mxaxai wrote:

No. Once the reversers are out and/or any noticeable braking has occured you won't attempt to go around any more. Spoilers are afaik a bit more variable since these are usually automatically deployed on touchdown, can be stowed quickly and don't actually slow the aircraft much. You have a few seconds to press the TOGA button, e. g. if you bounce.

Re failed brakes; reverse thrust alone will eventually stop the plane but the landing distance will be far greater. Here's a report of a full brake failure on an Alitalia A321 that deccelerated to ~ 40 knots within ~ 2500 m (8200 ft): http://avherald.com/h?article=43e9ebf7 Slowing to a full stop took another couple 100 meters.

AirKevin wrote:

Once the reversers are deployed, you're committed to the landing. If you were to attempt a go-around with the reversers deployed and for some reason, one of them didn't stow properly, things are going to get very messy very quickly.

Thank you both. In that case, I'm guessing the main question will be whether the landing should have been attempted, or whether the pilots should have executed a go-around before landing. And of course an investigation of whether the proper landing procedures were followed and whether there were any mechanical failures. So could be pilot error or could be a mechanical failure.

Reminds me a little bit of AA1420 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420). That one was pilot error -- probably should not have landed in the conditions anyway, and did not complete the landing checklist and had not armed the autospoilers or autobrakes. Of course I'm not saying the same thing happened here and I don't intend to malign the pilots since this easily could have been a brake failure or something like that. But it was an overrun on a wet runway with t-storms in the area. Thankfully the outcome here was not nearly as bad as AA1420 (11 fatalities and many very serious injuries in that case).

Thanks also for the link to the Alitalia A321 incident. That's a heck of a loop around the taxiways. Impressive work by that crew.

cwienck wrote:

I fly P-8s at NAS Jax. The weather was not ideal, our runway isn't grooved, and the first 1000 feet of the runway is NOTAM'd closed due to some construction. (Bringing the length from 9000 to 8000 feet). I'm not gonna talk hypotheticals, but there isn't much room for error flaring on this runway. Also, it's almost exactly 1000 feet from last brick to the water at the end. Glad to see nothing more serious happened.

A thousand feet from the end of the runway to the river sounds like a good candidate for EMAS.

There is a very simple reason why the long-bodied 737s are more prone to overruns, and that's because of very high approach and landing speeds. It's not unusual to see a Vref in the 150-160 knot range, some 30-40 knots above stall speed, in order to have a flat approach to avoid tail strikes. Compare that to an A320, which usually lands at around 120-140 knots.

I would have thought the lesson of not landing during a TRW would have sunk in, plus the lessons of various overruns during tailwind landings to wet runways.

Any updates on the animals? I would imagine these are dogs? I hope they are okay!

N766UA wrote:

It’s my understanding that the 737, particularly the -700, has significantly better runway performance than the 320. Hence why you see them in EYW, for example. Total conjecture, but perhaps 737’s tend to operate from shorter runways more often than 320’s, hence an increased risk? Personally I think it’s all coincidence, but...

If you start comparing, it should the -700 vs. the 319 and the -800 vs. 320. Performance-wise, capacity-wise etc.

Gonzalo wrote:

Simple, almost 11.000 737´s has been built through the different versions, it is the most prolific aircraft type in commercial aviation history.
A logical consequence is that they are involved in more incidents and accidents compared with other types, as you have more car wrecks involving Chevorlets and Fords compared to Infinity or Lexus.

This argument has been brought up repeatedly, but has anybody cared to check the facts? Since 1988, 8.600+ A32X aircraft have been delivered, compared to 10.500+ Boeing 737 since 1967. So the total number of aircraft in service of both types should be roughly similar, given Boeing's 20 year longer production run and the approx. 1.500 deliveries during that period.

kalvado wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The 737NG has 0.27 hull losses per million departures

The A320 has 0.26 hull losses per million departures.

737 seems to have more runway overruns specifically. Would be interesting to look at that specific statistics

I have made this point on more than one occasion; hull losses is a very broad term and includes losses due to terrorism, suicidal pilots, and other factors that are totally unrelated to aircraft type. (Unless terrorists are specifically targeting Boeing aircraft?)

