Presumably is not to stop the aircraft crashing into the sea, but to stop the sea crashing onto the runway ? :eek:

I NEVER worried about filling out paperwork [Irregularity Report for those interested] for making a go-around. And I made few. I actually liked filling out the form to show where OTHERS had screwed up.

The LAST thing I ever thought about was the "cost" of any phase of my flight if it was for safety reasons. Can't tell you how many times I got called in for carrying too much fuel. Any pilot that has cost in the back of his mind while flying better be riding in the back somewhere.

Glad I'm outta this racket !! [ I know...you all are too !!:D]

Having operated in and out of KIN a fair bit, I always thought of it as being in the "accident waiting to happen" category. Storms can blow up very suddenly and as others have pointed out, getting in on RW30 with cloud and rain about is easier said than done.

I've been badly misled by wind reports in the past: I don't think it's an ATC failing, more that the velocity isn't being measured accurately or from the right (or enough) places. Landed there some years ago in "calm" and it seemed a bit fast - brakes noticeably hot & more rwy used than should have been necessary. Checked the QAR data later and it was 23kts tail on T/D. :eek:

Out of interest, do AA have a FDR analysis program running to pick up operating trends? I positioned to KIN on AA once and the approach certainly felt 'rushed' and we ended up near the far end of the runway (not saying that this has anything to do with the current accident).

Glueball, good points. I also think the sim could never really produce the genuine emotional shock of a real life and death decision. I also agree landing long in the sim is not a good idea. However one can still set up the tight margin landing in bad weather, and then throw in a spoiler or brake failure. That would get the heart going.

One could even set up 2 or 3 of these landings (covering various aspects of the tight margin landing), and then randomly select on which one the failure occurs.

There is no requirement for an irregularity report for a go-around at my airline. IMO, there should NEVER be a requirement for such a report for a go-around, because a go-around is NOT AN IRREGULARITY!!!

If airline MISmanagement treats go-arounds as irregularities, then they are putting Captains on notice that they are not to be trusted to make the decisions they are trained, certified, and paid to make. That MISmanagement should then expect to bend more metal and hurt more people, since their Captains are effectively told to think like beancounters rather than aviators.

Did a goround at SFO once. The Tower had cleared both of us for the same runway, seemed irregular to me.

Whatslizad - You are correct, it is a required report. Didn't know it became a required report. I feel so naughty for any reports I should have sent, but didn't. :ok:

This video tells the tale from a passenger's view..

YouTube - American Airline Crash in Jamaica:Clips courtesy Jamaica TV news-CVM&TVJ

Excess speed might have caused this accident. I am speculating of course, but, in my opinion 70% of pilots flying the 737 do not land at ref period. That is based on 15,000 hours on type and more than a decade of training and checking on type. This a/c is NOT a great stopper and when landed flat and fast simply eats up the Rwy. Throw in a couple of non standard techniques or a bit of hydroplaning and it's curtains. Pilots of the NG are very reluctant to close the thrust levers until it's virtually on the ground. With these new wings and also winglets you can close the thrust at 30ft followed by a flare at 20 without it 'falling' out of the sky. So many also gun the engines coming into the flare, normally, totally unnecessarily! the old gen 737s did fall out of the sky if you closed the thrust at 30ft and I wonder if there needs to be a reevaluation of landing technique across the board with the latest aerofoils providing much more lift (and less drag).

Some have mentioned cancelling reverse and flying away again. Depending on weight etc I reckon if you canx reverse at 110 kts and applied firewall thrust, it would take about 1500m minimum to get back to say 130 kts and hopefully fly away again. This is based on a simulated attempt just to satisfy my curiosity.

Safe flying.

Not to mention how some pilots can't keep the thing anywhere near the GS in the last 200' which also eats up air distance like anything.

Sorry, but a go-around or missed approach IS an irregularity. If you don't land on the first attempt, it is NOT a 'regular' operation. And I don't know of any Captain at my former airline that was in any way intimidated by having to fill out the report.

Nope. Go-arounds and rejected landings are clearly described in the NORMAL PROCEDURES section of our Flight Handbook / FCOM -- not even in "Supplementary Normal" procedures! Demonstrating a go-around from a Cat II ILS is a NORMAL requirement of a PT or PC session, before any "Non-normal" situations are introduced.

Do you file an "irregularity report" every time you deviate around a thunderstorm? A go-around, absent other "non-normal" situations or indications, may likewise be considered simply another option when encountering unexpected or worse than expected weather.

I've gone around maybe 5 times in 11 years of 747 operations. While they may not be "common" to an individual pilot, neither are actual Cat II landings for most pilots. "Uncommon" does not equate to "irregular" or "non-normal."

Go-arounds specifically exempted from any reporting requirements at my airline.....

I don't believe that any "reports" are required for a G/A at AA. A G/A is considered a successful conclusion to an approach, if that's the Captain's decision.

I believe AA's Ops Specs state that puddles of water 1/2" or greater on the runway make that runway unusable except for emergency (who's out measuring puddles at night in heavy rain? ).

Personal Opinions:

1. While not prohibited, a tailwind on a wet runway at night with the approach lights out, etc. certainly adds to the pucker factor.

2. No cockpit crew would take such an approach and landing lightly.....and is certainly aware of the need for proper speed and glide path control, proper touchdown point, proper use of autobrakes, spoliers, reverse thrust, etc.

3. It's always easy when you're not the guy in the left seat of the accident aircraft.

pax view
 

Exactly waves-dubai. I know I am familiar enough with landmarks/objects on the field to tell if td is going to be a bit long or more 'normal'. In fact it did happen years ago on an Air J 727 - told wifey to hang on and sure enough by the time it settled the subsequent braking force had the galley a-rattling and all of us straining against our seatbelts. Uh - I must admit I kind of enjoyed it :O - whoever said the 727 is a stopper - whoa yes!

Regarding Irregularity Reports -

Now, again, this was nearly twenty years ago, but in part the "BOOK" said under Non-Mechanical Irregularities, amoung other things:

"Go-Around or missed approach caused by reasons external to cockpit, i.e., ATC handling, windshear, mechanical problem, etc."

Again...it was no big deal to fill one of these out and no one was "worried" about what the company would say/think about it.

OK.....enough of this. On with the accident in question.

Okay, okay. Different companies have different regs anent whether go-arounds are normal procedures or irregularities. Can we get past that and move on?

Is there any mold growing on the runway? It gets pretty slippery when wet, I hear!

NO RESA
 

"In my last airline" I agree with your analysis of the tendency for most pilots to land the 737 fast. But, I think this is a result of the design of the airplane. The 737 has been lengthened over the years, but the height of the landing gear has not changed. The reason why it has not changed is that SWA did not want to order the NG 737 if it had a different type rating than their existing fleet. So, Boeing accommodated SWA and built a very long-bodied airframe that sits too close to the ground. Every pilot has heard stories of pilots hitting the aft fuselage during landing. These events have occassionaly resulted in the termination of the crew. The potential of hitting the aft-fuselage during landing is a concern that sits in the back of every 737 pilot's mind when flaring to land. An easy way to minimize this risk is to carry power until almost on the deck, and thereby land above v-ref. Landing a few knots hot is usually not a problem, and can more easily be managed than erring on the other side: i.e. chopping the power too high, and running out of airspeed prior to touch-down. This is why most of us land above v-ref.