Comparing Runway Excursion Factors Scott R Winter Steven

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 30 th, 2013 Flight Safety Foundation 66 th 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 100 Percentage Comparisons of Reports: Landing Excursion Factors 90 80 Percentage 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FSF 08 -10 Boeing 03 -10 PU/FSF 03 -10 Stable Apph 31 68 35 Long Land 25 45 32 Ex. Speed 6 Hard/Bounce 10 10 17 Tailwind 10 42 12 Wet Run 43 65 All Cam. Run Unstable Apph 60 10 90 32 75 17 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 Runway CR % Regional Air Taxi Non-Scheduled Type of Operator Unstable Apph App % Long Land% Hard Land% Tailwind % Corporate Reverse Thrust Malfun. RT %

Risk Factor by Aircraft Type Aircraft type does not appear to play a role 8 Factors Impacting Airbus Landing Excursions 7 6 Frequency 5 4 A 300/A 310 A 320 3 A 340 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 Wheel Factors. Categories for runway excursion Touchdown Factorsafter stabilized approach Reverse thrust factors 183 out of 520 landing excursions from FSF Database (1995 -2010) we classified as stable approaches (50 were unknown) 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

Pilot Factors – Stabilized Approaches 140 130 Pilot Causal Factors After Stabilized Approaches 120 100 Number 80 60 40 25 19 20 9 7 5 5 3 2 0 None Directional control Crosswind Speed control Improper flare Improper linecompensation up Unknown Altitude control Sink rate control

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?