A320 hull losses due to runway overruns (since 1988)
FOUR that I can readily identify
PR 137, TAM 3054, PR 475, TACA 390,
I'm inclined to exclude US 1702 because it was after a rejected take off. But I'm open to persuasion...

Boeing 737NG (since 1997)
SEVEN
WN 1248, AA 331, YD 620, BW 523, UT 579, MF 8667, PC 8622

Four losses versus seven is still not exactly statistically relevant. If the next overrun happens to be an A320, the difference is almost down to a matter of chance.

There will also be more incidents where the damage was repairable; I have no data for that. One shining example of this is the Pence plane, Eastern 3452 at LGA.

Across all aircraft types, IATA reported 98 commercial taxiway/runway excursions in just four years (2009-2013), but as 90% of these events resulted in no fatalities, they often fail to reach the headlines.

What might be more relevant in the comparison above is the period of time covered (& hence number of flight hours/number of landing cycles) because we are only considering the NG version of the 737. (NG flown commercially in 1997, A320 in 1988)

FlyHossD wrote:

A thousand feet from the end of the runway to the river sounds like a good candidate for EMAS.

Unfortunately it may have helped in this case, but it probably isn’t a good candidate for EMAS... Giving that it is a Naval field, they have arresting cables for this kind of situations during normal ops.

Etheereal wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Glad all are safe. Has to be a nerve wracking experience. Hopefully the media doesn't start some mass 737 hysteria now, however....

I got from google notifs as a "new 737 max story" .. just to talk about hysteria and fake news.

The way Google & their cookies work on my computer, I would be just as likely to get news about Max (Light Rail, Portland), Max bus line (Utah), and Maximilian II (Holy Roman Emperor)
Cookies are strange things....
Are you sure it wasn't just giving you a "new 737 story" which some internet algorithm automatically tagged with a "max" because it would guarantee to get your attention. That's not hysteria, that's just click-bait and modern marketing in action.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The 737NG has 0.27 hull losses per million departures

The A320 has 0.26 hull losses per million departures.

737 seems to have more runway overruns specifically. Would be interesting to look at that specific statistics

I have made this point on more than one occasion; hull losses is a very broad term and includes losses due to terrorism, suicidal pilots, and other factors that are totally unrelated to aircraft type. (Unless terrorists are specifically targeting Boeing aircraft?)

A320 hull losses due to runway overruns (since 1988)
FOUR that I can readily identify
PR 137, TAM 3054, PR 475, TACA 390,
I'm inclined to exclude US 1702 because it was after a rejected take off. But I'm open to persuasion...

Boeing 737NG (since 1997)
SEVEN
WN 1248, AA 331, YD 620, BW 523, UT 579, MF 8667, PC 8622

Four losses versus seven is still not exactly statistically relevant. If the next overrun happens to be an A320, the difference is almost down to a matter of chance.

Using your train of thought, for the A320 it is one overrun every 7.75 years, for the 737NG one overrun every 3.14 years. Sounds like a difference to me. An additional A320 overrun, as suggested, would change the A320 figure to 6.2, still only half of that of the 737NG.

AirKevin wrote:

achmafooma wrote:

Runway overruns seem to be (relatively) common, as air accidents go. I'm curious how long pilots have to initiate a go-around...I usually hear about 'em when they miss the approach or aren't lined up properly or something, but once you're on the ground and you aren't slowing down fast enough, can you initiate a go-around at that point? Obviously it depends on your speed and how much runway you have ahead of you...but in a typical landing scenario, is there time to deploy the speed brakes and reversers, figure out that they aren't doing enough, and do a go around?

Once the reversers are deployed, you're committed to the landing. If you were to attempt a go-around with the reversers deployed and for some reason, one of them didn't stow properly, things are going to get very messy very quickly.

There actually was a fatal crash in Canada with a 737-200 for this. They saw a snowplow on the runway after the reversers were deployed and attempted a rejected landing. One of the reversers didn’t restow properly. It got messy.

