I don't think the aircraft did a 180, as it's beyond the Norman Manley highway, and the nose is 3m from the water. Landing in heavy rain, in turbulence, downwind, with a possible bounce on the runway...

Obviously something went wrong with the stopping bit.

Wouldn't you say that has more to do with incorrect landing technique rather then the wind conditions?

FLIGHT SAFETY, what makes you think "possible bounce"? In actual fact, according to one of the interviewed pax, it was a smooth landing. If that is indeed the case (we'll all find out in due time) it could well be a contributing factor on a soaking wet runway!

Here we go again.

Like any other recent accident, this thread is well on it's way to 45 pages, of which only 5 might have coherent, valid, sensible and valuable information that commercial/military flight crews and ops personnel might find useful and educational. Most of the time this information is buried by the questions and comments from the uneducated and an impediment to the sharing of it to crews worldwide.

My humble suggestion is when an unfortunate incident or accident occurs, the MODS create two seperate threads. One would be for aircrews, engineers, dispatchers, cabin crews or any other ops or manufacturer types, the second could be for others that are basically just interested in aviation, and may have questions about basic aircraft, airport or procedures. Questions read on one thread could be asked on another thread.

My intention is not to denigrate or insult those who have an interest in aviation, I am also helpful and heartily welcome those here on Pprune that are interested in aviation. IMHO, I think the current format hinders the sharing of information.

Would it work? I have no idea.

Thank you all for your interest in aviation

Yes, indeed, here we go again.

If this is yet another FAA ops over-run, then one could easily point fingers about the very slow incorporation of Boeing advice on "landing on a slippery runway", some 2 years and 3 months ago. The FAA have yet to mandate the calculation of actual landing performance for operations, and many operators have been sitting in limbo.

Latest NOTAM from Norman Manley Intl

RUNWAY 30 THRESHOLD DISPLACED. RUNWAY 30 NEW DECLARED DISTANCES: TORA
2440M ASDA 2440M TODA 3660M LDA 2440M RUNWAY 12 NEW DECLARED
DISTANCES: TORRA 2440M ASDA 2440M TODA 2440M LDA 2440M THE DISPLACED
THRESHOLD WILL BE MARKED BY LIGHTS. 23 DEC 09:00 2009 UNTIL 31 DEC
11:00 2009 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 23 DEC 10:46 2009
Effective Dec 23, 2009 09:00Z

FYI:

KIN: Offset ILS DME (LLZ 120°, RWY 117°) 3° GS, DA 278, RWY Elev 8

Runway 12 Elevations - Landing end, 8. ARP (mid-runway) 10, far end 17.

SALS NOTAMed U/S last night

Not long before this event:

WX heavy rain in discrete showers,

Wind calm below 1000 feet,

Runway 12 wet, BA good.

REILs not operating

PAPI operating

HIRL operating

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...og/AA-KIN0.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN00.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN01.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN04.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN02.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN03.jpg

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN05.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN08.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN06.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN09.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN10.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...g/AA-KIN07.jpg

Looking at the photo in post 49, its looks like the Capt had his HUD deployed. This is a great aid in low visibility operations such as landing in a heavy downpour. Our carrier only has them on the Capt's side, can someone say whether AA has them fitted on the Co-pilots side as well?

Unhooked,

No HUD on FO's side.

Bob

Well, the first photo that appeared earlier today didn't look TOO bad, but now I see these I have to say, lucky lucky escape.
That must have been very close to a fatal accident with that level of disruption to the structure I would imagine.

Aye it looks a lot worse in the cold light of day. I thought they'd lunched the engines and gear but essentially the thing was intact. Odd that this was survivable for the FD crew but the Turkish crash in AMS wasn't, especially when you look at the deformation of the nose.

With the last pics in mind it looks like the Turkish in AMS. Differend crash ofcourse, but the flight crew and the people near the cracks are lucky survivors!

Edit: Reverseunlocked was ahead of me (phone phone phone).

Airline Info
 

As for operations, I think that you would find that 10kts tailwind limit is pretty standard for airliners operating in the U.S. -- of course further reduced by charted performance limitations. Also, weather classified as heavy rain is avoided for takeoffs and landings.

I heard an opinion from guys who have flown into KIN often, that the controllers range from good to bad, and tend to issue the weather that they believe you need in order to operate.

The runway isn't grooved, and will puddle in heavier rain. Also, I heard that the touchdown zones have a lot of residual tire rubber.

The fracturing of the fuselage looks like, from the photos, to have happened with crossing the rocky embankment.

When the "real" accident investigation reports come in, we should be able to change the focus of the pprune discussion away from the rampant speculation, including my own.

The difference was the type of impact, overrun with horizontal deceleration resulting in the @rse being torn out of the ship as it passed some rocky ground (although it looked like there had also been a drop off the end of the R/W ) versus crashing with a high vertical descent rate (magnified for the cockpit probably, as it was pivoted into the ground)
In fact it reminded me of the one that went rallycrossing off the side in a crosswind a year or so ago, except this time the terrain was even less friendly.
For the avoidance of doubt, 4x4 capability does not figure in 737 highlight features.

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?

why don't we all just accept pprune for what it is...the good, the bad, and the ugly

I will even acknowledge myself as the ugly.

so...we also have to at least consider that the pilot flying screwed up...it happens...sorry to say.

think air france in toronto

think southwest in chicago/midway

think american in little rock.

ooopppssss

I hope they find that the brakes were screwed up...that the thrust reversers went inop on touchdown, or that the spoilers didn't deploy

but

oh well...a good go around is pretty darn important

There are no new accidents. Only new people making the same mistakes again and again.
Alt3

. . . unless you made the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 30 approach, which has a DA 0f 440 . . .

