docStabilized Landings
download 
Report Transcription
Stabilized Landings
Stabilized Landings A Runway Excursion Prevention Tool NBAA Safety Committee – 2011 Runway Excursion Prevention Project Safety Focus Project Runway Excursion Prevention • Raise awareness of the issue • Promote the FSF Runway Safety Initiative (2009) – http://flightsafety.org/current-safetyinitiatives/runway-safety-initiative-rsi • Develop, communicate safe landing guidelines 3 Introduction • Stabilized Approach Criteria has successfully elevated the in-cockpit awareness of risky approaches • Data reveals, though, runway accidents is still the leading cause of accidents • This presentation investigates the threat and presents strategies to prevent runway excursions 4 Runway Excursion • According to the Flight Safety Foundation, a runway excursion occurs when an aircraft on a runway surface departs the end or the side of that runway surface. • Runway excursions can occur on takeoff or landing – Veer Off – Depart the side of the runway – Overrun – Depart the end of the runway 5 Approach and Landing Accidents, by Year 1995–2007 (1,007 accidents) 100 Number of accidents 90 93 89 80 90 70 81 81 76 65 60 78 76 81 72 64 61 50 40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 6 Runway Excursion Accidents Figure 2: Proportion of Fatal and Non Fatal Accidents (FSF, 2009, RSI Report, p. 5) 7 Most Common Types of Approach and Landing Accidents 1995–2007 • Landing veer-off • Landing overrun • Unstabilized approach • Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) • Collision with terrain, non-CFIT • Runway undershoot These comprise 77 percent of the total approach and landing accidents. 8 FSF Data: All Approach and Landing Accidents 1995-2007 Approach Final approach Landing Other Unknown Flight phase Figure 1: FSF ALAR Update - Killers in Aviation Update Pg. 5 9 Runway Excursion Accidents Runway Excursions 1995-2008 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 Number of Accidents Trend 19 97 19 95 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 3: Runway Excursions 1995-2008 (FSF, 2009, RSI Report, p. 6) 10 Runway Excursion Accidents Runway Excursions 2004-2008 50 40 Number of Accidents Trend 30 20 10 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 4: Runway Excursions 2004-2008 (FSF, 2009, RSI Report, p. 6) 11 Runway Excursion Accidents Runway Excursions - 1995-2008 500 400 300 200 21% 79% 100 0 Takeoff Landing Figure 5: Runway Excursion by Type (FSF, 2009, RSI Brief) 12 Runway Excursion Factors • The FSF cites the major risk factors in landing excursions were: – – – – – go-around not conducted, long landings, ineffective braking (contaminated runways), gear malfunctions, and fast approaches and landings. 13 Presentation Outline Jim Burin – Director of Technical Programs 2010 – 2011 Runway Excursion Accident Review focus on three related accidents: Hawker – Owatonna Airbus – Toronto Boeing - Mangalore 14 Presentation Outline Steve Charbonneau – Sr. Manager Training and Standards Landing Certification Concepts Consider the threats to safe landings Introduce the Safe Landing Guidelines 15 Landing Certification • FAR Section 25.125 specifies the requirement to provide landing distances, defined as the horizontal distance necessary to land from a point 50 feet above a dry hard surface and come to a complete stop. • The aircraft must be in the landing configuration, having flown a stabilized approach at a speed of not less than VREF down to the 50 foot height, amongst other requirements. • The Flight Test Guide for the Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, Advisory Circular 25-7A, provides manufacturers with guidance to ensure compliance with the regulations. 16 Landing Certification • Distances are treated in two parts: – the airborne distance from 50 feet to touchdown, and – the ground distance from touchdown to stop Airborne Ground 17 Landing Certification • Airborne Distance – 3 or 3½ degree approach path – Sink rates as much as 8 feet per second at touchdown (480 fpm) 18 Landing Certification • Ground Distance • Transition within 2 secs • Based on FULL Braking Figure 6 Landing Time Delays (AC 25-7a, p. 103) 19 “Landing distances determined during certification are aimed at demonstrating the shortest landing distances… Therefore, the landing distances determined under FAR 23.75 and 25.125 are much shorter