Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #1  

    Elk River (NC06) Phenom 300 Runway Excursion

    Name:  240820081_10224066906117817_112459193987122853_n.jpg
Views: 3369
Size:  83.1 KB

    I saw on Facebook that a Phenom 300, N413N, had a runway excursion at Elk River. At first seems like a reasonable runway length at 4600 ft, but looks wet and also high airport elevation. ForeFlight says 2500 ft required dry and 4800 ft wet (unfactored). Watching the video below it seems that a steeper than normal approach normal is needed so probably landing long. Anyone on the forum been in here in a Phenom?

    The jet experienced a runway 12 (4600' long) excursion and departed the end of the runway and struck a vehicle.
    https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase...lUS3g1IrdIw89I

    I have never flown in to Elk River but looks like a trickier than normal approach.

  2. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    19 Posts
    Thanked 18 times
    Phenom Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #2  
    We've flown our PC12 in to Elk River frequently for about 14 years. The approach is very steep due to the surrounding terrain, so it's difficult to land within the first 1000-1500 feet. Additionally, on a calm day, there is usually a 8-12kt tailwind. We've discussed flying a Phenom there, but there are too many variables to do it comfortably even on a dry day. A Falcon 50 used to fly in rather frequently and it was always a spectacle to see.
  3. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    12 Posts
    Thanked 4 times
    Other
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #3  
    Question for (Username Protected), is the runway grooved or ungrooved? Could not find any info in "airport" section of ForeFlight or A/FD.

    Looks like the kind of place best used for pistons, turbo props and/or always going in with someone who has been in there before.
  4. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    32 Posts
    Thanked 14 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #4  
    I would only take the 100 in there on a dry day with a headwind. Looks like a cool place, would like to do it one day.
  5. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    19 Posts
    Thanked 18 times
    Phenom Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #5  
    The runway is ungrooved. It’s the perfect airport for a Pilatus, even though I’m not the biggest fan of a single-engine in that type of terrain.
  6. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    13 Posts
    Thanked 15 times
    Phenom Instructor/Mentor
    Join Date
    Joined Dec 2020
    #6  

    Poor planning

    Very sad that we yet have another 300 running off the runway. Insurance rates are going through the roof and this continues to happen from poor planning. It's not even single pilot errors. It appears to be happening from charter companies with two pro pilots in the cockpit.

    Im not pointing a finger but if you read Embraers recommendations about wet, ungrooved runways, they say to use a contaminated factor. I love ipreflight and if they took the time and got an airport report as to what kind of runway they have (its ungrooved), they would have been able to use the proper factor. Not sure if the aircraft was operating 91 or 135 but with 135 an additional factor of 1.67 should have been factored in.

    I tried to upload an ipreflight file but was unable. It was a picture of preflight calculation that showed the following warning, " You entered an actual weight which exceeds the limit weight" The weight that I entered was 13,000 pounds and the weather was taken off of the report and since the runway was wet and ungrooved, I used 1/8th inch contamination which is recommended. If its grooved, you use wet.

    Do you know where to find out the type of runway that you are landing on? With the criteria that these gentleman had, they had no business landing at this airport. If any of you would like for me to help with going over best practices for landing at contaminated runways, please call me and you can ask for a second opinion 24/7 of any situation that you may be faced with that is questionable.

    Please call 817.946.0012. I have taken delivery of aircraft since 2009 and have brought into service 100's, 300's Legacy and Praetor aircraft and helped mentor new crews with best practices. We have given demonstrations of iPreflight to groups at the Embraer Jet Operators association and the Phenom Pilots group prior to their changing the name so this isn't new.

    Insurance rates for this aircraft are now reaching 100,000/year and companies are only covering half of the hull value and giving a max of 10 Million liability to single pilots. If we keep this up, the FAA may see fit to take the single pilot certification away from our CJ's and Phenoms.

    Please please read FOL PHE505-018/14 dated Nov 5, 2014!! Please contact Neil Singer, Tom Norton and his group, CAE and Sean Thomas and myself (not that I am thinking that I am in the same class of knowledge of these gentleman) for some accurate information concerning stabilized approaches and landing distance. Very sorry if I left someone out. There are many excellent pilots in the Phenom world that know this information.

    Im not saying that the guys that did the latest overrun aren't excellent. My heart goes out to them with what has happen.Thanks (Username Protected)
  7. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #7  
    (Username Protected) thanks for that writeup!

    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Do you know where to find out the type of runway that you are landing on? With the criteria that these gentleman had, they had no business landing at this airport.
    Non-grooved, looks like standing water in spots based on the picture. I ran the numbers in APG and ForeFlight, any weight came up hundreds of feet short. Add a potential tailwind and with increased ground speed likelier to hydroplane too.

