For the PPLS who wondered why someone might land with a tailwind at Kingston.
The only instrument approaches approaches at KIN are for runway 12 because the wind is usually easterly. An ILS was put in a couple of years ago on RWY 12. This ILS is offset requiring an adjustment by about 400 feet to align with the runway.
If you wanted to land on RWY 30 and it was raining heavy it is unlikely you would be able to see to descend visually below the MSA which is about 9000' due to the mountains to the North.
Therefore to land on R/W 30 you would have to fly down the R/W 12 ILS to the circling minima of approximately 1000 feet. In heavy rain you may well not be visual. You would have to either goaround at that minima or fly a visual circuit and maintain visual contact with the runway. A visual circuit at 1000 feet in heavy rain in an airliner at night is not something a professional pilot would choose. Therefore it is far more preferable to choose the ILS with an acceptable tailwind.
It is not appropriate to compare this accident with the Turkish 737 at AMS. The only similarity is they were both 737 accidents. It is probably more akin to the Air France accident at Toronto, ie an overrun in heavy rain. The important aspects in the investigation will be to establish
1) Was the last part of the approach stable.
2) How far down the runway the point of touchdown occurred.
3) What the braking action was.
4) How quickly reverse thrust was engaged.
5) What autobrake or manual braking was used.
If the pilots land and stop safely, great. If they go off the end they are accused of pushing on regardless into adverse conditions, Littlerock etc.
Inappropriate criticisms from those who are not yet in full possession of the facts are unhelpful. The opposite is also true. I cannot understand why one poster wrote "Kudos to the pilots". Presumably because they missed a hospital or school?
Last edited by suninmyeyes; 23rd December 2009 at 21:16.