AA Crash Jamaica

[PEI_3721]

“… you’ll be landing with a fifteen knot tailwind component on a very wet runway …”

“However, the co-pilot made no comment to the captain about the tailwind component and did not raise the question of continuing to land …”

“The aircraft touched down normally and within 5kt of the target speed but, given the tailwind and the wet runway, it was not possible to stop it on the remaining runway length and the aircraft overran the end of the runway. After coming to rest, the aircraft caught fire and was destroyed.”

‘Some hidden dangers of tailwind.’ Page 48.

Also see several other related articles – particularly ‘wind’ on page 60.

[bubbers44]

professional pilots don't land over half way down the runway. End of problem.

[bubbers44]

I landed at TGU over 600 times and never once needed the last 1,000 ft. It was listed as the 2nd most dangerous airport in the world with number one up in some mountain in Asia no airliner could land at. We had to land in the first 700 ft after the threshold or go around. I never went around because I made sure I did that. Sloppy flying is not acceptable. Landing half way down the runway is sloppy flying.

[Dream Land]

Further habits include reliance on reverse thrust.

I don't think there are too many experienced drivers that go into field relying on the T/R's to save you, actually just the opposite, on a contaminated runway it can make things more difficult and at the very least kills the balked landing option, why they didn't excessive this option is a big question here.

[BOAC]

Whoa there! Once again we appear to differ on how to operate. I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'contaminated'? If we are talking ice then it may well be reversers are the only thing that will stop you. If you cannot achieve a landing without them you should perhaps not be planning to land there at all. Up to 35% more distance can be required without reverse use on ice.

Not sure exactly what a 'baulked landing' is in connection with reverse use? Are you talking about something entering the runway after you have landed? In which case, EVERY landing on which you deploy reversers is at risk. By your argument one should perhaps NEVER deploy reversers? I assume when you say "why they didn't excessive this option is a big question here." you actually mean the option to g/a before reverser deployment? As above, ONCE they are out it is an absolute last-ditch 'do it or we die' option not to be taken likely, and 'forbidden' by most manufactures and operators.

This from the CAA advice on 'Contaminated runways' (my highlighting)
Contaminated runway operations remain the exception rather than the norm in the UK, therefore additional guidance is required in order to establish an equivalent level of safety. A stabilised approach is recommended using the maximum landing flap selection in order to minimise landing speed and landing distance. Research suggests that in airline operations the speed at the threshold is on average 5 kt to 7 kt above the scheduled value. This equates to a 10% increase in stopping distance or a 5% increase in the overall landing distance. Airbus currently quote an 8% increase in ALD for an additional 5 kt approach speed. Floating above the runway before touchdown must be avoided as it may use a large portion of the available runway. The timely application of all retardation devices (speed brake, brakes and reverse thrust) should be applied after touchdown.

It is really very simple. Apply the dispatch planning requirements. Ensure your 'in flight' landing performance remains adequate for the situation. Approach at the correct speed with the correct flap and land in the correct place, deploying ALL stopping systems on touchdown. If something gets in the way of all that, perhaps have another go to get it right or go somewhere else.

[ironbutt57]

From a decades old FAA advisory circular..."get there-itis, may someday bite us"...

[captjns]

Bubbas44 says...

professional pilots don't land over half way down the runway. End of problem.

Well said.

Pilots without the "Must Complete the Mission" attitude take the conservative way out and execute a baulked landing after the touchdown zone disappears behind them.

[Dream Land]

Hi BOAC, maybe baulked landing was a bad term, but I don't consider it an option to go around after T/R's are deployed. Having been based at MSP and ORD, I can assure you that I never depended on the T/R's to play a major roll in a successful landing on ice and snow.

How do you estimate how much water is on the runway, in the world that many of us operate in, you have no idea, and the aircraft will not slow down while hydroplaning, T/R's for me simply help reduce brake wear.

[fireflybob]

I can assure you that I never depended on the T/R's to play a major roll in a successful landing on ice and snow.

Just grappling with what you mean by that statement, Dream Land.

Does that mean that you wouldn't use T/Rs when landing on ice/snow?

Or do you mean you wouldn't consider their use when checking the Landing Distance Required?

[Dream Land]

Landing distance aside, decent braking reports had to be present.

[PENKO]

There are no objective braking reports anywhere. That is a problem in itself. But I must agree with others who say that irrespective of runway condition, landing halfway down a 2400m rwy is not the thing to do. Add to that the tailwinds, wet runway and less than full flaps.. end of discussion. (figuratively speaking)

[BOAC]

Penko - to all professional pilots is was a 2700m+ runway (or thereabouts), not 2400m. This is why misleading posts need to be challenged so the thread does not go haywire like so many others.

