American Airlines Crash at Kingston Jamaica

[Matt Molnar]

Reports that an AA plane has crashed and split in two while landing in heavy rain at Kingston, Jamaica. No further details at this time.

[Matt Molnar]

Flight was AA831, a 737-800 from Miami.

[Matt Molnar]

CNN: 145 passengers, 7 crew on board. Jamaican authorities say there are no initial reports of casualties.

[Matt Molnar]

AA's Twitter: There have been no reported injuries or fatalities on Flight #331. Standby for updates.

[cancidas]

read that the airplane overshot the runway before breaking into two pieces.

aal331 is the flight number:

http://newsbizarre.com/2009/12/american-airlines-flight-aa331-jamaica.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580942,00.html

[Matt Molnar]

Current METAR for Kingston: METAR MKJP 230500Z 35002KT 33000 +RA BKN014 BKN090 20/18 Q1013

[Matt Molnar]

CBC reports 40 passengers have been taken to the hospital.

[hiss srq]

Good lord, this year is BRUTAL! Fingers crossed that it is a totally survived incident. I am anxious to see photographs of the scene.

[Matt Molnar]

Reportedly N977AN.

Mr. Futterman got a nice shot of her at LGA in 2005:
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/1/5/7/93497_1133785751_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5640577&nseq=18)

[Matt Molnar]

AA reports the #2 engine came off, and the left main gear collapsed. Four serious injuries.

[Art at ISP]

I guess it could have been a lot worse...no serious injuries, and no fatalities.

I guess the airplane is a write off though....

This will be a very special Christmas for those on board and their families and friends....

[hiss srq]

I guess it could have been a lot worse...no serious injuries, and no fatalities.



This will be a very special Christmas for those on board and their families and friends....

You hit the nail on the head. Bun and cheese will taste extra good this Christmas in Jamaica for them.

AvHerald has a picture of the wreckage and it is in at least two peices. Reminds me of the MD80 crash at Little Rock like 15 years ago or somthing. I will be anxxious to see if they landed long because the runway at KIN isnt the shortest in the world.

[Matt Molnar]

I will be anxxious to see if they landed long because the runway at KIN isnt the shortest in the world.
Almost 9,000 ft, but only a few yards from the Caribbean Sea on either end. Light winds but low vis at the time. Should be interesting.

[hiss srq]

Indeed, Look at this video I just took from AvHearald. It LEAPED across the roadway, the roadway is set down into a ravine apparently. oB1tqlUed9o

And in this one you can actually see the Captain helping a passenger from the scene in a wheelchair. My best wishes to him and his F/O's career. No judgements though. Not yet.
hSYV2Ap20CA

[PhilDernerJr]

Here a photo I took of that runway while on approach once.You can see how close the ends are to the water.

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/KIN_rwy12a_083107.jpg

Glad everyone survived.

[hiss srq]

Makes you wonder how far down they landed than, the runway doesnt have much rubber on the other end and likely not much oil slick either in that event to slide on. (That stuff can make braking near nill on a wet runway). I know they had a 12 knot tailwind though. I have never been in and out of the airport in KIN. MoBay is closer to where I lived. Awesome photo either way Phil!

[T-Bird76]

Glad to hear no one was seriously injured and everyone got off ok. Ashame about the plane though, it was relatively new.

[NLovis]

No write off yet. No clue exact tail number

[Matt Molnar]

No write off yet. No clue exact tail number
It's broken in half, so write-off seems pretty likely. Tail number is N977AN, which is about eight years old.

[Matt Molnar]

Seeing the damage, and the road it jumped over, it must have been quite an impact...really amazing there was no fire or severe injuries.

[USAF Pilot 07]

No write off yet. No clue exact tail number
It's broken in half, so write-off seems pretty likely.


Ehhh, nothing some speed tape can't fix! :lol:


Glad to hear there were no fatalities. Will be interesting to hear the exact cause of the crash... Where exactly did the aircraft come to rest? From Phil's pic, it doesn't look like there is much room on either side past the ends before you hop into the drink, but looking at the video it appears they are on a raised grassy surface. Did they laterally go off the runway?

[Matt Molnar]

Ahhh, nothing some speed tape can't fix! :lol:


Glad to hear there were no fatalities. Will be interesting to hear the exact cause of the crash... Where exactly did the aircraft come to rest? From Phil's pic, it doesn't look like there is much room on either side past the ends before you hop into the drink, but looking at the video it appears they are on a raised grassy surface. Did they laterally go off the runway?

Phil's photo shows the same approach AA331 was on. They ended up on the far end of that runway, which has a road and a small beach between it and the water.

[mmedford]

hmmm, i wonder if I could transfer to there...one ILS...golden

[NLovis]

No write off yet. No clue exact tail number
It's broken in half, so write-off seems pretty likely. Tail number is N977AN, which is about eight years old.
tain number has been confirmed? yea i know a write off is iniment but they havent actually written it off yet

[PhilDernerJr]

tain number has been confirmed?

Yes, it is N977AN, and was confirmed very early.

[Matt Molnar]

http://media.nbcdfw.com/images/640*426/PHOTO_7097699.jpg

http://media.nbcdfw.com/images/640*426/PHOTO_7097721.jpg

[Matt Molnar]

Here are some new photos from the ground: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-373400

[mmedford]

You know, looking at those pictures..looks like the fuse broke perfectly where the seams are joined during the assembly...

that's definately something...

[hiss srq]

That thing still had some good speed behind it if it made that jump the way it did. HOLY SMOKES! Amazing pictures. I am very anxious to see the outcomes on this accident.

[NLovis]

You know, looking at those pictures..looks like the fuse broke perfectly where the seams are joined during the assembly...

that's definately something...
thats actually really good. goes to show you how well that plane is made and why its the most successful line in aviation history. If the fuse broke anywhere else there definitly would have been alot more serious injuries and possibly deaths. Also because it broke at the seams the plane doesnt necessarily have to be a write off. That area can be taken apart and rebuilt as shown with the 747 dreamlifters. It now comes down to wether AA wants to repair the plane or just scrap it. If you look closely at picture #4 you can see the tail end of the plane just split directly at the seam. Its a clean split unlike the front of the plane that is torn up along the split line. Its possible this girl can fly again but very unlikely.

[hiss srq]

I highly doubt that that airplane will even be contemplated for reentry to service unless it is a Coke can served on a JFK-MIA run for AA in the future. The wing spar is obviously going to have serious damage, the fuse is broken multiple times. They may as well start sending it in parts to a canning factory so I can drink my Pinapple Bigga from it when I get back to Jamaica in March.

I am very anxious to see the findings and initial recreations on this accident. KIN on furthur research has ungrooved surfaces which directly impact the stopping distances when your calculating them. Particularly with a contaminated surface. I am very anxious to see where they touched down though on the runway as well as if they had the autobrakes on MAX which would given weight, prevailing weather conditions and runway surface conditions be the likely setting I would imagine. My 737 background though is on the 300/400 mainly. The TR's on the 737 as a note to some who are maybe less informed or educated on the technical operation of airplanes is not a calculated factor in landing distance for airplane. It is based on brakes.

[mirrodie]

If those yellow blocks are concrete in origin, then God was truly with them. A few more feet to the right and forward and that inpact may not have been as survivable for those up front.

Amazing.

[Derf]

I highly doubt that that airplane will even be contemplated for reentry to service unless it is a Coke can served on a JFK-MIA run for AA in the future. The wing spar is obviously going to have serious damage, the fuse is broken multiple times. They may as well start sending it in parts to a canning factory so I can drink my Pinapple Bigga from it when I get back to Jamaica in March......

A real airline would just get some duct tape. The only issue I foresee would be the hump in the isle that would make it difficult to push the drink cart over. 8) :borat:

[Matt Molnar]

You know, looking at those pictures..looks like the fuse broke perfectly where the seams are joined during the assembly...
Looks a lot like this one, which was a bit more violent, but also no fire.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/2/25/1235557808225/Turkish-Airlines-plane-cr-001.jpg

[LGA777]

Want to do a mini-editorial on this site's coverage on this accident. I first learned of it at about 0615 this morning, watched the TV news reports, checked here and the blue site. Spent most of the day away from the computer and rechecked this thread around 2 hours ago but not the blue site.

Whenever events like this happens the blue site is really frustrating because you have to read thru so much crap to find the vital and interesting updates. But here their where timely updates and great selection of daylight photos. And it did not take me forever to find it. Nice job Phil and Gotham Spotter.

Now 2 of my own coments. I feel AA was very lucky to have 2 non-fatal landing incidents in as many weeks (MD-80 at CLT) that both had no fatalities (the 1st had no injuries) that both could have been disasters. Had the 737 gone into the ocean or caught fire it would have had a very different outcome. And since the MD80's wingtip impacted the runway at high speed a cartwheel was probably a realistic possibulity, had that happened it could have easily caused an explosion making the landing possibly not survivable. Either one would have been bad news for AA and god forbide they both went the other way so close together and so close to the Holidays, a PR nightmare in the making. Thrilled none of this happened.

The other about the 737's fuselage break points, when N416US was destroyed overuning rwy 31 at LGA in 1989 the 737-400 broke in almost the same 2 places as both this accident and the Turkish in the photo above.

Nice to be able to end this post without having to type RIP.

Looking forward to more details when they become available.

LGA777

[NLovis]

Again very unlikely but it is possible. This will mess with AA's outing of its MD-82 and -83's.

[Matt Molnar]

Apparently some of the overwater approach lights have been out of service since the end of November.


A 400-meter (1,312 feet) stretch of white lights over the water from the shoreline near the Kingston airport is out, while a 50-meter segment on land near Runway 12 is functioning, Operations Director Stanley Smith said today. The system is supposed to be replaced by the end of January, he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2009-1 ... ights.html (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2009-12-24/amr-jet-had-to-use-jamaica-runway-lacking-some-approach-lights.html)

[PhilDernerJr]

Again very unlikely but it is possible. This will mess with AA's outing of its MD-82 and -83's.

I don't think one aircraft will actually affect the removal of an entire fleet.

[hiss srq]

This should actually work for American actually in several ways. They will take a significant insc. payout on the writeoff. It will also serve to remove a little capacity in the network overall though it is a small number. Good thing they are getting a new 737 every ten days for the next little while eh?

[NLovis]

Again very unlikely but it is possible. This will mess with AA's outing of its MD-82 and -83's.

