Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8518 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8218 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.
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world".
EWRCabincrew From Canada, joined May 2006, 5347 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8025 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, 1270 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7672 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, joined Dec 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7288 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, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6739 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, 278 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6556 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, joined Nov 2001, 1190 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1045 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, joined Dec 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 736 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, joined Dec 2006, 122 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8518 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 5347 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From China, joined Apr 2004, 278 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 39 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
