That runway would benefit from an EMAS.

So the plane ends up in six feet of water. Did the pax swim ashore unaided or were there boats available? Are there aligators in the St Johns River?

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?

That's a myth that people keep saying to justify why it's primarily 737s that seem to have runway overruns. There are just as many, if not more A320 series in operation, so the "oh, there are a gazillion 737s in service, that's why" isn't a valid excuse.

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.

This seems to be a far more logical explanation. Of course it's never one factor, but if you have a higher approach speed, combined with wet runway, tailwind, etc you're in a higher risk category for an accident.

Wingtips56 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Oh Christ, CNN has Schiavo pontificating already...

She does nothing to improve CNN's trustworthiness. I stopped listening to her years ago. She came from NTSB as I recall, but she's full of crap.

She's not even an ops person. She was the inspector general of the FAA. She is either an attorney or an accountant. She knows Jack about aircraft operations and it shows when she is on the air. She is aviation's answer to Nancy Grace.

OB1504 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?

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?

active 737 (7850) are about tied with active A320 family aircraft (7950).
If it is just market presence such incidents should show a similar rate for 737 and A32*.

freakyrat 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.

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

Assuming the 151kt you mention is Vapp, then Vref would be 146kt only correcting for A/THR On, that vref corresponds to a weight of about 77.000kg or MLW depending on the weight variant of course, the Airbus A321 can have Vref speeds from 116kt at 52t to 156kt at 93t.

WIederling wrote:

OB1504 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?

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?

active 737 (7850) are about tied with active A320 family aircraft (7950).
If it is just market presence such incidents should show a similar rate for 737 and A32*.

Yes. People who still believe the 737 is the most numerous commerical plane flying need to just accept its not anymore. It was for years. But since the early 2010s there have been more A320s in the skies

achmafooma wrote:

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.

Agreed this one sounds reminiscent of AA1420. Will be interested in following the developments as the investigation progresses.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

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.

So yes... based on the +TSRA, they should have downgraded their RCAM because of assuming pooling water on the runway. The runway was probably "contaminated" by technical definition. If the brakes and TRs were working, then this was probably pilot error.

Of course there are alligators in the St. Johns, it is Florida. However, they are not abundant in the area where the plane went in the water. If there were any they scattered quickly when the plane hit the water. Feel bad about the pet losses.

No idea what the Tower told them regarding the winds (and gusts if active) at the time of landing. From calcs. for estimated loading including fuel from route and altitude and winds aloft the estimated Vref30 speed would be approximately 141-142 Kn. The closest METARs to the landing time notes (from the AvHerald…no idea where they get their METARS from) KNIP 040145Z 29008G16KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN015CB OVC032 24/22 A2999, and another of KNIP 040122Z 35004KT 5SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN018CB OVC030 24/22 A2998.

Based on the AH 040145Z METAR closest to actual landing time, there would have been an 8 kn TW (not including gusts). From FlightAware at 550’B (Press. Alt.) their GS was reported to be around 171 Kn, so an approximate TAS of 163 Kn and 161 Kn IAS. IMO that’s a pretty high Vappr speed, with the noted TW and wet/pooling runway. At a normal Vappr speed and Autobrake 3 setting and actual runway condition with a reported (NOTAM) 1,000’ Rwy10 LDA shortening due to construction, the landing margin would have been marginal. If they landed fast and long stopping at end would have been more marginal. With any delay in thrust reversers, precarious. IMO a hold until the weather passed seems prudent. Also why a cruise altitude for a 2+ Hrs flight of only 16,000’?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

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.

Nope im possitive, Google's headlines was as "737 max developing story" or something around those lines.

And aftrer i saw all that amount of passengers, i thought it was a military max or something since the Max is supposed to be grounded on the US.

FF630 wrote:

Of course there are alligators in the St. Johns, it is Florida. However, they are not abundant in the area where the plane went in the water. If there were any they scattered quickly when the plane hit the water. Feel bad about the pet losses.

Is it absolutely confirmed the pets didn’t survive?

BoeingGuy wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Of course there are alligators in the St. Johns, it is Florida. However, they are not abundant in the area where the plane went in the water. If there were any they scattered quickly when the plane hit the water. Feel bad about the pet losses.

Is it absolutely confirmed the pets didn’t survive?

Unless someone had to check their emotion support fish, it is unlikely.