I don't think one aircraft will actually affect the removal of an entire fleet.
in short it will. They lost a 737 and those 737's are replacing their MD-82 -83. With one 737 gone now they have to keep a MD-80 in service even longer to compensate for the loss.

[mmedford]

in short it will. They lost a 737 and those 737's are replacing their MD-82 -83. With one 737 gone now they have to keep a MD-80 in service even longer to compensate for the loss.


He said it best;


This should actually work for American actually in several ways. They will take a significant insc. payout on the writeoff. It will also serve to remove a little capacity in the network overall though it is a small number.

[NLovis]

in short it will. They lost a 737 and those 737's are replacing their MD-82 -83. With one 737 gone now they have to keep a MD-80 in service even longer to compensate for the loss.


He said it best;


This should actually work for American actually in several ways. They will take a significant insc. payout on the writeoff. It will also serve to remove a little capacity in the network overall though it is a small number.
thats another fact but now what will fly the recent routes? bad rep just to not fly the route cause of a crash

[Matt Molnar]

thats another fact but now what will fly the recent routes? bad rep just to not fly the route cause of a crash
They probably have some spares, worst case they could reduce a frequency or two on a couple of routes.

[NLovis]

thats another fact but now what will fly the recent routes? bad rep just to not fly the route cause of a crash
They probably have some spares, worst case they could reduce a frequency or two on a couple of routes.
true true. But then again the 738 seats more then the MD-80's they have so that would be the reduction. After that its way down cause they dont have anything that seats less then the MD-80 unless you fly AE. Any other plane they fly would be an increase. Also note for every 738 they are getting they are dropping 2-3 MD-80's. The spare count is pretty low if any at all.

[PhilDernerJr]

I'd like a source for the 738 = 2-3 MD80 thing.

[NLovis]

I'd like a source for the 738 = 2-3 MD80 thing.
Read it on wikipedia over the summer. It also said they were dropping their A300's and not replacing them with anything. That happened exact to the last word. Those planes are stored somewhere currently. It also said every 2-3 MD-80. This is AA's way of scalling back. Quite clever if you ask me. They announce the replacement but dont say they are replacing every single plane. Its beena ccurate as well cause i've been watching the number on planes they have get smaller and smaller. Increasing seat capacity and decreasing the number of flights. Thats smart money sense to me. If you want to look go to wikipedia and type in American Airlines.

[Matt Molnar]

The original 738s, like the one that wrecked in Kingston, are closer in seating capacity to the MD-80s, only 8 more seats than the 140 seat-arrangement mad dogs. However, they are jamming 12 extra seats into the new deliveries, which is 20-24 more than the MDs.

[daneyd]

AA JAMAICA CRASH: Although I am aware that it is irresponsible to speculate on a cause before all the facts are know, I do however feel that, at least on forums like this one, it is ok to speculate based on known facts. Here is what's known. 1) 15Kt. winds out of NNE. 2) Heavy rain at night on a non-grooved runway. 3) Pilots near the end of their 12-hour max. on-duty time. 4) Plane fully loaded with passengers and probably heavier on fuel than domestic flights. 5) Pilots had not flown much in previous weeks. 6) Plane touched down very far down runway 12. 7) Plane landed hard. Based on what’s known I think you can make the following deductions. I believe the tail winds played a very significant role in this crash. Ground speeds would have been 20-30Kts fast than pilots are used to. This along with a nighttime wet runway would have made it easy to misjudge the point of touchdown. Glide slope would have been kept in check on approach but near the ground pilots take over and visually fly the plane. Things would look much different than they normally do especially taking night, rain and fatigue issues into consideration. A go around would have been resisted because of a desire to get the plane on the ground due to bad conditions and current preferred patterns at that airport. As a pilot who has made down wind landings I can tell you that it is very difficult to hit your spot maintaining glide slope without stalling the plane. You have to descend at a quicker rate to maintain glide slope and touch down speeds to hit your spot. This is not a comfortable normal feeling to the pilots. Things happen so much quicker down wind and pilots are not used to this type of approach. Extra weight, rain, night, and fatigue and stress of bad conditions add to the level of difficulty of this down wind landing. I would not be surprised if the black boxes show the plane did or almost did “stall” just before touch down. That would explain the heavy landing reported. Higher ground speeds and weights with reduced runway length due to mid runway touch down point along with wet non-grooved runway made this crash, at this point, inevitable. At the end of the day there will be several factors pinpointed at fault (as there always is), however the primary cause will be pilot error for the following reasons: a) not going to an alternate airport given conditions at primary b) having proceeded to primary not asking to land from the east. c) having proceeded downwind failing to abort the approach and or landing prior to touchdown d) having proceeded downwind having misjudged the point of landing and not maintaining proper glide slope, approach speeds and touchdown point. To all the pilots I ask for your comments

[PhilDernerJr]

Informative post, daneyd. The more I read about the crash, the more I agree on the significance on the tailwinds.

As for the forums, though later learned to be erroneous, information is passed along that might contribute to the conversation, the same way a news report modifies information that trickles in.

Welcome to the site! :)

[daneyd]

The airport at Jamaica has a relatively short runway. However, generally speaking airports nearer sea level will have shorter runways. Case in point, Denver's International has a runway at 16,000 ft. What effects landing distances are weight, air temp., elevation, runway conditions, brake settings and most importantly, wind direction and speed. This particular 737 could have required over 6,000 ft. to safely stop that night, given the info that I know. Maybe more if winds were gusting from the tail. I'm very surprised that given the airport they were flying into that these pilots did not insist on coming in from the east. That would have reduced the landing distance by as much as 3,000 ft. Plus it would have taken the stress and strangeness of a downwind landing out of the equation. With an 8,900 ft. runway, that doesn't leave much room for error when you need over 6,000 ft. to safely land. You hit 1/4 of the way down, which sounds like what happened, and that only leaves approx. 6,500 ft. Add in some hydroplaning and he probably would have only need about 1,000 more ft. and he would have made it. All in all, I'm convinced that at the end of the day the pilots used very poor judgement here.

[PhilDernerJr]

KIN's runway is 8,900 feet....that's almost 2,000 more than LGA, which gets many midsize and large narrowbody aircraft. I don't consider that short at all.

Denver's runway is only that long because of their more extreme altitude, and I don't think it's relevant in comparison. Airports all up and down the east coast get by on shorter runways, all at sea level.

[mmedford]

Does both sides of that runway have an approach lighting system?

[USAF Pilot 07]

Does both sides of that runway have an approach lighting system?

Taking a look at expired Jeppesen charts here:

http://kingston.vatcar.org/mkjpcharts.html

It appears that both the approach to 12 and 30 have approach lighting systems, although the only approach to 30 is a GPS approach, and 12 has a precision and 2 non-precision approaches.

While crosswind limits are different for almost every aircraft, almost all aircraft are limited to 10 knot tailwinds. The highest tailwind I've landed with was 7 knots, during the day on a dry runway, and it was squirrelly and uncomfortable, with a more abrupt flare and firmer touchdown. Granted these guys had something like 30+ years of flying experience between them and I believe 5000+ hours between them in the 737. I'm sure they both had done their share of tailwind landings.

Aircraft land everyday with tailwinds. Instead of having that headwind component to decrease your groundspeed, you have to add the tailwind component to your approach true airspeed, which ultimately increases your descent rate to the runway. If you start to flare too early, you're going to float, and flare too late and you're going to have a firmer landing.

Sounds like a bad situation all around. The combination of a heavier aircraft landing at night in +RA, with a wet ungrooved runway which probably had standing water, with a tailwind approaching limits with a crew pushing their duty day makes things sticky. While I'd venture to say hundreds of aircraft worldwide make successful landings in conditions like these everyday (they may not be the prettiest landings, but they don't end up on the news). It only takes one to show how all of these conditions combined can end up disastrous if just one thing goes wrong. I don't know what happened in this case, but it sounds like they floated and landed long and tried to salvage a bad landing rather than go around. It's tough to second guess or fault somebody for doing something every pilot has been guilty of at one time or another. I'm just glad everyone got out with minimal injuries.

[hiss srq]

Most certainly the ungrooved surface along with the choice to execute a landing with a tailwind approaching limits is going to play a role in this accident. I have been out of the loop the last two days flying xmas eve alot of the day and avoiding anything related to airplanes yesterday. So I dont have the newest most up to date on the accident but I will be very anxious to see where they actually touched down and a few other things. I cannot speak for the 737 NG models but the 300/400 family has very grabby brakes. They also tend to provide a very spoungy touchdown unless you really kick the milk crate out from under it. Obviously they are going to pin it on the pilots and that is what everyones going to see and all the newspapers are going to plaster all over the place. That is inevitable. I would like to know what the actuals were as far as conditions were though at time of landing. Just because the TAF said somthing and METAR is reporting somthing doesnt mean it is fact more times than not. They were shooting the approach they were for ILS capibility from what I have heard. Tailwind landings are defineately a challenging experince. You have a higher ground speed and a harder touchdown generally as stated above I beleive. The 737 is also known for its "dancing tail" but that is not relevant here. What peaks my interest is the fact that the airplane had enough groundspeed to hop that ravine though. I would imagine the ground speed was closer to 100 than 20 knots coming up on the end of the runway otherwise that bird would have taken a good bite out of the "cliff" on the beach side of the road I would imagine. Time will tell.

[AA 777]

I'd like a source for the 738 = 2-3 MD80 thing.
Read it on wikipedia over the summer. It also said they were dropping their A300's and not replacing them with anything. That happened exact to the last word. Those planes are stored somewhere currently. It also said every 2-3 MD-80. This is AA's way of scalling back. Quite clever if you ask me. They announce the replacement but dont say they are replacing every single plane. Its beena ccurate as well cause i've been watching the number on planes they have get smaller and smaller. Increasing seat capacity and decreasing the number of flights. Thats smart money sense to me. If you want to look go to wikipedia and type in American Airlines.

First off, quoting Wikipedia can be trouble on a good day. Sure they retired the A300 on schedule, but that was publicly known as indicated by the many press releases issued by AA themselves.

