American Airlines jet goes off runway in Jackson Hole, Wyoming

[airman1900]

SKSFLYER777 said:

"In recent years, don't know if they still are, but suspect it is so...... AA trains pilots to "hit" cities with computer based video flight checkouts. I think Tegucigalpa might be the only city they still actually physically check out a pilot to fly to and perhaps the V-Nav approach to Eagle."

I had occasion to speak with one of the AA 757 pilots who was involved in developing AA's JAC 757 IOC, including the computer stuff, about 1990. As you said, American treated their mountain airports, JAC, EGE with physical checkouts and special simulator training. This incident at JAC with the 757 is the first in 20 years, after thousands of flights. I believe an AA MD80 went off the JAC runway in the late 80’s.

In speaking with UA pilots on the other hand, they did not/do not receive a physical checkout. I don't know about DL, Skywest or in the past CO, NW, Mesa, Western, Rocky Mountain, Frontier(old/new), or the USAF.

In my opinion, JAC can be as tough as any AK airport including Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka. I believe Alaska Airlines has separate requirements for pilots flying southeast Alaska. At least one MD80, 737, A320, CRJ700, and now the first 757 have gone off the runway at JAC.

JAC has had way too many airline, business, military and, not to mention private incidents/accidents compared to southeast Alaska Airline's airports.

In my opinion, insufficient training, respect for mountain flying by the airlines, bureaucrats, business jet owners and last but not least pilots are the culprits here.

[protectthehornet]

LOOK, whether you like it or not...both sides have points. American has had a few memorable (I'm not saying they are out of the statistical norm) over runs.

I also think Southwest has at least two that make me shudder...but they seem to have a better PR department...though American is famous for painting out the name ASAP.

Jackson Hole is a tough airport on a nice day for a large plane, or a small plane.

So, pilots should be really ''up'' for any operation there. Just like DCA, or Midway, or LGA, or SNA.

AA breaking the chain of custody is a big mistake and just makes them look bad.

But, I don't think for a minute that the airbus crash out of JFK should be dismissed as a copilot bicycling on the rudder pedals...

American has screwed up...I know 3 pilots there , two have been fired, and one lied on his log book about flying time. the joint is not perfect.

But there are good pilots there too.

Let's wait and see what happened to this plane...we've already put out some good thoughts...shouldn't take too long to find out.

I do hope someone will post the FACTS asap.

[PJ2]

Bobbsy;

Would there be any way AA could have changed or deleted parts of the DFDR data while downloading it?

Essentially, no. The data creation, transmission, conversion, recording, reading/validation and correction process has its own characteristics and marks which are, in the original file, difficult to near impossible to change. Substitution is not a real possibility again because the data is so closely associated with both the histories of all the recorded flights and the aircraft itself. It would take long experience and deep knowledge of flight data systems to make such changes and even more craft to make them "invisible" to other experienced data people. Like all flight safety processes however, spending years and years learning how to do this work tends to weed out dishonesty and politics by one method or another.

A quick read-through of the CAA document "Approval, Operational Serviceability and Readout of Flight Data Recorder Systems" may help understand why changing the data with sufficient interventions to make others believe they were reading the original aircraft data would be extremely difficult. If a quick read-through is tough sledding, at least read Appendix B.

[misd-agin]

airman1900 - "In my opinion, insufficient training, respect for mountain flying by the airlines, bureaucrats, business jet owners and last but not least pilots are the culprits here."

Do you know what the training standards are? You seem to indicate that AA had, or has, the highest standards for the mountian flying.

How do you know the pilots don't take it seriously? I've been LPB, TGU, EGE, JAC, GUC qualified at various times. I've yet to fly with ANYONE that didn't take the challenge of flying into those cities extremely serious. Some would avoid the airports while others are attracted to the challenge.