As he correctly notes, the Boeing manuals state that once reverse thrust is selected, a full stop landing must be made.

zkojq wrote:

bgm wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

It’s also the most popular airplane in the world, so wouldn’t that mean that most overruns would have a higher likelihood of being a 737?

The A320 series is also very popular but you don’t see anywhere near the number of runway overruns as the 737, specifically the NG.

Indeed. ROPS is a key reason for that.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

Please note that I'm not flaming the 737NG or anything.

Actually Boeing has developed something like this too, which is on some newer 737NGs and 737Max. It will also be on the 777X.

It’s called ORW or Overrun Warning.

Glad that everyone is OK. There are several possibilities, why this happened. I am looking forward to the final report.

CrimsonNL wrote:

I've never heard of anyone here having bad experiences with them, unlike some of the Eastern-European airlines that operate these leases as well.

Any specific airline(s) that you have in mind?

Thanks!

F9Animal wrote:

Any updates on the animals? I would imagine these are dogs? I hope they are okay!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/04/pets-still-not-found-plane-crashed-landed-jacksonville/1100509001/

This article presumes them all dead.

bgm wrote:

Yet another 737 runway overrun. Why do these incidents always seem to be on that aircraft? Higher approach speeds vs other aircraft?

Well one reason is there's about a billion 737 flying.

astaz wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

A thousand feet from the end of the runway to the river sounds like a good candidate for EMAS.

Unfortunately it may have helped in this case, but it probably isn’t a good candidate for EMAS... Giving that it is a Naval field, they have arresting cables for this kind of situations during normal ops.

P8s and P3s have arresting gear??

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A320 hull losses due to runway overruns (since 1988)
FOUR that I can readily identify
PR 137, TAM 3054, PR 475, TACA 390,
I'm inclined to exclude US 1702 because it was after a rejected take off. But I'm open to persuasion...

There was that Lufthansa A320 in Warsaw years ago because of hydroplaning and spoilers not deploying.

I was surprised to read the NAS JAX P8 pilot said the runway is not grooved at NAS JAX.

Since the runway was completely rebuilt why didn't the reconstruction include grooves in the runway to provide better drainage ?

Daily summer thunderstorms with heavy downpours are normal here just like when this incident took place.

G500Captain wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

cwienck wrote:

I fly P-8s at NAS Jax. The weather was not ideal, our runway isn't grooved, and the first 1000 feet of the runway is NOTAM'd closed due to some construction. (Bringing the length from 9000 to 8000 feet). I'm not gonna talk hypotheticals, but there isn't much room for error flaring on this runway. Also, it's almost exactly 1000 feet from last brick to the water at the end. Glad to see nothing more serious happened.

Thanks for that info about the runway condition. It matches my thoughts. METAR was gusts at 290, mist, 800 scattered.

Umm, the weather wasn’t that good. Here are the METARs and the touchdown was around 0144Z. How many planes do we have to lose due to landing with a tailwind in a thunderstorm? It just baffles the mind!!

KNIP 040217Z 00000KT 10SM -TSRA SCT025CB BKN080 BKN120 BKN250 24/21 A2997 RMK AO2 OCNL LTGIC VC E TS E MOV E T1 SET P0000 T02390211 $
KNIP 040153Z 13003KT 2SM +TSRA BR SCT010 BKN021CB OVC035 23/21 A2998 RMK AO2 TSB04 SLP149 FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E T1 SET P0074 T02280206 $
KNIP 040145Z 29008G16KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN015CB OVC032 24/22 A2999 RMK AO2 TSB04 FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E T1 SET P0063 T02440222 $
KNIP 040122Z 35004KT 5SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN018CB OVC030 24/22 A2998 RMK AO2 TSB04 FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E T1 SET P0010 T02440222 $
KNIP 040105Z COR 08003KT 10SM -TSRA SCT008 BKN030CB BKN045 BKN250 25/23 A2997 RMK AO2 TSB04 OCNL LTGIC VC W TS W MOV E T1 SET P0000 T02500228 $
KNIP 040103Z 06003KT 10SM -RA SCT008 BKN030CB BKN250 25/23 A2997 RMK AO2 OCNL LTGIC DSNT SW CB DSNT SW T2 SET P0000 T02500228 $
KNIP 040053Z 00000KT 10SM -RA SCT010 BKN030 BKN045 BKN250 25/22 A2997 RMK AO2 RAB52 SLP143 OCNL LTGIC DSNT SW CB DSNT SW T2 SET P0000 T02500222 $

Assuming they knew what the wind was. Was less than consistant. Hopefully they were updated on it. Military towers operate different than civilian ones.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Glad all are safe. Has to be a nerve wracking experience. Hopefully the media doesn't start some mass 737 hysteria now, however....