than the landing distances achieved in normal operations”. (AC 91-79, App. 1, p. 8) Threats to Safe Landings According to AC 91-79: • Un-stabilized Approach • Excess Airspeed • Excess Threshold Crossing Height • Landing Long (Beyond the touchdown zone) • Adverse wind conditions • Failure to assess required landing distance RERR provides an excellent Threat Analysis presentation 21 Un-stabilized Approach • There are strong associations with unstable approaches and long/hard/fast landings • However data exists to show that landing risks exist following both stabilized and un-stabilized approaches • Failure to Go-Around contributed to one-third of all landing excursion accidents. • Could be avoided by a go-around as required with stabilized approach criteria 22 Un-stabilized Approach • Why do pilots continue to attempt to salvage un-stabilized approaches? • Four possible behaviors: – excessive confidence in a quick recovery; – excessive confidence because of runway or environmental conditions; – inadequate preparation or lack of commitment to conduct a goaround; or, – absence of decision because of fatigue or workload 23 Excess Airspeed • Excess airspeed has been a cause factor in nearly 15% of landing excursion accidents • The performance data is normally based upon Vref not Vapp at a height of 50 feet above the threshold – Corrections to Vref are meant to be bled off to arrive at threshold on speed • Excess Speed affects either airborne or ground landing distances – or both 24 Excess Airspeed • Airborne Landing Distance Effects: – 230 feet per knot of increased landing flare distance • Ground Landing Distance Effects (Dry): – 20-30 feet per knot of increased landing distance • Ground Landing Distance Effects (Wet): – 40-50 feet per knot of increased landing distance 25 Excess Airspeed • A 10 knot excess airspeed has the potential of extending the landing distance by – 2300 feet with an extended float/flare; or – 200-300 feet (dry) with a fly on landing in the touchdown zone • Floating the landing has a 10X effect on landing distances 26 Excess Threshold Crossing Height • Represents a high energy situation which logically will result in an extended airborne landing distance or ground roll out • AC 91-79 estimates that this distance is equivalent to 200 feet for each 10 feet of excess TCH 50’ TCH = 1000’ 100’ TCH = 2000’ 150’ TCH = 3000’ 27 Landing Long The Touchdown Zone • Most airplanes are certified to touchdown following a 3 or 3½ degrees approach slope with as much as an 8 foot per second sink rate (480 FPM), giving • Touchdown points approximately 1000 feet from the threshold • Painted Runway Marking aim points are depicted at approximately 1000 feet from the threshold, which corresponds to most type certifications • Touchdown Zones – 1000-1500 from threshold – allows for cushioned landings 28 Landing Long • Shallow approaches will also increase the airborne distance, as will a negative slope on the runway; approximately adding a 10% penalty to landing distances • Pilots should seek to accomplish firm landings in the landing zone; which is defined as the first third, or 3000 feet of the runway whichever is less. 29 Adverse wind conditions Tailwinds on Landing • Most aircraft are certified with 10 or 15 knots maximum tailwind • Tailwind conditions serve to increase the groundspeed which extends the airborne distance during the flare • Any tailwind on contaminated runways is not encouraged due to the inherent hazards 30 Adverse wind conditions Crosswinds and Gusts on Landing • According to the RSI report, crosswinds, wind gusts and turbulence are also associated with runway excursion accidents. • Adverse wind conditions were involved in 33% of accidents between 1984-1997, and • When wet runways co-existed, adverse winds were involved in the majority of the runway excursions 31 Adverse wind conditions Crosswinds and Wet/Contaminated Runway • Assess the runway condition • Apply correction factors using chart • ALAR Toolkit provided detailed guidance concerning landings in crosswind conditions (ALAR, 8.7) 32 Failure to assess required landing distance • 50 percent of the operators surveyed did not have adequate policies in place for assessing whether sufficient landing distance exists at the time of arrival at the destination airport (AC 91-79) • Two fundamental elements; – Correctly assessing the environmental conditions