[Ercos]

American is second worst when it comes to overall accidents/incidents per capita for major airlines. However it seems more so than other airlines with more accidents or incidents (like United) American has far many accidents caused by unstable approaches or improperly executed landings. I won't speak to their training as I've never received it, but from an outsider looking in there appears to be a problem.

Whether it's pressure to never go around or simply inexperienced pilots (and no, 10,000 hours is not AA average pilot experience) something is wrong. From where I'm sitting it looks to be either a failure of training or a failure of the pilots themselves.

[rubik101]

Is it just me being very stupid or is this table a crock of shyte?

Airline accident ratings

The last column refers to; Above/below average accident rate. Well, to me, if your average accident record is high, e.g. Delta at +538% then you need to have a very serious rethink about owning and running an airline and we should all avoid flying with them, whereas China Airlines and Turkish Airlines have an unbelievably good record at -469% and -106% respectively. I'm afraid the compiler needs to do some basic study of stats analysis and compilation.

AA Rudder departure has been done to death, sorry for the inappropriate pun, in another, very long and somewhat tedious thread. Suffice to say, if I am in my skidding car on an icy road if I swing the steering wheel from full lock left to full lock right and repeat the exersise (how many times was it, 4, 5?) until I lose complete control of the car then I will be very lucky to walk away from it unscathed. Bad practice, plain and almost simple.

And as for the invite to call me stupid for not understanding the stats table or the ability and wisdom of the FO in question, feel free; I've been called worse on here.

[bearfoil]

Had 587 lost only its Rudder, there would be no inappropriate references to worn out threads. It lost the Vertical Stabilizer, and for reasons that you seem to have missed in the "done to death" thread. Leave it alone.

[Mahatma Kote]

Stats? Lies, damned lies, and statistics

misd-agin refers to Airline accident ratings

Now I've looked at that and the stats are calculated by

Code:

The Accident Rate is calculated as follows:

  Accident Rate = ((A *(B/C))-D)

Where:

A = number of million flights completed by the airline

B = adjusted fatal events for all airlines on list

C = number of million flights for all airlines on list

D = adjusted fatal events of the airline

So by this formula, having zero accidents (D) impairs your score. Having lots of takeoffs (A) worsens your score

It has no relation whatsoever to accident rates

[Bobbsy]

Thanks for the very useful link, PJ12. It rather confirms my suspicion (and what you said) that the possibility of AA doing much beyond embarrassing themselves (and, obviously, committing an illegal act) is next to non-existent. With the dataframe structure as specified, the chances of any undetectable alterations would be pretty much impossible.

However, as said, the chain of evidence is well and truly broken.

Thanks again,

Bob

[airman1900]

Misd-agin:

<<How do you know the pilots don't take it seriously?>>

How about departing JAC in a part 121 operation VFR without an IFR clearance and flying into clouds before receiving an IFR clearance. Numerous warnings by SLC center to aircraft landing at JAC about being off course and too low. Part 121 and 135 aircraft landing JAC with significant tail winds and coming to a screeching halt at the end of the runway.

<<Do you know what the training standards are?>>

I hope I find out in the NTSB report.

If I may ask you, how many times you have actually landed or departed JAC at or near minimums with a contaminated runway and significant winds?

[Mansfield]

What we may be looking at is the result of a very tall “stovepipe” culture, which is not unique to American (although they may have perfected it). The deeper you are in the stovepipe, the more hands a body of knowledge must pass through before it gets to you. It becomes a giant game of telephone, wherein core concepts, extracted from documents that are already tortuously written by regulators and manufacturers, etc., are re-written, “simplified”, (generally a no-no in high reliability theory), interpreted, etc. By the time it gets to you, you have no real understanding of the original intent or the original context, and are only expected to trust your company's administrative rigor.

This is partially intentional as operators attempt to control the interpretation of various procedures and policies; consider those operators who do not issue the full Parts A, B and C Op Specs to their pilots, or who only provide access to the MEL while on the ground. But it can eventually lead to a wide divergence from the original meaning.