I think the 04145Z observation was taken as a result of the overrun and the crew was given the 0122Z weather or the current winds at the field on final. KJAX weather was much better based on a snapshot of the radar I saw at PPW. Landing with a TRW overhead is not a good idea.

greendot

Are carriers required to use the factored distance for in-flight calculations or can they use the actual unfactored distance?

GF

BoeingGuy wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Of course there are alligators in the St. Johns, it is Florida. However, they are not abundant in the area where the plane went in the water. If there were any they scattered quickly when the plane hit the water. Feel bad about the pet losses.

Is it absolutely confirmed the pets didn’t survive?

They said that none of the pet carriers were above the waterline.

New info from NTSB press conference. Left Thrust Reverser INOP, flown under minimum equipment checklist. Landed with 15 knot tail wind component at 163 knots IAS at touchdown (per FDR). Initial plan was to land on rwy 28, but then requested to land on 10 as approaching the area (NTSB does not know why this was requested, airport was landing to the west at that time).

Available runway was 7800 ft because of arresting wire was in place for Navy aircraft.

====
the Left Thrust Reverser being out, probably explains the yaw to the right if the plane was skidding. there is a high probability that they were hydroplaning as they landed at high speed (GS 178 knots), left thrust reverser is was out, only 7800 ft of runway available and the runway was very wet and not grooved. that's my 2 cents.

Landing with a tailwind in a thunderstorm with only one operable thrust reverser sounds insane to me. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft type.

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

SierraPacific wrote:

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

I just reviewed the approach plates for KNIP. I can probably speculate the following. The crew was advised of the arresting wire to catch Navy planes in case they cannot land on the carrier on runway 10 being installed. The crew knew that landing as planned on rwy 28 will have them going directly into the arresting cable that will more than likely rip off the nose gear if they cannot stop in the available 7800 ft of runway and have 1 reverser INOP. They probably decided that it was safer for them to overfly the arresting cable and land then stop with a tail wind than try to land and stop before the arresting cable.

If they have not flown into airports with the arresting cable (used for carrier landings), that could have been a scary proposition. What I don't understand if that were the case, why didn't they use rwy 26 at KJAX that is 10,000 ft and would be landing into the wind, if safety was a concern.

SierraPacific wrote:

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

Throwing some numbers together (compliments AVH) it looks like they were about 125,000# on landing, flaps 30,1 reverser inoperative, and about 25 kts above Vref -- assuming "medium braking action (probably not) and maximum manual braking, with a perfect touchdown spot they would have needed 8800 ft +/-.

If the braking was reported good, under the same circumstances the would have needed only about 6000 ft +/-.

fpetrutiu wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

I just reviewed the approach plates for KNIP. I can probably speculate the following. The crew was advised of the arresting wire to catch Navy planes in case they cannot land on the carrier on runway 10 being installed. The crew knew that landing as planned on rwy 28 will have them going directly into the arresting cable that will more than likely rip off the nose gear if they cannot stop in the available 7800 ft of runway and have 1 reverser INOP. They probably decided that it was safer for them to overfly the arresting cable and land then stop with a tail wind than try to land and stop before the arresting cable.

If they have not flown into airports with the arresting cable (used for carrier landings), that could have been a scary proposition. What I don't understand if that were the case, why didn't they use rwy 26 at KJAX that is 10,000 ft and would be landing into the wind, if safety was a concern.

The A-gear is not a problem and it’s not going to rip off the nose gear. You can taxi over them in a small jet without damage. We landed on in the C-5 (similar size tires in greater numbers) and just damaged the cables.

I think the reasoning was beating the storm to the airport or having a final approach on the better weather side of the storm. But, you’re very correct, just go over to JAX.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

fpetrutiu wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

I just reviewed the approach plates for KNIP. I can probably speculate the following. The crew was advised of the arresting wire to catch Navy planes in case they cannot land on the carrier on runway 10 being installed. The crew knew that landing as planned on rwy 28 will have them going directly into the arresting cable that will more than likely rip off the nose gear if they cannot stop in the available 7800 ft of runway and have 1 reverser INOP. They probably decided that it was safer for them to overfly the arresting cable and land then stop with a tail wind than try to land and stop before the arresting cable.

If they have not flown into airports with the arresting cable (used for carrier landings), that could have been a scary proposition. What I don't understand if that were the case, why didn't they use rwy 26 at KJAX that is 10,000 ft and would be landing into the wind, if safety was a concern.

