Narrative:

I was the captain of flight X to ZZZ; a high altitude airport. I was the PF. The WX was good VFR; winds were light; landing to the south runway 15. We flew a noise abatement downwind at 7000 ft; then a slightly wide base to final turn; as per noise abatement procedure for runway 15 (8500 ft runway length). Final approach was stable with flaps 28 degrees selected. Landing weight was 138000 pounds; heavy due to tinkering fuel and 145 passenger. Touchdown was on vref of 140 KTS; in the touchdown zone; with little to no floating. The spoilers deployed normally. Thrust reverse deployed; the right side first; then after 1-2 second delay; the left. The standard 1.3 EPR was used on both engines. Manual braking started around 90 KTS. The end of the runway approached quickly; it was apparent to me the airplane had too much momentum to even attempt the 90 degree turn off the runway onto the taxiway. I maintained a straight course; while decelerating to a stop. I used reverse thrust (in conjunction with heavy breaking) until just before a complete stop. This resulted in the nosewheel exiting the primary runway pavement; onto a secondary hard surface of uneven asphalt by approximately 8-10 ft (the main landing gear tires remained on the runway). At this point; we assessed the situation. We agreed we were unable to make the turn onto the taxiway and would require a tug to push the aircraft back. I coordination with the flight attendants while the first officer called airport and company operations. The after landing checklist was completed; the APU was started; and engines shut down. We coordination with operations; dispatch; and maintenance control. The plan was to bus the people from the airplane to the terminal; and in the meantime acquire a suitable tug to push back the airplane. These activities were eventually completed. It was determined by me; the first officer; and the on-site maintenance personnel; that there was no aircraft or landing gear/tire damage. We were pushed back some 30 ft; started the engines and taxied to the terminal normally. At the gate the landing gear; tires; and brakes were officially inspected and logbook entry signed off. The autobrake system was not used during this landing; as their use was not required per our company publication. I believe this situation could have been prevented by the use of autobrakes medium and/or use of flaps 40 degrees. I will consider the heavier weight; combined with a high density altitude airport (giving higher ground speed at touchdown); the faster touchdown speed with flaps 28 degrees; as well as the narrow runway/txwys further shorting the usable length of the runway. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter indicated that the conditions specified for the use of autobrakes are also the conditions recommended by the company for using 40 flaps for approach and landing. Captain's discretion is always allowed for deviation from these recommendations; but for fuel conservation; flight crews are encouraged to use flaps 28. Manual braking is encouraged because autobrakes increase brake wear. In this instance; the reporter followed company recommendations; but he stated that he will use flaps 40 and autobrakes in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW WAS UNABLE TO SLOW AN MD80 SUFFICIENTLY TO TURN OFF THE RWY AFTER LNDG. NOSE GEAR EXITED THE RWY.

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT OF FLT X TO ZZZ; A HIGH ALT ARPT. I WAS THE PF. THE WX WAS GOOD VFR; WINDS WERE LIGHT; LNDG TO THE S RWY 15. WE FLEW A NOISE ABATEMENT DOWNWIND AT 7000 FT; THEN A SLIGHTLY WIDE BASE TO FINAL TURN; AS PER NOISE ABATEMENT PROC FOR RWY 15 (8500 FT RWY LENGTH). FINAL APCH WAS STABLE WITH FLAPS 28 DEGS SELECTED. LNDG WT WAS 138000 LBS; HVY DUE TO TINKERING FUEL AND 145 PAX. TOUCHDOWN WAS ON VREF OF 140 KTS; IN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE; WITH LITTLE TO NO FLOATING. THE SPOILERS DEPLOYED NORMALLY. THRUST REVERSE DEPLOYED; THE R SIDE FIRST; THEN AFTER 1-2 SECOND DELAY; THE L. THE STANDARD 1.3 EPR WAS USED ON BOTH ENGS. MANUAL BRAKING STARTED AROUND 90 KTS. THE END OF THE RWY APCHED QUICKLY; IT WAS APPARENT TO ME THE AIRPLANE HAD TOO MUCH MOMENTUM TO EVEN ATTEMPT THE 90 DEG TURN OFF THE RWY ONTO THE TXWY. I MAINTAINED A STRAIGHT COURSE; WHILE DECELERATING TO A STOP. I USED REVERSE THRUST (IN CONJUNCTION WITH HVY BREAKING) UNTIL JUST BEFORE A COMPLETE STOP. THIS RESULTED IN THE NOSEWHEEL EXITING THE PRIMARY RWY PAVEMENT; ONTO A SECONDARY HARD SURFACE OF UNEVEN ASPHALT BY APPROX 8-10 FT (THE MAIN LNDG GEAR TIRES REMAINED ON THE RWY). AT THIS POINT; WE ASSESSED THE SITUATION. WE AGREED WE WERE UNABLE TO MAKE THE TURN ONTO THE TXWY AND WOULD REQUIRE A TUG TO PUSH THE ACFT BACK. I COORD WITH THE FLT ATTENDANTS WHILE THE FO CALLED ARPT AND COMPANY OPS. THE AFTER LNDG CHKLIST WAS COMPLETED; THE APU WAS STARTED; AND ENGS SHUT DOWN. WE COORD WITH OPS; DISPATCH; AND MAINT CTL. THE PLAN WAS TO BUS THE PEOPLE FROM THE AIRPLANE TO THE TERMINAL; AND IN THE MEANTIME ACQUIRE A SUITABLE TUG TO PUSH BACK THE AIRPLANE. THESE ACTIVITIES WERE EVENTUALLY COMPLETED. IT WAS DETERMINED BY ME; THE FO; AND THE ON-SITE MAINT PERSONNEL; THAT THERE WAS NO ACFT OR LNDG GEAR/TIRE DAMAGE. WE WERE PUSHED BACK SOME 30 FT; STARTED THE ENGS AND TAXIED TO THE TERMINAL NORMALLY. AT THE GATE THE LNDG GEAR; TIRES; AND BRAKES WERE OFFICIALLY INSPECTED AND LOGBOOK ENTRY SIGNED OFF. THE AUTOBRAKE SYS WAS NOT USED DURING THIS LNDG; AS THEIR USE WAS NOT REQUIRED PER OUR COMPANY PUB. I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE USE OF AUTOBRAKES MEDIUM AND/OR USE OF FLAPS 40 DEGS. I WILL CONSIDER THE HEAVIER WT; COMBINED WITH A HIGH DENSITY ALT ARPT (GIVING HIGHER GND SPD AT TOUCHDOWN); THE FASTER TOUCHDOWN SPD WITH FLAPS 28 DEGS; AS WELL AS THE NARROW RWY/TXWYS FURTHER SHORTING THE USABLE LENGTH OF THE RWY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE USE OF AUTOBRAKES ARE ALSO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMPANY FOR USING 40 FLAPS FOR APCH AND LNDG. CAPTAIN'S DISCRETION IS ALWAYS ALLOWED FOR DEVIATION FROM THESE RECOMMENDATIONS; BUT FOR FUEL CONSERVATION; FLT CREWS ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE FLAPS 28. MANUAL BRAKING IS ENCOURAGED BECAUSE AUTOBRAKES INCREASE BRAKE WEAR. IN THIS INSTANCE; THE REPORTER FOLLOWED COMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS; BUT HE STATED THAT HE WILL USE FLAPS 40 AND AUTOBRAKES IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.