Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rough Night For AA 1226  
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11503 times:

It was extremely foggy last night at MSY as AA 1226, an MD82 enroute from DFW began it's approach to Runway 10. Descended to about 1700 feet when a missed approach was intiated. The aircraft was vectored to the south and then back around for another try for 10. This time he got down to about 800 feet and decided diverting to BTR was the better option. A couple hours later, he was able to finally land at MSY.

You can watch the sequence here:
Select date 12/12 and time start of 19:29 and you should see him coming into the picture from the west.

http://www4.passur.com/msy.html



And the Flightaware tracks:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL1226


The ATIS at about 09:00pm was reporting 1/4 mile visibilty with ceiling 100 foot indefinite which granted is pretty tough, but aside from an Expressjet ERJ, everybody else got in. I know we're just throwing things out there, but can anybody offer an idea of a possible reason he went missed at 1700 feet and then again at 800 feet the next time around when almost no one else went missed? Is there any different instrumentation on the Mad Dog?

[Edited 2006-12-13 22:08:50]


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZBA320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11414 times:

Looks like the SWA 733 behind it landed first time around.

Pretty interesting with PASSUR  Smile Good find 71zulu  Smile



An Engineer made a bet that a 747 Gear wouldn't retract in a Hangar. He lost the bet.
User currently offlineLawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 972 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11295 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Thread starter):
I know we're just throwing things out there, but can anybody offer an idea of a possible reason he went missed at 1700 feet and then again at 800 feet the next time around when almost no one else went missed?

It's possible that the captain is a "high-minimums" captain. He doesn't have the time (either as a captain, or as a captain on that type of equipment) do make an approach to the published minimums.

Or he could be chicken... laughing 


User currently offlineBbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11295 times:

Quoting ZBA320 (Reply 1):
Pretty interesting with PASSUR

Definitely! I looked at LGA and zoomed out to 80 miles...it's crazy with all the traffic to and from LGA, JFK, and EWR!


User currently offlineZRHnerd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11230 times:

I had a similiar experience when spotting at ZRH's Rwy 14 a few months ago with fellow a.netter Antti Salo. It was extremely foggy that morning, visibility on the ground must have been about 50-100 meters as we had troubles actually seeing any arrivals landing on Rwy14. None of the arrivals seemed to havy any troubles getting down until a Lufthansa 737 failed twice due to "negative visble contact" and diverted back to FRA from where he came from, I found that to be quite odd but didn't make much of it.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10975 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Thread starter):
I know we're just throwing things out there, but can anybody offer an idea of a possible reason he went missed at 1700 feet and then again at 800 feet the next time around when almost no one else went missed?

First, a couple of points to consider...

1. If you were getting your altitude info from Passur (or any other ASD provider for that matter), there's a little bit of a lag in info. Additionally, while these sources seem to be accurate as far as cruise altitudes go, it's been my experience that they're often inaccurate during transitions like climb and descents. I'll come back to the reason why this is important shortly.

2. The visibility reduction caused by fog can and do vary, literally from one minute to the next, so the ATIS is useless for reporting it accurately. ATIS is nothing more than a "snapshot" of what the conditions were at that time. When visibility gets to be 1 mile or less, the tower also starts reporting visibility expressed in RVR (runway visual range), which is measured in feet. Tower will normally update the ATIS one per hour, or when certain major changes take place, but they don't do so for fluctuating RVR readings.

3. There are three different ILS approaches for the ILS 10 at MSY, one each for CAT-I, CAT-II, and CAT-III, and each has a minimum visibility (also expressed in RVR) required. Pretty much anyone can shoot an approach down to CAT-I minimums (except those newly upgraded captains with less than 100 hrs as captain, as someone noted, and their mins are a little higher until they reach that 100 hr. mark), but CAT-II and CAT-III ops require special equipment, flightcrew training, and authorization from the FAA.

The CAT-I ILS has minimums of RVR 1800:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00609I10.PDF

The CAT-II ILS has minimums of RVR 1500 or 1200:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00609I10C2.PDF

The CAT-III ILS has minimums of RVR 700: (CAT-IIIa)
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00609I10C3.PDF

I don't know what kind of CAT-II or CAT-III capability that AA's MD-80s have (maybe AAR90 can chime in here), but SWA's 737's can go down to the CAT-IIIa mins of RVR 700.

