Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Pax Jet in water at NAS Jacksonville, all OK

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Pax Jet in water at NAS Jacksonville, all OK

Old 6th May 2019, 06:28
  #61 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,932
Received 833 Likes on 247 Posts
Angel

Originally Posted by Longtimer
Glad that all humans onboard survived but evidently there were pets in the belly compartments and their fate is still not determined.
unless they were fish, they may have problems as air breathers.
fdr is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 06:48
  #62 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,297
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Runway 10 is not grooved. Is this yet another fast tailwind landing on a non-grooved wet runway (with a thrust reverser inop)?
More likely yet another landing well beyond the authorised touch-down distance (trying hard not to use term "touchdown zone" which has ambiguous meaning).

Let's see first what the touchdown point and delta Vref was, and start our learning experience from there. Not to land is most man's last line of defence. Another interesting data point would be the 500' AFE profile and speed/thrust. Unlike some other investigation agencies, NTSB has remained strong in naming what needs to be named.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 07:29
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 998
Received 17 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by JamaicaJoe
Where is the WX radar equipment that should have been under that missing radome?
Suspect torn from its mounting when the radome was ripped off.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 13:08
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,610
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
I see in one mainstream US news media today more column inches are given to the loss of four pets in this aircraft's hold than to 41 fatalities in the Moscow accident.
WHBM is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 13:13
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 995
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On May 5th 2019 the NTSB reported in their press conference, weather has complicated their efforts. The FDR was read out, preliminary information indicated the IAS at touchdown was 163 knots, 178 knots over ground (about 15 knots tail wind) at 30 degrees of flaps, ground spoilers deployed 3 seconds after touch down. The left hand thrust reverser was inoperative and the aircraft was dispatched under MEL.
From avherald
gearlever is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 13:22
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
I see in one mainstream US news media today more column inches are given to the loss of four pets in this aircraft's hold than to 41 fatalities in the Moscow accident.
That may seem callous, but has been standard in history for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_v...ptions_of_news
Security concern is proportional to the relevance of the story for the individual, his or her family, social group and societal group, in declining order. At some point there is a Boundary of Relevance, beyond which the change is no longer perceived to be relevant, or newsworthy.
GordonR_Cape is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 13:39
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On May 5th 2019 the NTSB reported in their press conference, weather has complicated their efforts. The FDR was read out, preliminary information indicated the IAS at touchdown was 163 knots, 178 knots over ground (about 15 knots tail wind) at 30 degrees of flaps, ground spoilers deployed 3 seconds after touch down. The left hand thrust reverser was inoperative and the aircraft was dispatched under MEL.
If you assume a moderate landing weight and a wet ungrooved runway along with the preliminary data reported above, the calculated landing distance would have exceeded the runway available even without float and/or bounced landing.
737 Driver is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 14:10
  #68 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,297
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
ALD or RLD?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 14:59
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
ALD or RLD?
In the NTSB briefing (link posted above) it was stated that the available landing distance for this runway was 7800 feet. At maximum landing weight on a wet grooved runway, a 737NG will require approximately 6800 feet of runway with both reversers, Flaps 30, max braking (air distance included). On a wet ungrooved runway (braking advisory medium), the calculated landing distance exceeds 8,300 feet. If braking action was medium to poor, the calculated distance exceeds 9500 feet. To be fair, all of these calculations are conservative, and demonstrated performance is usually better. The landing data calculator I have only gives a choice of both reversers or no reversers, again conservative for the one reverser inop scenario. Those calculations start at 8300 feet for the best case braking conditions and exceed 12,000 for medium/poor braking.

I do not know the actual landing weight, however according to the preliminary data the incident aircraft touched down at approximately 15 knots faster than the maximum weight Flaps 30 approach speed with a 15 knot tailwind. This is 30 knots total faster than the entry condition for the calculations above. Given what we currently know, it does not appear that the aircraft could have been stopped within the confines of the runway even if they had landed in the touchdown zone with no subsequent bounce.
737 Driver is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 15:43
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 355
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Why did they not divert to KDAB, KMCO. KJAX. All within spitting distance and all with over 10000 feet runways.
EDLB is online now  
Old 6th May 2019, 16:19
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why did they not divert to KDAB, KMCO. KJAX. All within spitting distance and all with over 10000 feet runways.
Because either the Captain was of the opinion that it wasn't going to be a problem, or the company isn't very supportive of crews who elect to divert (due to costs). Personally, I'd go for the former. But it's all guesswork. How many times does the question "why did they not divert" come up after an accident?
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 16:57
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to the BBC the Left Reverser was not operational.

Florida plane accident: Landing feature failed on aircraft

  • 37 minutes ago
A landing feature was "inoperative" on a passenger plane that slid off a runway in the US state of Florida on Friday, investigators have said.

The Boeing 737, operated by Miami Air International, ended up in a river after landing during a thunderstorm.

Officials said 21 people were taken to hospital with minor injuries, and at least four pets kept in the hold died.

