UA Express E145 Off The Runway At Ottawa Airport

crazyfoo88 · Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:01 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...011/09/04/runway-plane-ottawa.html

"The 44 passengers are safe and on a city bus, the Ottawa fire department tweeted.

The plane, an Embraer 145, was a United Express flight from Chicago.

Fire crews are controlling a fuel leak, and hazardous material crews have been dispatched."

Any locals have more info?

[Edited 2011-09-04 14:01:42]

crazyfoo88 · Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:03 pm

Appears to be LOF3363, and runway 32 seems to be the approach used.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/L...3/history/20110904/1755Z/KORD/CYOW

Viscount724 · Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:43 pm

Quoting crazyfoo88 (Reply 1):
Appears to be LOF3363, and runway 32 seems to be the approach used.

It's the second Trans States E-145 to go off a runway at YOW in a little over a year. The one below was June 16, 2010.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...6/17/ott-runway-investigation.html
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca...ne_100616/20100616/?hub=OttawaHome

yegbey01 · Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:59 pm

here's the globe's link

[Edited 2011-09-04 15:30:44]

YYZatcboy · Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:26 pm

So how many planes have now gone off the runways at YOW. Something like 5? I remember a WS flight went off the runway a few years back, and seem to recall a couple of others.

Perhaps this is a sign that the runways in YOW need some work done on them.

Salukipilot · Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:34 pm

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 4):
Perhaps this is a sign that the runways in YOW need some work done on them.

Hmm well Canada seems to have not got the hint about grooved runways.

It's not even that hard to do.

YYZatcboy · Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:55 pm

We don't do the grooved runways supposedly due to iceing. It may have helped here, but it's curious that the overruns seem to happen at YOW more often than at other airports up here.

Still we don't know if the aircraft had a problem or any other data. also IIRC the other YOW overruns were on 07-25

Spacepope · Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Wonder if it had nosewheel steering issues, like the 145 at MLI a week or so back.

cbphoto · Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:58 pm

I'd be curious to know if this was another 145 nose wheel steering problem, like what happened to Expressjet last week! Could be a bigger problem for the E145s then we think!

JBirdAV8r · Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:43 pm

Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 5):
Hmm well Canada seems to have not got the hint about grooved runways.

It's not even that hard to do.

Bingo. Almost none of the runways in Canada are grooved...unlike most developed countries.

All the incidents at YOW, the Air France A340 at YYZ....

auroralives · Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:49 pm

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 4):
So how many planes have now gone off the runways at YOW. Something like 5?

I was actually on this one in 2004:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...viation/2004/a04o0188/a04o0188.asp

Worst part was waiting 1.5 hours on the plane until they could find a bus (turns out from the city transit) to come and get us from the field to the terminal.

apodino · Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:26 am

Maybe TransStates may want to consider not going to YOW at all. That's now three planes they have put off the runway there in recent years.

ExpressJet_ERJ · Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:29 am

Doesnt Trans States have a large number of planes without thrust reversers?

mdtrunner · Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:44 am

Any idea what the tail number is? I see N84X but that's just about their entire fleet of registrations.

YYZAMS · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:44 am

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):

Bingo. Almost none of the runways in Canada are grooved...unlike most developed countries.

All the incidents at YOW, the Air France A340 at YYZ....

Air France had nothing to do with grooved runways. It couldn't be the pilot's fault? Weird that 2 from the same airline happened in a year. Are we such an undeveloped country because our dollar is better than your green garbage?

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 6):
We don't do the grooved runways supposedly due to iceing. It may have helped here, but it's curious that the overruns seem to happen at YOW more often than at other airports up here.

Just like last time this happened, people (mainly those from the southern US) will point out about the lack of grooves. We actually have 4 seasons up here.

DiamondFlyer · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:49 am

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 14):
Just like last time this happened, people (mainly those from the southern US) will point out about the lack of grooves. We actually have 4 seasons up here.