The A-gear is not a problem and it’s not going to rip off the nose gear. You can taxi over them in a small jet without damage. We landed on in the C-5 (similar size tires in greater numbers) and just damaged the cables.

I think the reasoning was beating the storm to the airport or having a final approach on the better weather side of the storm. But, you’re very correct, just go over to JAX.

GF

Sure, that is great if you have experience with it or seen the cables height. In my days of flying, I've never seen these devices, it would have played a factor into my thinking, but then I would have gone to JAX too... I am just saying it could be factor.

fpetrutiu wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

I just reviewed the approach plates for KNIP. I can probably speculate the following. The crew was advised of the arresting wire to catch Navy planes in case they cannot land on the carrier on runway 10 being installed. The crew knew that landing as planned on rwy 28 will have them going directly into the arresting cable that will more than likely rip off the nose gear if they cannot stop in the available 7800 ft of runway and have 1 reverser INOP. They probably decided that it was safer for them to overfly the arresting cable and land then stop with a tail wind than try to land and stop before the arresting cable.

If they have not flown into airports with the arresting cable (used for carrier landings), that could have been a scary proposition. What I don't understand if that were the case, why didn't they use rwy 26 at KJAX that is 10,000 ft and would be landing into the wind, if safety was a concern.

The arresting cables would NOT have been going across the runway while they had a commercial plane landing. They would not have the pendant (the part that the plane actually catches) installed.

zuckie13 wrote:

fpetrutiu wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

I really want to see the hours breakdown on the crew or how many different carriers they have worked for. I remember that with the Eastern overrun at LGA, the crew was an interesting hodgepodge of experience levels and had some skeletons in the closet.

I just really do not see how with the conditions we know now, two pilots agree to land on a non grooved runway during a thunderstorm with only 1 reverser. Good thing Skylease is hiring for these guys.

I just reviewed the approach plates for KNIP. I can probably speculate the following. The crew was advised of the arresting wire to catch Navy planes in case they cannot land on the carrier on runway 10 being installed. The crew knew that landing as planned on rwy 28 will have them going directly into the arresting cable that will more than likely rip off the nose gear if they cannot stop in the available 7800 ft of runway and have 1 reverser INOP. They probably decided that it was safer for them to overfly the arresting cable and land then stop with a tail wind than try to land and stop before the arresting cable.

If they have not flown into airports with the arresting cable (used for carrier landings), that could have been a scary proposition. What I don't understand if that were the case, why didn't they use rwy 26 at KJAX that is 10,000 ft and would be landing into the wind, if safety was a concern.

The arresting cables would NOT have been going across the runway while they had a commercial plane landing. They would not have the pendant (the part that the plane actually catches) installed.

Per NTSB, they were in place. Shortened the runway to 7800 ft of available length. They were in place for redundancy in case Navy aircraft couldn't land on a carrier off shore.

People...the arresting cable is only a cable laying down on the runway. Cable about the size of a chair lift cable. It's not lifted into position to arrest a Navy jet unless needed. I've run over may arresting cables in biz jets...it's a bump at worst.

NTSB said "wire barrier" installed. What is "wire barrier" is it the cable or the net?

Im surprised they decided to land with such hard settings .. maybe they had low fuel?

NTSB Press Conference

https://youtu.be/pVXq_2-DQ_w

fpetrutiu wrote:

NTSB said "wire barrier" installed. What is "wire barrier" is it the cable or the net?

It’s the cable, not the old MA-1 barrier. It might be recessed or up in the ready position; in either case not a hazard, but running over them does damage and can cause damage to things like gear doors or antennas, if up, the runway will be shortened by NOTAM so planes will land beyond the cable.

They do lots of military charters, it’d be real surprising if the crew hadn’t seen them.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Of course there are alligators in the St. Johns, it is Florida. However, they are not abundant in the area where the plane went in the water. If there were any they scattered quickly when the plane hit the water. Feel bad about the pet losses.

Is it absolutely confirmed the pets didn’t survive?

They said that none of the pet carriers were above the waterline.

Sadly yes, based in the photo as the day broke, the cargo compartment is fully submerged in water. Washington Post just updated with news rescuers could not find any pets, concluded all presumably dead. Seattle Times just updated two hours ago, bodies of animals have been recovered. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... ida-river/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I think the 04145Z observation was taken as a result of the overrun and the crew was given the 0122Z weather or the current winds at the field on final. KJAX weather was much better based on a snapshot of the radar I saw at PPW. Landing with a TRW overhead is not a good idea.

greendot

Are carriers required to use the factored distance for in-flight calculations or can they use the actual unfactored distance?

