Printable View
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 guess this is exactly why pilots fly the needles and don't analyze the causes.
Untill you run low on fuel. Then your stuck bewteen a rock and a hardplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
Idk i'm i'm being humored or insaulted there......Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanglus
Pretzels get insalted. I think it was a playful joke.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
Didn't get around to checking on this one, but I got it as well....
nice shot tom
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
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...
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?Quote:
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
And BTW a lot of crash investigators are pilots themselves....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
wow! EXCELLENT!!!! You sold me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
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:
Yo, my piece ain't spoken yet son! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
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?
non-wingletted 738's just look strange to me these days. are there any still flying here in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
i like the way you think!Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/14/69/87/53/img_0011.jpg
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
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.
[quote=USAF Pilot 07]Yo, my piece ain't spoken yet son! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by "Phil D.":n9073a7i
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.
That was a reply to Phil's post about a "piece"...Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
Yea they didn't go around after landing halfway down the runway. That's what was done wrong...Quote:
Obviously something was done wrong.
$20 says that if they landed in the landing zone we wouldn't be having this discussion today...
that's probably true. Sorry about the age reference. I thought you were referring to me.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Yea. Combine alot of this stuff and crap happens. Not what you want crap either.
anything new on the investigation?
Nothing that I know ofQuote:
Originally Posted by 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/h...te-on-6007.ece