AA crash Jamaica

Wow and it was a newer 737-800. that's gonna hurt.
 
Well, look at the embankment the plane climbed... kudos to Boeing for building it strong enough not to scrunch the pax right then!
 
N977AN is one of the older ones - delivered in 12/20/2001. Almost exactly 8 years old.
 
Well I was thinking in comparison with their MD-80 fleet
 
As I read the accounts, I couldn't help but think microburst. Just speculation but tail end of a thunderstorm, lots of rain....

Joe
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
'broke in two on landing'
Click to expand...

flyersfan31 said:
Not quite.
Click to expand...

Broke in three?

OB-FD701_1223AA_F_20091223113748.jpg


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126154759895302625.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
 
Probably just like the newer cars...the plastic will disintegrate upon impact. You will just see a bunch of 16G seats out in a field. :)
 
I just heard Mary Schiavo on the radio. She already has declared the cause... says it's "an identical situation to American's crash at Little Rock" even the part about climbing the berm. She made it sound like flying is very scary.

Gosh, we don't even need to speculate about the cause.

Sigh.
 
wsuffa said:
I just heard Mary Schiavo on the radio. She already has declared the cause... says it's "an identical situation to American's crash at Little Rock" even the part about climbing the berm. She made it sound like flying is very scary.

Gosh, we don't even need to speculate about the cause.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

She's a moron, it would appear.

Was trying to think what else to say, but golly, that says it all, doesn't it?
 
I flew into Jamaica this time last year but flew into the north coast. Can't recall the town but it was a pretty blustery area right off the ocean.
 
RWY 12 ILS is 8911 feet on Jepp. Slight tail wind.

Metars:
MKJP 230430Z 34011KT 44000 RA BKN014 FEW016CB BKN100 21/13 Q1013 RESHRA
MKJP 230400Z 32014KT 11500 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT028 BKN090 21/18 Q1013
RERA
MKJP 230325Z 32011KT 22000 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/19 Q1014
RETSRA
MKJP 230300Z 32008KT 3000 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/20 Q1014
RETSRA
MKJP 230228Z 31009KT 5000 TSRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 22/19 Q1013
MKJP 230200Z 30012KT 5000 SHRA BKN014 SCT030 BKN100 22/20 Q1013 RERA

Best,

Dave
 
Man, how hot and long do you have to land to overrun on nine grand?
 
SCCutler said:
Man, how hot and long do you have to land to overrun on nine grand?
Click to expand...

I was amazed at the heavy braking required by an RJ to get stopped on 9,000 feet at the home 'drome in March... But the bigger iron seems to do much better.
 
smigaldi said:
Flying is scary.

I was flying to Taiwan just about a month ago and one of the scariest things happened on that flight. UAL's first class cabin ran out of hot towels!!!
Click to expand...

I hope the nuts were warm. :D And I hope you enjoyed first class. That trip is always cattle car for me. E+, but still cattle car.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was amazed at the heavy braking required by an RJ to get stopped on 9,000 feet at the home 'drome in March... But the bigger iron seems to do much better.
Click to expand...

You mean one of the death-tubes? :rolleyes: :D

The big iron - esp the 737 series - does seem to be an awful lot better than the Barbie/Jungle jets.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was amazed at the heavy braking required by an RJ to get stopped on 9,000 feet at the home 'drome in March... But the bigger iron seems to do much better.
Click to expand...


Did you perform the landing? I'm just curious, if you land on speed in the -145 you can stop it quickly with no problem, less than 3000 feet with aggressive braking. Sometimes if you have 9000' and you "roll it on" with no one behind you you might not get on the brakes to hard and just let it slow down. Other reasons as well, but the RJ's (both Canadian and Brazilian built) generally have no problem on short fields. Routinely land on 5000' and less. Key West and 32 in KBOS to name a few.

HCS
 
Auburn_CFI said:
Did you perform the landing? I'm just curious, if you land on speed in the -145 you can stop it quickly with no problem, less than 3000 feet with aggressive braking. Sometimes if you have 9000' and you "roll it on" with no one behind you you might not get on the brakes to hard and just let it slow down. Other reasons as well, but the RJ's (both Canadian and Brazilian built) generally have no problem on short fields. Routinely land on 5000' and less. Key West and 32 in KBOS to name a few.
Click to expand...

Nope, I was the cattle on that flight. Maybe they were just a bit too hot - But I seemed to notice it on the other three flights that weekend too. They touched down ~3000 feet down the runway, had normal braking for a little while, and then had to really put 'em on hard to make the 2nd to last turnoff, about 500 feet from the end of the runway.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Nope, I was the cattle on that flight. Maybe they were just a bit too hot - But I seemed to notice it on the other three flights that weekend too. They touched down ~3000 feet down the runway, had normal braking for a little while, and then had to really put 'em on hard to make the 2nd to last turnoff, about 500 feet from the end of the runway.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that a part 123 flight cannot legally touch down 3000 feet from the threshold (not saying it never happens, just that it shouldn't).
 
gismo said:
I was under the impression that a part 123 flight cannot legally touch down 3000 feet from the threshold (not saying it never happens, just that it shouldn't).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I thought it was a bit sloppy.
 
Well, actually, the touchdown zone for 121 folks is the first 3,000 feet. Anything in that zone is good. The fixed distance marker is 1,000 feet down and that is typically the aiming point.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, actually, the touchdown zone for 121 folks is the first 3,000 feet. Anything in that zone is good. The fixed distance marker is 1,000 feet down and that is typically the aiming point.
Click to expand...

OK. I should have said beyond 3000 ft I guess. So are you required to go around if you haven't touched down before the 3000 ft mark? Have you ever landed (part 121) past that point?
 
gismo said:
gismo said:
OK. I should have said beyond 3000 ft I guess. So are you required to go around if you haven't touched down before the 3000 ft mark? Have you ever landed (part 121) past that point?
Click to expand...

Yes, and probably, wink wink.

I landed half way down the east west runway at Burbank one evening. 6,000 feet long. 3,000 left when the wheels touched. Probably should have gone around. I confess because the statute of limitations is long gone. :smile:
Click to expand...
 
gismo said:
Have you ever landed (part 121) past that point?
Click to expand...
Lance,

Do you really expect an employed 121 pilot to post on a public forum that they violated a FAR or an OPSpec?

A beer and a Baron ride might get a different answer (not in that order).

Joe
 
gismo said:
So are you required to go around if you haven't touched down before the 3000 ft mark?
Click to expand...
Yes. And actually, my company's OpSpecs just changed it to 2,500.

gismo said:
Have you ever landed (part 121) past that point?
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
Yes, and probably, wink wink.

I landed half way down the east west runway at Burbank one evening. 6,000 feet long. 3,000 left when the wheels touched. Probably should have gone around. I confess because the statute of limitations is long gone. :smile:
Click to expand...
First half or first 3000ft, whichever is less...sounds like you made both restrictions spot on! :yesnod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top