GF

They're required to use factored landing distance if operating under Part 135 or Part 121. Most Part 121 carriers use a 60% factor (have to land within 60% of the available runway). Most Part 135 carriers use an 80% factor (eligible on demand relief).

Of course this all depends on what their OpSpecs say BUT I'm willing to be that none of these guys are allowed to use unfactored landing distance unless they are operating Part 91 (no pax).

Those are dispatch factors, are they required for use in-flight? That is, the release had been planned with a landing distance of 60% of 7800’, wet or dry, would the flight crew been required to have a landing distance, wet with tailwind of 60% of 7800’ or just planned on using all 7800’? It’s hard to believe in those conditions they could have come up with a actual distance distance of 4700’.

GF

SEPilot wrote:

Landing with a tailwind in a thunderstorm with only one operable thrust reverser sounds insane to me. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft type.

Yeah, seems like things got rushed at the end just to get on the ground. I wonder if they ran landing data with the proper amount of contamination on the runway (not just wet) and whether the landing data said they could land within 60% with the TR's both working. The 15 knots of tailwind is absolutely killer on any airplane.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Those are dispatch factors, are they required for use in-flight? That is, the release had been planned with a landing distance of 60% of 7800’, wet or dry, would the flight crew been required to have a landing distance, wet with tailwind of 60% of 7800’ or just planned on using all 7800’? It’s hard to believe in those conditions they could have come up with a actual distance distance of 4700’.

GF

They're not required to use that inflight... it's dispatch only. Hopefully they planned conservatively. Landing is a whole other deal... even if the numbers worked 5 minutes ago, it only takes one wind check to invalidate the data.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Those are dispatch factors, are they required for use in-flight? That is, the release had been planned with a landing distance of 60% of 7800’, wet or dry, would the flight crew been required to have a landing distance, wet with tailwind of 60% of 7800’ or just planned on using all 7800’? It’s hard to believe in those conditions they could have come up with a actual distance distance of 4700’.

GF

Oh yes... and they should *not* have simply used wet. The FAA training on RCAM is pretty clear about downgrading runway conditions if the runway has pooling water. You're supposed to assume pooled water unless the runway is grooved. I bet they were too fast with that tailwind, probably with their approach as well, and they had some on/off hydroplaning because the runway was contaminated with water (as opposed to simply damp or wet).

This is pretty haunting to see this aircraft in that state as I had just assisted loading it the day before when it operated RSW-SDF. It was parked at gate C7 and I remember thinking "huh. Thats not something we do every day.." Charter flights at RSW on commercial size aircraft (e.g. Miami Air, Swift/Eastern) usually board at concourse B where there are more common use gates readily available.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flor ... SKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Jouhou wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-airplane/thrust-reverser-broken-on-plane-that-slid-into-florida-river-idUSKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Don't count on the mainstream media to inform you. They are there to entertain you. It's not their job to tell you the truth. I'm sure the NTSB will put out a much better analysis.

greendot wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-airplane/thrust-reverser-broken-on-plane-that-slid-into-florida-river-idUSKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Don't count on the mainstream media to inform you. They are there to entertain you. It's not their job to tell you the truth. I'm sure the NTSB will put out a much better analysis.

Reuters is a news wire service. They are quoting an NTSB representative on that.

Jouhou wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-airplane/thrust-reverser-broken-on-plane-that-slid-into-florida-river-idUSKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Isn't landing distance supposed to be calculated without reverse thrust?

Jouhou wrote:

greendot wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-airplane/thrust-reverser-broken-on-plane-that-slid-into-florida-river-idUSKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Don't count on the mainstream media to inform you. They are there to entertain you. It's not their job to tell you the truth. I'm sure the NTSB will put out a much better analysis.

Reuters is a news wire service. They are quoting an NTSB representative on that.

No doubt but Reuters has put out a lot of garbage too.

mxaxai wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-airplane/thrust-reverser-broken-on-plane-that-slid-into-florida-river-idUSKCN1SB0SO

No one's talking about the inoperative thrust-reverser yet? RIP pets.

Isn't landing distance supposed to be calculated without reverse thrust?