A cross-section of experienced pilots from legacy backgrounds will have a wide range of interpretations of how something is done, based on their formative training at an established carrier. In some cases, they will not realize that their carrier's methodology was but one “means of compliance” among many.

Perhaps the same problem has migrated into the training of those who manage the company's participation in the accident investigation.

[Doors to Automatic]

Just out of interest what would (roughly) the equivalent length of Jackson Hole's runway be if the airport was located at sea level rather than at 6,000ft elevation?

[captjns]

Is it really the airline... or is the pilot... or perhaps the instructor or check airman?

At every airline, there are a few, who make it through is/her PC/LPC that does not merit the pass. But alas for whatever reason, there is always a friend or colleague out there willing to sign off an inadequate pilot.

I've had the opportunity to work in many airlines' training departments. Some had state of the art computerized googoophonic training equipment, and some had a black board with chalk, if you could find a nub of chalk that is.

Still, there are instructors and check airmen who take pride in their work and will not permit an unsafe airman to endanger the lives of the innocent... and well you can guess about the other category of instructors and check airmen.

To say that AA has the worst training department is just ignorant and arrogant.

Every airline has their John Wayne type that will follow SOPs three times a year... two simulator periods and one line check a year... and the rest of the year??? up for grabs. For fear of their job, few F/Os come foward to comment on blatant disregard for SOPs and or poor performance of their skipper.

You'll have zealot with a hard on just waiting for an incident to occur at his or her favorite airline. Then they can pounce on that carrier's training and lack of proffessionalsim within their ranks. Oh well that's what happens when one does not have a life. Remind you of any posters of this thread?

[aterpster]

airman 1900:

In my opinion, JAC can be as tough as any AK airport including Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka. I believe Alaska Airlines has separate requirements for pilots flying southeast Alaska. At least one MD80, 737, A320, CRJ700, and now the first 757 have gone off the runway at JAC.

I am very familiar with KJAC, and I fail to see the comparsion, especially for the well-equipped air carrier aircraft with RNP AR capability.

ILS with minimums of 200 3/4 to Runway 19 (could be 200 1/2 if the airport and the park service would agree to FAA-compliant ALS). RNP AR 380 and 1 to Runway 01 (could be 380 and 3/4 if the airport authority would make the ALS FAA-compliant.) Those minimums are about as good as many big-city airports.

The airport is a no-brainer for the competent, qualified jet crew when the runway is clean and dry. Runway length comes into play when the runway is contaminated but still not high-risk when the runway is contaminated but sanded and plowed. It is problematic with conditions that existed when AAL overrun, but some (much?) of that can be attributed to the failure of the park service to be concerned about making the airport safer by blocking a runway extension. The topography will permit a longer runway, so the issue is politics, not topography, unlike Eagle, Aspen, and many Alaska locations.

[SKS777FLYER]

Arpster, perhaps 1900's thoughts were of the terrain implications of engine out missed approach procedures or engine out departure procedures of Jackson Hole, compared to such in Alaska. I don't think (don't know for sure) that there are any airports at all in Alaska over 3300 feet elevation. Additionally, I think perhaps the approach/departure briefings and the detailed procedures add up in work load.



Doors to Automatic :

ust out of interest what would (roughly) the equivalent length of Jackson Hole's runway be if the airport was located at sea level rather than at 6,000ft elevation?

I will SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of converting JAC's 6,300' runway length to a sea level equivalent. I would equate it to a 7,300' sea level airport. (Note that is significantly longer than the 5701 feet at KSNA. I don't recall any AA overuns at KSNA in the decades AA has flown there.)

