone.

[blues deville]

Blues, re "It's clear to me that Boeing has stretched this classic airliner to its limit in my opinion."

I'm not sure what that means; - the design and the aircraft are certified which means actual performance data conforms to standard runway performance requirements; I don't know in fact if the airplane performs any differently than previous types. It's logical that taking any aircraft onto short or contaminated runways is exposing it to higher risk but if the aircraft's In-flight Performance Advisory Information indicates that the landing distance is sufficient under the conditions and the crew flies the airplane by the book and gets it on in the first thousand feet*, etc., etc., then the landing should be unremarkable.

However, and I have no bias either way as it's just interesting to discuss, I'll try to research the data regarding the points you raise. The Boeing data shows that the NG series has a far lower hull-loss rate from all causes than the Classics. I agree that higher approach speeds, in general, are a higher risk all else being equal. Unfortunately, none of the documents I linked to discuss types, but just the reasons for runway excursion.

* For the B737-400

Uses unfactored distances, sea level, standard day, no wind/slope, Vref30 flown, two-engine detent reverse thrust used, distances include 50ft height over the threshold to t/d at 1000ft/305m

Should never have started this but what I'm trying to say is this airplane has been stretched (-900 is a long 737!) but the wing and undercarriage haven't really changed all that much in size since its -200 life as a 100' long airplane. Definitely certified and meets all requirements but best to always fly in accordance with Boeing's SOPs. And I never hear any NG pilots bragging about its aututhrottle system.

Douglas did the same with its DC8s. I flew three different versions of them, -61, -62 and -63. Everyone loved the -62s and -63s but the -61 had a smaller wing and engines and fully certified however was not a pilots favorite.

The repeated 737NG item from the Aviation Herald report seems to be wet runway. So buyer be warned.

[Don Hudson]

"Should never have started this..."

Yeah, I wonder when an airplane design goes to dual bogies?...maybe a factor of footprint for airport surfaces vice the need for more braking surface?...dunno. (And I don't wanna go there!)

The landing distances* from the Performance In-flight data. ~50000kg, flap 30, are interesting:

...and the 767's autothrottle system was terrible - always hunting, never satisfied!

* - the numbers are rough and have qualifications...the NG's numbers have 15% added to them, whereas the 400's don't.

[Pivot]

Don't see the 600 anywhere on that Av Herald report you linked to.

[blues deville]

Don't see the 600 anywhere on that Av Herald report you linked to.

Not yet but I guess they will be adding this one.

[Vsplat]

Glad everyone is OK.

By now, just about everyone on this forum will know that an incident like this is seldom due to one cause. There will be a sequence of events, each of which had at least one branch toward an overrun and at least one toward a normal landing. On any given prior (or post) arrival, a crew may have taken some of the branches toward an overrun and just one toward a normal landing. We won't know till the TSB is done, and even then maybe we will have only part of the story.

There but for the grace....

Vs

[Moon The Loon]

Moon...just from thinking about it from a few angles, I can see it for the Dash and similar types, but I suspect that "landing long, for the exit & gate at the end" is not the case. I've operated onto that runway many times on all types in both seats and, even informally, it was never a thought or consideration.

Also, a decision to land 'a bit longer' is an alteration of the certification performance data which puts one in no-man's land. That would be a organizational and cultural matter, likely one of record. It can certainly be done successfully, particularly when one has tons of experience on the airplane and on various runway conditions but it seems the days of choosing one's own procedures over the book are pretty well gone.

Understand that well, Don. I was by no means advocating landing outside the normal TDZ for any kind of jet (and I realize you were not suggesting I was!), but curious if anyone was doing it anyway.

[Don Hudson]

Thanks Moon...yes, you've perceived correctly, wasn't suggesting, only discussing, ;-)

[thinair]

WJA's SOP's are very conservative, sometimes painfully so. Adherence to SOP is one of the best I've experienced. Plus there's big brother? not because of.?

A long landing would not be an approved technique.

However if one stows the speedbrake to disarm the auto brake, the reduced deceleration on a slippery surface can catch one off guard.

That is pure speculation based on the location of the aircraft.

[Boney]

Or, tower request to expatiate the taxi to the end of RWY24L as traffic is on short final.

[thinair]

Or, tower request to expatiate the taxi to the end of RWY24L as traffic is on short final.

That often happens everywhere, more so in the US. I would expect/hope tower would know the condition of the runway.

[Guest]

Someone (please excuse my laziness of not going back and quoting the post) earlier in this thread made a reference to landing long on RW24R in order to shorten the taxi time to the exit for gates 11, 12.

I'm a little surprised though at the statement made in regards an aircraft like the 737. Is this a practice done today?

Hi MTL. That was my post, but to be clear, I wasn't implying that I had a long landing in mind. I was however just making mention to the verbiage that often is added by the tower controller to a landing clearance on 24L in YUL. "Plan to exit at the end" and "Long landing approved" are often terms used. May or may not have been added yesterday. Regardless, I can't imagine they would have landed long (intentionally).

[Moon The Loon]

Thanks Canoehead (where the heck did that handle come from? ) As stated, I personally have every confidence in WJ management to get to the bottom of this incident.

[moeman]

Thanks Canoehead (where the heck did that handle come from? )

"Once a mild-mannered insurance salesman, who while portaging his canoe through Algonquin Park, was suddenly hit by a giant bolt of lightning and had the canoe welded to his head. Thus he became Mr. Canoehead, Canada's greatest aluminum crime fighter. Brother of Ted."

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/canohead.htm

[inchman]

Listening to the LiveATC feed...

Starting about 26 minutes on the June 5th 1830 YUL Tower feed.

WS588 was cleared to land 24L and told to plan to exit at the end, wind 350/17G22.

Everything sounded normal... on rollout (at 27:47 on the feed) told "Exit at the end, 122.07 when off." This was acknowledged. Tower then asked them "How were the lights on the approach?" followed by a very short "Stand by" from WS588.

Air Transat (following) then told to go around.

No apparent communications between the tower and WS for a full minute (but there are often dropouts on LiveATC), then Tower advises WS588 that "we have vehicles on your way". WS588 says "Thank you" quite calmly.

AC flight is told to go around.

During the next few minutes, all arrivals (on 24R) are advised of standing water on the runway.

WS588 is switched to ground, then to emer vehicle freq, which is not monitored by LiveATC that I could find.

So there was clearly a lot of water on the runway and a fairly strong crosswind with a minor tailwind component as well as a "plan to clear at the end" which, I imagine, will no longer be issued in poor weather.

[Guest]

"Once a mild-mannered insurance salesman, who while portaging his canoe through Algonquin Park, was suddenly hit by a giant bolt of lightning and had the canoe welded to his head. Thus he became Mr. Canoehead, Canada's greatest aluminum crime fighter. Brother of Ted."

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/canohead.htm

Yep- except I never sold insurance and never have been struck by lightning (even in an airplane!). However, I can often be found with a canoe on my head, although rarely in Algonquin... too many people there; tends to take away my mild-mannered personality

[Don Hudson]

I interpret the "plan to clear at the end" as positive notice that the pilot has the entire runway and eliminates the question of clearing earlier due traffic on final etc. In that interpretation it may be issued in poor weather especially. Of course, the airplane on the runway has the runway until clear, no matter what.

[Pivot]

If they are departing 24L then there will be aircraft taxiing up Alpha so landing aircraft do not have a choice to clear earlier than the end.