Drudge (who else?!?) has a a headline "final moments of miracle plane". Oh, puh-leeeze!

Military towers work under the same rules as FAA towers with some added mil-specific rules or procedures. I’m sure the crew were given the winds, probably several times on final. With a thunderstorm overhead, I’m sure winds were varying in direction and speed.

GF

5:00 pm Eastern NTSB briefing live now at https://www.firstcoastnews.com/

rayfound wrote:

bgm wrote:

Yet another 737 runway overrun. Why do these incidents always seem to be on that aircraft? Higher approach speeds vs other aircraft?

Well one reason is there's about a billion 737 flying.

And there are ‘about a billion’ A32X flying but you don’t see them running off runways at anywhere near the rate of 737s.

Do the 737s come in faster for for some reason? Poorer braking ability?

Well, there was an A320 overrun in remarkably similar conditions in Peshawar two weeks ago.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c710ccd&opt=0

GF

5:00 pm Eastern NTSB briefing notes; thanks to https://www.firstcoastnews.com/ for carrying the presser live online:

...Brunce Lanceberg VP of NTSB speaker:
...major investigation for NTSB, 16 team members at NAS Jacksonville;
...what is known... 9:49 pm landing... runway 10 landing (VP misspoke and said 11 earlier)... minor injuries... a/c departed right side of runway at the end;
...a/c built in 2001 with no previous accidents or incidents to airframe;
...Runway 11 is not grooved;
...Miami Air owns five 737-800, noted previous Miami Air 737 incident of hard landing at College Station, TX;
...no information on the status of the pets in the hold, acknowledges possible loss of pets;
...FDR recovered undamaged and en route to Washington, DC;
...CVR is in the tail and is underwater - not yet recovered;
...future updates on NTSB_Newsroom Twitter feed....
<Q&A>
...where are the pets? Captain Mike Conner, NAS Jacksonville base commander stated that initial responders did go into hold and did not hear any animal noises in the hold and backed out... no pet carriers above the water line observed...continuing to try to verify the status of the pets...[[Jason's note based on base commander's body language and tone: doesn't look good for the pets ]]
...US Department of Defense fire fighters were first to arrive on scene;
...NTSB has not spoken to the crew...interviews being set up...interviews hoped for Sunday;
...NAS Jacksonville airport closed until further notice;
...no final plans for how the a/c will be removed from the Saint John's River;
...water depth around 4 to 6 feet;
...DoD firefighters responded on the scene in less than 2 minutes, ARRTF station nearby;
...Runway renovated in 2016, has a center crown, project was largely to improve the cross slope to 1%-1.5%, grooving is not required by US Navy;
...41 people were transported, of those 19 were friends or family, 22 were passengers, one 3 month old admitted for observation and is to be released Saturday;
...re: reporter's question on runway distance, "9,000 ft is not challenging for this airplane.";
...ideas to remove being considered, possibly floating with air cushions;
...reporter, "why was it flying so low?" [NTSB spokesperson: (blink blink), hands off to Navy];
...RNAV approach available for Runway 10;
...some leaking of jet fuel, US Coast Guard has installed booms on river; jet smell present but fuel well contained by booms;
...witness marks of mains and nosewheel between right side of the end of the runway and the stone seawall at river edge;

<End of press conference at 5:21 pm Eastern>

FlyKBHM wrote:

5:00 pm Eastern NTSB briefing notes; thanks to https://www.firstcoastnews.com/ for carrying the presser live online:

