Download - Comparing Runway Excursion Factors
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, 2013Flight Safety Foundation
66th International Air Safety SummitWashington, 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
Review of factors of runway excursions
Comparison of reports
Analysis of FSF dataset for landing excursions
1
2
3
Comparing Reports
FSF Report Boeing Report
• Reports are independent• Most causal factors contributing to runway
excursions are similar
Comparing Reports
Database Exploration
Type of Operator
Factors remained fairly constant across the Type of Operator
Contaminated runway
Unstable Approach
Landing long
Type of Operator
Contaminated Runway Unstable Apph
Reverse Thrust Malfun.
Risk Factor by Aircraft Type
Aircraft type does not appear to play a role
Aircraft ClassTop 3 factors for business jets, commercial jets
and turboprops:
Aircraft Class
Excursion Factors of Aircraft Class by Percentage
Stabilized ApproachesWhy do excursions happen after stabilized approaches?
183 out of 520 landing excursions from FSF Database (1995-2010) we classified as stable approaches (50 were unknown)
Stabilized Approaches
Pilot Factors – Stabilized Approaches
Conclusions
Excursion factors appear to be fairly consistent across conditions
Most commonly cited factors were:• Runway contamination• Landing long/fast• Landing after unstabilized approach
Even after a stabilized approach, safe landing is not guaranteed
1
2
3
The End
Questions?