4. The regs say that you have to have the minimum RVR reported for the type of approach that you intend to use, and that's before you commence the approach. If the RVR is OK when you start the approach, but goes below the minimums during the approach, you're allowed to continue as long as the aircraft is on the final approach segment, which starts at glideslope intercept. If you're on that final approach segment, you can descend down to the appropriate decision altitude (200 feet off the ground for a CAT-I, lower for the others) and if you can't see the approach lights or runway environment once down there, you have to go missed approach.

All three ILS approaches have initial altitudes of 2000 feet, and start down from there, so had the altitudes you mentioned actually been 1700 and 800 feet, they'd have been on the final approach segment, and could have descended to at least 200 feet before possibly going missed approach.

Bottomline here is that I think it was just a case of the RVR bouncing around above/below minimums from minute-to-minute, and the AA flights maybe needed 1800 or 1500/1200 to land and didn't get it when they needed it, while the RVR stayed above the 700 that SWA needed. If AA MD-80s are indeed CAT-III capable, it could have also been the luck of the draw as far as SWA having 700 when they started the appoach and AA getting 600 when they started.


User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10861 times:

Don't two misses mandate a divert to an alternate?


Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineBigJimFX From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
SWA's 737's can go down to the CAT-IIIa mins of RVR 700.

I remember reading some where that WN was getting HUD's in some of their newer 737's. I know that most CAT III Approaches need 3 (I think) Autopilots, and a current pilot. With the HUD's and enhanced vision, do you still need the redundant systems and currency?



I'd like to thank me for flying Me Airways...
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10644 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
2. The visibility reduction caused by fog can and do vary, literally from one minute to the next, so the ATIS is useless for reporting it accurately. ATIS is nothing more than a "snapshot" of what the conditions were at that time. When visibility gets to be 1 mile or less, the tower also starts reporting visibility expressed in RVR (runway visual range), which is measured in feet. Tower will normally update the ATIS one per hour, or when certain major changes take place, but they don't do so for fluctuating RVR readings.

I would suspect that this is more the reason. A few weeks ago I was landing at DTW on Thanksgiving day. The fog was horrible. After holding for 30 minutes I was vectored for the approach and made it in. But almost immediately after I landed, the fog ate everything up and the plane behind me missed. When I was taxing back out, about an hour later, the fog was so thick you could barely see two taxi lights and could barely read the taxi markings. Needless to say it was a very slow taxi. However, once we were airbourne, we popped out of the fog at about 200 AGL. Fog is some very strange stuff, which varies by the minute. You never know what you will get until on the approach!



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10611 times:

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 6):
Don't two misses mandate a divert to an alternate?

No FAR to that effect, and I can't imagine any company having that requirement as a policy. Not saying that none do, necessarily, just that I'm not aware of any. Having such a policy would sort of hamper operational flexibility...

Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 7):
I remember reading some where that WN was getting HUD's in some of their newer 737's.

With the retirement of the -200s (2 years ago next month), all of SWA's -300s, -500s, and all but two of the -700 aircraft are HGS-equipped. (The two recently acquired Ford 737-705s don't yet have HGS but will get them in early 2007.) HGS approaches are hand-flown.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Thread starter):
I know we're just throwing things out there, but can anybody offer an idea of a possible reason he went missed at 1700 feet and then again at 800 feet the next time around when almost no one else went missed?



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
If you were getting your altitude info from Passur (or any other ASD provider for that matter), there's a little bit of a lag in info.

True. He may have gone missed at the MAP, but the last data indicated the 1700 and 800 ft altitudes. I have had flightaware tell me that an aircraft is at 900 ft on a 1 mile final when I look at the window and see it taxi in.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 2):
Or he could be chicken...

You are probably the same guy that critiques every cockpit decision from your seat in back.  sarcastic 



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10378 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
I don't know what kind of CAT-II or CAT-III capability that AA's MD-80s have (maybe AAR90 can chime in here)...

I looked at this particular flight's flight plan and it indicated both crew and acft were CAT-III status. Electronic logbook shows nothing I saw that would affect that status -though it has been a long time since I was intimately familiar with the MD80 fleet.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
it could have also been the luck of the draw as far as SWA having 700 when they started the appoach and AA getting 600 when they started.

The most logical answer. AA's OpSummery simply states the divert was due to MSY weather, the flight refiled and returned to MSY.