They are now looking into the failure of the "thrust reverser", as well as a request by the pilot to change runways.The flight, which had flown from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to a military base in the city of Jacksonville, is said to have landed heavily in the storm before skidding into St John's River. The 136 passengers and seven crew members on board evacuated the Boeing 737-800 via its wings.

Investigators have obtained the flight data recorder but the cockpit voice recorder remains in a submerged area of the plane.

Authorities must wait until the remaining fuel - around 1,200 gallons (4,500L) - is removed before attempting to salvage any evidence.

"The aircraft had been in maintenance and the maintenance log noted that the left hand thrust reverser was inoperative," Bruce Landsberg, vice-chairman of the US National Transportation Safety Board, told a press conference on Sunday.

Mr Landsberg added that shortly before they landed, the pilots had asked to change to a runway which had equipment set up on it, and which therefore had less space available.

"We don't know what they were thinking or why that was their choice," he said.

On Sunday, the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville confirmed that the bodies of a dog and two cats were recovered from the aircraft. Another animal that had travelled in the cabin was removed alive by its owner.

'Terrifying' moment

One passenger on the plane, Cheryl Bormann, described the "terrifying" moment it slid off the runway.

"The plane literally hit the ground and bounced - it was clear the pilot did not have total control of the plane, it bounced again," she told CNN.

"We were in the water. We couldn't tell where we were, whether it was a river or an ocean," she said, adding that she could smell jet fuel leaking into the river.

In a news conference, Captain Michael Connor, commanding officer at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, said it was a "miracle" that there had been no serious injuries or fatalities.

Miami Air International is contracted by the US military for its twice-weekly "rotator" service between the US mainland and Guantanamo Bay, Bill Dougherty, a base spokesman said.

Officials say the people on Friday's flight included civilian and military personnel.

It said it was providing technical assistance to the US National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the incident.

The aerospace giant has been under increased scrutiny following two fatal crashes involving its 737 Max 8 planes - a different model to the one involved in the incident on Friday.
Longtimer is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 17:19
  #73 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,297
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by 737 Driver
In the NTSB briefing (link posted above) it was stated that the available landing distance for this runway was 7800 feet. At maximum landing weight on a wet grooved runway, a 737NG will require approximately 6800 feet of runway with both reversers, Flaps 30, max braking (air distance included). On a wet ungrooved runway (braking advisory medium), the calculated landing distance exceeds 8,300 feet. If braking action was medium to poor, the calculated distance exceeds 9500 feet. To be fair,
Thanks, a wealth of information.

I am looking specifically at the choices done w.r.t. the landing performance before accepting the destination. It's a pet subject this year. I think that after harmonization the rules are similar on both sides of the Atlantic.

Somebody correct me:
- Flight test data are no longer legally approved to be used operationally
- FCOM Perf data are now "Operational Landing Distance" = OLD = Flight test + 10%
- Wet distances typically carry another 15% penalty unless flight tested.

Legal requirement before dispatch: Regulatory Landing Distance
= RLD = OLD + 67%
--> now, here you can cheat around tailwind claiming landing will be on the runway into the wind (*)
--> whether the TAF shows relevant precip at time of landing is debatable. Especially if delayed, it is still a must pass check at dispatch.

Legal requirements before landing: Actual Landing distance [A commander shall ensure himself by a reasonable means that landing can be accomplished within LDA - not an exact quote but close enough]. And the expected landing distance is the
= OLD (see above) or, in some jurisdictions
= Factorized LD = FLD = OLD + 15%
--> here you definitely cannot cheat around present tailwind
--> here you definitely cannot cheat around wet (real achieved BA is still guesswork though)

Observe, that for low visibility and inclement weather:
- Everybody knows not to descend without visual reference below DH.
- Everybody knows there's approach ban altitude limit.
- Everybody knows that sometimes you cannot even depart due to destination WX.
--> and these rules serve the industry well, having been put in place for a great number of very tragic reasons.

We have exactly the same tools available for runway overruns.
- Do not land beyond the distance marking stripes (if painted properly **)
- If the in-flight calculation OLD or FLD is not satisfied, landing is not authorized
- If the dispatch calculation RLD is not satisfied, the flight shall not commence.
--> are we using these tools properly to make sure we do not paint ourselves into a Human Factors corner?
--> is there some point in the chain of events in this accident, where it should not have been allowed to unfold - if the job was done by the book given what is written already?

737 Driver Similar to your assessment of the MCAS issue I think we have the responsibility to G/A and not land deep. Clean our side of the street.
Also, it is inevitable on a global scale that due to unfortunate reasons a good number of us won't on a bad day. Whether or not I will fall into the second pool when Reaper comes knocking is badly predictable (wonkazoo's experience explains).

So are there any stops, barriers or fences that I may have crossed even unknowingly? I think there are already sufficient tools, and wait in anticipation for the Burbank SWA report to read what was the legal authority to attempt that landing at all.

