PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Pax Jet in water at NAS Jacksonville, all OK (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621151-pax-jet-water-nas-jacksonville-all-ok.html)

Sailvi767 5th May 2019 10:23

Military airport, Miami air did not purchase the optional safety feature called a tailhook. The press will be all over Boeing about it soon.

EDLB 5th May 2019 11:13

They had been over more than half of the runway before they touched down. Why did they not set TOGA and went to one of the multiple other airports in a 30 mile radius, have a coffee and go back when the TS cell had moved away? KJAX ATIS on 125,85 would be close enough to get a good idea of the wind conditions.
Now they have instead a hull write off and a tee no biscuits appointment.

MarkerInbound 5th May 2019 14:26

Capn Bloggs

The thousand foot runway overrun fulfills the requirement for a runway safety area so no EMAS required.

Out Of Trim 5th May 2019 14:56

Except it looks like they had to take to the grass to avoid what looks like a pontoon directly in line with the overrun! :eek:

pattern_is_full 5th May 2019 15:28

FWIW - CNN interviewed a pax who reported "hard" touchdown and a bounce (or two).

abdunbar 5th May 2019 15:39

EDLB

The reasons for bad decisions are varied and many would find them surprising. The number one reason for failure to abort is lack of experience and situational awareness. Other issues are the airlines culture and the extent to which management is vindictive. This can lead to a crew wanting to save the situation, hoping they will get away with it. I used to ask prospective captains how many flights they had flown in a years time and how many diversions. the usual answer is hundreds and none. So given that record, why hesitate to divert if things are questionable. It doesn't happen very often.

All that said, there could be other factors in this case. The initial touch down could have been so hard that there was other damage confirmed or suspected. In which case, continuing the landing would be the most prudent choice. As usual we do not know.

Twiglet1 5th May 2019 16:58

Did someone say it was 4hrs late also. If they flew there and back a long duty day...The F word might get thrown in

IcePack 5th May 2019 18:02

With the lack of training time I wonder if. +10 on your approach speed, keep power on to touch down. AND still make your touch down point. Is still used to teach how to land a jet. ( in my case it was a 737) This is NOT a recommended landing technique but a method of teaching you to fly it on not let it float.
Too many pilots today seem happy to “float” for miles.
Imho again lack of training. Mind you not sure today’s trainers have received adequate training themselves.

WHBM 5th May 2019 18:15

According to Flightradar (yes, I know) it had positioned to overnight in Norfolk VA (another naval centre), left on time at 0600 for a 90 minute flight to Jacksonville, and was due to leave there, contnuing as same flight number, at 0930 for Guantanamo but never got away until 1500, getting on for 6 hours late. Wouldn't have crew changed at Guantanamo, it's about a 2 hour flight each way but I wonder how long the crew had been on duty, arrival back at Jacksonville being more than 12 hours after they were due to leave there. Would be interesting too to learn what held them up.

Chronus 5th May 2019 18:17

Despite the lack of training, they appear to have done a good job of floating it, without any floats.

pattern_is_full 5th May 2019 18:46


Wouldn't have crew changed at Guantanamo,
What crew change? Gitmo is a military base and prison camp on a remote and hostile island; this is a tiny civilian contract-charter company with a total of 4 aircraft (well, 3, now) based in Miami; where is a replacement flight crew going to come from?

(Answer - Miami, if someone is available, and if they can organize a Lear flight or some such to get them there without even more delay).

Airbubba 5th May 2019 19:05


Originally Posted by MarkerInbound (Post 10462435)
They went into Jacksonville NAS/KNIP. A 9003 foot 10/28 with a 1000 overrun before you go into the river

Runway 10-28 is a Navy standard 8000 foot runway according to the NOTAMS:


M0196/19 NOTAMN
Q) ZJX/QMRCM/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3014N08140W005 A) KNIP B) 1903281254 C) 1905302300
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
E) RWY 10 TORA 8,003FT, TODA 8,003FT, ASDA 8,006FT, LDA 8,006FT.





oceancrosser 5th May 2019 20:28


Originally Posted by pattern_is_full (Post 10463773)
What crew change? Gitmo is a military base and prison camp on a remote and hostile island; this is a tiny civilian contract-charter company with a total of 4 aircraft (well, 3, now) based in Miami; where is a replacement flight crew going to come from?

