Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

737 Overrun

Recommended Posts

Quote

Smartwings Boeing 737 overran Pardubice runway on landing

2 August 2018
 
 

On 1 August a Smartwings Boeing 737-800 (N624XA) from Heraklion, Greece to Pardubice, Czech Republic landed at Pardubice but overran the runway and came to a stop about 20 meters past the end of the runway, on soft ground. All 120 passengers disembarked the aircraft via mobile stairs, nobody got injured and the aircraft didn’t get damaged.

The aircraft supposed to head back to Heraklion on the same day, but according to flightradar24-data the flight was cancelled.

A picture from social media, a YouTube-movie from a passenger.

smartwings-pardubice-boeing-737.jpg<

Related

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/smartwings/boeing-737-overran-pardubice-runway-landing/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extended flair onto a damp runway ? Good thing it was a nice flat surface at the far end. Other than the drycleaning some pilot seat covers I’d say that Boeing is probably ready for another flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some WAG at the numbers....for fun...

By the video, the airplane passed the button and did not touchdown until approximately 12 seconds later....

Assuming a speed of 120 kts, he flew over the runway at 202.5 feet per second and touched down with approximately 5772 feet of runway remaining. 

Haven't flown the B737 - 800 but on a damp runway with max reverse and auto-brakes at MAX could he have stopped with 5772 feet remaining.......prior to entering the weeds ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Overrun

ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 220473

Last updated: 3 January 2019
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.
 

 

Date: 03-JAN-2019
Time: 00:41 LT
Type: Silhouette image of generic B738 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Boeing 737-8Q8 (WL)
Owner/operator: Ethiopian Airlines
Registration: ET-ATV
C/n / msn: 30705/2001
Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 139
Other fatalities: 0
Aircraft damage: None
Location: Entebbe Airport (EBB/HUEN) - 5X.gif   Uganda
Phase: Landing
Nature: International Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Addis Ababa-Bole Airport (ADD/HAAB)
Destination airport: Entebbe Airport (EBB/HUEN)
Narrative:
Ethiopian Airlines flight ET338, a Boeing 737-800, skidded off the runway by a few meters after landing on runway 17 at Entebbe International Airport, Uganda. The passengers and crew deplaned on site.
Runway 17 is 12000 ft (3658 m) long.

Weather reported about the incident time (2141Z, 2 Jan):
HUEN 022200Z 36002KT 9999 FEW019 FEW021CB 20/18 Q1017
HUEN 022130Z 00000KT 9999 FEW019 FEW021CB 20/18 Q1016

 

Sources:

https://www.ethiopianairlines.com/corporate/media/media-relations/press-release/detail/1047
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/et-atv#1f0ebf2d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the first overrun; it would be interesting to learn what was going through the pilots heads during the 12 seconds that passed as they floated along in ground effect.

Assuming all things were normal, does it come down to a matter of ego overwhelming logic and training?

But to be fair, there could have been a compelling reason for not going around even though the landing was botched, a lack of fuel for instance ;

  

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These overruns, especially on the 737-800’s, are getting to be much more frequent. The Ethiopian long landing on a 12000’ runway may be hard to explain, however, the weather sequence shows virtually no wind and an issue for all aircraft is the 7600’ ASL airport elevation.

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Not an overrun but you have to wonder what happened to flow all main gear tires and grind off the wheels.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c26770e&opt=0

...or whether maximum braking was actually used. Braking is FAR more effective than the use of reverse thrust, which was used aggressively at low speeds (from the blow-back visible in the video). How many of us have been told "easy on the brakes" over the years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Haven't flown the B737 - 800 but on a damp runway with max reverse and auto-brakes at MAX could he have stopped with 5772 feet remaining.....

You would have to hope so, I would  think that that there would have to be situations where a reject from just before V1 would have less that that distance available. ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too ,in the last number of years have noticed the high incidence of over runs of 737-800 and 737-900 aircraft.

My theories are,

1. The aircraft sits lower ,due to the desire by Boeing to have low cargo doors for ground personnel to unload the aircraft without the need for extra equipment.

The 800 and 900 have very long fuselages and low mounted engines. This requires very high speeds for take off and landing to prevent tail strikes. 

2.  On wet surfaces with the high speeds, compared to larger wide bodys with more gear and rubber, are at a disadvantage. They use a lot of runway. So, one cannot just assume that because a widebody landed with no issue, that a 737 should not have a problem.

3. The 737 have a more primtive auto throttle system, when Autopilot is disengaged, the autothrottle must be disengaged prior to landing.

Other aircraft types, the autothrottle or autothrust system remains on.

This presents a huge challenge to maintain speed. The airspeed can easily creep up on short final.

To counter act the increase in speed there is a tendency to pull up to bleed off the speed, as well as pilots transitioning from instruments to visual in poor weather usually pull back as the runway rushes toward them.  These actions will use up valuable runway.

4. The physical size of the throttles on the 737 can be tough to move and then get the reversers deployed can be a huge issue. Other aircraft are much easier.

5. The 737-800 and 737-900 use steel brakes as opposed to Max that uses carbon brakes. Max stops better.

In general, the 737 should be respected and tail wind landings avoided. The 737 is not an entry level aircraft , but many operators in the world ,  including Canada, are treating it like it is.

Any other theories are appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wet runways, tail winds, poor speed controls can all be contributing factors but I don’t think the thrust lever design can be included as a problem. All Boeing’s are fairly similar in that area and you just have to know how and when to use them properly. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a simple math exercise: inertia (p=mv) vs brake capacity. Take a look at the MGLW/landing speed on the 800/900 with brakes on just 4 wheels vs (for example) a 757 with brakes on 8 wheels. I suppose one could argue that an A321 is in the same boat although I believe that both the wheels and brakes have larger dimensions and the landing speed may be nominally lower.

Brake energy issues have been a real issue with the extended fuselage/increased weight versions of the 737.

Edited by rudder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

precicely.  Because Boeing doesnt want to do a clean slate redesign of the aircraft to implement the needed improvements.  They keep putting makeup on a pig.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this