So do many of the US airports in the north, some of which are further north than Toronto and nearly equally as far north as Ottawa and Montreal. Why Canada can't join the modern world and groove their runways is beyond me.

-DiamondFlyer

Ychocky · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:14 am

N840HK is the reg.

I've noticed that Trans States will request, nay, demand Runway 32 if there's any sort of shower in the area after the last incident.

YYZAMS · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:18 am

The policy in Canada is not to cut grooves
because they provide no extra braking power in winter, and they require snow
plows to use Teflon blades to avoid tearing up the grooved runways. That
makes snow removal expensive and slow. The United States, however, has been
pressing world government bodies to require grooving because it makes
braking power much better in summer rainstorms. The issue is before the
International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.

Was in raining in YOW when it happened? I gather that grooved runways are only useful during rainstorms?

lightsaber · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:19 am

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 14):
Just like last time this happened, people (mainly those from the southern US) will point out about the lack of grooves. We actually have 4 seasons up here.

June, July, August, Winter?

Oh wait, that's Alaska. Then again, I live in an area with two seasons: Moderate and pleasant.

Ok, serious question. Do grooved runways present an ice FOD risk? Any links are appreciated.

Lightsaber

LJ35 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:20 am

To answer MDTrunner's question the reg of the aircraft in question is N840HK.The reg from last June's(2010)incident was N847HK and like the other Trans States bird that had the runway excursion back in 2004(dba US Airways Express) here @ YOW the a/c was not equipped with thrust reversers and it just happened to be during a rain shower,however today's rain shower was a fairly intense event @ the time of the incident.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/09/04/...ines-goes-off-runway-passengers-ok

goboeing · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:31 am

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 18):
The policy in Canada is not to cut grooves
because they provide no extra braking power in winter, and they require snow
plows to use Teflon blades to avoid tearing up the grooved runways. That
makes snow removal expensive and slow. The United States, however, has been
pressing world government bodies to require grooving because it makes
braking power much better in summer rainstorms. The issue is before the
International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.

Was in raining in YOW when it happened? I gather that grooved runways are only useful during rainstorms?

Interesting.

So, even less of an excuse for Canada to seemingly plow only the center of the runways instead of the whole thing sometimes, if they can get it done faster.

And I'm not saying that the center shouldn't be plowed the best because of course it should; I'm talking about several days later still only having about 100' of a 150' wide runway cleared.

Separate thought -- entirely anecdotal evidence of course, but I noticed absolutely no difference between the speed of runways being plowed in Canada vs. anywhere in the US that receives any appreciable amount of snow each year. DTW in particular stands out as doing an awesome job.

bluejuice · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:49 am

Glad to hear everyone is okay.

Let the humor begin. I would like to think Trans States planes would do very well on wet runways.

YYZatcboy · Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:18 am

Another thing to consider is that YOW in the last month or so had some runways NOTAMed US due to rubber removal. In wet conditions if there is sufficient rubber on the runway could that lead to a drastic loss of friction?

YYZRWY23 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:49 am

Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 5):
Hmm well Canada seems to have not got the hint about grooved runways.

While grooved runways do make the runway safer in heavy rain, they make snow removal more expensive, plus the cost of grooving the runways (not sure what that is). I am not sure of the history behind grooved runways, but I am sure pilots landed aircraft on runways without grooves for a long time before they were...it isn't an excuse.

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 14):
Air France had nothing to do with grooved runways.

Thank you! Landing over a quarter way down the runway and not activating the thrust reverser for over 9 seconds had nothing to do with over-running. When a pilot touches down at the right point of the runway at YYZ, they tend to stay on it. Maybe the FO for AF missed that part of training. Even with a dry runway, that A340 was going off the end.

Quoting diamondflyer (Reply 15):
Why Canada can't join the modern world and groove their runways is beyond me.

Completely unrelated, but I have been wondering why the US can't join the modern world and have a functioning economy....funny where your issues lie and where Canada's do.

