B767 goes off end of runway in Vancouver.

Just a civilian pilot

Just a civilian pilot

Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
1,366
Aircraft overran 08L by 1800 feet ( 9941 long ).

Runway 08R ( 12,188 long ) was closed.

Light rain and snow when they landed.

Went off end of the runway still doing 109 knots.

Weather: CYVR 190900Z 10010G15KT 6SM -RASN BR FEW007 OVC015 02/02 A2990 RMK SF1SC7 SLP126=

www.flightradar24.com

Landing CargoJet 767 overruns runway in Vancouver | Flightradar24 Blog

A CargoJet 767 overran the runway upon landing in Vancouver on 19 November, coming to rest nearly 1/3 of a mile from the end of the runway.
www.flightradar24.com www.flightradar24.com

 
I typically stop in about 6,000 feet, with idle reverse and a moderate auto brake setting. We fly the jet in and out of Lihue, and Maui, and it stops on a dime when you need it to.

I think this was likely a long landing, which is a polite way of saying pilot error.

That said, leading edge slat asymmetry will drive a much higher landing speed, like 150 knots, vs the usual, 130 or so. Still, the airplane has eight big brakes, and will stop quickly when you need it to.

But, with a leading edge problem, the pitch attitude and sight picture are quite different. So, very easy to "float" the landing and touchdown too long (outside of the landing zone, which is the first 3,000 or the first 1/3 of the runway, which ever is shorter).

When you are going to touch down too long, you should go around.
 
Last edited:
Having watched Juan's analysis - he makes an excellent point that I had not considered:

The leading edge slat asymmetry can be a precursor to an hydraulic failure - which could cause a loss of brakes and anti-skid, critical on a slippery runway.

So, if they lost the center hydraulic system prior to touchdown, that would have made the decision to stay on the runway a good one, while also explaining the inability to stop.
 
There had to be some other problem ( not just a problem with the leading edge slats ). It’s hard to believe they would use 12,000 feet ( runway plus grass ).
 
Last edited:
Just a civilian pilot said:
There had to be some other problem ( not just a problem with the leading edge slats ). It’s hard to believe they would use 12,000 feet ( runway plus grass ).
Click to expand...
I’ve seen lots of flap/slat abnormal landings in the simulator - and the tendency is to flare too much (30 knots more speed means a much more sensitive elevator) and really, and I mean, really, float the landing as a result.

There may have been a hydraulic or mechanical issue in addition to the flap problem, but this runway was the shorter of the two, at 9,900 feet, float the landing, and touch down with 6,000 remaining, on a slippery surface, at 160 knots, and yeah, I could see stopping being a problem with a perfectly good jet. They departed the runway at well over 100 according to Juan Brown.

At 300,000 lbs, on a poor braking surface, with this slat configuration, you need 9,000 feet to stop.

The key here is the braking action (friction of the runway). If it was poor, as seems to be the case, then they needed to put this one on the numbers, not land way down.

And I wonder if they knew that - they worked this checklist in minutes, and analyzing the landing performance/runway requirements isn’t a simple or quick process. It takes a while to calculate landing distance in the performance tables.
 
Last edited:
They had to know what failures they had before finishing the checklist and calculating how much runway they required. They weren't heavy, they were below MLW.

Landing distance calculations in emergencies do not require that extra 15% contingency factor like normal landings ( system automatically removes it when dealing with failures and landing distance calculations on the Airbus ).

I am sure they would have preferred the longer 08R but it was closed. Seattle wasn't that far away ( more fuel diverting with slats jammed , but they still had enough ).

Curious how much runway they required in that situation ( below MLW, wet, 30 knots faster ).

If your floating down the runway , and you know the calculations are tight ( and no extra 15% ) , Go around, even with a flight control problem.

Request they open 08R or divert to Seattle.

They had enough fuel ( 23,000 pounds ).

Edit: the increased risk of floating ( and higher pitch causing a tail strike ) would be an important thing to discuss before landing.

Also, Vancouver doesn’t have EMAS at the end of the runways.
 
Last edited:
Our emergency landing distance calculations, which are derived from Boeing, start with malfunction, gross weight, then braking action, which are then corrected for runway slope, elevation, altimeter, setting, headwind, or tailwind.

To that derived total, 15% is added. So, yes, they should have added 15%.

The other considerations - is that there is only a five knot wind correction above the reference speed, the airplane touches down in the first thousand feet, and that maximum effort manual braking is used, not auto brakes,

I took a look at the numbers for a 767 300 with leading edge slat asymmetry last night. You fly a 30+30 approach. 30 kn faster than normal. In some leading edge slat asymmetries, it’s only 20. But taking the worst case, when you do all of the above calculations, that were present in this scenario, and apply the 15%, you come up with about 9000 feet.