of the runway, and – Properly assessing the correct aircraft performance given the actual runway conditions 33 Failure to assess required landing distance • Operators need to develop policies to compel flight crew to verify the runway condition prior to landing and apply sufficient safety margins to certified landing distances • The use of factored landing distances can assist with the ease of in-cockpit calculations (ALAR 8.3) • It is critical that pilots understand that AFM landing distances are based upon landings which are not normally operationally achievable and represent the starting point for determining accurate landing distances 34 Consequences of Approach and Landing Accidents Loss of control in flight Ground Post-impact Undershoot collision fire with object Collision (non-CFIT) CFIT Overrun Veer-off Accident consequence CFIT = controlled flight into terrain 35 Top Five Causal Factors of Approach and Landing Accidents Slow/ delayed reaction Aircraft handling Failure in CRM Poor professional judgment/ airmanship Omission of action/ inappropriate action Causal factor 36 Top Five Circumstantial Factors in Approach and Landing Accidents Training inadequate Runway contamination Poor visibility Other weather factors CRM failure Circumstantial factor CRM = crew resource management 37 Stabilized Landing • A landing conducted where the aircraft is positively controlled from a point 50 feet above the threshold to a full stop on the landing surface, without any unintended or adverse aircraft deviations from the planned and briefed maneuver. 38 Safe Landing Guidelines The risk of an approach and landing accident is increased if any of the following guidelines is not met. If more than one guideline is not met, the overall risk is greatly increased • Fly a stabilized approach • Height at threshold crossing is 50’ • Speed at threshold crossing is not more than Vref + 10 knots indicated airspeed and not less than Vref • Tailwind is no more than 10 knots for a non-contaminated runway, no more than 0 knots for a contaminated runway • Touchdown on runway centerline at the touchdown aim point • After touchdown, promptly transition to the desired deceleration configuration • Speed is less than 80 knots with 2,000 feet of runway remaining 39 Safe Landing Guidelines Note: Once thrust reversers have been activated, a go-around is no longer an option. 40 Presentation Outline JR Russell – Chairman ProActive Safety Systems Inc Strategies to reduce the risk of runway excursions: CRM Data Collection and Analysis How to move from being Reactive to Predictive 41 Major References • Flight Safety Foundation. (2010) Approach and Landing Accident Reduction Toolkit Update • Flight Safety Foundation. (2009). Reducing the Risk of Runway Excursions. Runway Safety Initiative Report • US DOT. Federal Aviation Administration. (11/06/07). Advisory Circular 91-79. Runway Overrun Prevention • US DOT. Federal Aviation Administration. (6/3/99).Advisory Circular 25-7A Change 1. Flight Test Guide for the Certification of Transport Category Airplanes 42 Contact Information • Steve.Charbonneau@altria.com – 804-218-9165 43 Questions 44 Reducing The Risk of Runway Excursions Jim Burin Director of Technical Programs Major Accidents Business Jets 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 Date Operator Aircraft Location Phase Fatal 5 January Royal Air Freight Lear 35 Chicago, IL, USA Approach 2 14 February Time Air Citation Bravo Schona, Germany Enroute 2 15 July Prince Aviation Citation Bravo Bol, Croatia Landing 0 12 August Ocean Air Taxi Lear 55 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Landing 0 31 August Trans Air Citation II Misima, PNG Landing 4 6 October Aviones Taxi Citation I Veracruz, Mexico Enroute 8 19 November Frandley Avn Ptn Citation I Birmingham, UK Landing 0 19 December Windrose Air Hawker Premier St. Moritz, Switzerland Approach 2 Source: Ascend 2010 Approach and Landing Accidents • Commercial Jets: 15 of 19 (80%) • Business Jets: 6 of 8 (75%) Runway Safety Data 1995–2009 Runway Excursion Data • 36% of turbojet accidents • 24% of turboprop accidents Major Accidents Business Jets 1 January 2011 to 1 October 2011 Date Operator Aircraft Location Phase Fatal 6 January Priester Aviation Lear -35 Springfield, IL, USA Landing 0 4 February Sky Lounge Hawker 900 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq Climb 