Airline Pilot Central Forums - PSA CRJ 200 Skids off Runway at CRW

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- PSA Airlines (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/psa-airlines/)

- - PSA CRJ 200 Skids off Runway at CRW (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/psa-airlines/47429-psa-crj-200-skids-off-runway-crw.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Cornholio

I've done RTO's at like 78 kts and it sucked. I was the FO and it was the CA's leg and they aborted. We both thought we were going off the end. Stopped with just about 200 ft left. After seeing that it will take something pretty major in order for me to abort above 80.

Just curious...how long was the runway? Max braking and TRs used during the abort?

One thing I NEVER worried about in the CRJ-200 was stopping...those brakes are MASSIVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Cornholio (Post 749504)

Holy cow, what was your V1? 78 Knots isn't exactly a high-speed abort, can't imagine that being so close unless your runway wasn't what you needed. Was there some sort of failure associated with this scenario?

Having flown into CRW today, for the first time in a while, I can say without a doubt that the people who brought us EMAS ought to be heralded as heroes.

As for what happened, we will never know because we know that if the pilots survive, no one will ever know what really happened!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetPipeOverht (Post 748952)

For those of you wishing to abort every single T/O for a minor abnormality (not associated with a loss of control/power) and ' stretching ' that career by making rash decisions at the cost of your crew/pax...please post your schedules here as to allow us to avoid ever flying on your plane. Thank you !

It seems you sometimes have to take some people by the hand and explain some things to them slowly.

Ok, Here we go;

The comments about aborting for EFIS COMP MON, Anti Skid Failure, Bugs on the Windshield and Forgetting your salad dressing were all made in jest.

Because aborting for these things at high speed would be logically inappropriate it becomes funny or absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetPipeOverht (Post 748952)

Ummmm yyyyeaaaaahhhhhhh......And what is your schedule?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetstream 823JS (Post 749562)

That and the messages are inhibited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabreDriver (Post 749465)

And this wasn't an accident? :rolleyes: I'd say it was and there is a pretty good chance that this a/c will never fly again. Most likely, it is damaged beyond "eonomical" repair. But, I could be wrong. The real question is: How did they end up in the EMAS area? :eek:

The aircraft had all tires changed, due to the long skid. No other damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirportEngineer (Post 749737)

The aircraft had all tires changed, due to the long skid. No other damage.

Glad to hear it... I stand corrected...:o That EMAS must be good stuff. Hope I never have to test it.

I'll just have to wait to read the full report and see why it was, that they departed the "prepared surface" to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furloughee (Post 747662)

Above 80kts we abort for fire, engine failure, loss of directional control and master warning.

Just curious, what items will trigger a Master Warning in your aircraft? There are plenty of Master Warning items I would not abort for. I'm not questioning your decision as I'm just curious to know if there's anything that could trigger a MW that you would not abort for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonkey (Post 747667)

You'd better believe it, every time... They also assure the pilots that those engines have never failed on a reduced power take off.

Who cares if the engines fail at a reduce power settting? Your TOLD data is predicated on the fact that you are using reduced thrust. If indeed you have an engine failure at a reduced thrust, have confidence in the fact that you still have extra thrust available on the remaining engine (if your procedures allow that).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SrfNFly227 (Post 749151)

Second, a few people have questioned aborting a take off for anti-skid. I would like to honestly ask why a person would feel safe continuing a T/O roll with that system now malfunctioned. Braking distance for the abort would be based on the anti-skid working. Now take this scenario. You start your T/O roll on a short runway while right at your runway limited weight. At 90 knots, anti-skid goes out but you decide to continue because that isn't a "loss of control/power". At 90 knots, the RJ can sometimes have 50 knots to go before rotation. Now lets say you are still rolling down the runway and something happens at 130 knots that you do need to abort for. Not likely, but could happen. Do you really think you could stop from that close to V1 with the anti-skid not working???

A takeoff abort is the most dangerous and hardest procedure you'll ever perform in an aircraft. Even when you are prepared for them, a takeoff emergency catches you by surprise and your actions have to be 100% correct (and the equipment) because the margins for success are slim.

You can what if takeoff emergency scenarios to the Nth degree. The fact is, historical data is on your side if you only abort above 80-100 knots (airplane dependent) for a loss of thrust or a serious emergency which would render the aircraft unsafe for flight (usually defined as a fire or perhaps a windshear warning).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Cornholio (Post 749504)

I'm not a blue streaker but I brief it Abort for anything below 80, between 80 and V1 abort for major malfunctions or T/R disagree, Above V1 its an in flight emergency. If wx is super low I'll change it to add aborts for flight instrumentation failures in the 80-V1 range.

Your aircraft has standby instrumentation. Who cares if the weather is bad? If you have two good motors, standby instruments, and fuel to fly to an airport with better weather, why would you ever risk aborting for an instrumentation failure? Historical data is definitely not on your side in this decision.