All the links in the chain were connected. Weather, tailwind, wet ungrooved runway, rubber deposits, offset ils approach with higher minima, no tdz lighting...End result a broken airplane!

Fly Safe

Due to mountains (nearly 8,000') close by, winds can be quite unpredictable at Manley, and even more so at Sangster. I have seen winds 180 degrees opposite directions at 15 kts, at each end of runway at Sangster.
At night, some wierd catabatic effects occur at both airports.
Anytime there is a northerly wind component at Manley, look out for turbulence.
I have seen a B-707 (BOAC) bounce 50' after being ambushed by shear at Manley.
I bet JM pilots could tell some tales.

A little off topic perhaps since most of you are disqussing the cause,but one thing strikes me.This seems to be another crash of a more modern 737 where the aircraft is not catching fire .Neither did the thurkish one in Amsterdam or the BM in Kegworth.There is also several other NG and Classic crashes where you don,t have a post crash fire.So my question to the many Pro,s on this forum is if fuel tank design have been much improved from the 60,s and 70,s?

Isn't standard tailwind limit for the 737 15 knots at most operators? I agree that it's 10 knots for most other planes.

The answer would have little bearing on this accident unless the specifics are known.

Fire is predicated on aircraft breakup (how the g-loads were distributed) as well as sources of ignition coupled with misting effects of any leaking fuel.


Rain and snow on the ground are your friend.

Eventually we'll get a report on the amount of fuel laying on the ground that the rescuers and passengers walked through.

No need for them, all the passengers had to do was step out. If they had been deployed they might have hindered evacuation.

I read one published report in which a passenger said the plane was bouncing on the runway

can we at least consider porposing?

Just to correct my inaccurate suspicion in post #14, the runway is of course still behind the a/c. Just beyond the beach, the slope and the road....

And for those who keep saying the a/c broke "in half" - can you use the term broke up? The a/c is after all now in a number of pieces (2 airframe structural failures, wingtip broken off and engine departed the wing and apprently one main gear - or two?).

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

Just heard an interview on local tv news. It was a frequent flyer into NMIA, and like many of us buffs, he had a window seat. He claims the aircraft appeared to cross the threshold higher than (his concept of) normal and did not appear to have contacted the runway until about 'half way down the runway length'. Also says he saw the far end threshold bars flash past his window and automatically went to brace position. He was unhurt.

Hearsay I know, and uninformed hearsay, but interesting hearing his account. Of course the fdr will tell the real story. I'm thankful for the outcome, could have been far worse. Looking at aerial footage that embankment was a godsend.

Regards

post 66 - suninmyeyes - KIN RNAV Rwy 30. Gets you to 390'(373'), vis 2.3 km required. If qualified there is an approach to Rwy 30.

post 75 - Machaca - that is allegedly a deadheading crewmember and not an operating crewmember.

iwalkedaway - Two reports - one said 4 hospitalized, including both pilots. Another report said 6 hospitalized, all crewmembers. Again, news reports so the second statement might mean 6 hospitalized which includes both pilots and not the F/A's.

The picture taken from the front left angle shows damage up to the post between the R1 and R2 windows. It appears that there might be a hole under the outboard edge of the Captain's glareshield, where the clock is, indicating the cockpit firewall might have been breached.

OK
 

Sounds like this:

Landed long...a bit fast...perhaps spoilers did not automatically deploy...though it appears thrust reversers are in reverse position.

Perhaps during rollout, breakdown in cockpit procedure to verify spoiler deployment.

So much like Air France in toronto.

a go around is almost always an option.

A go-around almost always an option - perhaps not.
 

Protectthehornet:

You might be able to suggest to all of us out here which airlines permit a go-around after touchdown and after reverse thrust is deployed; I know mine doesn't.

The posted pictures show that the reversers on both engines were deployed, but were they developing full reverse thrust? A wet runway, tailwind (and perhaps landing long) would suggest that the commander would indeed select full reverse thrust.

Unfortunately, after paxing/positioning around the planet on various airlines, I am noticing a worrying trend that on landing, most of these airlines' pilots select only idle reverse, and not select full reverse thrust (I do like the sound of full reverse being applied). This trend seems to be the norm, which leads to the problem when things go south, people tend, in the heat of battle, to revert to what they do normally, ergo idle reverse. I am not suggesting that the AA commander selected only idle reverse, but the trend is out there.

"a go around is almost always an option."

Not once you've deployed reverse thrust.


Dick Newman

Go around is not recommended after using reverse thrust but can quickly be changed to go around thrust. I never left that option out if things were going to hell in a handbasket,
FUBAR. Who cares if it is legal or operationally correct for your operator. Do what ever it takes to survive.

ALMOST
 

I said ALMOST always an option.

And I know you can't go around once tr's have been deployed...key word ALMOST always.

Any landing in difficult conditions should always be a max effort...max reverse, max braking effort

I made 600 landings at Tegucigalpa, Honduras up in the mountains. It has a 70 ft cliff off the end of a 5400 ft runway. Taca killed a bunch of people about two years ago going off the end in an A310.

Lets say we are touching down, select reverse, and find we have no brakes on any system. Do we follow the manual and go off the cliff or stow the reversers and go around and land at San Pedro Sula? What would you do? Would you follow company procedure? I hope not.

@p51

small correction of your statement about the plane... it was an A320. Reg EI-TAF.

prtoectthe hornet
 

You are right, sir. I should have paid more attention to "almost."

Dick Newman

Agreed! I wish these people would just take their opinions and observations to some kind of a rumour network...oh, wait...