Simply put: Canada has more winter weather then summer weather. Improved braking in winter conditions are more important then improved braking in summer conditions. I understand that the United States has a large portion of their runways grooved, which I am sure cost a lot. How much debt is the US in again?

YYZRWY23

apodino · Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:56 am

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 23):

While grooved runways do make the runway safer in heavy rain, they make snow removal more expensive, plus the cost of grooving the runways (not sure what that is). I am not sure of the history behind grooved runways, but I am sure pilots landed aircraft on runways without grooves for a long time before they were...it isn't an excuse.

Can some one please elaborate on how grooved runways make snow removal more expensive? It's still the same plows clearing the snow in either event.

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 23):

Simply put: Canada has more winter weather then summer weather. Improved braking in winter conditions are more important then improved braking in summer conditions. I understand that the United States has a large portion of their runways grooved, which I am sure cost a lot. How much debt is the US in again?

Well, if we go on that logic, then BUF has more winter weather because of all the lake effect snow they get, yet BUF has grooved runways. MSP, DTW, and BOS are all airports that get plenty of snow and have grooved runways. DEN is another great example as well.

And your point about the US debt is not a valid one for this argument. Airports in the US are largely self sustaining entities meaning that most of the snow removal money comes from things like PFC's and landing fees, and very little of it comes from federal sources. Meaning that costs for Airport snow removal contribute little, if anything to the National Debt.

Kaiarahi · Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:30 am

Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 5):
Hmm well Canada seems to have not got the hint about grooved runways.

It's not even that hard to do.

Transport Canada, FAA, NASA and the National Research Council have been conducting joint studies for a number of years on winter runway friction co-efficients. If there were a hint, I'm sure Canada would have got it. Hint - they have not recommended grooving in a climate such as YOW.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):
Bingo. Almost none of the runways in Canada are grooved...unlike most developed countries.

That's because the noise of grooved runways frightens the kids in the igloos. Unlike some developed countries, Canadian pilots do not seem to have difficulty landing in rain.

Quoting diamondflyer (Reply 15):
So do many of the US airports in the north, some of which are further north than Toronto

Oh dear, geography strikes again. Please look at a map and name one (outside Alaska).

Quoting apodino (Reply 24):
DTW, and BOS are all airports that get plenty of snow and have grooved runways.

Average temps:
Dec: BOS 4, DTW 2, YOW -10
Jan: BOS 2, DTW 0, YOW -15
Feb: BOS 3, DTW 1, YOW -13
It's not just about the amount of snow. In winter in YOW, the snow would freeze as ice in the grooves and never melt. The TC/FAA/NASA/NRC studies have found that ice in the grooves acts as a catalyst for further icing extending outside the grooves. The conclusion has been that it's better to land occasionally on a wet runway in summer than to have every single flight landing on an iced runway for 3-4 months in winter.

YOWVIEWER · Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:53 am

This is better than watching the comedy channel! Reminds me of Rick Mercer in Washington. Back to topic, the difference with this incident versus the last few is that is was on runway 32. Well in excess of 10,000 ft to work with. And although the rain was heavy at the time, an AC 767 from Frankfurt was forced to land on runway 25 due to runway 32 being blocked "minutes" earlier and had no problem making his exit just past the echo taxiway onto 32. Even without thrust reversers, should the EMB145 not have had ample runway - grooves or no grooves ?

mikect · Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:42 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Oh dear, geography strikes again. Please look at a map and name one (outside Alaska).

Really? Pretty much all of Minnesota, North Dakota, most of Idaho, Oregon and all of Washington.

Kaiarahi · Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:48 pm

Quoting MikeCT (Reply 27):

Duhh - dunno what I was thinking. That'll teach me not to post before I've had coffee.

Thenoflyzone · Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:37 pm

Quoting Ychocky (Reply 16):
I've noticed that Trans States will request, nay, demand Runway 32 if there's any sort of shower in the area after the last incident.

