AA Crash Jamaica
Now I am a retired old fart but I had it in my mind that everyone with a CPL or an ATPL had to have passed Performance "A" at some point?
Unless my memory has completely given up the ghost, I also seem to remember that Perf. "A" allowed us to take the benefit of 50% of a headwind when calculating runway performance but we had to factor a tailwind by 150%.
Why do you imagine that was?
Am I to assume that AA pilots were never taught Perf. "A" either?
Unless my memory has completely given up the ghost, I also seem to remember that Perf. "A" allowed us to take the benefit of 50% of a headwind when calculating runway performance but we had to factor a tailwind by 150%.
Why do you imagine that was?
Am I to assume that AA pilots were never taught Perf. "A" either?
I really don't want to get into the precise calculations for landing downwind on runway 12 at Kingston.
I was simply trying to get down to a basic thought process that surely we were all taught (in my case in 1962).
That basic thought process goes like this.
Do not assume that the headwind on take-off or landing will always be at its maximum value. Work on 50% and you should be safe.
If you insist upon taking-off or landing with a tailwind, then you should realistically work on the tail wind being 150% of its assumed value.
Nothing more complicated than that.
So, were AA pilots never taught that landing with a tailwind on a wet runway which was not grooved could possibly be injurious to their health? Did they really have to be taught this?
If so, I am astonished.
I was simply trying to get down to a basic thought process that surely we were all taught (in my case in 1962).
That basic thought process goes like this.
Do not assume that the headwind on take-off or landing will always be at its maximum value. Work on 50% and you should be safe.
If you insist upon taking-off or landing with a tailwind, then you should realistically work on the tail wind being 150% of its assumed value.
Nothing more complicated than that.
So, were AA pilots never taught that landing with a tailwind on a wet runway which was not grooved could possibly be injurious to their health? Did they really have to be taught this?
If so, I am astonished.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, american pilots understand tailwind landing restrictions. We deal with it every day. This crew landed half way down the runway so you can throw the landing distant charts out the window.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much crap tossed about this thread.
Having flown for American for 30 years, and a line CKA for 20 of those, AA pilots are not ignorant of tailwind landing performance degradation as well as wet runway surface conditions..
Unless operational, MEL or special performance limitations reduce further,
ALL American aircraft and pilots are LIMITED to land with a MAX tailwind component of 10 knots. They are also taught (hammered in over years) be fully configured and on speed, stabilized by 1000 feet AGL the landing runway.
They are REQUIRED to land in the landing zone of which means usually the first 3,000 feet of runway, preferably touching down W/O floating at the 1,000 to 1,500 foot point from the approach end of the runway.
In violation of AA procedures and FAR's, the jet was "piloted" to a touchdown some 4,000 feet down the runway, and without rereading the details, I think they might not have been on speed and apparently had greater than 10 knots tailwind.
Having flown for American for 30 years, and a line CKA for 20 of those, AA pilots are not ignorant of tailwind landing performance degradation as well as wet runway surface conditions..
Unless operational, MEL or special performance limitations reduce further,
ALL American aircraft and pilots are LIMITED to land with a MAX tailwind component of 10 knots. They are also taught (hammered in over years) be fully configured and on speed, stabilized by 1000 feet AGL the landing runway.
They are REQUIRED to land in the landing zone of which means usually the first 3,000 feet of runway, preferably touching down W/O floating at the 1,000 to 1,500 foot point from the approach end of the runway.
In violation of AA procedures and FAR's, the jet was "piloted" to a touchdown some 4,000 feet down the runway, and without rereading the details, I think they might not have been on speed and apparently had greater than 10 knots tailwind.
"ALL American aircraft and pilots are LIMITED to land with a MAX tailwind component of 10 knots."
The B737 tailwind limit changed to 15 kts a few years ago, maybe after you left. The B757 has 15 kts for a few of the special airports. Two obviously different birds in the landing arena.