...Brunce Lanceberg VP of NTSB speaker:
...major investigation for NTSB, 16 team members at NAS Jacksonville;
...what is known... 9:49 pm landing... runway 10 landing (VP misspoke and said 11 earlier)... minor injuries... a/c departed right side of runway at the end;
...a/c built in 2001 with no previous accidents or incidents to airframe;
...Runway 11 is not grooved;
...Miami Air owns five 737-800, noted previous Miami Air 737 incident of hard landing at College Station, TX;
...no information on the status of the pets in the hold, acknowledges possible loss of pets;
...FDR recovered undamaged and en route to Washington, DC;
...CVR is in the tail and is underwater - not yet recovered;
...future updates on NTSB_Newsroom Twitter feed....
<Q&A>
...where are the pets? Captain Mike Conner, NAS Jacksonville base commander stated that initial responders did go into hold and did not hear any animal noises in the hold and backed out... no pet carriers above the water line observed...continuing to try to verify the status of the pets...[[Jason's note based on base commander's body language and tone: doesn't look good for the pets ]]
...US Department of Defense fire fighters were first to arrive on scene;
...NTSB has not spoken to the crew...interviews being set up...interviews hoped for Sunday;
...NAS Jacksonville airport closed until further notice;
...no final plans for how the a/c will be removed from the Saint John's River;
...water depth around 4 to 6 feet;
...DoD firefighters responded on the scene in less than 2 minutes, ARRTF station nearby;
...Runway renovated in 2016, has a center crown, project was largely to improve the cross slope to 1%-1.5%, grooving is not required by US Navy;
...41 people were transported, of those 19 were friends or family, 22 were passengers, one 3 month old admitted for observation and is to be released Saturday;
...re: reporter's question on runway distance, "9,000 ft is not challenging for this airplane.";
...ideas to remove being considered, possibly floating with air cushions;
...reporter, "why was it flying so low?" [NTSB spokesperson: (blink blink), hands off to Navy];
...RNAV approach available for Runway 10;
...some leaking of jet fuel, US Coast Guard has installed booms on river; jet smell present but fuel well contained by booms;
...witness marks of mains and nosewheel between right side of the end of the runway and the stone seawall at river edge;

<End of press conference at 5:21 pm Eastern>

Good summary. Thanks

bgm wrote:

Yet another 737 runway overrun. Why do these incidents always seem to be on that aircraft? Higher approach speeds vs other aircraft?

Because there's more 737s currently flying than any other aircraft?

Jouhou wrote:

bgm wrote:

Yet another 737 runway overrun. Why do these incidents always seem to be on that aircraft? Higher approach speeds vs other aircraft?

Because there's more 737s currently flying than any other aircraft?

There are more A320 family flying than 737s

kalvado wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

bgm wrote:

Yet another 737 runway overrun. Why do these incidents always seem to be on that aircraft? Higher approach speeds vs other aircraft?

Because there's more 737s currently flying than any other aircraft?

There are more A320 family flying than 737s

Any solid statistics on that? I would think that would be hard to track, but there has been more 737s produced since a320 family introduction. I can image the 737 max debacle though might be enough to tip the scales on "most produced since 1988"

https://www.mro-network.com/airframes/h ... plications

According to this, in Aug 2018 there were still more 737s in service if you include classics, and more a320 in service excluding classics.

vfw614 wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

Simple, almost 11.000 737´s has been built through the different versions, it is the most prolific aircraft type in commercial aviation history.
A logical consequence is that they are involved in more incidents and accidents compared with other types, as you have more car wrecks involving Chevorlets and Fords compared to Infinity or Lexus.

This argument has been brought up repeatedly, but has anybody cared to check the facts? Since 1988, 8.600+ A32X aircraft have been delivered, compared to 10.500+ Boeing 737 since 1967. So the total number of aircraft in service of both types should be roughly similar, given Boeing's 20 year longer production run and the approx. 1.500 deliveries during that period.

Whittle it down to just NG vs. A320. I still see that the NG has more instances of runway overruns.

Jouhou wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Because there's more 737s currently flying than any other aircraft?