How have you been watching the number of planes they have get smaller and smaller? Just curious what your using for a source? IIRC, the 737's were being replaced one for one with S80's with the current fuel prices. If the fuel prices increased to levels seen a year or two ago they would park 80s at a faster rate. Just the opposite if the fuel stays "cheap" they may hang on to more 80's and still take delivery of 737's. AA currently has 603 aircraft in service (accounts for 3DK as a write off) and that number has been hovering around 600-610 as the 737's have been delivered. From what I have seen the S80's have not been replaced on a 3-1 basis with 737s

As far as what has to be done to pick up the slack for 3DK, its really quite simple. If they want to keep up the slack they will just keep a MD80 around a little longer and and use that S80 on a domestic old config 737 route. Right now the new 737s are domestic only, but that will change in a year or so.

[engine46]

The TACA A320 in Tegucigalpa last year comes to mind. Short'ish runway, poor weather, tailwind, overrun.

[moose135]

While crosswind limits are different for almost every aircraft, almost all aircraft are limited to 10 knot tailwinds.
The KC-135A Performance Manual includes landing performance corrections for tailwinds up to 20 kts (it's a manly airplane!) The manual instructs you to use the full tailwind component, and if the winds are gusting, to add the full gust factor (say the winds are 10kt, with gusts of 15-20, use 20kts).

Taking a typical landing weight for an A-frame, say 140K, (which would mean 30-35K of fuel) at sea level and 20C, a Flaps 50 (max flaps) and Speed Brakes landing means a ground roll of 2,300 feet. Add 15kts of tailwind, and you are up to 3,000 feet. Now throw in a wet runway (RCR 9) and it jumps to 5,700 feet. That's just the ground roll - given those same conditions, you have a 2,500 foot "Flare Distance" - the distance from a 50 foot height to touchdown. That means a total landing distance from 50' AGL of 8,200 feet. As Phil noted, it's an 8,900 foot runway, and it's easy to see how you can run out of runway in these conditions if everything doesn't go exactly as planned.

I imagine they landed the direction they did to use the ILS, I can't image they would land with a tailwind if they had an ILS available in the other direction. I'm not familiar with AA procedures, can they use a GPS approach?

[USAF Pilot 07]

The KC-135A Performance Manual includes landing performance corrections for tailwinds up to 20 kts (it's a manly airplane!)


I'm not around my 1-1, but I think we have data for greater than 10 knots of tailwind, but our normal "operating limits" restrict us at 10 knots. Also, I'm not sure the 135s still have 20 knot tailwind limitations. I was talking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago who flies 135s about crosswinds/winds (being that the inboard engines are so close to the ground) and I think I remember him saying they are capped at 15 knots tailwind. During the SAC days and the "we can do whatever we want" Air Force days though I wouldn't have been surprised. ;)



Taking a typical landing weight for an A-frame, say 140K, (which would mean 30-35K of fuel)


Only 140K?!?! A "manly" tanker's zero fuel weight is much more than that! :lol:



Add 15kts of tailwind, and you are up to 3,000 feet. Now throw in a wet runway (RCR 9) and it jumps to 5,700 feet.


Nitpicky, but isn't a RCR of 9 equivalent to an icy runway? I thought we used a RCR of 12 for wet runways...



I imagine they landed the direction they did to use the ILS, I can't image they would land with a tailwind if they had an ILS available in the other direction. I'm not familiar with AA procedures, can they use a GPS approach?

That's probably why they decided to use 12 (because of the ILS). In this day in age and in a 737-800 I would imagine they would be able to shoot the GPS (both through company policy and aircraft equipment), even if only to LNAV mins, which were probably still below the reported ceiling and vis. I think there's still apprehension on using GPS for approaches because it's not as familiar to most people as a traditional ILS or LOC are. Not only do you have to load it, sequence it to the FAF for vectors, but you're technically supposed to check the legs/distances in the box, make sure RAIM is available and then TIM it by verifying it goes over to approach mode. Not to mention, if they couldn't fly it to LPV or LNAV/VNAV mins, it would have to be treated as a non-precision approach, and they would have to vert speed the a/c down and fly it like a non-precision approach. With the ILS it's easy just to let the AP fly it all the way down and click it off at the end...

Not saying this was the case, but I mean technically/legally they were probably still within limits in flying the ILS. I thought I read there were 3 other aircraft before it that had flown the ILS and didn't have any problems... They both probably had landed in tailwinds a number of times... I could see why they chose to take the ILS instead of taking the GPS which would have given them a headwind...

[moose135]

I'm not around my 1-1, but I think we have data for greater than 10 knots of tailwind, but our normal "operating limits" restrict us at 10 knots. Also, I'm not sure the 135s still have 20 knot tailwind limitations. I was talking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago who flies 135s about crosswinds/winds (being that the inboard engines are so close to the ground) and I think I remember him saying they are capped at 15 knots tailwind. During the SAC days and the "we can do whatever we want" Air Force days though I wouldn't have been surprised. ;)
It's possible, but I don't remember if we had anything different from the charts, and I don't have any notes in the margins. On the Max Crosswind chart, although it shows a heavy weight airplane can take 50+kts of cross wind on a dry runway, I have line drawn in showing 25kts as the "SAC X-wind limit". And in strong cross winds, it was the outboard engines that were more of a threat to hit the ground. (Don't ask me how I know that...)


Only 140K?!?! A "manly" tanker's zero fuel weight is much more than that! :lol:
No, that's a "piggy" tanker :wink:


Nitpicky, but isn't a RCR of 9 equivalent to an icy runway? I thought we used a RCR of 12 for wet runways...
From the -135 1-1, it says if not otherwise reported, use RCR 23 for Dry, RCR 9 for Wet and RCR 4 for Icy/Snow/Slush, although on the Max Crosswind chart, it uses RCR 16 for wet runways, and RCR 5 (with additional lines at 6 and 8) for snow or ice.

[USAF Pilot 07]

On the Max Crosswind chart, although it shows a heavy weight airplane can take 50+kts of cross wind on a dry runway, I have line drawn in showing 25kts as the "SAC X-wind limit".


That sounds like fun! We were screwing around in the sim one day and we were trying to get a 50 knot direct x-wind on final to see what that would be like... Our sim dude wouldn't but he gave us our max allowable x-winds (31knots dry), and that was pretty interesting!


Nitpicky, but isn't a RCR of 9 equivalent to an icy runway? I thought we used a RCR of 12 for wet runways...
From the -135 1-1, it says if not otherwise reported, use RCR 23 for Dry, RCR 9 for Wet and RCR 4 for Icy/Snow/Slush, although on the Max Crosswind chart, it uses RCR 16 for wet runways, and RCR 5 (with additional lines at 6 and 8) for snow or ice.[/quote]

Yea I need to check my 1-1, IIRC (which I should probably know, but hey that's what we have an engineer for!) I thought we used 23 for dry, 12 for wet and 5 for icy. Isn't there something that says RCR values can be factored in differently for takeoff and landing (or maybe I'm thinking about RSC)... I'll have to "brush" up on that...

[NLovis]

[quote="Phil D.":3b99hosm]I'd like a source for the 738 = 2-3 MD80 thing.
Read it on wikipedia over the summer. It also said they were dropping their A300's and not replacing them with anything. That happened exact to the last word. Those planes are stored somewhere currently. It also said every 2-3 MD-80. This is AA's way of scalling back. Quite clever if you ask me. They announce the replacement but dont say they are replacing every single plane. Its beena ccurate as well cause i've been watching the number on planes they have get smaller and smaller. Increasing seat capacity and decreasing the number of flights. Thats smart money sense to me. If you want to look go to wikipedia and type in American Airlines.

First off, quoting Wikipedia can be trouble on a good day. Sure they retired the A300 on schedule, but that was publicly known as indicated by the many press releases issued by AA themselves.

How have you been watching the number of planes they have get smaller and smaller? Just curious what your using for a source? IIRC, the 737's were being replaced one for one with S80's with the current fuel prices. If the fuel prices increased to levels seen a year or two ago they would park 80s at a faster rate. Just the opposite if the fuel stays "cheap" they may hang on to more 80's and still take delivery of 737's. AA currently has 603 aircraft in service (accounts for 3DK as a write off) and that number has been hovering around 600-610 as the 737's have been delivered. From what I have seen the S80's have not been replaced on a 3-1 basis with 737s

As far as what has to be done to pick up the slack for 3DK, its really quite simple. If they want to keep up the slack they will just keep a MD80 around a little longer and and use that S80 on a domestic old config 737 route. Right now the new 737s are domestic only, but that will change in a year or so.[/quote:3b99hosm]
while true wiki isnt too accurare. sometimes it is depending on the person who submits the info. Last i checked there were 613 aircraft in AA's fleet. Its been a month so overall they have grounded 10 more aircraft then they have recieved. while true the rate depends on fuel prices I think AA is trying to get rid of them ASAP so they dont have to spend that much on fuel when prices jump again. A 2-1 ratio sounds about right to me

[PhilDernerJr]

May I ask what you aviation/airline experience is?

[SengaB]

Just came across this shot of N977AN from one of my MIA trip in 2008.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4218491674_b7d54612a0_o.jpg

Senga

[NLovis]

wow thats a nice shot. phil if ur talking to me not much. I've been around for awhile but job wise not much. I jused to jead to JFK with my father and learn bout the planes from him since hes an Avionics Mech for 30+ years but mostly now i'm working.

[PhilDernerJr]

I went through my own collection and I, too, have a N977AN shot!

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/AA_738_N977AN_LGA4Arr1_092405.jpg

[T-Bird76]

I went through my own collection and I, too, have a N977AN shot!

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/AA_738_N977AN_LGA4Arr1_092405.jpg

Rejected...oversharpened ;)

[PhilDernerJr]

No wonder people hate screeners.

[JHNA57]

KIN's runway is 8,900 feet....that's almost 2,000 more than LGA,A bit off topic I know but........ April 1987, landed here after a 20 min flight from Montego Bay in an Aer-Lingus 747 leased by Air Jamaica. We were returning from our honeymoon and continued on to JFK after this short stopover.

[daneyd]

here's a video of a small Citation Business Jet lands in a 15Kt down wind during the day and with just a light rain, grooved I might add. Just to give you an idea of what Flight 331 was up against.
C80grd2C ... re=related (C80grd2CrTI&feature=related)

[daneyd]

Update on my video link post of the Citation skidding of end of runway. This happened on May of 05 at Bader Field Airport NJ. It's a small municipal airport and doesn't accept jet's. The runway that this jet was trying to land on was runway 11. That runway is barely 3,000 ft. and not grooved although grooving in this scenario was irrelevant. The plane was a Cessna Citation Jet 525A registered to OY-JET. Apparently there was no emergency and the pilot just figured he could land there down wind. If you watch the end of the video you will see how much of a "cowboy" this guy was. He actually try's to power the jet, in the water, to shore. This while there are people in small row boats very nearby trying to help. He could of easily killed one of them. Wow. This guy gives all of us a bad name. Anyway, point being, I think we all underestimate the power of wind direction and the differentiating effects it has aircraft of all sizes.