Again, I’m guessing on their gross weight, and I am also guessing on the runway braking action. The braking action can make a difference of as much as 3000 feet. If this airplane have been landing where the breaking action was good, or moderate, then you can get stopped in 6000 feet, but if it’s poor, it’s closer to 9000 feet.

And again, those numbers are only valid if the airplane touches down in the first thousand feet. Once you start floating the landing, which may or may not have happened here, then the performance calculations are all off.
 
Last edited:
I think I will switch my DEI hire job from airline captain to forklift operator. I am starting to think forklift is better for me.
 
Astro14 said:
Our emergency landing distance calculations, which are derived from Boeing, start with malfunction, gross weight, then braking action, which are then corrected for runway slope, elevation, altimeter, setting, headwind, or tailwind.

To that derived total, 15% is added. So, yes, they should have added 15%.

The other considerations, is that there is only a five knot wind correction above the reference speed, the airplane touches down in the first thousand feet, and that maximum effort manual braking is used, not auto brakes,

I took a look at the numbers for a 767 300 with leading edge slat asymmetry last night. You fly a 30+30 approach. 30 kn faster than normal. In some leading edge slat asymmetries, it’s only 20. But taking the worst case, when you do all of the above calculations, that were present in this scenario, and apply the 15%, you come up with about 9000 feet.

Again, I’m guessing on their gross weight, and I am also guessing on the runway braking action. The braking action can make a difference of as much as 3000 feet. If this airplane have been landing where the breaking action was good, or moderate, then you can get stopped in 6000 feet, but if it’s poor, it’s closer to 9000 feet.

And again, those numbers are only valid if the airplane touches down in the first thousand feet. Once you start floating the landing, which may or may not have happened here, then the performance calculations are all off.
Click to expand...
We ( Airbus ) are not given that extra 15% safety factor when calculating landing distances when dealing with ANY failures. It’s not required but the Captain has the final say and can add it on if they want to but we won’t get into trouble landing without that 15% in an emergency, or if we lose any systems that require more runway.

Our landing distance calculations ( max 7 second flare ) are compliant with TALPA recommendations 15% extra except in emergencies or system failures ….margins might be too tight ).

Let me try and find some written information on it.

Anyways, if I fly to an airport and have a flight control problem, or any other significant failure that greatly increases the landing distance, open up the longest runway or I will declare an emergency ( mayday ) to get it open if they can , or divert.

Luckily there wasn’t anything at the end of that runway except soft grass that acted like natures EMAS.
 
Last edited:
wpod said:
I think I will switch my DEI hire job from airline captain to forklift operator. I am starting to think forklift is better for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah but your not going to get the big pay now.

Flying is easy, that’s why they pay us too much 🤔😉

Easy until there is a serious problem and then you earn your pay, or get fired ( in trouble with regulatory agencies ) , or killed.
 
Last edited:
.The pay cut will be an issue and then the loss of prestige although I have been told Women are said to worship forklift certified men . In reality I probably should just buy a riding lawn mower and be happy cutting the lawn. That would probably max out my abilities .
 
wpod said:
.The pay cut will be an issue and then the loss of prestige although I have been told Women are said to worship forklift certified men . In reality I probably should just buy a riding lawn mower and be happy cutting the lawn. That would probably max out my abilities .
Click to expand...
Single pilot operation had its advantages also ( lawn tractor or forklift operator ).

No personality conflicts, no passengers or flight attendants to deal with. 🙂
 
I heard about this a few days ago but didn't realize it went so far off the end of the runway. Would have been a bad situation if they didn't have so much room :confused:
 
Jimmy_Russells said:
I heard about this a few days ago but didn't realize it went so far off the end of the runway. Would have been a bad situation if they didn't have so much room :confused:
Click to expand...
I see you live in Vancouver.

The weather report showed light rain and snow but above freezing ( +2 C ).

Was snow on the ground that evening, or was it just rain on the ground.

I can’t see that runway being anything but 100% wet with the temperature above zero and light snow falling.
 
Just a civilian pilot said:
I see you live in Vancouver.

The weather report showed light rain and snow but above freezing ( +2 C ).

Was snow on the ground that evening, or was it just rain on the ground.

I can’t see that runway being anything but 100% wet with the temperature above zero and light snow falling.
Click to expand...

Definitely no snow at the airport that night. In the mountains north of the city almost certainly but the snow level was still several hundred feet. Runway was most definitely wet and cold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top