American Airlines Crash at Kingston Jamaica

[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

[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

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!