American MD-80 Botches Landing, Scrapes Wing at Charlotte

WSJ:

Quote:

---

Safety Officials Probe American Airlines Jet's Botched Landing
DECEMBER 15, 2009

By ANDY PASZTOR

An American Airlines jet scraped a wingtip and partially veered off the runway while landing in poor visibility Sunday night at Charlotte, N.C., and federal air-safety regulators are looking into why it took the carrier four hours to notify them about the event.

While none of the crew or the 110 passengers aboard Flight 1402 was injured, the Federal Aviation Administration is treating the event as an accident. On Monday, FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said American's timing in notifying the agency "is part of the investigation."

Investigators are also scrutinizing the pilots' decision-making, according to government investigators and pilots familiar with the details. [FULL STORY]

---

I heard about this. Apparently there are alot of crews coming out and saying that there is deviation on the approaches to 36C/18C as if perhaps somthing is encroaching on the ILS critical area or perhaps it was not made large enough. A few pilots have been talking about it since this incident a few days ago. Apparently the crew was shooting a CatII and disengaged the A/P to continue the approach handflown. I would still hate to be in that crews seat though even if this incident can be proven to be caused by a issue with the approach.

"About 300 feet before touchdown, these people said, the crew switched off the autopilot after deciding it was acting erratically and manually landed the aircraft...."

"A big question facing investigators is whether American's basic operational rules and procedures were followed. If complications crop up once an aircraft descends below 1,000 feet on an instrument approach, pilots generally are trained to break off the descent, gain altitude and circle back for another landing."

What is the decision height for an MD-80? Isn't 300' a little late to do a missed approach?

You can do a missed approach at 20 feet if you want. The decision altitude is about runway visibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

You can do a missed approach at 20 feet if you want. The decision altitude is about runway visibility.

---

Exactly. DH is based on several criteria in the airlines. One is high mins flight crew which means that for one reason or another whether it be training or medically related you have a minimums restriction on a pilot. DH can be based on aircraft equipment or lack there of, or the equipment the airfield has on property. You can perform a missed approach at any time in the approach profile. Whether it be at the marker, at DH, after touchdown. The only real restriction on when is safety of flight being at greater risk to perform it rather than otherwise. If you can do it and have to than you do it. That is why at airlines there is a set of approach criteria. In fact, American's MD crew blew it whether it was their fault or faulty equipments fault. AA's guidline is at 1,000 feet AGL you have to be configured (flaps and gear etc) on sink (sinkrate) and spooled which is for that exact reason. You stay spooled so that in the event you have to execute a MA you don't have the delay between when you push them up to when the engines actually begin generating sufficent thrust again. You have available thrust. In some cases though like this one (playing monday morning QB here) it would be wise to perform a low energy go around which means you are on the back end of the powercurve and the power may or may not be fully retarted at that point already. I can see several potential scenario's based on what I have heard, read and talked to people about that incident. I talked to a ramp controller in CLT I know about it as well who was working that night and the visibility was 0 from their perspective up there. If I am not mistaken though the last time I was in that tower was over the summer while visiting with a friend there there is no ground radar in place yet though they are in fact getting it in the near future from the explination I was given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m.marra

[i]
What is the decision height for an MD-80? Isn't 300' a little late to do a missed approach?

---

Not at all - even for a CAT I ILS.

Most CAT I ILS' have a DH at 200' height above touchdown. Sometime it can be a little higher, but in no case will it be below 200'. Most CAT I approaches will have weather mins with ceiling and vis (i.e. 200 & 1/2). On the approach, usually the PNF will make altitude callouts (i.e. 100' above etc..) and at decision height the PF will announce intentions (i.e. runway in sight, landing). You don't even have to see the runway at 200' to continue the approach, all you must have is the runway environment (i.e. rabbits, termination bar, PAPI/VASI etc...) You must have the runway in sight at 100' to actually land, or you have to go missed.

CAT II ILS' have DH below 200' but no lower than 100' above the HAT. CATII ILS' weather mins are (always I believe) in RVR. I believe you have to have the runway in sight at DH for CAT II ILS' to continue the approach. I BELIEVE all you need for CAT II capability is a radar altimeter along with qualified CAT II crews (which I also believe is airline specific).

