PSA CRJ 200 Skids off Runway at CRW
 

Of all the airports to have an over-run incident, I think CRW (Charleston, West Virginia) is one of the least desirable. Thank goodness for the EMAS. Without it, I fear we might have had 33 fatalities. Anyone who has ever been to CRW knows the unforgiving landscape that awaits aircraft that over-run a runway (think immediately falling 1000 feet down a steep hill side into a ravine). Amazingly, the aircraft stopped approx. 100 feet from the edge of the hill top after plowing through 3/4 of the EMAS barrier. I'm just thankful that nobody was hurt in what could have been a major catastrophe.

Plane skids off runway at Yeager; airport reopens - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports


CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A US Airways Express regional jet carrying 30 passengers and three crew members aborted its takeoff at Charleston's Yeager Airport on Tuesday, rolled onto an overrun area at the end of the main runway, and came to a stop in a specially designed safety zone about 100 feet from the edge of the hilltop airport.

No one was injured in the incident, which took place shortly before 4:30 p.m. The airport remained closed until the 50-passenger Bombardier CRJ200 regional jet, which was bound for Charlotte, N.C., could be removed from the safety zone.


The safety zone contains a runway-wide Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), comprised of concrete blocks designed to collapse under the weight of an airplane and bring it to a safe stop. It was installed in 2008 for $5 million as part of Yeager's new runway extension project.

The jet's wheels were buried in the EMAS material, with its fuselage coming to rest only a few feet above the specially engineered pavement.

A crane was brought in and used to remove the aircraft from the safety zone. The airport reopened shortly before 10 p.m.


"The EMAS system did exactly what it was supposed to do," said Kanawha County Commission President Kent Carper. "My understanding is that the US Airways plane rolled through about three-fourths of the EMAS at the Charleston end of the runway.


"If it hadn't been for the EMAS, I'm convinced a catastrophic accident would have occurred."


Passengers were taken off the plane and back into the terminal.

"It was a little scary, but everyone remained calm," said Julia Shaffer of Valrico, Fla.


"We were going pretty fast down the runway and then all of a sudden we started to slow down and it started to get bumpy. Then we completely stopped," said her 14-year-old son, Jonah. "I thought the tire had shredded or something.


"But when we stopped it seemed like the wing was a little lower to the ground than it should be," he said. That was due to the plane sinking into the EMAS.

"We sat in the plane for a little while until the firemen came, and then we just went down the ladder and walked out," he said.


After the aircraft came to rest, "The pilot said he decided to stop because he was getting some kind of a warning signal," said Julia Shaffer. "He said he thought it was better to stop on the ground than in the air.


"He had to make a split-second decision, and I'm glad he decided to stop. Everyone's safe -- that's all that matters. It all happened pretty fast. No one was panicky."


"It was kind of alarming -- kind of a jerky ride before we stopped really close to the end of the runway," said Lindsay Robinson of Charleston, who was among the Charlotte-bound passengers. "But everyone seemed really calm."


Julia and Jonah Shaffer, along with Julia's husband Steve and Jonah's sister Hannah, had spent the past several days skiing with relatives at Winterplace.


"I think Jonah's hoping this means we can stay here and keep skiing," said Julia Shaffer.


Authorities did not immediately know what warning signal prompted the pilot to abort the flight.


"The cost to repair the EMAS area will be enormous," said Carper. "But when you have everyone walk away uninjured from something like this, the cost is insignificant."


Staff writer Kathryn Gregory contributed to this report.

Reach Rick Steelhammer at [email protected]

raises the glass to emas !

psa use reduced power takeoffs at crw, or any airport?

Sounds like everything turned out ok.... I'm glad the bulk of the article was based on the testimony of a 14 year old.....

LOL

Yea they do. However I'm not sure if the aero data numbers would call for reduced power with 30 pax and a relatively low density altitude (for crw) or not.

He had to make a split-second decision, and I'm glad he decided to stop. Everyone's safe -- that's all that matters.

Amen. That's why we get paid the big bucks.

Cudos to the crew, and cudos to the EMAS.

Great Quote!

After the aircraft came to rest, "The pilot said he decided to stop because he was getting some kind of a warning signal," said Julia Shaffer. "He said he thought it was better to stop on the ground than in the air.

Kudos on the decision making in and out of the cockpit

yep....stopping in the air is a BAD BAD thing...

Good Job!!!

I think that depends, doesn't it? Without EMAS, this airplane would have literally definitely gone off the end of the runway (considering it plowed through 3/4 of the EMAS ending up about 100 ft from the cliff) killing likely everbody. Above 80 knots, there are very few things you're supposed to abort for. I hope for their sake they weren't above V1. And if they were under V1, they need to figure out why the figures didn't work.

There are a lot of questions that I for one am curious about.

Holy crap! That is a very BAD airport to have an overrun. For the sake of all of us, I'm glad no one was injured!

As a side note, let's refrain from pointing fingers and second guessing the crew's decision. "There by the grace of God go I".

I hate that airport with a passion, very interested to see what they aborted for. I dont have any judgement now, and I wont then because i wasn't in their aircraft. There are a couple airports in the northeast where your margin for error is zero in the even that anything goes wrong. This one is one of them. I am very thankful that the stopping system worked.

Does PSA abort above 80KIAS for fire or engine failure only? (Birds would be another one to add to that list.) That is the policy at ASA but we've had our share of captains aborting above 80 for things other than that.... (yes, Anti Skid too!)

aborting for anti skid...now that's funny! Itchy trigger finger!

It is a good thing the EMAS functioned as designed. I wonder about the quality of the CR2 braking systen, but that probably wasn't a factor..
It reminds me of a rainy day landing at DCA with Cactus 42, but it was a perfect landing.