    In addition to PHE505-018/14, we should also stress that the wet unfactored runway numbers are not flight tested or even modeled! Just dry * 1.25. That is why an additional factoring is recommended.

    From the NetJets submission in this https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=90106

    The requirements for landing distance performance calculation are defined in aircraft certification standards as outlined in 14 CFR 23.75 and 25.125. The Embraer Phenom 300 is a Part 23 certified aircraft. Neither Part 23 or 25 specify the method for which wet landing data should be calculated for certification purposes. The result is that no standards exist for the calculation of wet landing performance data as presented in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).

    As stated in SAFO 06012, “Wet and contaminated runway landing distance data are usually an analytical computation using the dry, smooth, hard surface runway data collected during certification.” In the case of the Phenom 300, Embraer added a 25 percent safety factor over the dry landing distances rather than using any modeled or flight test data.

    The chart shown below from the performance report illustrates the difference in the models and actual performance of the aircraft. The NASA CFME model most accurately matched the aircraft performance in this event and has been validated in a number of other runway overrun events documented by the NTSB. The resulting difference between actual and expected braking performance on the wet runway was approximately 23 percent.

    From the NTSB report itself:

    Nonetheless, the braking friction deficit observed in this accident showed that the stopping performance of the airplane was more consistent with AFM landing distances for runways contaminated with standing water than for runways that were merely "wet" even though it was determined that the runway could not have been flooded.
  8. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    18 Posts
    Thanked 11 times
    Researching Phenom 100
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #8  
    Hey, (Username Protected)! Thank you for weighing in on this accident in particular and the overall trend in the insurance world as the result of the accidents and incidents we are seeing. It is always a good reminder to go back to the basics and run the numbers.

    (Username Protected)
    N685AS
  9. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #9  
    The NTSB Report is out. Detailed with an extensive docket.

    https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/103828/pdf

    The pilot’s failure to achieve the approach criteria for the available runway landing distances published in the POH, likely as a result of the steeper-than-normal approach and the required left turn on short final to avoid the terrain surrounding the airport. Contributing to the accident were a lower runway friction than that assumed by the airframe manufacturer and tire cornering forces imparted during the landing roll, which reduced the airplane’s reduced braking effectiveness, which when combined with a high approach speed, increased the required stopping distance beyond the runway distance available. Also contributing to the accident was the operator’s lack of consideration of airport topography in its Destination Airport Analysis Program.

    Docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=103828
  10. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    82 Posts
    Thanked 51 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined May 2021
    #10  
    In addition, the performance study found that the maximum wheel braking friction coefficient developed by the airplane during the landing ground roll was significantly less than that implied in the unfactored wet-runway landing distances published in the POH.

    ^Another important datapoint to the story in Tom Norton's overrun presentation. It's critical that pilots use contaminated numbers when the plane actually produces closer to those numbers rather than 'wet' numbers.
  11. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    44 Posts
    Thanked 27 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Mar 2021
    #11  
    The report is quite thorough (and has all the data we need to run numbers!). The operational landing distances work out to be 4,545’ if dry and 6,067’ if wet (FICON 5).

    Of course, there was no way to make that work. The runway wasn’t dry, the technique wasn’t perfect, and the weight used for the Vref was wrong.

    (Username Protected)

    (edited post: had wrong airport data in first post)

    Name:  IMG_4052.png
Views: 629
Size:  204.3 KB

    Name:  IMG_4051.png
Views: 645
Size:  208.1 KB
  12. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    78 Posts
    Thanked 34 times
    Phenom Pro Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #12  
    [QUOTE=(Username Protected);60394]The report is quite thorough (and has all the data we need to run numbers!). The operational landing distances work out to be 4,545’ if dry and 6,067’ if wet (FICON 5).

    Of course, there was no way to make that work. The runway wasn’t dry, the technique wasn’t perfect, and the weight used for the Vref was wrong.

    (Username Protected)

    (edited post: had wrong airport data in first post)

    How was the weight for the Vref incorrect? APG and the QRH tab data show 110 for their assumed landing weight of 15,200lbs. Either way, had the operational landing distance charts been available and consulted before approach, they probably wouldn’t have attempted this. I really can’t remember if those came out before or after this accident.

    I worked at this company and got my 300 type at the same they were approved for DAAP and in my opinion, they’ve really never understood or properly educated their pilots on applicability and how it’s used. I had to push back many times in my early time there where they tried forcing me into places that required 80% to make the data fit and there were one or more factors prohibiting it from being used. Namely while flying single pilot 135 legs or lacking the required time in type. Asking us to do runways between 3100-3500’ at the heaviest landing weights possible was a regular thing. There was a pretty vanilla 4500’ strip we went to there where we’re directed to divert if we saw standing water on approach. That mentality would’ve helped them that day, but I’ve been told there were a lot of external pressures.

Posting Permissions