(Answer - Miami, if someone is available, and if they can organize a Lear flight or some such to get them there without even more delay).

:rolleyes: only from an American (well USAian) viewpoint...

WHBM 5th May 2019 20:59


Originally Posted by pattern_is_full (Post 10463773)
What crew change? where is a replacement flight crew going to come from?

I think you have read what I wrote back to front.

Airbubba 6th May 2019 00:28


Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 10463787)
Runway 10-28 is a Navy standard 8000 foot runway according to the NOTAMS:

Another slightly different runway length number from the Associated Press report of the NTSB news conference on Sunday.


The 9,000-foot-long runway where the Boeing 737 landed was essentially limited to 7,800 feet since there was a wire barrier set up to recover Navy aircraft in instances they couldn’t land on a carrier during training, said Bruce Landsberg, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Also,


Pilots of a chartered jet that ran into a river at a Florida military base made a last-minute change to the runway where they would make a landing, a federal investigator said Sunday.

The pilots on the Miami Air International plane requested the change to air traffic controllers shortly before landing at Naval Air Station Jacksonville Friday night.
Left T/R inop:


Landsberg said the plane recently had been in maintenance, and logs showed a left-hand thrust reverser that was inoperative.

Thrust reversers are used to divert thrust from the engine, but they typically aren’t used in calculating a plane’s performance, Landsberg said.



https://apnews.com/f42ee70e1b3c4552a22872a6e4c18cd8

NTSB Vice Chairman Landsberg also said that the initial FDR readout indicated a touchdown airspeed of 163 knots with a ground speed of 178 knots. Flaps were 30 and spoilers deployed three seconds after touchdown.

Runway 10 is not grooved. Is this yet another fast tailwind landing on a non-grooved wet runway (with a thrust reverser inop)?

The CVR is in the submerged part of the tail but is thought to be in good shape.

Vice Chairman Landsberg has an ATP MEL SEL with no type ratings and is former president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (
https://www.aopa.org/).

The Sunday NTSB briefing is here:



737 Driver 6th May 2019 01:35


Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 10463985)


NTSB Vice Chairman Landsberg also said that the initial FDR readout indicated a touchdown airspeed of 163 knots with a ground speed of 178 knots. Flaps were 30 and spoilers deployed three seconds after touchdown.

Runway 10 is not grooved. Is this yet another fast tailwind landing on a non-grooved wet runway (with a thrust reverser inop)?


For reference, the approach speed (not touchdown) for a max weight Flaps 30 landing is around 147 KIAS. Maximum flap setting is 40, but some pilots don't like to use them because the 737 has a small pilot induced oscillation issue at this setting. A bounced landing in the 737 (and probably most airliners) is nothing to fool around with and should generally be converted to a go-around.

fotoguzzi 6th May 2019 02:16


Originally Posted by EDLB (Post 10463472)
They had been over more than half of the runway before they touched down.

[Not a pilot] Source? Did I miss it?

Airbubba 6th May 2019 04:11

Listening to the approach tapes at LiveATC.net, it sounds like BISCAYNE 293 originally was going to plan on the RNAV 28. Approach says he just talked to Navy Jax tower and that both runways look pretty bad, socked in with moderate to heavy precipitation both east and west of the airport. Approach says Navy Jax tower is closed so he can have either runway he (LL293) wants.

Approach asks if LL293 wants to try runway 10, says it might be best. LL293 says yeah, go ahead, let's do it.

They get vectors for the RNAV Runway 10 and are told to contact Navy Jax GCA on 127.7.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kj...2019-0100Z.mp3
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kj...2019-0130Z.mp3

pattern_is_full 6th May 2019 04:40

You're doin' great, Bubba. Keep it up. :ok:

JamaicaJoe 6th May 2019 05:26


Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 10463263)

Where is the WX radar equipment that should have been under that missing radome?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.


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