American Airlines jet goes off runway in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
check:
the DC9 series makes an interesting sort of screechy sound when the handle moves to activate the ground spoilers automatically...the absence of the sound calls your attention to the problem of no speed brakes/spoilers.
I would suggest a sound indicating the speedbrakes are deployed. a unique sound to be sure.
having the hand at the base of the throttles isn't a bad idea, especially for a go around.
we are too dependent upon automatic stuff. its that simple.
the DC9 series makes an interesting sort of screechy sound when the handle moves to activate the ground spoilers automatically...the absence of the sound calls your attention to the problem of no speed brakes/spoilers.
I would suggest a sound indicating the speedbrakes are deployed. a unique sound to be sure.
having the hand at the base of the throttles isn't a bad idea, especially for a go around.
we are too dependent upon automatic stuff. its that simple.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks.
I can easily see why this CA called deployed. He's landed the plane a thousand times, and every time it's been deployed. Force of habit.
I'm not sure I agree with automation dependency on this particular issue. I'd rather have the auto system reliably and consistently deploying the speedbrakes than a distracted PM.
re. hand on the thrust levers- I'm not following how it helps to have the PM's hand at the base of the thrust levers. Assuming the PF remains the same for the APP and the GA, what's the benefit? The PM's hand will be busy with the flaps, gear radio, and MCP. The PF will already have his hand on the thrust levers. What am I missing here? My airline doesn't do that.
I can easily see why this CA called deployed. He's landed the plane a thousand times, and every time it's been deployed. Force of habit.
I'm not sure I agree with automation dependency on this particular issue. I'd rather have the auto system reliably and consistently deploying the speedbrakes than a distracted PM.
re. hand on the thrust levers- I'm not following how it helps to have the PM's hand at the base of the thrust levers. Assuming the PF remains the same for the APP and the GA, what's the benefit? The PM's hand will be busy with the flaps, gear radio, and MCP. The PF will already have his hand on the thrust levers. What am I missing here? My airline doesn't do that.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hand at base of throttles:
not that our airline does that in normal conditions, but during catagory 2 approaches, we would put our hand below the other pilots hand in case of a go around, we would back up throttle movement to takeoff thrust/go around thrust.
And of course the captain can ''take it' any time he wants
I understand of course tht this wasn't a cat 2.
not that our airline does that in normal conditions, but during catagory 2 approaches, we would put our hand below the other pilots hand in case of a go around, we would back up throttle movement to takeoff thrust/go around thrust.
And of course the captain can ''take it' any time he wants
I understand of course tht this wasn't a cat 2.
. Different strokes I suppose.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, below 1000ft, AA mandates the PM's hand to be below the fuel switches and the other hand near the flight controls so that he can take over with minimal hand movements/coordination should the PF go incapacitated. Overkill? Maybe. Remember, AA is big into ancestral worship.
Also - as far as I know - every airline out there has some kind of call out for spoiler deployment upon touchdown - either "Spoilers", "Deployed", or "No Spoilers." Isn't that how everyone does it? How is AA different in that regard?
Also - as far as I know - every airline out there has some kind of call out for spoiler deployment upon touchdown - either "Spoilers", "Deployed", or "No Spoilers." Isn't that how everyone does it? How is AA different in that regard?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again American training is shown to be weak by NTSB.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots...good bad and the ugly
Some pilots are really good...on their toes for everything and ready, thinking ahead all the time (except for losing their pensions).
Some pilots are ''too cool for school'' and just go along for the ride.
jackson hole, at night in a big jet...you better be ready
same with DCA, LGA, MDW, SNA and many others.
A beautiful day, no traffic at IAD? well, its not too bad...but watch out for traffic.
I remember a C130 at jackson hole takeoff or go around...I've forgotten and they had a CFIT.
I like the idea of having the NFP with his hands at base of throttle and ''ready" just in case.
Anyone know if the 757 has a radar alt ''on ground' feature(like some 737), or is it weight on wheels?
Southwest at midway...pilot didn't get into reverse for 18 seconds after landing
AA at little rock, plane didn't know it was on the ground...wet runway
YOU , the PILOT have always to be ready.
Some pilots are really good...on their toes for everything and ready, thinking ahead all the time (except for losing their pensions).
Some pilots are ''too cool for school'' and just go along for the ride.
jackson hole, at night in a big jet...you better be ready
same with DCA, LGA, MDW, SNA and many others.
A beautiful day, no traffic at IAD? well, its not too bad...but watch out for traffic.
I remember a C130 at jackson hole takeoff or go around...I've forgotten and they had a CFIT.
I like the idea of having the NFP with his hands at base of throttle and ''ready" just in case.
Anyone know if the 757 has a radar alt ''on ground' feature(like some 737), or is it weight on wheels?
