Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6461 times:
When I flew from EWR-PBI in November on a 753, we landed in the pouring rain. I could barely see out the windows it was raining so hard. The engines were spewing out water when the thrust reversers were engaged. When we finally turned off the runway, we were at the very end, as there was no more runway left that I could see when we turned to the side.
Does a wet runway greatly increase stopping distance, or was the captain taking it easy with landing? PBI's main runway is 10,000', so it isn't as if we were landing at SNA where you'd need every foot.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6439 times:
Its a little bit of both..........Wet runways do increase stopping distance, and the flight crew will take it a little more easy on the brakes so as not to hydroplane. Look at it the same way as driving.....when the weather is poor you are taught to increase your braking time when approaching a stop sign. Why, to lesson the chance of hydroplaning and loosing control of the car.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6440 times:
Does a wet runway greatly increase stopping distance, or was the captain taking it easy with landing?
It certainly does, and can be easily illustrated with the following simple equation:
F= u X n .........where F is the frictional force, "u" is the coefficient of friction, and n is the normal force (sort of the net weight of the aircraft [weight minus lift] for our puposes, if we ignore units). Dry concrete's "u" is 0.7, while concrete under light and heavy rain has a "u" of 0.5 and 0.3, respectively. From this it follows easily that under rain, and the resulting lower values of "u", "F" will also have a lower value and stopping distance would be longer because the landing gear would produce less friction against the runway.
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6419 times:
FSPilot747, I didn't mean to imply that 753's land at SNA (they don't). I was just trying to show the fact that PBI is not an airport like SNA where every foot counts, regardless of the aircraft type. 10,000' is a little different than 5400'.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6357 times:
I haven't flown a Cessna 402 in nearly 25 years. (Thank goodness!) I'm typed in 5 different transport category jets and I'm presently current in two bizjets - the Gulfstream G100 and Citation Bravo. It's been 20 years since I last flew a B-727, so that's why I didn't expand my coment to cover it. It's simply been too long since I last flew the '27 and I don't remember it's limitations.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16340 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6279 times:
SAS is not allowed to land the B738 in Umeå in the rain. The runway is too short. Granted, they try to allocate another AC on those days, but sometimes they have to divert. On dry days it's not a problem.
Taken from an SAS pilot (through my friend the SAS Flight Academy freak).
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6258 times:
Yes - it increases the distance required.
Read Jetguy's note - 15% is the wet runway factor for landing distances...
What I am concerned about - for some of you - do you have a driver's license?
Do you know that wet streets or roads increase your stopping distance?
My gosh, if you do not know that... there is a definite problem.
Many things, that apply to cars, also apply to airplanes... (or v.v.) -
Anti skid system of airplanes = "abs" system of cars...
How about aerodynamics of cars...
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16340 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6227 times:
Having seen the yearly advent of snow in Sweden, and the smultaneous advent of dozens of cars leaving the road, I am quite convinced that many drivers think that snow or rain is the same as as dry surface.
I can understand the problem if it snow in Sicily, but in Sweden the snow falls every year and slippery surface training with exam is needed to get a driving license.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Osteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 647 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6219 times:
Of course you are right but the breaking of a car is almost 100% due to the braking of the tires. In an aircraft drag and reverse trust have a much higher contributing factor. And those two are not affected by rain.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6208 times:
"...In an aircraft drag and reverse trust have a much higher contributing factor. And those two are not affected by rain."
It never ceases to amaze me when guys whose only "jet" experience is in the left seat of Microsoft's Flight Simulator try and tell guys like Skipper what for.
You add 15% for wet runways. You do not factor in, to the required landing distance, the effect of thrust reversers.
And tell me, just how does the aircraft drag know if the runway is wet or not?
Back to the original post...
The fact that the aircraft turned off the runway near the end means nothing. The pilot could have simply extended his rollout. The 15% that you add for a wet runway is hardly a "show stopper" on most runways that we frequent. For example, if your dry runway requirement is 4000' it increases to 4600' - and that's with maximum effort. In the real world, you don't go around making maximum effort landings. It's not a contest to see who can get the antiskid to kick in the most times. The maintenance guys and the accountants would get on your case before very long. In the real world, you normally moderate your braking effort a bit and you are frequently able to make your "normal" landing distance and runway turnoff just by getting on the brakes a little harder or going into reverse a little deeper.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6203 times:
Dear Osteo -
Trouble is, you mention reversers...