There are more A320 family flying than 737s

Any solid statistics on that? I would think that would be hard to track, but there has been more 737s produced since a320 family introduction. I can image the 737 max debacle though might be enough to tip the scales on "most produced since 1988"

https://www.mro-network.com/airframes/h ... plications

According to this, in Aug 2018 there were still more 737s in service if you include classics, and more a320 in service excluding classics.

https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/exploitation.htm - click on a type, number in service is above page numbers.

kalvado wrote:

I see 7008 NG in service, and 865 older generation. Airbus got 1811 of 321, 4774 of 320, 2329 of 319 and 57 of 318, for a total of 8971
So it looks there are slightly more airbus narrowbodies flying.

So to summarize:

1) Based on the METARs someone posted above, this may have landed with a tail wind gusting to around 16 knots.
2) This landing was on a non-grooved runway
3) The runway was likely quite wet as there was heavy rain going on.
4) Airbus fans hate Boeing and Boeing fans hate Airbus

TUSDawg23 wrote:

For a small charter airline that only has 8 737NGs, this is probably going to be a big blow to their bottomline and hurt their reputation. I remember how quickly things went downhill at Eastern after the overrun at LGA with Pence onboard.

Eastern was already “dead man walking”. Their business plan didn’t include opening regular scheduled flights to Cuba. They had a very uphill battle. Yes, the overrun was bad publicity and strained the availability of aircraft for charters they had booked. It may have hastened their demise but that incident alone was not responsible for their demise.

(DISCLAIMER: Totally unsubstantiated rumor with poor sources follows.....do not read if you like statements based in facts—no flaming allowed) This is totally unsubstantiated and probably not even worth me typing but I did have “a friend of a friend” say a nearby Florida based aviation maintenance school would be interested in the plane or part of it anyways for training if it’s a WO and could be trucked and the price was right. Apparently they have already been looking for the right hunk of junk so to speak at the right price. Again totally unsubstantiated but perhaps a useful life for the gal after she’s pulled out of the river, albeit not flying.

Jouhou wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Because there's more 737s currently flying than any other aircraft?

There are more A320 family flying than 737s

Any solid statistics on that? I would think that would be hard to track, but there has been more 737s produced since a320 family introduction. I can image the 737 max debacle though might be enough to tip the scales on "most produced since 1988"

https://www.mro-network.com/airframes/h ... plications

According to this, in Aug 2018 there were still more 737s in service if you include classics, and more a320 in service excluding classics.

Just commenting on numbers. It does seem more A320 family are flying:

737: 865
737NG (incl. MAX): 7008
Total:. 7,873

CEO and NEO:
A318:. 57
A319: 1329
A320: 4774
A321: 1811
Total: 7,971

So close. A320 are, in general, newer if the 865 classics are included.

I used:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/exploitation.htm

That said, for years no accidents. I will fly either. I have little preference. I prefer airlines (service).

Lightsaber

edu2703 wrote:

Mayor says there is a commercial aircraft down in the St. Johns River

https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/1 ... 0347659270

It appears to be intact so it can be recovered and returned to service after repairs

Folks, keep posts civil and on topic. Post links for opinions. Further uncivil posts will result in bans.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The statistics on use on shorter runways in the United States show the impact of Southwest’s fleet

Yesterday there were 61 737 departures from BUR and only 6 A320 family

Yesterday there was 83 737 departures from SNA and only 18 A320 family

Ok, so if no one disputes the numbers above, and no one disputes that there are more A32X a/c flying than 737's, we can all agree that the chances of an A32X overrun at BUR is much less than a 737.
S what does that mean, the A32X is much safer at BUR?

strfyr51 wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Mayor says there is a commercial aircraft down in the St. Johns River

https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/1 ... 0347659270

It appears to be intact so it can be recovered and returned to service after repairs

Several days sitting in brackish water is not going to do good things to all the submerged parts. Might be able to salvage things that didn't get submerged, but the engines and avionics are under water and are in all likelihood done for. Maybe can sell someone some overhead cargo bins, and some cockpit instruments.

zuckie13 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Mayor says there is a commercial aircraft down in the St. Johns River

https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/1 ... 0347659270

It appears to be intact so it can be recovered and returned to service after repairs

Several days sitting in brackish water is not going to do good things to all the submerged parts. Might be able to salvage things that didn't get submerged, but the engines and avionics are under water and are in all likelihood done for. Maybe can sell someone some overhead cargo bins, and some cockpit instruments.