Southwest at midway...pilot didn't get into reverse for 18 seconds after landing
AA at little rock, plane didn't know it was on the ground...wet runway
YOU , the PILOT have always to be ready.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
Again American training is shown to be weak by NTSB.
AA's procedure calls for verifcation of spoiler deployment upon touch down, serious enough on a regular dry runway, much more so at high elevation and contaminated with snow. Can't blame the training department for a pilot having a brain-fart..
Talk about the holes in the Swiss Cheese lining up - rapidly:
(Hole) However, the precise timing of the unloading of the main landing gear just after touchdown
(Hole) that coincided with the deployment of the thrust reversers
(Hole) resulted in a rare mechanical/hydraulic interaction in the thrust reverser system,
(Hole) and the thrust reversers were locked in transit instead of continuing to deploy.
(Hole) Further, an unrelated defect in the automatic speedbrake mechanism
(Hole) prevented the speedbrakes from automatically deploying.
(Hole) However, the precise timing of the unloading of the main landing gear just after touchdown
(Hole) that coincided with the deployment of the thrust reversers
(Hole) resulted in a rare mechanical/hydraulic interaction in the thrust reverser system,
(Hole) and the thrust reversers were locked in transit instead of continuing to deploy.
(Hole) Further, an unrelated defect in the automatic speedbrake mechanism
(Hole) prevented the speedbrakes from automatically deploying.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ntsb and FAA investigations seem to never take into account time constraints. They seem to forget these guys have little time to register and understand and react to a multiple failure event. They don't have the liberty to read, ponder, kick it around with other colleagues for six months. This kind of accident is over in seconds, unfortunately human brains have limited ability to deal with multiple issues at once, as we see every day while passing people talking on cell phones while driving. Had this just been a single issue, it most likely wouldn't have been an accident.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drive73
Agreed.
That's the "you weren't there" factor. When you're going down the runway at 130kt and your main stopping force (reversers on a snow covered runway) is inoperative, you don't have time to run through AOM vol 2 in your head to diagnose and treat the problem.
That's the "you weren't there" factor. When you're going down the runway at 130kt and your main stopping force (reversers on a snow covered runway) is inoperative, you don't have time to run through AOM vol 2 in your head to diagnose and treat the problem.
This has been an interesting thread, certainly gets one thinking about landing performance.
But there is one thing that has not been touched, especially in todays climate of Human factors/TEM training. Runway length. Unfortunately it seems that the TEM syllabus assumes that its only flight crews that can make a cockup. But what about airport planners.
Take Jackson Hole. A 1900m/6800ft runway at an eleveation of 6,800ft msl. Add snow, ice, poor braking conditions etc etc, and big jets. I think the industry as a whole can take some of the blame, a machoistic drive to shoehorn the biggiest equipment into the smallest bit of realestate possible.....for what reason, cause it can be done.
Looking at Jackson Hole, this accident typifies whats wrong with the industry. You have a wide, flat expanse of realestate surrounding the airport, unencoubered by terrain or urban development unlike Miday. Why not simply extend the runway by 1000m. That extra distance would mean a small cockup would not havecdire consequences.
As i see it TEM applies just as much to airport planners as it does to pilots.
But there is one thing that has not been touched, especially in todays climate of Human factors/TEM training. Runway length. Unfortunately it seems that the TEM syllabus assumes that its only flight crews that can make a cockup. But what about airport planners.
Take Jackson Hole. A 1900m/6800ft runway at an eleveation of 6,800ft msl. Add snow, ice, poor braking conditions etc etc, and big jets. I think the industry as a whole can take some of the blame, a machoistic drive to shoehorn the biggiest equipment into the smallest bit of realestate possible.....for what reason, cause it can be done.
Looking at Jackson Hole, this accident typifies whats wrong with the industry. You have a wide, flat expanse of realestate surrounding the airport, unencoubered by terrain or urban development unlike Miday. Why not simply extend the runway by 1000m. That extra distance would mean a small cockup would not havecdire consequences.
As i see it TEM applies just as much to airport planners as it does to pilots.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomorecatering:
Good thoughts but just plain wrong at this particular location. When the airport was built it was on county land. Later on the National Park Service wanted to extend the boundaries of Teton National Park further south to prevent private development from encroaching on an area that represents a very nice view from the highway.
This resulted in the park boundaries encompassing the airport, unlike when it was built. The National Park Service (NPS) agreed at the time they would in no way interfere with the operation of the airport. Then, some years went by and both the airlines and Jackson County drew up plans to add an additional 1,000 feet to the runway. By this time the greenies had become shrill to the point they didn’t want so much as a leaf disturbed in any national park, but especially Teton. And, the NPS had grown more reactionary along the same lines.
