AA Crash Jamaica

[411A]

Several possibilities...none of 'em especially good.

Tailwind landing,
Runway wet,
Possible TS in progress, or at the very least, very heavy rain,
Landing long, perhaps.

Combine them all into one scenario, a bad result usually guaranteed.

One would have thought...AA would have learned a very valuable lesson at Little Rock, some years ago.

[vapilot2004]

P51

Would I take a fighting chance clawing my way upward over the alternative: An earthbound downhill run? You bet, if I knew we could get airborne again and miss by at least a few inches, any obstacles.

Buckets open, boards up, brakes applied, consider two seconds or so to stow, another 1/4 second for the commanded TOGA to register, add in spool up, the few hundred milliseconds until wheels are freely spinning post-braking (relating to AA's situation here) , and we have ourselves a do or die horse race. How much surplus smooth concrete ahead do we have?

[Telstar]

p51guy Go around is not recommended after using reverse thrust but can quickly be changed to go around thrust. I never left that option out if things were going to hell in a handbasket,
FUBAR. Who cares if it is legal or operationally correct for your operator. Do what ever it takes to survive.

It worked so well for TAM in Brazil, tell me, how many people survived that one? Guys like you are so dangerous because you convince people that your own half baked ideas are based on fact when they are not. Boeing knows from flight testing it's not going to work, hence the big bold letters in the books: " Once TR have been deployed you are committed to a landing"

Unfortunately, after paxing/positioning around the planet on various airlines, I am noticing a worrying trend that on landing, most of these airlines' pilots select only idle reverse, and not select full reverse thrust (I do like the sound of full reverse being applied).

Good grief, this one again. All they do is make noise and use fuel and long runways. *When* they aren't needed they aren't used. We don't lick our finger and hold it to the wind, we use such things as performance charts to decide.

[Redbeard]

so the captain / co-pilot.. just simply announced , just like at a normal gate.. crew disarm doors ? If so.. good crew management and but i wonder..

[PantLoad]

Corect....

411A is correct. Gosh, you must be a Microsoft-trained pilot, too!
(I now feel in good company.....)

Question: Is the runway they landed on, the runway on which most landings are made at that airport? If so, when was the last time the rubber was cleaned off the runway?

Question: Was the runway they landed on just wet or contaminated?

Question: What was the condition of the other end of the runway....
rubber deposits....water depth?

Question: Was the tailwind component (the actual tailwind component) what was reported, or was it greater than reported?

Question: Was the wind gusting? That is to ask, was the touchdown speed higher than Vref?

Question: Did the runway have standard grooving? Non-standard grooving? When was that cleaned?

Question: Did the crew fly the aircraft perfectly? Did they land exactly on speed, exactly at the proper touchdown point?

Question: What was the condition of the tires? Where the treads worn? When was the last tire pressure check?

Question: Did the speed brake auto-deploy correctly? Or, did the crew make a 'greaser' landing on a 'floating' runway, and have to pull the speed brake themselves?

Question: Did the spool up time for the engines into thrust reverse occur promptly? Or, was there a second or two delay, as there sometimes is?

Question: Did the anti-skid system work properly?

Question: Did the aircraft weigh more than the load sheet stated? During Christmas, many times the overhead bins are so full of XXXX, the plane surely weighs at least 1000 lbs more.

Question: According to 'the charts', would the aircraft have enough runway to land considering: contaminated runway, rubber-coated runway ends, higher-than-reported aircraft weight, higher than Vref touchdown speed, etc., etc. (You get the idea.)

These are all questions on the ATP exam of the Microsoft Simulator disk....


Just retired, after 37 years of incident-free, accident-free, violation-free flying....hell, I never realized how incompetent I truly am....

(OK, I'm ready for more insults!!!!)


Fly safe,


PantLoad

[411A]

Once TR have been deployed you are committed to a landing"

AA found out first hand about this many years ago at STT...landed, boards up/reverse selected, then....boards down, reverse cancelled, go-around thrust, then...tried to stop once again.
Opps.
His a petrol station off the end of the runway and all consumed in a big ball of fire.
Poof.
Once on the deck, best to stay on the deck...and accept the possible overrun, unpleasant as that might become.

[Piripi]

P51. Next time you are holding short of a runway look how long it takes for the buckets to deploy, and then look how long they take to retract. Then spool up again, 4-7 seconds...now you are out of runway and REIL lights are getting bigger on your windshield.

[AMF]

PantLoad quote;
..... If so, when was the last time the rubber was cleaned off the runway?

Question: What was the condition of the other end of the runway....
rubber deposits....water depth?

Question: Was the tailwind component (the actual tailwind component) what was reported, or was it greater than reported?

Question: Was the wind gusting? That is to ask, was the touchdown speed higher than Vref?

Question: Did the runway have standard grooving? Non-standard grooving? When was that cleaned?

Question: Did the crew fly the aircraft perfectly? Did they land exactly on speed, exactly at the proper touchdown point?

Question: What was the condition of the tires? Where the treads worn? When was the last tire pressure check?

Question: Did the speed brake auto-deploy correctly? Or, did the crew make a 'greaser' landing on a 'floating' runway, and have to pull the speed brake themselves?

Question: Did the spool up time for the engines into thrust reverse occur promptly? Or, was there a second or two delay, as there sometimes is?

Question: Did the anti-skid system work properly?