I doubt that a charter carrier would ever pay to bring an 18 year old 737 back up to flyable condition especially after sitting in the St Johns River for a couple of days. They could always go find another oldish 737 on the market for cheaper than the cost of fixing the aircraft up and use the accident aircraft as a parts donor for the other 7 737's.

Glad everyone is OK, sad the pets did not make it. Maybe landing on a different, longer runway it would have been better. Nothing we can do but wait for the report. Sounds like a complete write-off

par13del wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The statistics on use on shorter runways in the United States show the impact of Southwest’s fleet

Yesterday there were 61 737 departures from BUR and only 6 A320 family

Yesterday there was 83 737 departures from SNA and only 18 A320 family

Ok, so if no one disputes the numbers above, and no one disputes that there are more A32X a/c flying than 737's, we can all agree that the chances of an A32X overrun at BUR is much less than a 737.
S what does that mean, the A32X is much safer at BUR?

Airplanes are not “safe” or “unsafe”; only operations are safe or unsafe.

GF

B777LRF wrote:

There is a very simple reason why the long-bodied 737s are more prone to overruns, and that's because of very high approach and landing speeds. It's not unusual to see a Vref in the 150-160 knot range, some 30-40 knots above stall speed, in order to have a flat approach to avoid tail strikes. Compare that to an A320, which usually lands at around 120-140 knots.

Maybe speed is a contributing factor but not the real reason. Landing is not an act of guessing or reliance on experience. Landing distances are carefully calculated factoring in: flap configuration, gross weight, use of thrust reversers, runway slope, runway contamination or slipperiness (RCAM value), grooved or ungrooved, and a few other manufacturer specific functions such as brake set to Max, Medium, Low, or Off.

The pilots assess the runway condition by reading NOTAMs, getting an RCAM, getting a current weather reading such as an ATIS or tower report, then inputting that into a landing data computer/FMS/ACARS/or old fashioned charts. The aircraft has to fit within 60% OR 80% of the available landing distance, depending on what rules they are following.

Someone made a mistake in either:
- reporting better than actual field conditions. (e.g. tower not informing pilots that half the runway has contamination of more than 1/8" inch - e.g. standing water).
- pilots input assumptions incorrectly into landing computer numbers.
- brakes failed or anti-lock failed.
- other aircraft problem such as T/Rs not deploying by the assumptions of the landing data (what happened in Chicago to southwest).
- or some other pilot error such as not using the most current winds, not inputting all factors into the landing data (e.g. contaminated runway vs. simply wet runway), being faster than calculated in the landed phase, not using the braking level calculated, or some other pilot error.

Didn't someone say that not the entire runway was available? Pilots have to account for this in the Landing Distance Available (LDA) figure that is input into a chart, tab data, or computer to find out whether you're meeting the 60% or 80% of LDA factor.

greendot wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

There is a very simple reason why the long-bodied 737s are more prone to overruns, and that's because of very high approach and landing speeds. It's not unusual to see a Vref in the 150-160 knot range, some 30-40 knots above stall speed, in order to have a flat approach to avoid tail strikes. Compare that to an A320, which usually lands at around 120-140 knots.

Maybe speed is a contributing factor but not the real reason. Landing is not an act of guessing or reliance on experience. Landing distances are carefully calculated factoring in: flap configuration, gross weight, use of thrust reversers, runway slope, runway contamination or slipperiness (RCAM value), grooved or ungrooved, and a few other manufacturer specific functions such as brake set to Max, Medium, Low, or Off.

The pilots assess the runway condition by reading NOTAMs, getting an RCAM, getting a current weather reading such as an ATIS or tower report, then inputting that into a landing data computer/FMS/ACARS/or old fashioned charts. The aircraft has to fit within 60% OR 80% of the available landing distance, depending on what rules they are following.