Kind regards, FD.

SWA 737 overrun at BUR - Dec 6 2018 anyone cares to do similar view for this latest one?

* = NOT IN THE BURBANK CASE
** = NOT IN THE BURBANK CASE

Last edited by FlightDetent; 26th May 2019 at 08:11. Reason: clarity
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 17:49
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That only the rght thrust reverser was working may explain why the airplane left the runway on the right hand side.
ajw024 is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 18:48
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Longtimer
Mr Landsberg added that shortly before they landed, the pilots had asked to change to a runway which had equipment set up on it, and which therefore had less space available.
Originally Posted by Longtimer

"We don't know what they were thinking or why that was their choice," he said.


As you can hear in the liveatc.net audio linked above, the approach controller suggested that runway 10 might be the better option. Looking at the radar picture archived by weather.us around the time of the mishap at 0143Z the weather is still over the field but the approach from the west looks better:



Navy Jax is in the circled area near the bottom center of the radar plot. Jax International is north of town and in the clear, AA2004, an A320, and Challenger N541PJ shot visual approaches to JAX a few minutes before the mishap at NIP.

Looking at the NOTAM's posted earlier it looks to me like both runways were about 8000 feet long for landing. The 7800 foot number from Bruce Landsberg is from his estimate that the barrier was 1200 feet from the threshold on the 9000 feet piece of pavement.

M0196/19 NOTAMN
Q) ZJX/QMRCM/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3014N08140W005 A) KNIP B) 1903281254 C) 1905302300=left
E) RWY 28 TORA 8,002FT, TODA 8,002FT, ASDA 8,003FT, LDA 8,003FT.

M0194/19 NOTAMN
Q) ZJX/QMRCM/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3014N08140W005 A) KNIP B) 1903281251 C) 1905302300=left
E) RWY 10 TORA 8,003FT, TODA 8,003FT, ASDA 8,006FT, LDA 8,006FT.
Landsberg discusses the 'wire barrier' set up that shortened the length of the usable runway starting about 4:10 into the video of the news conference:



Landsberg says the pilots were advised of the arresting gear or wire barrier (which is it?) on runway 10. I'm unable to find any mention of this in the approach control recordings, perhaps it was discussed after they switched to Navy Jax GCA on final approach to runway 10.

When LL293 first checks in with Jax Approach they say they are unable to get the ATIS and the controller gives the winds as 350 degrees at 4 knots. He mentions moderate to heavy precip on approach to both runways and the initial plan is RNAV runway 28. The runway swap to 10 is later suggested by the controller as I posted above.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 19:23
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago
Age: 65
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I'm confused. Isn't saying they changed to "a runway with equipment on it" a misnomer? Aren't 10 and 28 just different directions on the same piece of asphalt? If it has equipment on it in one direction, doesn't the equipment exist in the other direction? (Unless landing on 28 they would fly over the equipment...which reduces available runway anyway.)
SquintyMagoo is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 19:27
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

The E-28 arresting gear is charted for both runways 10 and 28 in the current airport diagram. It does not affect runway length calculations as far as I recall [but, it appears from the Boeing article linked below that some operators do indeed reduce the usable runway length - Airbubba].

However, a displaced threshold for runway 10 is depicted. Down in the fine print (the find the faces in the picture test) the runway 10 landing length is given as 8006 feet. Anybody have a Jepp chart for this airport?

I also notice that Navy Jax doesn't have a VHF ATIS frequency listed. However, most of us get ATIS by digital means these days I suppose. I didn't hear the approach controller read the actual ATIS and weather sequence but he did paint a very unfavorable picture of field conditions after his call to NIP Tower.

Last edited by Airbubba; 6th May 2019 at 21:23.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 20:51
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Here's a Boeing article on arresting barriers and arresting gear impact on airliner operations:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_13/runway.pdf

From the article:

Adjustments to declared distances. Some airlines that operate on runways with arresting cables have reduced the available runway length by the distance from the operational end of the runway, or threshold, to the cable. For example, an 8,000-ft(2,438-m) runway could be reduced to 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of usable runway length for each of the following declared distances: takeoff distance available, takeoff runway available (TORA), accelerate stop distance available, and landing distance available (fig. 6).

If the distance between the threshold and the cable is not used, however, the remaining runway substantially reduces the available payload on a 737-800 and MD-83 operation, based on the conditions of a standard day, optimal flap setting, zero wind, no obstacles, and zero slope (table 1). This method may be usable for a short-haul flight, but it is not a preferred long-term solution.

Last edited by Airbubba; 6th May 2019 at 21:03.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 20:53
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 12 Posts
And yes, there have been calls to change the NIP identifier for Navy Jax for at least four decades. It is viewed in some quarters as culturally insensitive.
Airbubba, thank you. I have often wondered what the media meant by a 'nip slip' and now I finally know...
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 22:24
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
NTSB B-roll video of the investigators examining the aircraft interior and the defueling operation.

Airbubba is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.