7 18 February Escuela de Aviacion Lear 24 Villasana, Mexico Landing 2 28 March Hong Fei General Citation II Missing - China Enroute 3 5 May Jorda LLC Approach 0 25 May Jet Suite Air Landing 0 Source: Ascend HS-125 EMB Phenom Loreto Bay, Mexico Sedona, AZ, USA 6 Landing Excursions – Top 10 Factors 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% The Go-Around • Lack of go-arounds is a leading risk factor in approach and landing accidents • Lack of go-arounds is the #1 cause of landing runway excursions --However--- • Many approach and landing accidents result from poorly executed go-arounds • When is it appropriate NOT to go around: - Wheels on the runway and - Thrust reversers activated East Coast Jets Owatonna, MN July 31, 2008 8 fatalities Accident sequence • Wet runway, 8 knot tailwind • After touchdown, Captain delayed 7 seconds before deploying lift dump • 17 seconds after touchdown, captain initiated go-around attempt - 1,200 feet from runway end - Approximately 75-80 Kts The Go-Around The two primary issues with a go-around 1. Making the decision to go-around 2. Executing the go-around LOSA Data • 4% of all approaches were unstable • 97% of unstable approaches are continued to landing – 10% result in abnormal landings • Only 3% of unstable approaches lead to a Go-Around • When a GA occurs – it is often poorly performed – Usually a surprise to the crew – Very rarely occurs at (the briefed) missed approach point Data Study • Over 1 million flights analyzed • 3.5% of approaches are unstable (35,000) • Only 1.4% of them lead to a Go-Around (490) •Looked for Landings with High Risk events • Unstable 8.0 % (80,000) • Stable 6.2% (62,000) • This was not the expected result Industry study on Go-Arounds Below 100ft 13% Between 500ft and flare 31% Above 500 ft 56% The Sad truth about the #1 risk factor in ALA • 9 out of 10 unstbilized approaches do not go around Air France A-340, Toronto 309 onboard – no fatalities - Weather bad – tsm/lightning in vicinity - Fast/High on approach - Lost sight of runway in flare – landed left - Floated landing * landed 3,800 feet down 9,000 foot runway - Late Thrust reversers ( 12.8 sec, 16.3 sec) - Off end at 80 knots Challenges • Approach and Landing accident Reduction Go arounds - Decision - Execution Excursions - Success in raising awareness - Calculations and expectations Safe Landing Guidelines Safe Landing Guidelines Note: The risk of an approach and landing accident is increased if any of the following guidelines is not met. If more than one guideline is not met, the overall risk is greatly increased 1. Fly a stabilized approach 2. Height at threshold crossing is 50 feet 3. Speed at threshold crossing is not more than Vref + 10 knots indicated airspeed and not less than Vref 4. Tailwind is no more than 10 knots for a non-contaminated runway, no more than 0 knots for a contaminated runway 5. Touchdown on runway centerline at the touchdown aim point 6. After touchdown, promptly transition to desired deceleration configuration - Brakes - Spoilers/speed brakes - Thrust reversers (Note: Once thrust reversers have been activated, a go-around is no longer an option) 7. Speed is less than 80 knots with 2,000 feet of runway remaining Air India Express Manglaor, India 22 May 2010 158 fatalities Air India Express B-737 158 fatalities - PIC asleep until 25 minutes from landing Late descent clearance Rate of descent > 4,000 fpm, still high TCH 200 feet, speed 160 kts (50/144 normal) Touchdown 5,000’ feet down 8,000’ runway - 3 calls from F/O to go around, EGPWS also - Touchdown, thrust reversers, braking - 6 seconds after touchdown, tried to go around The keys to minimizing the risk of an approach and landing accident Go arounds - Decision - Execution Adoption of “Safe Landing” Guidelines FSF Goal: Make Aviation Safer by Reducing The Risk of an Accident Put Your SMS to Work • Look into your SMS toolbox to find ways to mitigate the risk of Runway Excursions • The first step is communication – every SMS has the “communication tool” at it’s disposal – communicate the threats associated with Runway Excursions: – Unstable approaches - Short runways – Landing long - Contaminated runways – Too fast - Fatigue – Too high - X/Winds To name a few…the point is…to get people thinking about these threats Pro-Active Safety Systems, Inc. Put Your SMS to Work • Another tool is CRM – Make sure everyone