Question: Did the aircraft weigh more than the load sheet stated? During Christmas, many times the overhead bins are so full of XXXX, the plane surely weighs at least 1000 lbs more.

Question: According to 'the charts', would the aircraft have enough runway to land considering: contaminated runway, rubber-coated runway ends, higher-than-reported aircraft weight, higher than Vref touchdown speed, etc., etc. (You get the idea.)

Just retired, after 37 years of incident-free, accident-free, violation-free flying....hell, I never realized how incompetent I truly am....

(OK, I'm ready for more insults!!!!)


Fly safe,

PantLoad

Thank you Pantload, those are all the appropriate, pertinent, and looming real-world questions that the Chart and Tables crowd I hope asks themselves and considers when they're poo-pooing landing with a tailwind on a wet runway where there's possible ponding and a more likely chance of hydroplaning even on airspeed due to higher groundspeed at touchdown. No strut compression, WOW, and/or wheel spin-up means no/or delayed spoiler deployment, therefore reduced braking effectiveness, not to mention antiskid probs. Those systems provide the crucial, immediate stopping power for the aircraft, not TRs.

Deriding those concerns by pretending they only apply to "light aircraft because big jet aircraft have charts" is a major sign of inexperience and/or disconnect from the real world where conditions exist that aren't conveniently found in the Performance Section.

[PantLoad]

411A....again correct!!!!

Yes, and St. Thomas is a classic case to illustrate....

As a result, many times, AA now operates the 757 in there. That aircraft stops fairly well.

Also, they've extended the runway....that helps, too.

But, you're still landing, many times, downwind, downslope runway, sometimes wet, (sometimes more than wet), lots of rubber deposits.

It's a "Put in on...Get it Stopped" landing! If something ain't right, anything at all, GO AROUND! I don't care what the charts say, you're asking for trouble!!!!

I've done this runway under the above conditions in a 737...which doesn't
stop worth XXXX. (Yes, that's my opinion...but, I flew the damn thing for over 17 years with over 12,000 command hours. I certainly am entitled to an opinion.) And, I've done it in the Bus. A little better at stopping...but,
I'd still rather have my old faithful 727. (Never flew the 757, but I'm told that thing will stop even better than the 727.)

The charts are based on assumptions....just like any piece of engineering.
In the real world, we don't have those exact assumptions. So, we have to season our data with our experience.

I say again, "If your landing with a tailwind on a wet runway, you're asking for trouble."

Southwest went by the charts in Midway.....

I'd rather have a skipper who knows what the plane will do and not do. If he's more conservative than the charts, we go by him. If the charts are more conservative than him, we go by the charts.

This comes from my extensive training with Microsoft Simulator.


Fly safe,

PantLoad

[AMF]

PantLoad
The charts are based on assumptions....just like any piece of engineering.
In the real world, we don't have those exact assumptions. So, we have to season our data with our experience.

I say again, "If your landing with a tailwind on a wet runway, you're asking for trouble."

Listen you, I just flip past the Contaminated Runway section of the AFM and refer to the well-known "Reverted Rubber Hydroplaning, Water Ponding on an Uncrowned Runway Landing Distance Chart" and apply the exact tailwind component. No worries for us big jet drivers!

[bluemic]

T/R's and go-arounds...

Attempting a go-around after T/R deployment? Definitely a heart-in-mouth desperation move methinks.

Aaah...but if you can manage to get away with it...?

Here's one that tried – and sadly - failed:

11 February 1978; Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314, a Boeing 737-200; Cranbrook Airport, Canada: The aircraft crashed after thrust reversers did not fully stow following a rejected landing that was executed in order to avoid a snowplow. The crash killed four of the crewmembers and 38 of the 44 passengers.

FWIW...

[akerosid]

Some interesting photos of the wreckage from the "Miami Herald":

American Airlines flight AA331 crash landed in Jamaica - Miami Herald

[BusyB]

akeroskid,
Good link for photo's. Was that the skipper pushing someone off in a wheelchair in pic 26?

[westcoastflyer]

good airplane

whatever happened will be found out,but after looking at the pictures of the plane I can only but congratulate Mr Boeing for building planes that can take all that beating without blowing up

[Finn47]

Neighborhood rumours say the captain suffered a broken arm and a concussion, for what itīs worth:

Juno Beach pilot on Jamaica flight |West Palm Beach News, South Florida Breaking News, Forecast, Video from WPTV

[GBV]

It worked so well for TAM in Brazil, tell me, how many people survived that one? Guys like you are so dangerous because you convince people that your own half baked ideas are based on fact when they are not. Boeing knows from flight testing it's not going to work, hence the big bold letters in the books: " Once TR have been deployed you are committed to a landing"

That TAM crash was not about trying to go-around after having the TR deployed. You should read the Accident Report before saying such thing.

[lomapaseo]

One would have thought...AA would have learned a very valuable lesson at Little Rock, some years ago

Too early to blame this on poor training by citing the operator and lessons learned.

[robertbartsch]

AA

How many hull losses has AA suffered in the last 10 years?

Thx.

[BigHitDH]

2 not including this one (if you discount sep 11)

[MPH]

One MD11 in St Maarten landed, deployed, stowed and T/O again. Mind you with not much RWY left and ontop of it, having to make a sharp turn to the right on the the G/A. That squeezed a few buttocks!!!