Quite a tragedy. RIP to those who were lost.
|Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 56):|
Foxnews just said this was an accident waiting to happen due to "short runways" of "only 8,500 to 9,000 feet". And they presented this as fact, not speculation.
FoxNews is based in New York. If that's how they feel about 8,500-9,000ft runways, I hope they're never putting their people on flights out of LGA
with its 7,000ft runways. JFK
routinely lands 747s on an 8400ft runway, in bad weather (in fact, that's JFK
's only CatIII runway - wonder what the people at Fox would think of that).
|Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 63):|
Serious question....aren't minimums changed for grooved/non grooved runways.....ie wouldn't this recently reopened runway left ungrooved have higher minimums when wet because of it.....can anyone tell if a notam to that effect was issued?
The landing distances (which shouldn't be confused with minimums, those are something else) would be higher for a wet non-grooved runway than for a wet grooved runway, yes.
|Quoting Skoker (Reply 116):|
"Incident" in US English means the same as "event" or occurrence. Both a plane crashing into an ocean and a flight running out of Diet Coke are considered to be "Incident"s in our language.
The NTSB has specific terminology as to what is an incident - something that is abnormal but does not result in damage or injury. This would be termed an "accident".
|Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 128):|
There is a concept called "decision height". At this point in the approach the pilot flying needs to decide whether to land or go around.
Not quite. Decision height is the point on an instrument approach at which you either see the runway and continue, or you don't and you go around. You can go around for any reason at any time (and you should if things aren't right) until you're on the ground with the speedbrakes and/or reversers deployed (even then, it's still possible if you have a lot of runway, but really not a good idea at that point), even if you're below decision height.
|Quoting Acey (Reply 190):|
Did fuel play a part here? Well, I'm not even going to say anything because no one knows anything yet...we'll just have to wait and see.
I don't see how it didn't play at least a minor part. A landing A320 should have at least 4,000lbs of fuel on it, and while that's very little compared to what it would have at takeoff, it can still burn for a while. And if it did go into a gas station....