ShyGuy

Can't speak for light corporate jets but in the Part 121 jet world, once the reversers are out in most shops you are committed to the landing and SOP is no go around at that point. Airlines also try and avoid incorporating fighter jet techniques in handling large jetliners, as the NTSB pointed out in the AA 587 crash aftermath with AA's "Advanced Maneuvering Training Program." If the Boeing or Airbus manufacturers haven't published a [insert method] it probably shouldn't be used in normal every day life.

fjetter

In the corporate super-mid I fly trying to do a balked landing after touch-down would be much more dangerous than trying to go around. Our ground spoilers deploy automatically upon touchdown and if t/r's are deployed the restow and lock time would eat up a lot of runway. One of the few memory items is apply emergency braking in the event of a loss of normal braking. I agree with a previous poster, it's better to go off the runway at 20kts with a few bruises rather than off the end at 100kts and worse.

That being said the certification of the aircraft is based on no T/Rs, so in short-field conditions immediate usage of the brakes is emphasized over T/R usage.

T/Gos are approved for the aircraft. If T/Gos are to be performed T/R usage is prohibited and ground spoilers are to be disarmed per the AFM and common sense.

FlyJSH

Understand my jet/transport experience is limited and probably feeble..... but....

Unless one is planing a touch and go, or executing a missed approach that results in ground contact, once one has committed to a landing don't you think that continuing the landing and overrunning is better than reevaluating and attempting a going around? IMHO, way too much thinking is required to achieve a safe flight.

ShyGuy

Correct.

The most recent airline disaster involving a landing and a G/A attempt was the Air India Express Boeing 737NG at Mangalore India. It's true they touched down about 5,000 down a 8,000 ft runway, but Boeing showed that had they hit full brakes and full reverse, they would have stopped at the end of the runway in the paved overrun. Instead, the crew elected a late G/A and the rest is history. The airport sits on a hill in a "tabletop" runway scenario and the plane went down the cliff and killed everyone except 8 lucky people who were in the tail section that broke off earlier.

" Analysis of the accident revealed that had the pilot "deployed reverse thrust and applied maximum manual braking at touchdown", the aircraft could have been stopped within the paved overrun area of the runway. The captain had exacerbated the long landing by attempting a go-around following deployment of the thrust reversers "

Stickshaker

The Phenom 100 does not have Thrust Reversers. ABS gets tricky on wet (particularly ungrooved concrete) runways. The emergency brake is the correct pilot response to main brake failure and is not ABS protected.

Yoda2

After viewing the photos, I thought it amazing that this pilot had the skill and presence of mind to position the aircraft in the opposite direction of travel to take advantage of thrust in slowing the aircraft. As if that wasn't enough, they even made sure the rudder was in the water for low speed control. Amazing display of skill!

USMCFLYR

EMAS can be a life saver at those types of airports too!

Yoda2

I recall attending a meeting where the FAA was introducing and touting EMAS. The FAA talked it all up, and most of us seemed to think it was a great idea. Then the FAA presenters went right into how expensive it was to replace, and whoever used it had to pay for the repairs. A sizable amount of attendees then seemed to change their minds and said they would try to avoid using it, so as to not have their companies incur the repair costs...

rickair7777

I don't take EMAS into account at all...I plan on stopping in the available distance and if things go horribly wrong then EMAS would be nice to have. But I'm not going to turn a no-go decision into a go because of EMAS

Like CFR, EMAS is a safety feature that is solely the responsibility of the government to manage. If it can be shown to have cost-effective benefit (I believe it has) then it should be implemented.

I also suspect EMAS is not any more costly than a totaled airplane...EMAS saves the plane with little damage.

Yoda2

I agree that EMAS is a good thing and can save lives and property. I was primarily pointing out that some bad decisions can be made by those trying to avoid it. This is along the lines of a trucker not choosing to make use of a runaway truck ramp, Etc.