They will not land on 7/25 if it is wet. The problem is, they choose a wet runway 14/32, with a crosswind component.

Don't know where the wind was blowing from yesterday, but that could be part of the problem now for LOF at YOW.

Thenoflyzone

cyeg66 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:02 pm

Hey, thenoflyzone, slow your planes down on final, for cryin' out loud! They keep leaving the runways!

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 20):
I noticed absolutely no difference between the speed of runways being plowed in Canada vs. anywhere in the US that receives any appreciable amount of snow each year. DTW in particular stands out as doing an awesome job

In YYC, from my experience, they clear the main runway (12 675' x 120' down center) in about 8 mins. That's not too bad. (By comparison, it takes at least 20 mins in YEG) During YYC snowstorms, the weather's usually treacherous enough to render the cross runway unusable. You give tower a 20 mile hole on final and voila!, the job is done. Sounds to me like the whole to groove or not to groove argument really (as with everything) comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Generally speaking, it seems (sounds) costlier to implement and maintain, and since the Gov't gives sweet fark all to the airport authorities, who in turn are penny pinchers, it probably won't appear north of the border for some time. In the interim, and as someone else pointed out, Canadian crew seem to manage with the runways they've got year round. Question of familiarity, perhaps.

Quoting YOWVIEWER (Reply 26):
Reminds me of Rick Mercer in Washington.

Pretty funny stuff, no doubt, and it was done in better taste and humor than Triumph the dog in Quebec City.

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 28):
Duhh - dunno what I was thinking. That'll teach me not to post before I've had coffee.

Lol. Your posts are usually quite informed but this "burn!" had my coffee almost shooting out my nose.

falstaff · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:19 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Oh dear, geography strikes again. Please look at a map and name one (outside Alaska).

Quoting MikeCT (Reply 27):
Pretty much all of Minnesota, North Dakota, most of Idaho, Oregon and all of Washington.

A good chunk of Michigan and Wisconsin too.

SuseJ772 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:20 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Oh dear, geography strikes again. Please look at a map and name one (outside Alaska).

Quoting MikeCT (Reply 27):
Really? Pretty much all of Minnesota, North Dakota, most of Idaho, Oregon and all of Washington.

Thank you. I was super confused by this point as well. MSP particularly is not only far north but a very, very busy airport.

Quoting YOWVIEWER (Reply 26):
Even without thrust reversers, should the EMB145 not have had ample runway - grooves or no grooves ?

This is a the right point to be made. Grooved or not, a properly landed, configured, and working EMB145 should be able to stop in 10,000 feet of runway.

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
It's not just about the amount of snow. In winter in TC/FAA/NASA/NRC studies have found that ice in the grooves acts as a catalyst for further icing extending outside the grooves. The conclusion has been that it's better to land occasionally on a wet runway in summer than to have every single flight landing on an iced runway for 3-4 months in winter.

This was a great point. Learned something here.

[Edited 2011-09-05 07:57:06]

Thenoflyzone · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:21 pm

Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 30):
Hey, thenoflyzone, slow your planes down on final, for cryin' out loud! They keep leaving the runways!

When you deal with an airline like LOF whose callsign is "waterski", what do you expect....

They're naturals man...

As for keepin' em fast on final, you know me better than that ! Having trained with ER ohhh way back when....."low and slow" becomes your motto....

Cheers....

Thenoflyzone

apodino · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:56 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 29):

They will not land on 7/25 if it is wet. The problem is, they choose a wet runway 14/32, with a crosswind component.

Don't know where the wind was blowing from yesterday, but that could be part of the problem now for LOF at YOW.

According to a pilot from a different carrier who was in YOW at the time of the incident, he said that based on where the plane ended up in relation to 14/32 he thinks this was caused by improper crosswind landing technique, though I am not going to speculate.

That could have been prevented if they had just landed on 7/25 in the first place. 8000 feet of runway is plenty to stop an ERJ on a wet runway, thrust reversers or not, grooves or not.