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 6):
Don't two misses mandate a divert to an alternate?

No, but that's about the right amount of time available based upon the fuel load at time of dispatch.

Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 7):
With the HUD's and enhanced vision, do you still need the redundant systems and currency?

Not redundant systems, but the Captain needs to maintain currency --can be done during normal line ops.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9615 times:

Here's a good example of how RVRs can bounce around and otherwise vary.

If you were at HOU or IAH this morning, it'd have looked pretty foggy, with HOU reporting 1/16th of a mile visibility, and IAH reporting 0 visibility. Here's what the RVRs were for the varous runways at those same times...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d143/OPNLguy/RVRS.jpg

Click the image for a closer view...

TD is the RVR for the touchdown area of the runway
MP is the RVR for the mid-point area of the runway
RO is the RVR for the roll-out area of the runway

[Edited 2006-12-14 16:57:01]

User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8193 times:

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 2):
Or he could be chicken...

Nobody calls me (him) chicken....Ahh Back to the Future


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8193 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
If the RVR is OK when you start the approach, but goes below the minimums during the approach, you're allowed to continue as long as the aircraft is on the final approach segment, which starts at glideslope intercept.

That pisses me off.

I just did my instrument stage check and the check pilot asked me, "You're on an ILS approach where the mins are 4mi vis (ILS 34R at Reno IIRC), you have the runway environment in sight, descend below MDA, and are in a normal position to land, but visibility is now 3mi. What do you do?" I said you land. He's like no, you go missed.

AFAIK, I was wrong to a point, but AFAIK, he was right to a point as well.

I thought it was a dumb question and that it would be unlikely to happen anyways, but I guess after reading this thread it can happen.

Whatever, I still passed with flying colors Big grin


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7865 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
If you were getting your altitude info from Passur (or any other ASD provider for that matter), there's a little bit of a lag in info.

Although generally that 'lag' is for all of the data....i.e. Flightaware and Passur is delayed for FAA requirements for a min 5 minutes.

The position and altitude 'should' match up, although it might be 5 minutes or more from it's current position.

...note I said 'should' !

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 15):
The position and altitude 'should' match up, although it might be 5 minutes or more from it's current position.

...note I said 'should' !

You're right, and I probably could have better differentiated between the data's timeliness and accuracy, and it was the latter I was commenting on. Indeed, it "should" match up, but we all know how that goes...  Wink


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7356 times:

Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 7):
I remember reading some where that WN was getting HUD's in some of their newer 737's. I know that most CAT III Approaches need 3 (I think) Autopilots, and a current pilot. With the HUD's and enhanced vision, do you still need the redundant systems and currency?

Of course you would still need redundant systems and currency. HUD flying, while extremely precise, is not like following the regular instrumentation in an aircraft. In my experience, flying a HUD approach basically entails keeping a small circle inside a larger circle all the way down until you see the runway environment. While this may sound easy at its most rote stage, you also have to maneuver the throttles, gear, checklist, etc...all doing it in a different way than most approaches are normally flown.

Not that this is incredibly difficult, but like anything flying-related, it does call for some regular training and practice to make one good to airline standards.

And for redundancy, well, what if the HUD's light goes out? (rhetorical question)



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineVegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

If you take a closer look, two planes go into a hold over Lake Maureaps after the second missed approach by AA. I am guessing the fog was bad ...

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
40 MIN Enough At LAX For AA-UA. posted Fri Dec 8 2006 05:44:05 by Boston92
Rough Start For LAS-MCE-VIS posted Sat Dec 2 2006 03:23:38 by HPLASOps
Possible 787s For AA And UA posted Mon Oct 30 2006 17:12:40 by 1337Delta764
Used 757's For AA? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 01:57:16 by TAN FLYR
Cheers For AA posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:45:51 by CVG2LGA
Could STL become a hub Again For AA posted Tue Aug 8 2006 17:06:56 by Ultrapig
Equipment Changes For AA Out Of SFO 9/6 posted Fri Aug 4 2006 21:05:20 by Funbird1
How Much Longer For AA JFK-ZRH posted Mon Jul 17 2006 03:23:57 by ContinentalEWR
New J Seats For AA 767 Upate posted Tue Jun 6 2006 06:27:39 by Dc10s4ever
Working For AA At DFW posted Tue May 30 2006 18:35:25 by PHXMKEflyer