https://www.globalair.com/articles/...et-overruns-runway-crashes-into-water?id=8801Does this type of aircraft require a lot of runway to land? Failed brakes? Gotta wait for the report...
HondaJet overruns runway
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
Does this type of aircraft require a lot of runway to land? Failed brakes? Gotta wait for the report...
There have been other overruns with the Honda Jet. Could be something with training,,,
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Or the type of owner. It's an inexpensive jet. Published landing distance is quite short, under 3,000 feet.
Aircraft performance should not have been an issue on this 6,000 foot runway.
Which leaves weather (rainy/wet runway), pilot error (touching down too long), mechanical failure (braking system, spoilers, reversers) or a combination as possibilities.
I'm not sure about this incident but I'm 100% positive on that Toronto jet that flipped over. 100% pilot error, an experienced woman pilot too steep of landing approach . Human error
There is a thread on that incident. If you’re interested in discussing that, take your comments over there, but leave your gender bias out of it. You make a point that the pilot was a woman. So what?
This thread is about the Honda Jet crash.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Well, given the fact that the Honda Jet has no spoilers (!!) and that they have several incidents of running off contaminated runways, I wonder if my statement above about aircraft performance was accurate - the Honda may, in fact, have a performance problem.
Every jet I have flown, save the T-2 Buckeye and F/A-18, had ground spoilers. And the Hornet was not a great jet on a wet runway, by the way.
Every jet I have flown, save the T-2 Buckeye and F/A-18, had ground spoilers. And the Hornet was not a great jet on a wet runway, by the way.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I love their cars but not won’t be buying a Honda jet if I win the lottery.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
But even if Honda designs planes with no ground spoilers, the landing performance data should take that into consideration.
If I am coming in for a landing and receive a cockpit warning the spoilers aren’t working , or the slats and flaps are jammed at zero, Airbus provides me with data to allow us to calculate if we can still safely land.
If I am coming in for a landing and receive a cockpit warning the spoilers aren’t working , or the slats and flaps are jammed at zero, Airbus provides me with data to allow us to calculate if we can still safely land.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I don’t think it’s hard to figure out ( short of some other flaw with the aircraft ).
The plane either doesn’t have a landing calculation performance tool that’s accurate ( with enough options ) and/or pilots are not inputting the correct landing parameters either because conditions have changed or they were unaware ( uncontrolled airports ). Throw in inexperience and it will just magnify it.
Not surprised it doesn’t handle crosswinds well given it will float more when it’s windy with no spoilers and extra speed is added to compensate for the gusts.
We landed the other night in light rain ( no convection activity, just an overcast layer ) and only knew the runway braking action was much worse because we received accurate runway braking action reports from ATC when we switched to tower which allowed us to run a new calculation.
Had this been an uncontrolled airports, light rain ( with no risk of moderate or heavy rain around ) would mean good braking action but it turned out to be ( medium to poor ) and we would not have known until realizing it’s taking a lot longer to stop. We only knew because ATC told us thanks to another aircraft reporting it to ATC.
Short final we increased the auto brake setting and I said full reverse ( planned on idle only initially ).
After we cleared the runway, we checked the BACF ( brake action check function ) and it confirmed medium to poor. Heavy, A321.
The runway was long ( 9600 long ) but had this been last summer, we would have gone off the runway because it was shortened to 6900 for construction and all NB were assigned this runway if the performance was acceptable ( and it always is when just “ light rain “ ).
Runway was not covered by standing water ( really was light rain around). Wet like from light rain.
With the Honda Jet, or any aircraft, if you have a landing performance tool calculator and you input accurate runway surface conditions and weather, the aircraft will stop where it’s supposed to unless the tool is inaccurate, the data inputted was wrong , pilot error or a mechanical problem.
For fun, I occasionally cross check how much runway we actually used versus what the calculations said and it’s very accurate.
The plane either doesn’t have a landing calculation performance tool that’s accurate ( with enough options ) and/or pilots are not inputting the correct landing parameters either because conditions have changed or they were unaware ( uncontrolled airports ). Throw in inexperience and it will just magnify it.
Not surprised it doesn’t handle crosswinds well given it will float more when it’s windy with no spoilers and extra speed is added to compensate for the gusts.
We landed the other night in light rain ( no convection activity, just an overcast layer ) and only knew the runway braking action was much worse because we received accurate runway braking action reports from ATC when we switched to tower which allowed us to run a new calculation.
Had this been an uncontrolled airports, light rain ( with no risk of moderate or heavy rain around ) would mean good braking action but it turned out to be ( medium to poor ) and we would not have known until realizing it’s taking a lot longer to stop. We only knew because ATC told us thanks to another aircraft reporting it to ATC.
Short final we increased the auto brake setting and I said full reverse ( planned on idle only initially ).
After we cleared the runway, we checked the BACF ( brake action check function ) and it confirmed medium to poor. Heavy, A321.
The runway was long ( 9600 long ) but had this been last summer, we would have gone off the runway because it was shortened to 6900 for construction and all NB were assigned this runway if the performance was acceptable ( and it always is when just “ light rain “ ).
Runway was not covered by standing water ( really was light rain around). Wet like from light rain.
With the Honda Jet, or any aircraft, if you have a landing performance tool calculator and you input accurate runway surface conditions and weather, the aircraft will stop where it’s supposed to unless the tool is inaccurate, the data inputted was wrong , pilot error or a mechanical problem.
For fun, I occasionally cross check how much runway we actually used versus what the calculations said and it’s very accurate.
Last edited:
AOPA just published this about the HA-420 over run trends.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...h-training?utm_source=ebrief&utm_medium=email
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...h-training?utm_source=ebrief&utm_medium=email
Turns out jets are more complex than cars.
And I don’t think that unconventional design helped them any.
Similar threads