Ychocky · Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:58 pm

Thread hasn't had Peter's great shot added yet:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Tsagaris - CYOW Airport Watch

Anyone confirm that the frame has been towed, if so where to?

[Edited 2011-09-05 07:59:26]

SuseJ772 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:05 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 34):
he said that based on where the plane ended up in relation to 14/32 he thinks this was caused by improper crosswind landing technique, though I am not going to speculate.

That's what I thought when looking at the picture. But my first impression was from Peter's photo which looks to me more like it skidded off the side of the runway than the end - but I could be wrong on that.

If it was the side of a runway, I once had a very close call with something like that in a 172 - and after analyzing what "went wrong" back on the ground I realized the largest contributing factor was by far an improper cross wind landing technique.

Quoting apodino (Reply 34):
That could have been prevented if they had just landed on 7/25 in the first place. 8000 feet of runway is plenty to stop an ERJ on a wet runway, thrust reversers or not, grooves or not.

Agreed.

SuseJ772 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:14 pm

Can anyone tell me where this plane is sitting? At first I thought it was to the side of 32, but then I realized that with the Flying Club in the background and the location of 4/22, it might in fact be 4/22 it is to the "side" of and not 14/32.

flylku · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:19 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
The conclusion has been that it's better to land occasionally on a wet runway in summer than to have every single flight landing on an iced runway for 3-4 months in winter.

I am sure the Canadians have put a lot of thought and research into not grooving their runways just as we have put a lot of thought into our decision to groove them. It really sound like a situation where there are strong arguments either way; makes for a really good forum.

Question:

Do the braking performance diagrams in the pilot operating manuals for airline aircraft distinguish between grooved and un-grooved surfaces? It appears from the discussion above that in some conditions there is a difference. I know in my humble little Warrior it does not but I think in the 172 it provides guidance for dry/wet paved and dry/wet grass.

ac888yow · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:21 pm

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 37):
Can anyone tell me where this plane is sitting?

It is resting on the West side of and perpendicular to runway 32, at approximately the Kilo taxiway (around where 140.4 degrees is indicated on the chart).

Okie · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:29 pm

Quoting ac888yow (Reply 39):
It is resting on the West side of and perpendicular to runway 32, at approximately the Kilo taxiway (around where 140.4 degrees is indicated on the chart).

So many questions.
You can not tell if they landed long or were just simply carrying too much speed trying to get to a taxiway to exit runway. Could be a brake problem too many questions.

Okie

cyeg66 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:51 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 33):
When you deal with an airline like LOF whose callsign is "waterski", what do you expect....

My goodness, I can't believe I didn't think of the irony. Guess it's 'cause we don't see those garbage 145's and that ident out West... Ooh, I should tread lightly, for fear of bringing up the CRJ vs ERJ debate. Besides, they're all tin cans....

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 33):
As for keepin' em fast on final, you know me better than that ! Having trained with ER ohhh way back when....."low and slow" becomes your motto....

...or in his case, old

and slow.

Always good for a laugh, was he.

JBirdAV8r · Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:55 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 25):
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):Bingo. Almost none of the runways in Canada are grooved...unlike most developed countries.
That's because the noise of grooved runways frightens the kids in the igloos. Unlike some developed countries, Canadian pilots do not seem to have difficulty landing in rain.

Ha ha, but the data doesn't seem to support your conclusion

.

According to Transport Canada, your country has had almost three times the rate of runway excursions of the United States and twice as many as the rest of the world (0.25 accidents per million landings, vs the US' .09, and the world average .16)

Furthermore, they have found that having grooved runways reduces overrun risk by 75%.

Save your nationalism for another thread and don't be so touchy, eh?

cyeg66 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:02 pm

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 42):
According to Transport Canada, your country has had almost three times the rate of runway excursions of the United States and twice as many as the rest of the world (0.25 accidents per million landings, vs the US' .09, and the world average .16)

Furthermore, they have found that having grooved runways reduces overrun risk by 75%.