They are NOT accounted for in landing and stopping distance computations.
Besides, if you tell me that my landing is based on only 60% of the effective runway length, you are going to tell me that is absolutely enough to stop an airplane... wet or dry runway. And sure, the reversers will always work... or are they...?
If aviation is a SAFE means of transportation today, it is due to the fact that flight safety is achieved by conservative computations, such as extras for runways required.
If this discussion was in Civ.Av., I would let it go the way it goes, but here in Tech.Ops., we deal with many friends who are learning to be pilots, and use this source to educate theirselves. I cannot admit wrong statements to be implied as correct facts.
NWA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1200 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6133 times:
Right, like jetguy and skipper said, TR are nopt used in the total stopping distance. My question is, for jetguy and skipper, as for required runway distance, how many precent is added on? Like, lets say that the B742 has to have a 10,000 ft runway to take off. It can take off quicker than that, no doubt. I know this all depends on weight and other factors, but how many "saty" precent do they add on? I heard 40%. For instance, if the min rwy length is 10,000, it can get off the ground in 6,000. Is that right? Thanks
23 victor, turn right heading 210, maintain 3000 till established, cleared ILS runwy 24.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6129 times:
Dear NWA -
Actually, there has been many discussions about runways for takeoff and landing.
Maybe it is somewhat difficult to research...
For takeoff, the runway required is the greatest of 3 distances -
(1) Acceleration (all engines), V1 speed, engine fails, airplane stops...
(2) Acceleration (all engines), V1 speed, engine fails, airplane continues and passes 35 ft "obstacle".
(3) Acceleration and takeoff (all engines) passing the 35 ft obstacle + 15%...
And for landing, we are required to be able to land on 60% of the runway.
But that is coming over an obstacle of 50 ft...
If the runway is wet, we add 15% factor...
And in "stopping factors"- takeoff abort, or landing, no reversers are used.
Hope this helps you...
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3117 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6115 times:
Skipper and Jetguy, thanks for sticking up for us low timers in here.
As for stopping distances, they do increase. One of the major problems when landing in a light aircraft on a wet/icy/snowy runway is that we don't have the fancy antiskid systems. In fact, one of the best things to do if you have the runway to permit is not touch the brakes. I like to use as much aerodynamic braking and runway as safely possible to slow down in those circumstances. Each main gear is independently actuated on many aircraft to aid in turning. If you apply pressure at the pedal, and one brake works better, you could be in for a fun ride.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6114 times:
Pilotpip - I see your point of view...
I am a product of the USAF training - Air Force does not believe in thrust reversers.
For a long time, I learned (KC-135) to use aerodynamic braking...
Every landing, was nose high, then hold the controls nose high, very high.
When I did that in the airlines, "they" frowned... - "You gonna hit the tail...!"
I never hit a tail, even in the long body DC8-63/73...
I still do that a lot in the 747...
In a lightplane, call it C-172, I think it will not hurt much to drag the tail.
But it is not YOUR airplane, so wear the brakes of the guys who rent the plane to you.
One thing in lightplanes, you land on runways probably much longer than required.
You can stop on 1000-2000 ft of concrete, but you got 5000+ ft for you.
With the airliners, you do not have that luxury of much excess runway.
Fly safely, is all I can say to you.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6098 times:
What Skipper said for the 747 applies to the smallest bizjet as well - they're all certified as transport aircraft and the flight crews have to comply with the same regulations when they are operated under Part 121 or Part 135 (commercial operations). Bizjets operated under Part 91 (private) operations have to comply with the basically the same takeoff limitations. (The only difference is a slightly reduced Net Climb Gradient requirement for Part 91 operations.) Part 91 operators don't have the "60% of the landing runway" rule. There are a few other differences, as well, but not many.
I flew off of a joint-use airport for six years. The Air Force operated one of their two F-15 training squadrons there. It was interesting to watch those guys land - as Skipper mentioned, they just held their nose up as long as they could. There were several times, when we were coming back empty, that I would employ aerodynamic braking - much to the delight of the tower guys (they always commented about the "F-15 Rollout") and the chagrin of the copilot (Hey, quit messing around!). It's a good thing that we had a 10,000'+ runway - it's not a very effective way to stop a bizjet.