I think the 15 kts came with the tenure of the last El Jefe, the one with little feet that had no chance of filling the big shoes of the job.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SJO was a 15 knot tailwind airport because with the rising terrain to the east it was difficult to circle to land to the west with the ceiling around 1,000 ft. One of my last landings there in a 757 we landed with a 15 knot tailwind uphill at 3,000 ft msl because circling was not practical with the ceiling that day. Of course the landing was uneventful but returning to MIA at sea level the runway is 13,000 ft long and we are restricted to a 10 knot tailwind. We had a huge storm coming in from the west that was going to close the airport so we landed with a 15 knot tailwind to the east. Yes, we were illegal and we knew it but we would have ended up in Orlando if we had reconfigured for an approach to the west. I think we did the safest illegal procedure to avoid doing something that made no sense. Some exemptions to our 10 knot tailwind rule are strictly for convenience, not safety.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some exemptions to our 10 knot tailwind rule are strictly for convenience, not safety.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad it all worked out for you bubbers...it would been hard to explain illegal but practical to the Feds, except in an emergency situation, then nothing is illegal..
I am bit perplexed about this hangup about whether one is limited to 10kt or 15kt tailwind.
Notwithstanding what a particular operator might decree in their instructions to crews, surely this is purely a landing performance issue assuming the flight manual data is available up to 15 kts tailwind and 10kts is not shown in the AFM as a hard limitation?
When I was on the B737-200 some years ago the operator I flew for had 15kts tailwind data for all airports we operated to, both for take off and landing.
Notwithstanding what a particular operator might decree in their instructions to crews, surely this is purely a landing performance issue assuming the flight manual data is available up to 15 kts tailwind and 10kts is not shown in the AFM as a hard limitation?
When I was on the B737-200 some years ago the operator I flew for had 15kts tailwind data for all airports we operated to, both for take off and landing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In OUR FCOM on the 320, it's a hard limitation period....however the aircraft can be operated in 15kts tailwind with Airbus' blessing...for a fee of course...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we knew it was beyond the 10 knot max for landing but they didn't tell us until we were on a close in final inside the final approach fix. I replied with roger with no ID so knowing how bad landing to the west would be by the time the storm and us arrived at the airport at the same time didn't want to deal with the wind shear we would expect with the approaching storm. Having spent an entire career with no incidents, violations or bad reports I guess I felt doing the logical thing was worth the risk of doing something that made sense even if it didn't fulfill our ops procedures exactly.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
If PANS-OPS is like TERPs in this respect, I suspect the rather high circling MDA brings up the circling vis. Attached is the ILS 12 (procedure in use by AAL). Note the high structure. That drives up the circling MDA. I suspect circling is not authorized on the inland side of the runway because of terrain or (more likely) enviornment.
I guess Aterpster's chart pretty much rules out a circle with the existing weather. Anyone comment on why the vis requirement is so high?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Doesn't make sense to me, either. Perhaps a PANS-OPS expert will chime in.
Same date chart, but that one has a different circle min vis , a little more like I would expect.??
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA crash, Kingston
Q. What was the wind on the approach ? What was the tail wind component ?
Examining the appr chart for Rwy 30, I find the altitude over Avril at 3.05 deg to be 1940 ft, not 2000 ft. If they want 2000 ft then the angle has to be 3.1 deg. a gradient of 329 ft per NM
The other puzzling thing is the distances in Km when the DME and ASI on the aircraft are in NM. Seems pretty stupid to me.
I would use 3.1 deg from Wasot at an altitude of 4300 ft then use the "Flight Path Angle" (FPA) computer to do a constant descent profile all the way to the threshold. Much safer. It's time to stop doing these stupid "step down" approaches.
Examining the appr chart for Rwy 30, I find the altitude over Avril at 3.05 deg to be 1940 ft, not 2000 ft. If they want 2000 ft then the angle has to be 3.1 deg. a gradient of 329 ft per NM
The other puzzling thing is the distances in Km when the DME and ASI on the aircraft are in NM. Seems pretty stupid to me.
I would use 3.1 deg from Wasot at an altitude of 4300 ft then use the "Flight Path Angle" (FPA) computer to do a constant descent profile all the way to the threshold. Much safer. It's time to stop doing these stupid "step down" approaches.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step down approaches have been working just fine for decades. It just takes a real pilot to transition to the final landing phase to make it work properly. Push button pilots running a computer might not find it easy because they are not real pilots, just push button pilots. Blast away.
90 percent of the approaches into San Diego, Ca are step down approaches to the west. It is a major international airport with nobody complaining because they can't authorize an ILS that direction with the obstacles. We need better pilots, not simpler approaches. Get over it.
90 percent of the approaches into San Diego, Ca are step down approaches to the west. It is a major international airport with nobody complaining because they can't authorize an ILS that direction with the obstacles. We need better pilots, not simpler approaches. Get over it.