Then you get into three categories of CAT III approaches: a, b and c. Each is more restrictive than the last, with a CAT IIIc ILS having 0/0 as mins, requiring not only autoland equipment on the aircraft but crew certification according to FAA requirements. CAT III ILS' are similar to CAT II approaches in that they use RVRs which are generally lower than CAT II RVR's and their DHs are lower than 100'.

I've only flown CAT I approaches in my short flying career and even though the KC-10 was built to be able to do CATIII approaches, the Air Force didn't spend the money to keep the equipment certified or the time to keep crews certified, so someone correct me if I'm wrong with any of the above. In flight school, during a wx recall, we flew an approach down to mins for a CAT I. I thought it would have been a lot more dramatic because we got the rabbits just before DH and didn't see the termination bars until right after, but it really wasn't anything that felt rushed or too abnormal. I'm sure a CATIII is a load of fun, although I imagine George is flying the approach until the last minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

In fact, American's MD crew blew it whether it was their fault or faulty equipments fault. AA's guidline is at 1,000 feet AGL you have to be configured (flaps and gear etc) on sink (sinkrate) and spooled which is for that exact reason.

---

Was the crew configured, on speed and on glidepath by 1000'AGL in this case? If so I'm not sure sure they "blew it" at that point. Other crews had reported problems with the ILS. Maybe their autopilot was bringing them in slightly off-centerline but within limits. If they clicked the A/P off at 300' AGL to continue the approach I would imagine they should have been stable with only minor deviations to correct back on centerline and glideslope (either that or they were way off, saw the runway and tried to correct back). Wing scrape in heavy fog (usually indicative of no wind) probably means that they were correcting back to centerline at some point during short final/flare, landed wing low and dragged the tip. The MD80 has some low wings that stick out pretty far, so it probably doesn't take much bank to drag a tip.

Sure, the mistake will ultimately end up being the crew's fault for not initiating a go-around instead of trying to salvage a bad short-final and landing. Not making excuses for them, but I read somewhere that they were at the end of a 14 hour day, in bad weather... It's tough, I'm sure all of us (especially myself :) ) have made some approaches and landings where after we land we tell ourselves that we probably should have gone around... It's not an excuse but it happens.

I agree, I say they blew it but your right in that sense I am playing monday morning sports writer to the event. I say they blew it because they didnt go around but your 100% correct. And that landing could have been anyone so with that I retract my harsh judgement.

They don't call Mad Dogs "Skidbuggy"s for nothing.....

Tom

link for Avherald

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4243a3f8&opt=0

Funny, in 2008 during my first run at Vaughn, I was in the observation tower and I watched an AA MD-80 land on 4 at LGA. I have to say the PIC was nuts. Not only did he do a good bit of gliding just above the runway, but when he touched down, he then bounced like 50 feet in the air and then touched down for good at least halfway to the end of the runway. This was a good weather day, so I am assuming that is why he didn't abort the landing altogether and go around. It still looked like a pretty close call, he exited the runway at the very end.

Sometimes from a flight deck your perspective can also be a bit skewed. It can look like your going alot slower than you are first off and that can be greatly increased because most of the time your not heads down after touchdown. You arent on your instremunt scan. Your outside using visuals to gauge everything. Granted there are speed callouts from the PNF but sometimes judgement can get you. LGA is no place to play in any conditions though. I once along with another member of this site from the tower watched an AA MD touchdown on 31slightly past mid point on the runway after three bounces starting with a initial touchdown in front of the US terminal. They went to the last turnoff and you could litteraly see them ruddering her from left to right buying up even the slightest smidgen of distance to slow down. They made it obviously but I think that was the only time at least at LGA I questioned whether an airplane was going to be in the drink or not on landing.


As far as being unstablized goes though in a jet particularly that is not someplace you want to be on approach. It more than likely means your going to be chasing airspeed with power back and fourth, and probably on the trim constantly because of the fact your on the power and it turns into a parabola. Up and down and up and down. Just not smart. If you cant stabilize it by your particular employers required point in the approach than do not chase it. That is why we have so many landing accidents and that is why airlines impliment these stabilization requirements.
The 727 was a big teacher to airlines about approaches and why certain things need to be a certain way. For one reason, the old turbojets take alot longer to spool than a newer more modern high bypass turbofan. What that means is that there is a lag of a few seconds between when you stand them up to when the engine begins to actually respond and reach your commanded power setting. Thus increasing the time it take you to "get out of dodge" so to speak. The MD-80 family has a more modernized and larger version of the 727's engine (P&W JT8).