Some of the many variables:
1. about a 10% difference in TAS versus IAS. Their approach speed was probably somewhere close to 130 knots indicated, which would be about 143 knots true or groundspeed + or - wind component.
2. The density altitude with the RH and temp was probably around 6800 feet.
3. Downslope of JAC runway 19 ( my equivalent runway has no slope)

For a standard day at sea level, there will be no difference between TAS and IAS, the denser air will offer more drag to aerodynamic braking. The engines will perform better in the denser air, providing quicker spool-up and more reverse thrust.

[misd-agin]

Ercos - post 95

What database are you using to compare the rate of runway/landing incidents?

As far as 10,000 hrs guy being the typical AA pilot? I stated aa73's one of the most inexperienced guys, and not the average. It was a reply to 411a and not a comment on this incident.

[airman1900]

aterpster:

Respectfully, I beg to differ.

<<I am very familiar with KJAC, and I fail to see the comparsion, especially for the well-equipped air carrier aircraft with RNP AR capability.>>

Hitting rocks in the totally boxed in by mountains JAC airport, with a blown engine is definitely an issue. In my opinion, the terrain at JAC is as challenging when compared to air carrier served airports in AK. Lack of nearby alternates, other than IDA, must be considered.

The valley floor is wide enough for an ILS with low minimums. I’m not a TERPS expert. In my opinion, legally designed approaches aren’t all equally safe.

<<The airport is a no-brainer for the competent, qualified jet crew when the runway is clean and dry.>>

In winter(roughly Nov-Mar), the runway at JAC is very often not clean and dry.

JAC is unattended at night. The observer, other than moose and coyote is often only the AWOS-3. ANC, FAI, JNU, or SIT are all attended 24 hrs.

In my opinion, especially at night, with a crosswind/gusty component, drifting snow, low visibility, JAC is a challenge.

[misd-agin]

airman1900 - "How about departing JAC in a part 121 operation VFR without an IFR clearance and flying into clouds before receiving an IFR clearance. Numerous warnings by SLC center to aircraft landing at JAC about being off course and too low. Part 121 and 135 aircraft landing JAC with significant tail winds and coming to a screeching halt at the end of the runway.

If I may ask you, how many times you have actually landed or departed JAC at or near minimums with a contaminated runway and significant winds

You can depart VFR under certain circumstances. Flying into clouds is another issue if they did not have an IFR clearance.

As far as SLC center giving altitude warnings? It depends if the a/c were IMC or VMC/VFR/visual. I've heard enough comments from passengers, and sometimes pilots, that thought we were doing 'crazy' stuff that didn't understand that it was absolutely normal.

]I'm not sure what you're calling 'significant' tailwinds. It wasn't an issue in this event. I'm not sure if you're complaining about AA specifically or others.

As far as my personal experience w/JAC with winds and weather? My JAC experience is at least 3 yrs old so the most common memory is of good weather(as it is anywhere in the U.S.). Did I fly there in the middle of the winter. Yes. Have I landed there in the snow? Yes. Winds? Yes. Winds and snow? I don't remember that ever happening. And this event is more typical of my bad weather experience there, snow with light winds.

[misd-agin]

SKS777FLYER -
"I will SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of converting JAC's 6,300' runway length to a sea level equivalent. I would equate it to a 7,300' sea level airport. (Note that is significantly longer than the 5701 feet at KSNA. I don't recall any AA overuns at KSNA in the decades AA has flown there.)"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you have your math backwards. It's not the same as a 7,300' runway, it would be the same as a 5,500' S.L. airport.

Isn't TAS affected 2% per thousand feet? If correct, and you could apply the same percentage to the field length, JAC at S.L. would be approx. 5500', or nearly the same as SNA.

SNA has rain for degraded braking action vs. JAC's snow impact.

[barit1]

SKS777FLYER:

I will SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of converting JAC's 6,300' runway length to a sea level equivalent. I would equate it to a 7,300' sea level airport.

wild-ass guess? yeah, sure.

Scientific? Don't think so.
Higher elevation => more runway required;
thus lower elevation => LESS runway required.

So 5300' would be a closer SWAG.