Comparing Runway Excursion Factors

 Scott R. Winter, Steven M. Leib, Robert C. Geske, Tyler B. Spence, Lauren A. Sperlak, Lukas Rudari, Craig D. Cestari

Flight Safety Foundation Student Chapter at Purdue University

October 30th, 2013Flight Safety Foundation

66th International Air Safety SummitWashington, D.C.

Special thanks to Founding Chapter Advisor: Stewart Schreckengast

Student Chapter

• Inaugural chapter at Purdue University

• Research based student organization, consisting of both undergraduate and graduate students

• Currently comprised of 11 active members

Introduction & Purpose

Review of factors of runway excursions

Comparison of reports

Analysis of FSF dataset for landing excursions

1

2

3

Comparing Reports

FSF Report Boeing Report

• Reports are independent• Most causal factors contributing to runway 

excursions are similar

Comparing Reports

Database Exploration

Type of Operator

Factors remained fairly constant across the Type of Operator

Contaminated runway

Unstable Approach

Landing long

Type of Operator

Contaminated Runway Unstable Apph

Reverse Thrust Malfun.

Risk Factor by Aircraft Type

Aircraft type does not appear to play a role

Aircraft ClassTop 3 factors for business jets, commercial jets 

and turboprops:

Aircraft Class

Excursion Factors of Aircraft Class by Percentage

Stabilized ApproachesWhy do excursions happen after stabilized approaches?

183 out of 520 landing excursions from FSF Database (1995-2010) we classified as stable approaches (50 were unknown)

Stabilized Approaches

Pilot Factors – Stabilized Approaches

Conclusions

Excursion factors appear to be fairly consistent across conditions

Most commonly cited factors were:• Runway contamination• Landing long/fast• Landing after unstabilized approach

Even after a stabilized approach, safe landing is not guaranteed

1

2

3

The End

Questions?