American Airlines Crash at Kingston Jamaica

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmedford

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose135

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)...

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmedford

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmedford

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Attention has been redirected to the Xmas attempted attack.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Basically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

- 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.

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

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerslice

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daneyd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

---

What was the purpose of that last post???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

What was the purpose of that last post???

---

Its called a repost onto a new page so it will get answered.

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.

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: )....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose135

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

---

The puddle jumper known as the 135? :lol:

Quote:

---

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"...