Glueball writes:
"If I HAD to place a blame somewhere, I'd lay it right on the airport itself."
Captain
rottenray . . . Please tell us how much longer than
8900 feet of non grooved, slick-when-wet pavement would be necessary for a B737-800 to land safely?
Thanks for the promotion, but I'm still merely self loading freight as some like to call us...
To speak to your remark -
In this case, looking at the pix, I'd guess the accident 737 could have flown out again the next day if the runway had been 9,200 feet.
What do you think?
Also, what do you think would have happened had the runway been 8,800 feet?
Could AA331 have shredded itself running through the concrete light pillars?
Also, as a side note, when I said "blame the airport itself," I did not mean the folks working there.
I meant the physical runway and its climate.
This is an 8,900 foot long runway in a rainy climate, without macrotexture grooving to shed water, rumored to have a lot of deposited rubber, which ends in a stone speed-bump and a road in a trench, followed by a shredder formed by end of runway lights, with a nice dump into the surf if one makes it that far.
But, finally, Glue, I really don't understand your reply. It's kind of contradictory in and of itself.
And, why do you attack when someone shows some understanding for the deck crew of a heavy flight landing on a lousy weather night on a somewhat less than best runway?
??