Well, this crew didn’t use all of 29 either I believe, did they “smoke” the brakes? who knows.

But I guess the energy dissipation of striking a bread truck probably helped

We don’t know. They didn’t either before it was too late to recover, obviously. You look at something like the Asiana triple disaster at SFO and think, how is that even remotely possible? 13 years ago now. But as all the contributing factors came to light, they painted a much different picture. Especially to those familiar with such cockpit dynamics, auto throttle function and descent momentum of heavy airliners.

Was Wi To Lo on the 76 crew?

Crew identification? UA flight officers. Relieved of duty pending full investigation, standards review, regulatory acceptance. Life changer for any airman regardless of age, race, gender pronoun.

ho lee hell

Truk eeen way

I wonder how many times a 767-400 has landed on 29 since CAL started service. My guess is that there were a lot of successful landings, and probably a few go-arounds. I would also venture to guess it’s the first time a 764 was low enough to make premature ground contact.

it was an anomaly, they will figure out what happened, and a pilot bulletin will be issued. We will all be more careful (than we already are) when landing 29. The pilots in question will probably do a dozen landing in the sim to show they can.

if you are unable, you are unable. It’s not that deep bro. What a silly argument about pilot abilities.

not bad..
‘you’re home from work early, what happened, they run out of rolls?’

“No, runway 29 rolling pin”

no smiles on the carpet dance floor, count on that

red over red.... you're in the bread

I’ve done a number of them since we first got them. Before that, a couple in the DC-10, as well as DCA in the 10.

3 red, one bread.

Willy Makeit

Si Dee Semi.

3 red and butter the bread .

D'oh!




filler

Thanks for that Mav...

Electing to land on a runway perpendicular to the runway in use introduces its own threats.

DCA? In that divert from BWI in the late 90s?

‘I’ve NEVER seen 4/22 closed and only 29 active… next!

not to be argumentative but…were you there during the Christie era?

I believe around 2014-2015 the 4/22s were closed or restricted for landing and 29 was the primary landing runway. That made for some interesting landing/approaches on 29 with direct gusting crosswinds.

nope…

for context, the post I responded too was specifically about 29 being the only runway available… which I’ve never seen. When they were resurfacing the 04/22s awhile back I was still able to refuse 29 and land on the only 04/22 open… they only closed one at a time.

Not what I said at all. See first quote. ^

I would figure the length of the airplane would be more of an issue than the width.

That can't be right. DC-10s were never permitted to land at DCA.

Bridgegate reference, jk. Didn’t have to be a regular at Satriale’s to know that was no fluke:) Look, I’m with you all the way on Daytona length ILS runways. Preferring always the option with greatest margin for error & simplicity. Otoh, lesser options are acceptable provided you’re in the slot, conditions suitable.

Wrong. Happened plenty in the past. Beyond that you are willing to exceed the 767 crosswind limit and become a test pilot? Ive seen that in ewr 20x but I was there way before you. We get it, you are scared of your shadow and thats fine. But just admit that instead of coming off like a complete idiot on this whole thread.

‘yep scared… only idiots on here is u and a few others who apparently make some really poor risk management decisions. Don’t worry it will eventually catch up and we will be reading about you soon… just ask the guy who hit the pole…

Pilots tend to get hung up on length and neglect the fact that width is a big part of the overall passenger experience. In any case, most passengers agree that competent operation is more important than airframe size. Or so I’ve been told…

So snowflake , telll me how many accidents have happened on rwy 29 with WB aircraft in EWR the last 30 years???? Must not be that unsafe. You are the only idiot in this whole discussion. Company says its good, FAA says its good, Boeing says its good , airbus says its good. But not you, the weakest link. Time to look in the mirror.

[QUOTE=hummingbear;4035158]Pilots tend to get hung up on length and neglect the fact that width is a big part of the overall passenger experience. ...

While I would agree that most underestimate the importance of width as compared to length for the overall experience, for what you will hit with the aircraft fuselage behind you, length does matter.

one is too many.