[mirrodie]

Whenever events like this happens the blue site is really frustrating because you have to read thru so much crap to find the vital and interesting updates. But here their where timely updates and great selection of daylight photos. And it did not take me forever to find it.

You know, its amazing how one story quickly gets forgotten when something new pops up (the DL bomb scare).

Ron, I can see your frustration. Phil and Matt do a great job. However, I think what also helps is that there are less users here and thus there is less crap to weed through. Its inevitable that as more users post on NYCA, there is more to weed through to get the facts, especially when its fresh news and the facts are not well known yet.

Since those approach lights were not functional, I am hopeful to see that pilot error is a less likely cause.

[mmedford]

Whenever events like this happens the blue site is really frustrating because you have to read thru so much crap to find the vital and interesting updates. But here their where timely updates and great selection of daylight photos. And it did not take me forever to find it.

You know, its amazing how one story quickly gets forgotten when something new pops up (the DL bomb scare).

Ron, I can see your frustration. Phil and Matt do a great job. However, I think what also helps is that there are less users here and thus there is less crap to weed through. Its inevitable that as more users post on NYCA, there is more to weed through to get the facts, especially when its fresh news and the facts are not well known yet.

Since those approach lights were not functional, I am hopeful to see that pilot error is a less likely cause.

I'm still looking for more clarification on the approach light topic... it appears only approach side of the runway has an ILS and ALS... I do see a glideslope...but I can't make out the localizer antennas...

[mirrodie]

Neither could the AA crew. Ouch. kidding.

OK, so can jou 'splain to me what and there the ILS, ALS and etc are?

[PhilDernerJr]

ILS (instrument landing system)is the approach equipment that provides the aircraft with both localizer and glidescope approach....both vertical and horizontal alignment assitance.

ALS is approach lighting system, meaning simply the lights at the beginning of the runway with vary depending on runway and airport requirements.

[USAF Pilot 07]

here's a video of a small Citation Business Jet lands in a 15Kt down wind during the day and with just a light rain, grooved I might add. Just to give you an idea of what Flight 331 was up against.
C80grd2C ... re=related (C80grd2CrTI&feature=related)


This video has nothing in common with this situation except for the fact that there was a tailwind present and the runway was wet. The pilot in this video never had anything close to the landing distance required to land at this field (it was not certified for jet use), was I believe was told several times by ATC that it was not certified for jet use. Also, I believe the findings also included his approach speed was way above what it should have been even with the tailwind. The reason this crash was caught on video is because when people found out some dude was going to land a jet at that airport, they all knew he was crazy and that something bad would probably ensue, so they grabbed their video cameras to get it on tape.

[USAF Pilot 07]

I'm still looking for more clarification on the approach light topic... it appears only approach side of the runway has an ILS and ALS... I do see a glideslope...but I can't make out the localizer antennas...


I'm confused... you can't see an ILS (I mean you can see the equipment, but generally it's a small box). Approach lighting is totally separate/irrelevant from what kind of instrument approaches there are to the runway.

Also, if an approach has a glideslope, it's got a localizer. There is no such thing as a glideslope only approach.

I don't know what having to see the actual antennas has to do with anything. The reason you probably don't see the localizer antennas is because they are located towards the far end (departure end) of the runway. This is so that localizer course guidance doesn't become so sensitive as you approach the threshold that it becomes impossible to stay within course limits (generally one dot). If they were located at the approach end, the approach would be a Localizer Backcourse, and would be a non-precision approach (i.e. no glideslope guidance). A lot of airports have these (although they are starting to be phased out with the advent of advanced GPS approaches). They are totally separate approaches and have to be TERPS a certain way by the FAA. That's another subject though....

As far as what approach lighting the airfield has... if you reference my post a few pages ago, I posted a link to outdated Jepp charts (on which I imagine approach lighting hasn't changed) which show the approach lighting for the runway you're shooting the approach to. The charts show both SALS and PAPIs (or VASIs I forget) for both ends of the runway. With ceiling and vis WELL above mins (as in this case), approach lighting would have been a "nice to have" thing for the crew, but definitely not a necessity. PAPIs would be a lot more important because centerline guidance is easy to visually acquire without approach lighting, but vertical guidance is much more difficult without PAPIs/VASIs, especially at night in the rain.

[mmedford]

Approach lighting is totally separate/irrelevant from what kind of instrument approaches there are to the runway

Actually Approach lighting affects the catergory of landing...CAT-IIIs require ALSFs, CAT-II requires a MALSR, etc...


Also, if an approach has a glideslope, it's got a localizer. There is no such thing as a glideslope only approach.

You are correct...can't tune a glideslope without a localizer...


I don't know what having to see the actual antennas has to do with anything.

Well, I'm curious if the runway is a precision or non-precision approach... Antennas can be located behind the runway and be considered a precision, or be off-set 500+ feet from centerline and be a non-precision approach. Did some searching and I believe I can make out the antenna on the far right side of the approach 12, acouple hundred feet off.


This is so that localizer course guidance doesn't become so sensitive as you approach the threshold that it becomes impossible to stay within course limits (generally one dot).

That is incorrect...displacement on guidance is affected by modulation into free space. Not every localizer has a backcourse either...


As far as what approach lighting the airfield has...

Well i'm just trying to understand the whole situation, i'm hearing reports of bad visibility and low ceiling...so understanding the capabilities of the equipment does add to the mental image i'm trying to create.

[Matt Molnar]

Some new details today according to avherald.com.

Sounds like Kingston's ARFF squad was asleep. A public bus with two passengers on board happened to be driving on the road adjacent to the end of the runway when the driver saw the plane go off. The bus driver called 911, and the operator didn't believe what she was saying. By the time the driver had assisted 70 passengers off the plane and onto the bus to drive them over to the terminal (which I'd imagine must have been at least 10 mins) only a single fire truck had made it to the scene.

Also, the wreckage was moved to a hangar today.

[daneyd]

What this video has in common with flight 331 is it demonstrates the difference between down wind and head wind landings. Had this pilot approached from the other end, he too would have made it. It's simple mathematics. If an airplane requires (based on all the various calculations) 3,000 ft. in zero wind to land, that same plane would require 3,900 ft with a 15 kt tail wind. Same plane same conditions coming into the 15 Kt wind and the plane with only need 2,200 ft of runway. That's a 1,700 ft differential. That's my point. Not only do you not add to the "zero wind" distance, you subtract from it. It's like when you make a $100 bet at blackjack. If you win versus if you lose. Its a $200 difference. Because had you won instead of losing, its a $200 difference. Not just the $100 you bet. Same as wind. Down wind your adding the component, head wind your subtracting. That's twice the difference. Again, that's why it was so critical for them to get into this wind instead of going down wind of it.

[hiss srq]

Maybe these factors might have a role if we were talking about a 6,000 foot runway like at DCA but if the conditions as forcasted were that detrimental to safe operation this flight would have been landing performance weight restricted. Somthing else was going on. The touchdown point will be the tell all in my opinion. I am willing to wager big bucks they were both heads up through the last portions of the approach based on the fact both HUD's were down at the time of the crash. Another thing to note is that just because your performance charts say an airplane will or wont do somthing does not mean it is true all the time. There is some "milage may vary" involved based on actual conditions etc etc..... It could be for the better or the worse. I understand your analogy of the headwind/tailwind arguement but they were within the numbers for what should have been a successful full stop based on the conditions known etc. I suspect certain things but I dont want to eat my foot later so I will hold off untill some more peliminary information is available.

[NYCMedic]

Kingston (MKJP) only has 1 ILS approach (Runway 12). The minimums are pretty high: Vis 1.9km/Ceiling 270ft Thats with full ILS for CAT A,B,C,D aircraft. If the Glideslope is out the visibility minimums are 1.9km for cat A, 2.3km cat B, 2.8km cat C, and 3.2km for cat D. Ceiling jumps to 320ft. There are no CatII or Cat III approaches.

[daneyd]

Maybe these factors might have a role if we were talking about a 6,000 foot runway like at DCA but if the conditions as forcasted were that detrimental to safe operation this flight would have been landing performance weight restricted. Somthing else was going on. The touchdown point will be the tell all in my opinion. I am willing to wager big bucks they were both heads up through the last portions of the approach based on the fact both HUD's were down at the time of the crash. Another thing to note is that just because your performance charts say an airplane will or wont do somthing does not mean it is true all the time. There is some "milage may vary" involved based on actual conditions etc etc..... It could be for the better or the worse. I understand your analogy of the headwind/tailwind arguement but they were within the numbers for what should have been a successful full stop based on the conditions known etc. I suspect certain things but I dont want to eat my foot later so I will hold off untill some more peliminary information is available.

Just hard for me to understand, even if you give them a pass on the approach downwind, why they wouldn't have bulked the landing and gone around. My guess is they were long and hot, probably flared couple times and found themselves way down the runway and still not touching the wheels to the runway to activate spoilers. That's when you hit the throttles. I'm wondering if there was a unusually strong desire to get the plane on the ground as a result of the rough flight and conditions coming in.

[daneyd]

as for the speculations, I understand that it is irresponsible to speculate give the limited info we have, however that is what spurs some good dialogue on forums like this. I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm speculating grant it. I know that.

[daneyd]

I'm still thinking that at the end of the day there will be many contributing factors cited. Among them will be stress of conditions, and fatigue. But these factors will be contributing to the error of the pilots which we all know they will determine as is usually the case.

[USAF Pilot 07]

Actually Approach lighting affects the catergory of landing...CAT-IIIs require ALSFs, CAT-II requires a MALSR, etc...


Approach lighting is irrelevant to the the approach present at the runway. A runway can have ALSF2s but not necessarily have an ILS (of course, 99% of the time an approach with ALSF2's has an ILS'). On the other hand, if the approach is a certain type of approach (i.e. ILS CATII) it HAS to have a certain lighting system. So if you have a CATII ILS, you know you're going to have certain light system. Just seeing a light system doesn't necessarily mean you can tell what kind of approach that runway has.



Well, I'm curious if the runway is a precision or non-precision approach...


