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...