Stop with the mantra already. Speculation goes both ways. If you are going to pick on Airway's post, then question the ones already posting praise without having any idea WHY/OR HOW they aborted.

PinnacleFO has it right for now. Hold the criticism AND the praise until facts are known if you're the type of poster that hates speculation.

USMCFLYR

In my experience in another aircraft - aborting is a tricky subject (and tricky procedure) all the way around. It seemed to be one that many people had different opinions on - no matter how well one thinks it is standardized; ESPECIALLY a high speed abort. I'm glad everything worked out OK in this instance.

USMCFLYR

True but loss of anti skid should be cut-and-dry not to abort. Do you abort at v1, 140 knots with 3-4000 feet of runway remaining for an antiskid message, most likely blowing every tire and losing directional control, or takeoff and land somewhere with a 9000 ft runway where it won't even be a factor? I think it's clear.

I don't know anything about this airplane, other than that it has a cramped cabin, and that I don't like to be aft of row 8 since there's no tail exit. Is any part of the warning system inhibited above 80 knots? Just curious; no judgements.

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

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

I don't know about the CRJ200. I can tell you that I would never have aborted (above a 100 kts) for an anti-skid failure in my aircraft - even on the 13,000' runway that I came from last. In my post I certainly did not advocate aborting for any reason, especially at a high speed, quite the contrary. I was saying that in my experience (and aircraft) there were actually very FEW reasons to conduct a high speed abort. It would most likely lead to damage of the aircraft (and depending on what you were carrying on the aircraft) a simple abort, leading to hot brakes, leading to a brake fire, leading to a burnt up FLIR could eventually end in a Class A mishap :(

I will be interested in learning more about this mishap in the future and I'll *speculate* that there will be lessons learned - good or bad. ;)

USMCFLYR

The true hero of this story is the person who appropriated the 5 million for the EMAS. The world is full of unsung heroes that have that kind of foresight to improve safety usually against great opposition.

winglet

Just wondering, I don't know the answer. One part of the V1 equation is it's the highest speed you can reach, lose an engine, reject and stay on the runway and any overrun that is stressed for aircraft and as wide as the runway. (My dispatcher side coming out.) My question is, do they count EMAS in the equation? If you're runway limited and reject, is it planned that you'll go into the EMAS? And if so, what value does EMAS give you? Is 100 feet of EMAS worth 500 feet of normal pavement or what?

This crew may have done everything right in regards to decision making. However, there are a few gotchas that could have led to an overrun. If it was the f/o's takeoff, there may have been a lag in brake application if SOP requires the captain to execute the abort. That extra second or two of changing controls at high speed can waste a lot of runway, and everyone could have been doing their job correctly. Also, many pilots fail to apply full braking in an abort. If you never made it to V1, you may be even more inclined to apply moderate braking and induce an overrun. Lack of training in max brake application can easily be cited. How often have any of us really stood up on those brakes?

I have had to literally stand on the brakes once, for an arrival into SNA, but no harm was done. In a few minutes, I will be pushing back for a departure to Albuquerque, as Cactus 202...FlightAware > US Airways #202

CRJ have autobrakes for RTO?

Nope. Not much automation on the CRJ-200.

Certain Warning and Caution system are inhibited when n1 is 79% or greater, weight on wheels. There is an initial and final inhibit, for airspeed less than 100 kias and airspeed greater than 100 kias.

yeap...its called one of the pilots

Yeah I'm just talking the CRJ. Not you carrying around nukes and cluster bombs or whatever you had :) I misread you the first time and thought you were in favor of high speed aborts

An abort for an anti-skid caution would be ludicrously counter-productive...you don't need it to go flying, but you sure might need to it to stop safely!


The two airlines I have worked at perform a high-speed (> 80kts) abort only for engine fire/failure/severe damage, reverser unlocked, fire indication, or loss of control.

Don't order me around, Marine. I'm not your subordinate. And I frankly couldn't care less what you think of my post.

Also not sure how you perceived my comment as picking on anyone.

EMAS is not counted. Per your definition, "overrun that is stressed for aircraft." The EMAS is NOT stresed for aircraft, that's how it works, by breaking apart due to being run over by 20K plus pounds of aircraft.

I don't know about you guys, but I will abort for an EFIS COMP MON at any speed.

I'm not ordering you around - and thanks for the compliment.
I'm pointing out that speculation goes both ways.

USMCFLYR

If that's how you roll you must hardly ever fly! :D

Looks like a textbook EMAS save. Lucky people...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zjtdEB0M1J...-CRW100119.jpg

...or if in the opinion of the Captain, the ability of the aircraft to fly is imperiled.

It is not an absolute. There is no policy. The decision to continue or abort at any speed rests with the PIC. I am glad I was not in that position.

I am interested in looking at the speeds involved from the perspective of seeing if our performance numbers are valid. I have wondered about this at V1 in EYW on the CR2. Talk about short. At least there you dont have to worry about running off a cliff!

I'm glad things turned out OK - the bottom line is that no one was hurt and EMAS appears to have saved the day. BUT - those guys aren't getting paid "big bucks." They're grossly underpaid.

Another issue: the EMAS is only in the overruns... so it begs the question: why did they reject a takeoff and end up in the overrun? I know nothing about CRJ TOLD and I'm not throwing spears. I'm just curious how this will turn out.

As said before, the real heroes are the people who decided that the runoff area needed this EMAS. Without it we would likely be talking about a far more serious incident.

The FAA and PSA will find out about what happened. In the meantime we all have to be thankful for the foresight somebody had to deal with a very unlikely eventuality which turned reality.