RWY12 has an ILS which is a precision approach. The link I posted earlier has the Jeppessen Chart for the ILS. ILS = precision approach.



That is incorrect...displacement on guidance is affected by modulation into free space. Not every localizer has a backcourse either...


Don't know much about modulation into free space, but I'm pretty sure you won't find too many (if any) localizers located at the approach end of the runway you're shooting the approach to unless it's a localizer backcourse. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the way a localizer works is that there are two antennas on each side of the runway which each propagate a signal (received through a frequency you tune in the cockpit). The localizer beams propagate equal waves in a certain direction and where they intersect correlates to the position of runway centerline. The closer you get to the physical location of the localizer antennas, the more sensitive and "precise" the localizer becomes. If the antennas were at the approach end of the runway, the course would become too sensitive on short final, and it would be very difficult to stay within one dot displacement. If you're shooting an ILS (especially down to mins) you need to have precise course guidance that doesn't get so sensitive that you are no longer able to track it, or you'd be forced to execute a missed approach. That's the reason why on LOC BC the localizer antennas are located at the approach end, and why those have to be non-precision approaches and can not be coupled with a glideslope.
Anyway I digress, this is getting too technical, haha!



Well i'm just trying to understand the whole situation, i'm hearing reports of bad visibility and low ceiling...so understanding the capabilities of the equipment does add to the mental image i'm trying to create.

Here are the METARs for the time period (grabbed from another board). I believe they "landed" around 0150Z:

MKJP 230228Z 31009KT 5000 TSRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 22/19 Q1013
MKJP 230200Z 30012KT 5000 SHRA BKN014 SCT030 BKN100 22/20 Q1013 RERA
MKJP 230100Z 040033KT 5000 SHRA BKN016 SCT030 BKN100 23/20 Q1013 RERA

Looks like ceilings over 1400' with definite tailwinds (300/12 at 02Z) with rain showers and visibility at 5000m (~3 miles). Doesn't sound like visibility or ceiling was much of a factor...

[USAF Pilot 07]

What this video has in common with flight 331 is it demonstrates the difference between down wind and head wind landings. Had this pilot approached from the other end, he too would have made it. It's simple mathematics. If an airplane requires (based on all the various calculations) 3,000 ft. in zero wind to land, that same plane would require 3,900 ft with a 15 kt tail wind.



Sure we all know this. But in this case, they were LEGAL and within company limits both with tailwinds and I'm assuming total landing distance. Now if the reports come back and said their computed landing distance was greater than runway available, it's a totally different story. But I don't think there's any way their data said their landing distance was anywhere close (within 500') of the total runway available, especially being an experienced crew with passengers on board.



Same plane same conditions coming into the 15 Kt wind and the plane with only need 2,200 ft of runway. That's a 1,700 ft differential. That's my point. Not only do you not add to the "zero wind" distance, you subtract from it. It's like when you make a $100 bet at blackjack. If you win versus if you lose. Its a $200 difference. Because had you won instead of losing, its a $200 difference. Not just the $100 you bet. Same as wind. Down wind your adding the component, head wind your subtracting. That's twice the difference. Again, that's why it was so critical for them to get into this wind instead of going down wind of it.

Bro, you make no sense.. Successful landings are made every day in tailwinds...

[USAF Pilot 07]

Now throw in a wet runway (RCR 9) and it jumps to 5,700 feet.

Reviewed this today. When RCR is not reported we use RCR of 6 for ICY, 10 for Wet, 14 for Wet (porous or grooved) and 23 for dry. Sounds like your 9 is closer to the conditions they experienced (wet and ungrooved)...

[mmedford]

RWY12 has an ILS which is a precision approach. The link I posted earlier has the Jeppessen Chart for the ILS. ILS = precision approach.


Your expired chart doesn't display the location of the antenna...and just because you have an ILS doesn't mean it's a precision approach... eg; Runway 22R @ JFK, the localizer is off-set 500 feet from runway centerline....


Don't know much about modulation into free space, but I'm pretty sure you won't find too many (if any) localizers located at the approach end of the runway you're shooting the approach to unless it's a localizer backcourse. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the way a localizer works is that there are two antennas on each side of the runway which each propagate a signal (received through a frequency you tune in the cockpit). The localizer beams propagate equal waves in a certain direction and where they intersect correlates to the position of runway centerline. The closer you get to the physical location of the localizer antennas, the more sensitive and "precise" the localizer becomes. If the antennas were at the approach end of the runway, the course would become too sensitive on short final, and it would be very difficult to stay within one dot displacement. If you're shooting an ILS (especially down to mins) you need to have precise course guidance that doesn't get so sensitive that you are no longer able to track it, or you'd be forced to execute a missed approach. That's the reason why on LOC BC the localizer antennas are located at the approach end, and why those have to be non-precision approaches and can not be coupled with a glideslope.
Anyway I digress, this is getting too technical, haha!

Localizers located on the approach end, are probably for the the opposite end runway...backcourse isn't really used much; learned through my talks with people from other airports.

Well you are wrong on that one...localizer theory works off the concept of "Difference in the Depth of Modulation"... the antennas are placed on the opposite end of the runway to allow modulation in free space. Also in cases of CATII/III, a pair of monitor antennas are required to ensure a proper signal at the approach end. We also do ground checks to ensure the antennas are radiating properly. That whole sensitivity thing, doesn't make much sense and is pretty inaccurate to what really happens...especially since backcourse also depends on the actual antenna inuse.

The nav reciever onboard the aircraft is able to receive both the 150hz & 90hz, and derives your centerline from it.


Thats enough ILS theory for tonight...

Sorry I don't know how to read METAR data...

[NLovis]

Whenever events like this happens the blue site is really frustrating because you have to read thru so much crap to find the vital and interesting updates. But here their where timely updates and great selection of daylight photos. And it did not take me forever to find it.

You know, its amazing how one story quickly gets forgotten when something new pops up (the DL bomb scare).

Ron, I can see your frustration. Phil and Matt do a great job. However, I think what also helps is that there are less users here and thus there is less crap to weed through. Its inevitable that as more users post on NYCA, there is more to weed through to get the facts, especially when its fresh news and the facts are not well known yet.

Since those approach lights were not functional, I am hopeful to see that pilot error is a less likely cause.
It will msot likely be the company's fault that runs that airport. As soon as a crash happens and something isnt working that is vital its always a main factor. I can see pilot error as well. They should have not tried landing under those conditions especally with the lights O.O.S. The human factor that everybody has and you cant deny is the want to hurry and relax. We are all guilty of this. What I think is those pilots and crew wanted to get down ASAP so they could go and relax. They probably thought going around would take too much time so they went with the option that was the quickest. But like all shortcuts it only lead to trouble. This is why we have rules. So people dont get hurt. I dont eman to sound like a parent i'm way too young for that still but I see them wanting to get the job done as quickly as possible taking shortcuts where they could so they could have more time to chill. On a side note thats why ramp agent/baggage handler postions are so dangerous. I am a ramp agent at T7 in JFK and most ppl dont care enough and only want to get the job done so they can slack off on the job. They take the shortcuts and one day something will happen. Much like I think what happened with this crash.

[moose135]

...and just because you have an ILS doesn't mean it's a precision approach...
No, by definition, a Precision Approach is one with both azimuth and glide slope information provided. An ILS, with both localizer and glide slope, is a precision approach. A localizer only, or VOR/DME approach, is a non-precision approach because it does not provide glide slope information.

[USAF Pilot 07]

Your expired chart doesn't display the location of the antenna...and just because you have an ILS doesn't mean it's a precision approach... eg; Runway 22R @ JFK, the localizer is off-set 500 feet from runway centerline....

:?: confused :?: An ILS by nature is a precision approach. I've never heard of a non-precision ILS approach. Unless I slept through some important part of instrument classes and refreshers, I've never heard of an ILS referred to as anything other than a precision approach. Even the AOPA refers to and ILS as a precision approache. (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/ii_9805.html) A non-precision approach would be a LOC, VOR, TACAN, NDB, ASR, GPS (non LPV/LNAV/VNAV).

Anyone else, thoughts?


Localizers located on the approach end, are probably for the the opposite end runway...backcourse isn't really used much; learned through my talks with people from other airports.

OK, wait, that's what I've been saying all along - most of the time the actual localizer IS located at the departure end (far end) of the runway you are shooting the approach to. Sometime (as is the case here, and is the case with the ILS to 22R at JFK) they are "closer" (but still not prior to) the approach end and are offset.

BTW - the expired chart I linked to does give you some clues as to where the physical position of the antenna are. Looking at that chart, you can see that at the runway approach end (i.e. threshold) you are 0.2nm from the localizer. Therefore, the localizer is 0.2 nm past the approach end. This is one of those cases where the localizer is not at the departure end. Also, if you look at the chart, you can see the localizer is offset. I BELIEVE the reason the minimums are higher on this approach is because the localizer is closer to the approach end and therefore more sensitive the closer you get. If you look at JFK 22R, it's the same deal. The actual localizer is offset and closer to the approach end.

Back courses were never used very much and are being phased out with the advent of GPS approaches. Localizers are not course dependent like VORs are (i.e you are going to get the same deflection on your HSI regardless of what course you have set in) and emit signals in both directions. When you fly a LOC/BC, you are using the "front course" of the approach to the opposite runway - this is why when we fly LOC/BC we don't tune in the runway course for the runway we're landing on, we tune in the front course (i.e. if you're shooting the LOC/BC to RWY 36, you're using localizer information for RWY 18, and therefore you would tune 180 in your course to get normal looking movement on the HSI). If you left in 360 in your course, you'd get a "flip flop" image on the HSI (i.e. your HSI would show you "left" of course when you were really right of course).

There's less of a point in spending the money to TERPS BC approaches when almost everything can fly a GPS approach.


That whole sensitivity thing, doesn't make much sense and is pretty inaccurate to what really happens...especially since backcourse also depends on the actual antenna inuse.

I've flown countless ILS', LOCs and a handful of LOC/BC approaches - please don't tell me that the localizer and glideslope sensitivity on the HSI don't get more sensitive the closer you get to them....

Reference the "How Accurate?" portion of the AOPA online document on ILS'...

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/ii_9805.html

I apologize if any of this is getting way too technical (probably way too much so for this board), but I will say if anything it's made me brush up on some of this instrument stuff!

[NLovis]

i must say we have gotten way off topic here. this wasnt for arguing. I might not be a mod here. I was a former mod somewhere else but this is classified as off topic now. So any new discoveries?

