Runway Excursion Prevention

Follow ATR’s recommendations to limit the exposure time after touchdown

Approach and Landing - Prevention of Runway excursion

Q&A:

  • Is there any difference between using braking action on ATR42 and ATR72?

    The ATR42 has metal brakes, the ATR72 has carbon brakes. Therefore, the brakes have different deceleration characteristics, however the operational procedures are identical.

  • During crosswind landing when we apply rudder deflection, is it possible to apply symmetrical action on braking pedals?

    As described in the presentation the position of the feet on the upper part of the pedal permits to apply both braking action and rudder deflection.

  • You recommend using brakes, until maximum action, is there any risk of burning tires or deflation?

    The antiskid system will prevent tire damage, while the performance computation at landing protects against tire deflation.

  • MEL is for sure a contributing factor.  The problem is that a lot of aircraft are flying under MEL due to lack of spare parts from ATR.  Any ATR Action plan?

    The contributing factor is not the MEL item but the inappropriate application of operational procedure linked with this MEL item. There is no reduction of safety margins associated with MEL application.

  • Our stable policy is speed between Vref to Vapp+15, if we fly ATR speed, likely to be below Vref just for light gust, what’s your recommendation.

    In the ATR FCTM, we quote +/-5kt for speed management. Rapid corrections to maintain VRef is acceptable. As reminded in the presentation Vref already includes 23% margin to Vsr.

  • Very good presentation. But you present the same material for several years now.  Does this mean that this sufficient from your side? Excursion rate decreasing?

    As presented during the introduction the overall number of runway excursion is decreasing. The previous presentations remain valid, hence there is repetition of messages. However, this presentation reinforces the message to reduce your exposure time after touchdown, to mitigate the risk of a lateral runway excursion.

  • Any plans to redesign something on the airplane to make landing more safe?

    The focus of current recommendations is on training and procedures. Energy management during descent and approach phases is the subject of design reviews of future aircraft programs.

  • TLU failure during final approach, very important to follow QRH to prevent runway excursion. Are there TLU related incidents?

    The incidents related to TLU are not related to the failure of the TLU it self but to an electrical issue which prevented the automatic mode of the TLU. The TLU failure comes with a master caution and a local warning light well before the approach. There is an additional safety net in before landing.

  • With in service occurrences of runway excursion, what are common signatures? 

    The common signatures are issues on approach, flare technique, management of crosswinds. Please refer to the safety conference presentations.

  • Is there a difference in excursion rate between -600 and -500?

    There is no significant difference between aircraft models as far as runway excursion is concerned.

  • Could you give your inputs on high lateral g acceleration on the landing roll? Do you think it’s a parameter to be monitored and concerned about?

    The primary input for abnormal runway contact reporting remains the flight crew. Increasingly operators also have the benefit of FDM to assist the analysis. ATR currently does not specify a lateral g limit on landing roll. Typically, the critical value during an ARC event is on the vertical axis. We have been asked by customers to specify a lateral G input for the AMM task, but we do not wish to be overly restrictive as the structural margins are significantly large.

Approach and Landing - Prevention of Runway excursion.pdf

3.07 MB
logo