Transcript AME Awards - Flight Safety Foundation

Comparing Runway
Excursion Factors
Scott R. Winter, Steven M. Leib, Robert C. Geske, Tyler B. Spence, Lauren A.
Sperlak, Lukas Rudari, Craig D. Cestari
Flight Safety Foundation Student Chapter at Purdue University
October 30th, 2013
Flight Safety Foundation
66th International Air Safety Summit
Washington, D.C.
Special thanks to Founding Chapter Advisor: Stewart Schreckengast
Student Chapter
• Inaugural chapter at
Purdue University
• Research based
student organization,
consisting of both
undergraduate and
graduate students
• Currently comprised
of 11 active members
Introduction & Purpose
1
Review of factors of runway
excursions
2
Comparison of reports
3
Analysis of FSF dataset for landing
excursions
Comparing Reports
FSF Report
Boeing Report
• Reports are independent
• Most causal factors contributing to runway
excursions are similar
Comparing Reports
Percentage Comparisons of Reports: Landing Excursion Factors
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Stable Apph
Long Land
Ex. Speed
Hard/Bounc
e
Tailwind
Wet Run
All Cam. Run
Unstable
Apph
FSF 08-10
31
25
6
10
10
43
60
10
Boeing 03-10
68
45
90
32
PU/FSF 03-10
35
32
75
17
42
10
17
12
65
TR Malfun.
10
Database Exploration
After comparing
reports, chapter
members reviewed
various other
parameters:
Type of Operator
Aircraft Type
Aircraft Class
Factors after
Stabilized Approaches
Type of Operator
Contaminated runway
Factors remained
fairly constant across
the Type of Operator
Unstable Approach
Landing long
Type of Operator
Percentage of Excursion Factors: Type of Operator
80%
70%
60%
Percentage
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Major
Contaminated
Unstable Apph
Runway
CR %
App %
Regional
Air Taxi
Non-Scheduled
Type of Operator
Long Land%
Hard Land%
Corporate
Reverse Thrust
Malfun.
Tailwind %
RT %
Risk Factor by Aircraft Type
Aircraft type does not appear to play a role
Factors Impacting Airbus Landing Excursions
8
7
6
Frequency
5
4
A300/A310
A320
3
A340
2
1
0
Long Landing
Approach
Speed
Hard Landing
Tailwind
Wet Runway
Factors
Runway
(Other)
Unstable
Approach
Thrust
Reverser issue
Aircraft Class
Top 3 factors for business jets, commercial jets
and turboprops:
Contaminated
runways
Landing
outside
touchdown
zone
Unstabilized
approach
Aircraft Class
Excursion Factors of Aircraft Class by Percentage
Stabilized Approaches
Why do excursions happen after stabilized approaches?
Factor Categories for runway excursion
after stabilized approach
Wheel Factors
183 out of 520
landing excursions
from FSF Database
(1995-2010) we
classified as stable
approaches (50 were
unknown)
Touchdown Factors
Reverse thrust factors
Wind Factors
Pilot Technique Factors
Other Factors
Brake Factors
Landing Abort Factors
Flight Crew Factors
Performance Calculation Factors
Approach Factor
Spoiler/Air Brake Factors
Flap/Slats Configuration Factors
0
20
40
60
Number
80
100
120
Stabilized Approaches
Runway conditions after stabilized approach in percent
Contaminated
(including dirt
and gravel)
Dry
Unknown
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pilot Factors – Stabilized Approaches
Pilot Causal Factors After Stabilized Approaches
140
130
120
100
Number
80
60
40
25
19
20
9
7
5
5
3
2
Altitude control
Sink rate
control
0
None
Directional
control
Crosswind
Speed control Improper flare Improper linecompensation
up
Unknown
Conclusions
1
Excursion factors appear to be fairly consistent
across conditions
2
Most commonly cited factors were:
• Runway contamination
• Landing long/fast
• Landing after unstabilized approach
3
Even after a stabilized approach, safe landing is not
guaranteed
The End
Questions?