[daneyd]

What this video has in common with flight 331 is it demonstrates the difference between down wind and head wind landings. Had this pilot approached from the other end, he too would have made it. It's simple mathematics. If an airplane requires (based on all the various calculations) 3,000 ft. in zero wind to land, that same plane would require 3,900 ft with a 15 kt tail wind.



Sure we all know this. But in this case, they were LEGAL and within company limits both with tailwinds and I'm assuming total landing distance. Now if the reports come back and said their computed landing distance was greater than runway available, it's a totally different story. But I don't think there's any way their data said their landing distance was anywhere close (within 500') of the total runway available, especially being an experienced crew with passengers on board.



Same plane same conditions coming into the 15 Kt wind and the plane with only need 2,200 ft of runway. That's a 1,700 ft differential. That's my point. Not only do you not add to the "zero wind" distance, you subtract from it. It's like when you make a $100 bet at blackjack. If you win versus if you lose. Its a $200 difference. Because had you won instead of losing, its a $200 difference. Not just the $100 you bet. Same as wind. Down wind your adding the component, head wind your subtracting. That's twice the difference. Again, that's why it was so critical for them to get into this wind instead of going down wind of it.

Bro, you make no sense.. Successful landings are made every day in tailwinds...

I understand they are made everyday. But this one didn't make it, so obviously the downwind component would have contributed to it not making it.

[daneyd]

You said it a while back I think and its probably accurate. They came in a little long, floated a lot longer than normal, maybe caught some gusts, whatever, and ran out of runway. Still, the downwind component, especially if it was upwards of 15 kts, will definitely be cited as a contributing factor. Hope that's not too technical.

[daneyd]

In my mind there is absolutely zero chance that the tail wind will not be cited as a contributing factor. Then if you go to the next step they will question the dissision to go in downwind or question not aborting the landing. Again, assuming that there wasn't anything mechanical preventing an abort. Still really curious about the spoilers. From the pic's you can clearly see slats and flaps extended but spoiler are not deployed. You fly these planes, I don't, is there any reason the spoiler would not be deployed as the plane is sitting there off the end of the runway? I know you arm them on approach and upon positive touch down they deploy but do they then not stay up until manually lowered? Or do they automatically go down once you've slowed to a certain speed?

[USAF Pilot 07]

i must say we have gotten way off topic here. this wasnt for arguing. I might not be a mod here. I was a former mod somewhere else but this is classified as off topic now. So any new discoveries?

I don't know about way off topic as we are still discussion the situation, but I agree we have gotten a little argumentative and too technical for most people on here...

As far as any new findings... I haven't heard of any, I wouldn't expect anything though for a while, while the investigation is being conducted.

[hiss srq]

In my mind there is absolutely zero chance that the tail wind will not be cited as a contributing factor. Then if you go to the next step they will question the dissision to go in downwind or question not aborting the landing. Again, assuming that there wasn't anything mechanical preventing an abort. Still really curious about the spoilers. From the pic's you can clearly see slats and flaps extended but spoiler are not deployed. You fly these planes, I don't, is there any reason the spoiler would not be deployed as the plane is sitting there off the end of the runway? I know you arm them on approach and upon positive touch down they deploy but do they then not stay up until manually lowered? Or do they automatically go down once you've slowed to a certain speed?
Spoilers and Speedbrakes are 100% hydro. powered. Onces pressure is off the system they just flop down. into their retracted position after a short period. They were most certainly deployed once weight on wheels occured. Autospoilers armed are part of landing checklist.

[NLovis]

i must say we have gotten way off topic here. this wasnt for arguing. I might not be a mod here. I was a former mod somewhere else but this is classified as off topic now. So any new discoveries?

I don't know about way off topic as we are still discussion the situation, but I agree we have gotten a little argumentative and too technical for most people on here...

As far as any new findings... I haven't heard of any, I wouldn't expect anything though for a while, while the investigation is being conducted.
I agree although the rumor's have been kept to a minimum. Usually speculations fly like there is no tomorrow. Havent heard a thing since the last update. Would have thought some stuff would have been flying around.

[PhilDernerJr]

Attention has been redirected to the Xmas attempted attack.

[USAF Pilot 07]

Some updated info, the FAA is apparently "watching" American Airlines after the botched landings in both CLT and Jamaica...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/am ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/american.airlines.tsa/index.html)

[hiss srq]

If they are going to watch anything at American they should have a look at workload balance between CA and F/O. Ever wonder why AA always taxis soo slow? Besides being an effective union group to make their point to management you should see the balance of checklists that there are on the flight deck. It's totally Captain heavy. Meanwhile he's the one with the tillar in one hand and the throttles in the other. Take a look at that if they are going to watch it. American actually has a pretty solid requirement as far as landing procedures go. Where most carriers use the 500 foot stabilization rule AA uses 1000 feet. And they monitor all flight peramiters. It is an automated process. For example: Exceed flap speed by one knot in their birds and a report is automaticly printed up back at the "Fort". If Kingston turns out to not have a large part of the blame placed on conditions, and unforseeables than stick it to the pilots. But lets not string them up just yet. As far as CLT goes, my personal feeling is get the rope, wood, gasoline and zippo out and put some fire on the crews feet but that's the NTSB/FAA's job not mine.

[NLovis]

Some updated info, the FAA is apparently "watching" American Airlines after the botched landings in both CLT and Jamaica...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/am ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/01/american.airlines.tsa/index.html)
well. thats bad for AA. If they mess up on anything now the FAA will know. Aside from penalties as well. But yea I watch the planes land on 13L-31R. AA always has really good landings from what I see.

[Matt Molnar]

Jamaican aviation officials are scheduled to give their first briefing on Wednesday, but revealed a few details on Tuesday...

- The plane used up half the runway before touching down, leaving only 4,800 feet to stop.
- The plane bounced on touch down, which ate up several hundred more feet.
- The plane was still rolling at 72mph when it went off the end.

[hiss srq]

Interesting. I called it. The crew's going to eat it on this one.

[Novanglus]

I came across these photos of the aircraft sitting in a hangar in many pieces.

NLovis, maybe you're right...this should buff right out and the aircraft will be back in service in no time!

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00001.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00002.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00003.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00004.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00005.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00006.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00007.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00008.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00009.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00010.jpg

[NIKV69]

They came in a little long, floated a lot longer than normal, maybe caught some gusts, whatever, and ran out of runway

Basically

[cancidas]

- The plane used up half the runway before touching down, leaving only 4,800 feet to stop.
- The plane bounced on touch down, which ate up several hundred more feet.
- The plane was still rolling at 72mph when it went off the end.

that first line alone is more than sufficient cause for a go-around.

[hiss srq]

Maybe they were trying to compete with the guys who fly the Repaitriotation flights.....
CJoXMcehrYo :lol: :twisted:

[jerslice]

I wonder if they'll sell off the overhead TV for cheap in the 5th pic down :-D

Weird seeing it like that in two pieces, where's the middle portion?

[AnBok]

Sidebar observation here... They used to paint over the tail designs in the old days to conceal the airline identity after a crash (I mean you and me would know what the airline is but the majority of the public would not tell UA from AA unless it was spelled out on the fuselage)... Surprised they didn't do it in this case

[cancidas]

Weird seeing it like that in two pieces, where's the middle portion?
probably will take more time to move, since the wings are still attached to it. i wonder if anything from the wreck is salvageable avionics, galley equipment etc probably weren't damaged. i doubt the NTSB or FAA would allow the seats or anything on the interior to be reused though.

[NLovis]

there is alot of parts that can be reused on that AC. Eevrything in the cockpit is still useable. The TV's, the APU as well can be salvaged. The engines idk maby one of them. The windows that werent damaged can be. there is alot. just depends of what they will alow to be salvaged.
Edit: Well N977AN has offically been written off. Thats the latest i got.

[daneyd]

AA JAMAICA CRASH: Although I am aware that it is irresponsible to speculate on a cause before all the facts are know, I do however feel that, at least on forums like this one, it is ok to speculate based on known facts. Here is what's known. 1) 15Kt. winds out of NNE. 2) Heavy rain at night on a non-grooved runway. 3) Pilots near the end of their 12-hour max. on-duty time. 4) Plane fully loaded with passengers and probably heavier on fuel than domestic flights. 5) Pilots had not flown much in previous weeks. 6) Plane touched down very far down runway 12. 7) Plane landed hard. Based on what’s known I think you can make the following deductions. I believe the tail winds played a very significant role in this crash. Ground speeds would have been 20-30Kts fast than pilots are used to. This along with a nighttime wet runway would have made it easy to misjudge the point of touchdown. Glide slope would have been kept in check on approach but near the ground pilots take over and visually fly the plane. Things would look much different than they normally do especially taking night, rain and fatigue issues into consideration. A go around would have been resisted because of a desire to get the plane on the ground due to bad conditions and current preferred patterns at that airport. As a pilot who has made down wind landings I can tell you that it is very difficult to hit your spot maintaining glide slope without stalling the plane. You have to descend at a quicker rate to maintain glide slope and touch down speeds to hit your spot. This is not a comfortable normal feeling to the pilots. Things happen so much quicker down wind and pilots are not used to this type of approach. Extra weight, rain, night, and fatigue and stress of bad conditions add to the level of difficulty of this down wind landing. I would not be surprised if the black boxes show the plane did or almost did “stall” just before touch down. That would explain the heavy landing reported. Higher ground speeds and weights with reduced runway length due to mid runway touch down point along with wet non-grooved runway made this crash, at this point, inevitable. At the end of the day there will be several factors pinpointed at fault (as there always is), however the primary cause will be pilot error for the following reasons: a) not going to an alternate airport given conditions at primary b) having proceeded to primary not asking to land from the east. c) having proceeded downwind failing to abort the approach and or landing prior to touchdown d) having proceeded downwind having misjudged the point of landing and not maintaining proper glide slope, approach speeds and touchdown point. To all the pilots I ask for your comments

I posted this on the 26th. Looking more and more like that's about what it was.

[daneyd]

Maybe these factors might have a role if we were talking about a 6,000 foot runway like at DCA but if the conditions as forcasted were that detrimental to safe operation this flight would have been landing performance weight restricted. Somthing else was going on. The touchdown point will be the tell all in my opinion. I am willing to wager big bucks they were both heads up through the last portions of the approach based on the fact both HUD's were down at the time of the crash. Another thing to note is that just because your performance charts say an airplane will or wont do somthing does not mean it is true all the time. There is some "milage may vary" involved based on actual conditions etc etc..... It could be for the better or the worse. I understand your analogy of the headwind/tailwind arguement but they were within the numbers for what should have been a successful full stop based on the conditions known etc. I suspect certain things but I dont want to eat my foot later so I will hold off untill some more peliminary information is available.