As to 'braking reports' - yes, ideal to have, but come on everyone! 14kts tail, near max landing weight, close to limiting runway length - is that not enough to decide how to do it in the first place??

Dreamland - the aircraft WILL slow down when 'hydroplaning' if you use reversers. They are actually fitted for more than just 'brake wear' Ask your colleagues?

[Carmoisine]

14kts tail, near max landing weight, close to limiting runway length - is that not enough to decide how to do it in the first place??

BOAC, I work for Europes most hated airline on the same type.

We have a 10 knot limit as standard and to quite a few specific runways a 15 knot tailwind limit. Usually this is to avoid a NPA in less then favourable conditions, or because we can't perform night time visuals and there is no instrument approach to the reciprocal. I can think of a few alpine airfields with some very close in terrain where there is a definite safety advantage to going straight in on the other end even with a tailwind. I point this out that despite the image it's not all about saving time and money there are sometimes sound operational reasons.

That's not to say that we also don't do it to save time and make life easier for ourselves. I would say that it is an accepted part of our culture to ask for the non duty runway if it suits us.

I've learned a lot from the last two pages of this thread and from the FAA safety recommendation. I would also admit that I had not read the FSF ALAR or is it a pertinent publication that is referenced at any time in our house.

While it is beyond question a point of good airmanship to check LDR before every landing (It's SOP), and touchdown in the TDZ should be a given, I do feel some sympathy here because while it is an accepted part of our operation the specific risk factors of tail wind landings are not emphasized perhaps as much as they should have been. I've landed on lots of wet runways at night with 15 knots of tailwind. A float on landing might not have been punished as much at other airports the crew were (over?)familiar with.

Reading the charts and basic airmanship should have prevented this but I wonder if the risks of tailwind landings had been discussed in training combined with a better understanding or use of TEM during the approach brief the crew would have been more primed to perform a go around when the float developed?

[BOAC]

Carmoisine - my words "is that not enough to decide how to do it in the first place??" referred to the need to touch down in the right place with the right flap inside tailwind limits, and not "about saving time and money" or "sound operational reasons" with which I am quite familiar. There are, of course, times when they are not the right reasons either.

Regarding tailwinds, I am still in a small state of shock that they should need to be "emphasized ............as they should have been" but it certainly does seem to be a growing missing part of pilot psyche/instinct and appears to need covering in your airline and AA and probably many others. Likewise the need for TEM or 'emphasis' to be 'primed to perform a go around when the float developed'?? I use the hairs on the back of my neck. They tend to be reliable.

I guess as we 'lose' the pilots who grew up in gliders and then taildraggers and probably had instructors who 'knew a bit' we will encounter more and more absent 'basic' commonsense through the compressed minimal training and P2F. I fear the AF447 accident is a classic example of this loss of 'airmanship' as it used to be known.

[bubbers44]

We all know we can land in a 10 and at our airline a 15 knot tailwind at some airports that are inconvenient for circle to land approaches. The tailwind didn't cause the overrun. The pilot landing beyond the touchdown zone caused the overrun. It is pretty simple.

[BOAC]

It is pretty simple.

- it certainly would be if we didn't have all this complaining (AA) about 'nobody told me about tailwinds'

[Dream Land]

I guess as we 'lose' the pilots who grew up in gliders and then taildraggers

It's only getting worse, where I'm based, the tower will indicate "danger crosswind", often with less than a 10 KT component.

[Carmoisine]

I guess as we 'lose' the pilots who grew up in gliders and then taildraggers and probably had instructors who 'knew a bit' we will encounter more and more absent 'basic' commonsense through the compressed minimal training and P2F. I fear the AF447 accident is a classic example of this loss of 'airmanship' as it used to be known.

I agree. However the world has changed and we don't have people like that and people like you from a quality over cost military training background coming through so the question is how training departments address that? Going back to the traditional paths is not going to happen.

[BOAC]

so the question is how training departments address that?

- indeed it is. I fear they will not.

We will soon see Ops Manuals stating "Warning: landing with a tailwind increases your groundspeed at touchdown and the landing distance required. Consider a go-round if a touchdown cannot be made in the first 50% of the runway".

[Carmoisine]

Now you have it. We have things not unlike that in our OPS A. It's called Fisher Price flying