I don't know what these guys were allowed to do via OpSpecs and "FAA approved" company manual. At my company we're allowed to use TR benefit after we're inflight but during planning, the flight has to land without TRs using 60% of the available landing distance (e.g. minus construction closures and arresting gear distances). However, we as pilots, are not pressured in any way to land somewhere if we have any doubt as to landing distance. Sometimes pilots do get pushed, and they become part of, "operational complacency" where the task becomes more important and elevated risk is an acceptable component. To be clear, risk is always there, but the cliche is that the risk has to be worth the reward. I'm sure these guys made a logical decision and in their minds, the risk outweighed the reward, but they may have had too many things out of their control going against them (winds greater than reported by METAR, runway being more than "wet" - contaminated with pooled water, a long history of faulty anti-skid braking in 737s, faster than planned on the landing flare, a second or two late on brake application, incorrect landing data, etc.). I have noticed that many civil pilots accept too much risk sometimes, particularly in Florida and its weather. I see pilots flying through lines of thunderstorm cells and operating into and out of airports with very gusty winds. 99 out of 100 of these guys get lucky. Pilots will fly into yellow or red on the weather RADAR with far too much comfort sometimes. ATC will pressure you into a dangerous trajectory citing "everyone else is going through there". I remember hearing a recording on YouTube between an Air Lingus pilot and NY Approach landing into JFK where the pilot refuses to fly into hazardous conditions but the ATS controller is very demanding and exerts pressure on him.

I see very little mention of the national origin of these pilots, or the country they trained in. I'm wondering why that would be? I know it's early and let's not jump to conclusions, but that certainly didn't happen in other threads. So why all of the sudden the restraint in this one?

Potential 15 knot tailwind in a thunderstorm + wet/ungrooved runway + deferred T/R. I don't see how any part 121 pilot would think that's a good idea. Wow.

cat3appr50 wrote:

No idea what the Tower told them regarding the winds (and gusts if active) at the time of landing. From calcs. for estimated loading including fuel from route and altitude and winds aloft the estimated Vref30 speed would be approximately 141-142 Kn. The closest METARs to the landing time notes (from the AvHerald…no idea where they get their METARS from) KNIP 040145Z 29008G16KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN015CB OVC032 24/22 A2999, and another of KNIP 040122Z 35004KT 5SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN018CB OVC030 24/22 A2998.

Based on the AH 040145Z METAR closest to actual landing time, there would have been an 8 kn TW (not including gusts). From FlightAware at 550’B (Press. Alt.) their GS was reported to be around 171 Kn, so an approximate TAS of 163 Kn and 161 Kn IAS. IMO that’s a pretty high Vappr speed, with the noted TW and wet/pooling runway. At a normal Vappr speed and Autobrake 3 setting and actual runway condition with a reported (NOTAM) 1,000’ Rwy10 LDA shortening due to construction, the landing margin would have been marginal. If they landed fast and long stopping at end would have been more marginal. With any delay in thrust reversers, precarious. IMO a hold until the weather passed seems prudent. Also why a cruise altitude for a 2+ Hrs flight of only 16,000’?

NAS Jax (KNIP) has manned observers on-site 24/7 and the ASOS equipment is roughly at the halfway point of runway 10/28 and the tower/observation point is less than 1/8 of a mile away from it, so they're pretty damn accurate obs.

All you might want to know about A-gear, courtesy Boeing

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_13/runway_story.html

GF

CanesFan wrote:

Potential 15 knot tailwind in a thunderstorm + wet/ungrooved runway + deferred T/R. I don't see how any part 121 pilot would think that's a good idea. Wow.

PIlots requested a Runway change with the tower to Runway 10/28 which was shortened to 7800 ft by a arresting barrier setup. I assume with the weather the shorter of the two runways was the Runway In Use so this change request to the longer of the two runways isn't much of a significance except for the fact of the wet conditions, an inoperative Thrust Reverser etc. IMHO the plane should have diverted to JAX.

Is it out of the water yet?

freakyrat wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

Potential 15 knot tailwind in a thunderstorm + wet/ungrooved runway + deferred T/R. I don't see how any part 121 pilot would think that's a good idea. Wow.

PIlots requested a Runway change with the tower to Runway 10/28 which was shortened to 7800 ft by a arresting barrier setup. I assume with the weather the shorter of the two runways was the Runway In Use so this change request to the longer of the two runways isn't much of a significance except for the fact of the wet conditions, an inoperative Thrust Reverser etc. IMHO the plane should have diverted to JAX.

The tailwind is a major factor here. My company's tailwind limit for landing is 10 kts with an exception up to 15kts at certain airports where our engineering dept has computed the landing data.