Just hard for me to understand, even if you give them a pass on the approach downwind, why they wouldn't have bulked the landing and gone around. My guess is they were long and hot, probably flared couple times and found themselves way down the runway and still not touching the wheels to the runway to activate spoilers. That's when you hit the throttles. I'm wondering if there was a unusually strong desire to get the plane on the ground as a result of the rough flight and

This was posted on Dec 26th. conditions coming in.

[USAF Pilot 07]

What was the purpose of that last post???

[NLovis]

What was the purpose of that last post???
Its called a repost onto a new page so it will get answered.

[hiss srq]

The answer to that question is not readily available. However, once you enter a flare in a big jet it is not smart to push back over and re enter flare. By doing that you increase your sinkrate and it will usually create a much harder touchdown and possibly a bounce depending on how hard you jam the mains into the pavement.

[USAF Pilot 07]

I still don't understand what the question was...

They had a tailwind, landed on a wet runway, and appeared to have landed long and instead of going around, tried to save a bad landing...

The final cause will most likely end up being pilot error citing poor judgment in electing to land with a tailwind in bad weather conditions, and more importantly not initiating a go-around once the aircraft was in an unsafe situation.

Why didn't they go around? Probably a combination of experience and a feeling of "i can make this", some "get their-itis" after a long day, and the fact of not wanting to have to fly around anymore in bad weather.

It happens - it's not an excuse, but I think anyone who flies or has flown has been in situations where they probably should have gone around, or requested a different runway, but didn't. The difference in this case is that the combination of so many poor factors cause this aircraft to go off the end of the runway.

It's something we hope never happens, and for every instance like this, there are probably a hundred instances of pilots who in the same situation elected to go around, try it again and land uneventfully. Pilots are human, and sometimes make mistakes (but not usually haha! :lol: )....

[moose135]

It happens - it's not an excuse, but I think anyone who flies or has flown has been in situations where they probably should have gone around, or requested a different runway, but didn't.
I've told this before, but...

A long time ago (in a tanker far, far away... :wink: ) we were 14 hours and two WX diverts into our day, making our second shot at the ILS in the dark through snow, blowing snow and fog. My aircraft commander was in the right seat, trying to upgrade to IP, we had an IP in the left seat, and I'm playing copilot from the jumpseat. As we dropped below decision height, one of the pilots said "There are some lights, I *think* I see the runway". Well, from my seat, all I saw were the strobes (dimly) and lots of blowing snow, but no runway. Since I didn't want to die that night, I got on the intercom, and in my best command voice said "GO AROUND", which they did, and we decided one more WX divert was probably the best move.

Maybe the guys on this flight could have used a scared copilot in the jumpseat telling them to go around. :wink:

[USAF Pilot 07]

A long time ago (in a tanker far, far away... :wink: )


The puddle jumper known as the 135? :lol:



As we dropped below decision height, one of the pilots said "There are some lights, I *think* I see the runway". Well, from my seat, all I saw were the strobes (dimly) and lots of blowing snow, but no runway. Since I didn't want to die that night, I got on the intercom, and in my best command voice said "GO AROUND", which they did, and we decided one more WX divert was probably the best move.


I thought back in the day you always saw the runway, regardless of what the weather was outside? ;) ;)

But seriously, I bet looking back at it, those guys (although maybe not so at the time especially with a co-pilot in the jumpseat calling a go-around) are now probably glad you went around, wx diverted and lived to fly another day.

A lot of ACs/IPs I've flown with will include in their crew brief before landing something to the likes of "hey I'm just another guy flying airplanes, and I make mistakes and can get too focused on maybe one thing and let something else drop out of my crosscheck, so if anyone feels unsafe or uncomfortable or if we're doing something stupid, call a go-around, we'll go-around, talk about it and decide what to do from there"...

In this case, you got two people in cockpit, making a tough landing, at night, in the weather, their focus was on landing the aircraft; and they probably let certain things drop out of their crosscheck. Like you said, I bet they would have liked to have the "co-pilot in the jumpseat" or the Engineer sitting back watching the whole situation calling a go-around...

There's the saying "go around are free"...

[daneyd]

I've taken a lot of abuse by the moderator from the beginning when I posted my synopsis on what I believed to be the contributing factors to this crash. Looking back I was right on point and the moderator of blowing smoke. An acknowledgement would be nice.

[daneyd]

I guess this is exactly why pilots fly the needles and don't analyze the causes.

[NLovis]

There's the saying "go around are free"...
Untill you run low on fuel. Then your stuck bewteen a rock and a hardplace.

[NLovis]

I came across these photos of the aircraft sitting in a hangar in many pieces.

NLovis, maybe you're right...this should buff right out and the aircraft will be back in service in no time!

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00001.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00002.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00003.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00004.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00005.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00006.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00007.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00008.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00009.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/ATT00010.jpg
Idk i'm i'm being humored or insaulted there......

[PhilDernerJr]

Pretzels get insalted. I think it was a playful joke.

[daneyd]

I re-iterate. I originally posted (on Dec 26th) a synopsis of what I believed to be to contributing factors of the AA Jamaica crash. I was quasi mocked and criticized by the moderator. In retrospect I turned out to be almost bang on as to what was the likely cause of this crash. The moderator has stayed mute for quite a while mocking my belief that the decision to not divert to the alternate, and the decision to land down wind, and the decision to not abort the landing were all errors on the pilots part and likely major contributing factors to the crash.

[NLovis]

Alright alright we got it already the mod was wrong and you guys were right. Get over it. Were all human and we all make mistakes. Look at me. I've been shooting my mouth off and been wrong 95% of the time. And i'm still shootin off. I'd have to say thats a record xD

[PhilDernerJr]

I've taken a lot of abuse by the moderator from the beginning when I posted my synopsis on what I believed to be the contributing factors to this crash. Looking back I was right on point and the moderator of blowing smoke. An acknowledgement would be nice.

May I ask what abuse you're talking about? I read the moderator (USAF Pilot is the one I assume you're referring to), and I see no abuse from him at all. It sounds like a debate/discussion to me. You seem to want to be "declared a winner" or something, but that's not the point of this thread. Let's all just continue to discuss the topic at hand as we please in a friendly manner, following the rules of the forum.

[Tom_Turner]

Didn't get around to checking on this one, but I got it as well....

0954380

[NLovis]

nice shot tom

[USAF Pilot 07]

I re-iterate. I originally posted (on Dec 26th) a synopsis of what I believed to be to contributing factors of the AA Jamaica crash. I was quasi mocked and criticized by the moderator. In retrospect I turned out to be almost bang on as to what was the likely cause of this crash. The moderator has stayed mute for quite a while mocking my belief that the decision to not divert to the alternate, and the decision to land down wind, and the decision to not abort the landing were all errors on the pilots part and likely major contributing factors to the crash.

HUH? I never "quasi mocked" or criticized your "analysis" of the cause; I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that you did. If you go back and re-read my posts you'll see that all I did was claim that there isn't one definitive factor involved in this crash; which is generally the case with most crashes. A series of unfavorable events leading to a major disaster. You seemed to be picking out extreme cases (i.e. the bizjet attempting an "ILLEGAL" landing in a tailwind and comparing it to this event; sure there are some similarities but the overall setup is very different). Then you started making an analogy of landing in a tailwind to betting in a game of blackjack. The last question you asked was about spoilers, hiss srq answered it, and that was the last you said until you posted a quote of what you said a week ago.

Again, I'll say what I've been saying all along...

Was the fact that they landed in a tailwind the ONLY factor in this crash? No - thousands of aircraft land everyday in tailwinds and don't crash. They within LEGAL limits in this case to land in those conditions, and I would bet probably had the TOLD to do so. Maybe wasn't the most prudent thing to do, but unlike that video you posted, in this case it was legal!
.
Was the fact that they landed outside of the landing zone the ONLY factor in this crash? No - thousands of aircraft land outside of their landing zones every day and don't crash.

Was the fact that the runway was wet and not grooved the ONLY factor in this crash? No...

And the list goes on and on...

Were all of these fact combined, along with the decision to try and save a bad landing the main reason they crashed? Probably! If you'd like me to give you props for thinking of that, then sure, congrats...


As a pilot who has made down wind landings I can tell you that it is very difficult to hit your spot maintaining glide slope without stalling the plane. You have to descend at a quicker rate to maintain glide slope and touch down speeds to hit your spot. This is not a comfortable normal feeling to the pilots. Things happen so much quicker down wind and pilots are not used to this type of approach. Extra weight, rain, night, and fatigue and stress of bad conditions add to the level of difficulty of this down wind landing. I would not be surprised if the black boxes show the plane did or almost did “stall” just before touch down



Not that I'm the extremely seasoned tailwind landing pilot, but I'm just curious what type of experience you have landing turbojet aircraft in tailwinds?

And BTW a lot of crash investigators are pilots themselves....

[Derf]

I've taken a lot of abuse by the moderator from the beginning when I posted my synopsis on what I believed to be the contributing factors to this crash. Looking back I was right on point and the moderator of blowing smoke. An acknowledgement would be nice.

I think you just upset because they blew you off and wanted to wait for what the actual findings were. I did not think they were rude or unkind and do not see any abuse of any kind.

I can tell you that I read your well written and well put post and it looked very reasonable. I too wanted to wait and find out what the findings were. You were spot on. There will always be lots of "Parlor talk" and speculation on forums and after a while you will realize who has good info and who does not. This is one of the better sites for info and people around here usually are 50/50 about jumping to conclusions and that is why I like the site. You will always have the people who will jump to conclusions and some are right and some are wrong and then there are the people with knowledge and patience. You were stating what mostly fact mixed with some educated guesses from what I assume is a somewhat good aviation background from your clear decisive answers. I hope to read more of your informative posts in the future. Once again, well written.