is aware that their input is valued and to speak up if uncomfortable with a situation – Thorough departure and approach briefings are critical in mitigating the risk of Runway Excursions Pro-Active Safety Systems, Inc. Put Your SMS to Work • Safety data is another tool to utilize – Industry Data/News – Employee Reports – FOQA/FDM data Analyzing safety data will allow an operator to recognize negative trends developing. Do something before the negative trend leads to an incident or accident. Pro-Active Safety Systems, Inc. In other words, become… Proactive and even Predictive INCREASING SAFETY Risk Management Approaches PREDICTIVE PROACTIVE REACTIVE REDUCING RISK Reactive = Inefficient Proactive = Efficient Predictive = Very efficient Reactive Safety Reactive… Focused on the outcome An unstable approach into XYZ led to a runway excursion. An investigation is done, and a report is generated with recommendations to prevent a similar incident. Proactive… Hazards are identified from the information gleaned from safety data. Safety data indicates a rise in unstable approaches to runway 28L at XYZ airport Further investigation reveals the glide-slope to 28L is OTS due to runway construction Predictive… Ability to identify a potential hazard based on previous data/models/reports obtained. Unstable approaches trended upward when airport XYZ experienced runway construction, causing the glide slope to be unusable. Based on that knowledge, we can predict a rise in unstable approaches into airport ABC due to the proposed runway construction. Thank you! Questions JR Russell Pro-Active Safety Systems, Inc. 303-589-7430 jrrussell@proactivesafetyinc.com Safe Landing Guidelines (The risk of an approach and landing accident is increased if any of the following guidelines is not met. If more than one guideline is not met, the overall risk is greatly increased) 1. Fly a stabilized approach1 2. Height at threshold crossing is 50 feet 3. Speed at threshold crossing is not more than Vref + 10 knots indicated airspeed and not less than Vref 4. Tailwind is no more than 10 knots for a non-contaminated runway, no more than 0 knots for a contaminated runway 5. Touchdown on runway centerline at the touchdown aim point 2 6. After touchdown, promptly transition to the desired deceleration configuration - Brakes - Spoilers/speed brakes - Thrust reversers (Note: Once thrust reversers have been activated, a go-around is no longer an option.) 7. Speed is less than 80 knots with 2,000 feet of runway remaining Notes: 1. Stabilized approach: Recommended Elements Of a Stabilized Approach All flights must be stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet above airport elevation in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). An approach is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path; 2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path; 3. The aircraft speed is not more than VREF + 20 knots indicated airspeed and not less than VREF; 4. The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration; 5. Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 feet per minute; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 feet per minute, a special briefing should be conducted; 6. Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the aircraft operating manual; 7. All briefings and checklists have been conducted; 8. Specific types of approaches are stabilized if they also fulfill the following: instrument landing system (ILS) approaches must be flown within one dot of the glideslope and localizer; during a circling approach, wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation; and, 9. Unique approach procedures or abnormal conditions requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach require a special briefing. An approach that becomes unstabilized below 1,000 feet above airport elevation in IMC or below 500 feet above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around. 2. Touchdown aim point (distance from runway threshold): - FAA: 1,000 feet ICAO: Landing area available: <800m 800m -1,200m 1,200m -2,400m >2,400m Touchdown point: 150m 250m 300m 400m The touchdown aim point markings start at the distance indicated above and are 150 foot long solid white rectangular stripes, one on each side of the runway centerline. The width of the aim point markings varies with the width of the runway.
