Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11361 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8929 times:
Is the word "overshoot" really appropriate here; I know I'm being a bit finnicky, but the correct term should be "overran"; "overshoot" is a go around.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5475 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8736 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1): Is the word "overshoot" really appropriate here; I know I'm being a bit finnicky, but the correct term should be "overran"; "overshoot" is a go around.
They seem to be synonymous. Kind of the 'to-may-to', 'to-mah-to' thing.
Radarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1309 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8383 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1): Is the word "overshoot" really appropriate here; I know I'm being a bit finnicky, but the correct term should be "overran"; "overshoot" is a go around.
I agree with you. I was always taught that "overshooting" the runway meant going around.
G4LASRamper From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7999 times:
Remember, that line was written by some ink-stained wretch, not someone versed in aviation terminology.
As far as the overrun is concerned, G4 has had some experience with that at FNL. Obviously the approach and landing weren't performed to the numbers and conditions on the landing data cards. I imagine someone's going to get some remedial simulator time over it.
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
FlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7450 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1): "overshoot" is a go around.
Quoting Radarbeam (Reply 5): I was always taught that "overshooting" the runway meant going around
Wrong, overshooting is going past something. In the most common, everyday usage for us, you "overshoot" final. ie: your in left traffic and your turning base to final, turn too late and fly through final so you have to turn back to the left to re-intercept. Or you overshoot the touchdown zone and land long, stuff like that. A "go around" is the wrong term because a go-around is completely breaking off an approach and climbing away from the airport in a calculated manner.
Geekydude From China, joined Apr 2004, 393 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7267 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 7): Did it go off the end of the runway, or did it just go off to the side because of the narrow runway?
It went off the end of the runway. The nose gear went off the pavement. But the same MD-80 loaded another batch of passengers and took off for Vegas the same afternoon.
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
"overshoot" is a go around.
Quoting Radarbeam (Reply 5):
I was always taught that "overshooting" the runway meant going around
Wrong, overshooting is going past something. In the most common, everyday usage for us, you "overshoot" final. ie: your in left traffic and your turning base to final, turn too late and fly through final so you have to turn back to the left to re-intercept. Or you overshoot the touchdown zone and land long, stuff like that. A "go around" is the wrong term because a go-around is completely breaking off an approach and climbing away from the airport in a calculated manner.
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 24 Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
Actually guys, "overshoot" means go around in the UK. If the UK tower guys tells you to overshoot, he is using phraseology that means "go around" to an American. So a little confusion is normal on these boards. Overran is the word I'd use for this incident. Or "screwed up".
G4LASRamper From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
True airspeed (TAS) goes up with density altitude. So yes, in thin air and warm temps (density altitude above a standard day) an aircraft travels faster through the air. So for a given headwind component, the aircraft will touch down at a correspondingly greater speed and will have a longer stopping distance.
The landing data cards or FMS will indicate the correct numbers to fly for a given aircraft weight, configuration, wind, temperature and runway condition. Under part 121 operations a flight cannot be released to a destination unless the planning data show that the aircraft can stop within the distance available and in the expected conditions at the expected time of arrival. The captain and the dispatcher both have to review and sign off on this.
An overrun indicates something was not as planned per the data cards or FMS. Some easy gotchas that come to mind:
Headwind component not as planned (gusty winds, wind shift during the flare, etc)
Aircraft configuration not as planned
Vref flown faster than planned (gusty winds)
Touchdown beyond the planned point (floating)
Brakes not as effective as planned (worn, low hydraulic pressure, etc)
Runway conditions not as planned (length due to NOTAMs, water, snow, ice, braking action, etc)
Real landing weight higher than planned (low fuel burn, cargo or pax weights heavier than manifest, etc)
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 124 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11361 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1309 posts, 
From China, joined Apr 2004, 393 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 43 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