[daneyd]

I was not suggesting that I was "actually" profanely abused by the moderator, it was just that he was condescending and dismissive in the very early days of this crash when I, like most others, were making quasi educated guesses as to what the likely cause was. I too stated that as in all crashes there will be multiple contributing factors. I never suggested the tailwind was the "sole" cause. He was suggesting that is was not a contributing cause, I responded that regardless of the multitude of eventual causes, the tailwind will most certainly be cited as one of them. As we all know in all investigations there is always a "chain" of events that lead to a crash. Each link in that chain is a contributing factor and had any link in that chain been broken the crash would not of happened. I know that. I'm not new.

[daneyd]

As for my experience I first obtained my pilots licence in 1979. I quickly got my twin engine endorsement and then my commercial licence. I flew for some time (right seat) for a private charter company. We flew mainly King Air's. (twin turbo's). I never flew heavy jets and as such am unfamiliar with such things as the mechanic's of spoilers and things that you find on heavy jets and not on lighter slower aircraft.

[PhilDernerJr]

People have said their piece, so let's move forward discussing the crash itself from here.

I blame the Bermuda Triangle. Even though Jamaica isn't in it and even though the plane didn't disappear....I still blame it.

[daneyd]

I have not flown commercially, or IFR even, for quite some time but have retained an interest in aviation and have also maintained my flying skills in my Piper Aztec Twin and I've owned for 10 years.

[Derf]

Sorry, but with the word abuse I invision Phil wipping you with a dipstick.... JIMMY!

Just remember that I am one of those special members (special as in the kind that ride on ths small bus)

now can we bash Airbus and talk about why the world was better off that this was a Boeing?Lololol (nudge nudge, wink wink)

This post was made by my iPhone automated response app

[Derf]

People have said their piece, so let's move forward discussing the crash itself from here.

I blame the Bermuda Triangle. Even though Jamaica isn't in it and even though the plane didn't disappear....I still blame it.

wow! EXCELLENT!!!! You sold me!

[hiss srq]

I k/was thinking it k/was thinking maybe k/the pilots wanted to take their work action a step above k/the whole slow taxi thing that most AA crews do. lolol :lol: :borat:

[USAF Pilot 07]

People have said their piece

Yo, my piece ain't spoken yet son! ;)

daneyd:

I wasn't being condescending towards you and I apologize if I came off as so. This is a "forum" - a place where we come discuss, argue and talk about issues and current events. Sometimes the discussion gets heated, emotions get involved and people take things personally (which no one should; at the end of the day it's an online message board). In the case of this thread, we didn't get even close to that type of situation.. In this spirit of debate:

If you go back and re-read our posts you will see we both agree on most of the factors that we think caused this crash. The biggest disagreements we had came when you posted a video of an aircraft doing for all intent and purpose an "illegal" landing, and my reply saying you cannot compare apples-to-apples the crash you posted in that video to this one. I never said the tailwind played ZERO factor in this crash, I said combined with several other factors it was a player.

Anyone who flies (yourself included) knows landing in a tailwind can be challenging, but also knows that they can be safely executed - as they are done on a daily basis all around the world. I don't know if you ever calculate required landing distances in your aircraft, but larger, jet aircraft calculate the required distance to safely stop their aircraft before every approach using many different factors (aircraft weight, environmental factors, runway condition, aircraft configuration etc...). We call it TOLD (Takeoff and Landing Data).

I think it's reasonable to assume this crew would not have attempted landing on a runway that they knew ahead of time they didn't have the landing data to safely stop the aircraft on. Therefore I can only infer that their attempted landing was within both company and FAA legal limits (even with a tailwind). My theory, as I've been saying all along, is that the ultimate cause of the crash will be due to pilot error in deciding to save a bad landing rather than go around when according to Jamaican officials: The plane used up half the runway before touching down, leaving only 4,800 feet to stop, the plane bounced on touch down, which ate up several hundred more feet and the plane was still rolling at 72mph when it went off the end.

Did the fact that there was a tailwind, it was night and that the runway was wet and not grooved lead to all this? As we've both been saying, absolutely!

Anyway, we should wait until the actual findings are released to discuss more... Anyone know the status on it?

[cancidas]

0954380
non-wingletted 738's just look strange to me these days. are there any still flying here in the US?


I blame the Bermuda Triangle.
i like the way you think!

[NLovis]

0954380
non-wingletted 738's just look strange to me these days. are there any still flying here in the US?
Yes Delta still has some 738's without winglets. They arent common but you see them at JFK every now and then. Taken 10/8/09.
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/14/69/87/53/img_0011.jpg

[SengaB]

Looking at those images reminds me how classy the 737NG looked before the winglets. Now that I think about it I haven't seen a non wingletted 737(NG) in a long time. I guess the only place to see them regularly really left would be on some of the lesser charter companies.
Senga

[NLovis]

Again Delta has a handful of 738's without winglets. Some old colors some new. Just go out and hope one flies in that day. Also look at the tail # on the image I put up and check the sheet to see if its comming in that day and if its during daylight. Most recent I saw a 738 without winglets was the very end of 09. I think they put the winglet install on hold while they absorb NWA. I'm figuring come feb when NWA doesnt exist anymore there going to put the winglets on the rest. But hey I could be wrong. Personally I think the 738 looks better with the winglets on.

[daneyd]

[quote="Phil D.":n9073a7i]People have said their piece

Yo, my piece ain't spoken yet son! ;)

daneyd:

I wasn't being condescending towards you and I apologize if I came off as so. This is a "forum" - a place where we come discuss, argue and talk about issues and current events. Sometimes the discussion gets heated, emotions get involved and people take things personally (which no one should; at the end of the day it's an online message board). In the case of this thread, we didn't get even close to that type of situation.. In this spirit of debate:

If you go back and re-read our posts you will see we both agree on most of the factors that we think caused this crash. The biggest disagreements we had came when you posted a video of an aircraft doing for all intent and purpose an "illegal" landing, and my reply saying you cannot compare apples-to-apples the crash you posted in that video to this one. I never said the tailwind played ZERO factor in this crash, I said combined with several other factors it was a player.

Anyone who flies (yourself included) knows landing in a tailwind can be challenging, but also knows that they can be safely executed - as they are done on a daily basis all around the world. I don't know if you ever calculate required landing distances in your aircraft, but larger, jet aircraft calculate the required distance to safely stop their aircraft before every approach using many different factors (aircraft weight, environmental factors, runway condition, aircraft configuration etc...). We call it TOLD (Takeoff and Landing Data).

I think it's reasonable to assume this crew would not have attempted landing on a runway that they knew ahead of time they didn't have the landing data to safely stop the aircraft on. Therefore I can only infer that their attempted landing was within both company and FAA legal limits (even with a tailwind). My theory, as I've been saying all along, is that the ultimate cause of the crash will be due to pilot error in deciding to save a bad landing rather than go around when according to Jamaican officials: The plane used up half the runway before touching down, leaving only 4,800 feet to stop, the plane bounced on touch down, which ate up several hundred more feet and the plane was still rolling at 72mph when it went off the end.

Did the fact that there was a tailwind, it was night and that the runway was wet and not grooved lead to all this? As we've both been saying, absolutely!

Anyway, we should wait until the actual findings are released to discuss more... Anyone know the status on it?[/quote:n9073a7i]

Well unless you're about 75 year old I don't think you could be my dad. Yes we calculated landing distance requirements all the time. It was actually my job to do so usually. But as we know from the Little Rock crash years ago (I think it was Little Rock, not sure) landing checks can go wrong, or certain steps can be missed. In that crash they forgot to arm the spoilers (an obvious part of the landing check list). In bad conditions when adrenaline gets pumping, people don't perform as well as when calm. Of coarse they wouldn't have attempted the landing if there calc's were not in line however, under pressure the calc's could have been wrong or rushed. Also, the conditions could have been underestimated. ie. tailwind component. Obviously something was done wrong. We know from the initial release of the Jamaica authorities investigating the crash that there was no major mechanical failures.

[USAF Pilot 07]

Well unless you're about 75 year old I don't think you could be my dad.


That was a reply to Phil's post about a "piece"...


Obviously something was done wrong.

Yea they didn't go around after landing halfway down the runway. That's what was done wrong...

$20 says that if they landed in the landing zone we wouldn't be having this discussion today...

[daneyd]

that's probably true. Sorry about the age reference. I thought you were referring to me.

[hiss srq]

DannyD
IO just want to point out that at all carriers I know of you cannot land untill the PM calls "Landing checklist complete" or some version of that. It is actually a required callout. To not properly complete a landing checklist as it is legally outlined is boarderline criminal.

[daneyd]

I'm sure they didn't improperly or incompletely do the landing checklist intentionally. I'm just saying that with the rough flight in and the bad conditions it could of inadvertently been rushed. Let's face it, as we learned in Little Rock, it does happen under stressful conditions. Again, there was a crash and there were no mechanical failures and there doesn't appear to have been any extreme conditions (bad yes) but not unmanageable. Or so it appears. You do the math. Like the Mod. says, once they touched down half way down the runway you go around.

[NLovis]

I'm sure they didn't improperly or incompletely do the landing checklist intentionally. I'm just saying that with the rough flight in and the bad conditions it could of inadvertently been rushed. Let's face it, as we learned in Little Rock, it does happen under stressful conditions. Again, there was a crash and there were no mechanical failures and there doesn't appear to have been any extreme conditions (bad yes) but not unmanageable. Or so it appears. You do the math. Like the Mod. says, once they touched down half way down the runway you go around.
True but again stressfull situation. They prob couldnt see very well and or was focused straight ahead of them trying to get the plane down and didnt notice how far down the runway they were. When your really focused or stressed you can lost track of where you are. I know from example.

[daneyd]

It seems as though it was one of those "perfect storm" scenario's where they had every little thing work against them. Max. tailwind, hadn't flown for a while, end of long flying day, rain, night, rough, bad vis., full load, non-grooved wet runway, slightly shorter runway with no roll out forgiveness area at either end, stressful conditions, probably caught some unexpected drafts on flare which caused them to float. Only good thing in the whole "perfect storm" was that no one was killed. Interesting if you look at each item, any one of them, or ever a few of them combined, would have not caused a problem, but all of them combined did.

[NLovis]

Yea. Combine alot of this stuff and crap happens. Not what you want crap either.

[daneyd]

anything new on the investigation?

[NLovis]

anything new on the investigation?
Nothing that I know of

[daneyd]

There has finally been an update on that downwind overshot landing and crash in Jamaica on Dec. 22, 2009 (American Airlines). It is starting to appear that the pilots were culpable for the reasons I listed shortly after the crash.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20100106-Jamaican-investigators-offer-1st-update-on-6007.ece