Someone made a mistake in either:
- reporting better than actual field conditions. (e.g. tower not informing pilots that half the runway has contamination of more than 1/8" inch - e.g. standing water).
- pilots input assumptions incorrectly into landing computer numbers.
- brakes failed or anti-lock failed.
- other aircraft problem such as T/Rs not deploying by the assumptions of the landing data (what happened in Chicago to southwest).
- or some other pilot error such as not using the most current winds, not inputting all factors into the landing data (e.g. contaminated runway vs. simply wet runway), being faster than calculated in the landed phase, not using the braking level calculated, or some other pilot error.

Didn't someone say that not the entire runway was available? Pilots have to account for this in the Landing Distance Available (LDA) figure that is input into a chart, tab data, or computer to find out whether you're meeting the 60% or 80% of LDA factor.

which is true; but less required stopping distance provides more safety margin on the same runway other things equal

FF630 wrote:

I was surprised to read the NAS JAX P8 pilot said the runway is not grooved at NAS JAX.

Since the runway was completely rebuilt why didn't the reconstruction include grooves in the runway to provide better drainage ?

Good question. Everyone asked the same thing. KVQQ seemed like a better airport to operate out of. A bit remote but at least a fully bagged P-8 never had problems with TOLD or anything. After this fiasco I wonder if they'll decide to groove the runway and send everyone back to Cecil (probably not)

B777LRF wrote:

There is a very simple reason why the long-bodied 737s are more prone to overruns, and that's because of very high approach and landing speeds. It's not unusual to see a Vref in the 150-160 knot range, some 30-40 knots above stall speed, in order to have a flat approach to avoid tail strikes. Compare that to an A320, which usually lands at around 120-140 knots.

The Airbus A321 lands at 151kts to avoid the same tail strike.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroo ... index.html

The above link is from the NTSB Newsroom. The aerial photo shows the exit path of the aircraft from the runway and down the embankment into the river. It is very fortunate that the aircraft veered to the right. Had it continued straight it likely would have impacted the stanchions jutting out into the water and caused significantly more damage to the aircraft with far greater human casualties.

freakyrat wrote:

The Airbus A321 lands at 151kts to avoid the same tail strike.

At max landing weight of 75 tonnes Vref would be 140 kts on the A321, 151 kts is Vref for 88 tonnes.The A321 has different high lift devices to the A320, they have double slotted flaps.

Jamake1 wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1124749355519553537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1124749355519553537&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F05%2F04%2Fus%2Fjacksonville-plane-skids-into-river%2Findex.html

The above link is from the NTSB Newsroom. The aerial photo shows the exit path of the aircraft from the runway and down the embankment into the river. It is very fortunate that the aircraft veered to the right. Had it continued straight it likely would have impacted the stanchions jutting out into the water and caused significantly more damage to the aircraft with far greater human casualties.

Maybe is the went straight they would have had better braking action from the paved overrun.

zeke wrote:

Jamake1 wrote:

The above link is from the NTSB Newsroom. The aerial photo shows the exit path of the aircraft from the runway and down the embankment into the river. It is very fortunate that the aircraft veered to the right. Had it continued straight it likely would have impacted the stanchions jutting out into the water and caused significantly more damage to the aircraft with far greater human casualties.

Maybe if they went straight they would have had better braking action from the paved overrun.

Two questions that came to my mind after seeing this picture:
1.) did they intentionally veer to the right?
2.) what is better for emergency breaking: paved but wet surface or unpaved and wet soil?

Too many posters here are obsessed with this 737 vs A320 debate. It had nothing to do with which aircraft they were flying. Look at the weather report:

KNIP 040145Z 29008G16KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN015CB OVC032 24/22 A2999 RMK AO2 TSB04 FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E

Gusting tailwinds above aircraft limit, a thunderstorm with lightning over the field, no doubt heavy rain and poor visibility. Why was this approach even attempted in the first place? Did they not have enough fuel to divert or hold? Whether this flight had been a 737 or 320 or anything else it wouldn’t have mattered, they were very likely to go off the end of the runway.

N14AZ wrote:

2.) what is better for emergency breaking: paved but wet surface or unpaved and wet soil?

Paved surface, where soil is better is when the aircraft sinks in below the surface. Sitting on top of a wet/muddy surface would have a lower friction coefficient compared to a paved surface.