You're kidding with all this, right?
Do you not see (more than) a few flaws in the way you interpret this data? If not, it's pointless to discuss further (though I'm sure others will gladly take the bait). Nationalism? Pffft!

JBirdAV8r · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:09 pm

Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 43):
You're kidding with all this, right?
Do you not see (more than) a few flaws in the way you interpret this data? If not, it's pointless to discuss further (though I'm sure others will gladly take the bait). Nationalism? Pffft!

Care to point them out other than dismissing them with a broad brush?

Kaiarahi · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:13 pm

Quoting ac888yow (Reply 39):
It is resting on the West side of and perpendicular to runway 32, at approximately the Kilo taxiway (around where 140.4 degrees is indicated on the chart).

Facing west - i.e. 14/32 is behind the tail.

Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 43):
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 42):
According to Transport Canada, your country has had almost three times the rate of runway excursions of the United States and twice as many as the rest of the world (0.25 accidents per million landings, vs the US' .09, and the world average .16)

Furthermore, they have found that having grooved runways reduces overrun risk by 75%.

You're kidding with all this, right?
Do you not see (more than) a few flaws in the way you interpret this data? If not, it's pointless to discuss further (though I'm sure others will gladly take the bait).

If you actually look at the data, you'll see that the vast majority of accidents in Canada occur at bush/remote strips, of which we have many. Good luck cutting grooves into gravel or grass!

Quoting okie (Reply 40):
just simply carrying too much speed trying to get to a taxiway

There are no taxiways on the west side of 14/32 - so unless they were trying to do a doughnut .... Interestingly, they ended up facing away from the wind.

Kaiarahi · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:15 pm

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 42):
they have found that having grooved runways reduces overrun risk by 75%.

Who's "they"? That's certainly not what the joint TC/FAA/NASA/NCR studies found for climates like Ottawa's.

JBirdAV8r · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:22 pm

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 45):
If you actually look at the data, you'll see that the vast majority of accidents in Canada occur at bush/remote strips, of which we have many. Good luck cutting grooves into gravel or grass!

You're just guessing. I'm quoting data from Jacobs Consultancy on behalf of Transport Canada, which incidentally, is for large jet aircraft on hard-surfaced runways.

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 46):
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 42):they have found that having grooved runways reduces overrun risk by 75%.Who's "they"? That's certainly not what the joint TC/FAA/NASA/NCR studies found for climates like Ottawa's.

The report, verbatim:

"Grooved or PFC [porous friction concrete] reduced the risks of an accident on a wet runway by approximately 75 percent." What are you quoting?

Kaiarahi · Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:35 pm

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 47):
The report, verbatim:

And reading just a little further in the report you cite "rates were calculated for the period 1990-2006" and "The Canadian rate is based on a very small number of accidents, three ...".

That's THREE (3) wet runway overruns in SIXTEEN (16) years ....

Of course, there are now two more in the space of little more than a year, both involving the same carrier and the same aircraft type.

[Edited 2011-09-05 09:37:08]

SuseJ772 · Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:01 pm

Quoting ac888yow (Reply 39):
It is resting on the West side of and perpendicular to runway 32, at approximately the Kilo taxiway (around where 140.4 degrees is indicated on the chart).

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 45):
Interestingly, they ended up facing away from the wind.

Both of these facts lead me to believe this had more to do with an improper crosswind procedure (likely exacerbated by a wet runway) than it had to do with just a wet runway and not enough time / friction to stop.

Quoting okie (Reply 40):
You can not tell if they landed long or were just simply carrying too much speed trying to get to a taxiway to exit runway. Could be a brake problem too many questions.

Quoting kaiarahi (Reply 45):
There are no taxiways on the west side of 14/32 - so unless they were trying to do a doughnut

Thought that same thing Kaiarahi. Not sure how if they were trying to exit the runway too fast, they would end up on the non-taxiway side of the runway.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net