So, the Greenies screamed about the runway extension, lawsuits were threatened, and the NPS just plain said “No way” to the Jackson County Airport Authority. Jackson County accused the federal government of a double-cross and the NPS said, “Tough Sh*t.”
Looking at Jackson Hole, thisaccident typifies whats wrong with the industry. You have a wide, flat expanseof real estate surrounding the airport, unencoubered by terrain or urbandevelopment unlike Miday. Why not simply extend the runway by 1000m. That extradistance would mean a small cockup would not have dire consequences.
Good thoughts but just plain wrong at this particular location. When the airport was built it was on county land. Later on the National Park Service wanted to extend the boundaries of Teton National Park further south to prevent private development from encroaching on an area that represents a very nice view from the highway.
This resulted in the park boundaries encompassing the airport, unlike when it was built. The National Park Service (NPS) agreed at the time they would in no way interfere with the operation of the airport. Then, some years went by and both the airlines and Jackson County drew up plans to add an additional 1,000 feet to the runway. By this time the greenies had become shrill to the point they didn’t want so much as a leaf disturbed in any national park, but especially Teton. And, the NPS had grown more reactionary along the same lines.
So, the Greenies screamed about the runway extension, lawsuits were threatened, and the NPS just plain said “No way” to the Jackson County Airport Authority. Jackson County accused the federal government of a double-cross and the NPS said, “Tough Sh*t.”
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA73 - thats why airlines need to prepare safety cases: http://www.caa.lv/upload/userfiles/f...%20Edwards.pdf
Certainly there should be one for operating in and out of Jackson Hole.
Safety Cases Save Lives!
Certainly there should be one for operating in and out of Jackson Hole.
Safety Cases Save Lives!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Shell,
AA, like all other airlines, incorporates safety cases during our recurrent training every 9 months. We have a dedicated 4 hour session titled "Human Factors" in which many actual real-life scenarios are presented to us.
AA, like all other airlines, incorporates safety cases during our recurrent training every 9 months. We have a dedicated 4 hour session titled "Human Factors" in which many actual real-life scenarios are presented to us.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it from that answer that AA do not have a strctured assessment (for example in the excellent bow tie methodology BowTieXP) of the associated hazardous events and the associated controls, recovery measures and remedial actions.
Instead they are just showing a few powerpoinbts.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Shell Management" : (note the qualifier quotations)
Bow Tie is just one of many tools used for risk assessment. It has pluses and minuses like any other.
Just because Shell may use it, doesn't make it fit every other operator. Why do you assume that AA simply uses powerpoints in risk assessments?
Does Shell use Bow Tie for oil spill risk assessments? Given Shell's horrendous environmental record in Nigeria, one could argue that Bow Tie is a very poor tool indeed.
Bow Tie is just one of many tools used for risk assessment. It has pluses and minuses like any other.
Just because Shell may use it, doesn't make it fit every other operator. Why do you assume that AA simply uses powerpoints in risk assessments?
Does Shell use Bow Tie for oil spill risk assessments? Given Shell's horrendous environmental record in Nigeria, one could argue that Bow Tie is a very poor tool indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 71
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nomorecatering said...
"I think the industry as a whole can take some of the blame, a machoistic drive to shoehorn the biggiest equipment into the smallest bit of realestate possible.....for what reason, cause it can be done."
I was at American Airlines when they started service to Jackson Hole and I questioned the choice of the 757 to a friend in the Flight Department and his answer was illuminating. The reason they chose the 757 for that route was because it was considered the safest plane in the fleet to fly it.
I agree that another 1000' of runway would be great for that airport and would substantially increase the margin of safety. However, remember the airport is essentially in a bowl surrounded by much higer terrain at a fairly high altitude. When all factors are considered, the 757 had the best takeoff and climb performance - even with an engine out - for this airport.
I agree that airlines are always looking to maximize revenue...every company is...but in this case, I know that airpcraft performance was the driving factor in the selection of the 757 for this route.
"I think the industry as a whole can take some of the blame, a machoistic drive to shoehorn the biggiest equipment into the smallest bit of realestate possible.....for what reason, cause it can be done."
I was at American Airlines when they started service to Jackson Hole and I questioned the choice of the 757 to a friend in the Flight Department and his answer was illuminating. The reason they chose the 757 for that route was because it was considered the safest plane in the fleet to fly it.
I agree that another 1000' of runway would be great for that airport and would substantially increase the margin of safety. However, remember the airport is essentially in a bowl surrounded by much higer terrain at a fairly high altitude. When all factors are considered, the 757 had the best takeoff and climb performance - even with an engine out - for this airport.
I agree that airlines are always looking to maximize revenue...every company is...but in this case, I know that airpcraft performance was the driving factor in the selection of the 757 for this route.
