I just found the two statements from the same article to be contradictory. In one sentence they state the cause and in another they say the cause has not been determined.
I guess they could be waiting for the FAA to make an official statement?
I picked up on that immediately. The other thing was the left main nose gear or some such thing.
I just found the two statements from the same article to be contradictory. In one sentence they state the cause and in another they say the cause has not been determined.
I guess they could be waiting for the FAA to make an official statement?
The first wasn't a cause, it was a result.
"hit an icy patch and slid sideways onto a grassy surface at the airport"
"The cause of the incident has not been determined and is under investigation."
A patch of ice was the result?
No, the result is that the plane hit an icy patch and slid sideways. The cause would be that either the airport snow/ice removal crews missed a spot, or the plane taxied in a spot that it shouldn't have.
You know what the NTSB report will say. "A factor in the incident was the icy patch."
To that point, wouldn't the cause be; either frozen or liquid precipitation fell to, and subsequently landed, the ground. Once on the ground, said precipitation froze. Subsequent to the precipitation freezing upon the ground, an icy patch was created. The icy patch was slippery as it had a low coefficient of friction. While the airport has equipment to remove such substances, this pesky patch was incorrigible and declined removal attempts. As such, when the aircraft made contact with this incorrigible ice patch, the plane slid. While the aircraft is equipped with tyres (spelling from report) made of rubber, the rubber tires were unable to stop the aircraft.
NTSB finding: lack of coefficient of friction with regards to rubber tires and incorrigible ice patch caused aircraft to slide off taxi way.
No, the result is that the plane hit an icy patch and slid sideways. The cause would be that either the airport snow/ice removal crews missed a spot, or the plane taxied in a spot that it shouldn't have.
You know what the NTSB report will say. "A factor in the incident was the icy patch."
I have first-hand experience with bigger GA airplanes blowing sideways on icy ramps a couple of times. It is not a comfortable feeling, since there's nothing you can do except hope it stops. My adventures occured as we turned 90 degrees to the direction of takeoff, where the wind had a direct shot at the side of the fuselage. The diagram of this incident will be interesting to see. An F-90 on our airport had a prop strike in Detroit many years ago under similar circumstances, when one of the mains (both tires) went off in the grass sideways.
As long as the surface is consistently slippery, you can use power and rudder to keep the airplane on the runway, albeit pointed to the side somewhat.
You forgot the obligatory pilot error in the NTSB report. Seems everything's the pilot's fault:
The NTSB has determined that the probable cause is as follows: The pilot's failure to walk the taxiway surface prior to taxiing, combined with the pilot and copilot's failure to observe the ice below the snowy surface. A contributing factor was the icy taxiway conditions and the lack of coefficient of friction with regards to rubber tires.
You forgot the obligatory pilot error in the NTSB report. Seems everything's the pilot's fault:
The NTSB has determined that the probable cause is as follows: The pilot's failure to walk the taxiway surface prior to taxiing, combined with the pilot and copilot's failure to observe the ice below the snowy surface. A contributing factor was the icy taxiway conditions and the lack of coefficient of friction with regards to rubber tires.
This what ground crews are for. They inspect the runway and taxiway surfaces for safe use and pass this information directly to the tower.
At larger towered airports, you'll hear ground controllers speaking with maintenance personnel periodically inspecting or responding to a notice of debris by a pilot. This happens at Austin and I've heard it from JFK as well.
...
NTSB finding: lack of coefficient of friction with regards to rubber tires and incorrigible ice patch caused aircraft to slide off taxi way.
As I read threads such as this one, I think to myself....what a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks, jailhouse lawyers, word smithers and "one uppers". I wonder why the info can't be taken a face value rather than being beaten to a pulp. My bet is that the OP wanted to share some info and not convene a board of inquiry. Just MHOP
As I read threads such as this one, I think to myself....what a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks, jailhouse lawyers, word smithers and "one uppers".
I wonder why the info can't be taken a face value rather than being beaten to a pulp.
My bet is that the OP wanted to share some info and not convene a board of inquiry. Just MHOP
As I read threads such as this one, I think to myself....what a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks, jailhouse lawyers, word smithers and "one uppers". I wonder why the info can't be taken a face value rather than being beaten to a pulp. My bet is that the OP wanted to share some info and not convene a board of inquiry. Just MHOP
Good question. I think it is a form of entertainment for a lot of people.
So, did the pilot inquire about the condition or did the controller provide the information? Is it reasonably expected the controller is going to clear an aircraft to a runway not determined to be clear of contamination?
Kind of sounds like you're contradicting yourself...As I said, I believe the only fault on the pilot's part is taxiing too fast. However, this is ONLY speculation as NONE OF US have the facts of the situation.
Suddenly, there seems to be a lot of blame going to the pilot and that's just plain wrong. Speculation is fine as long as it includes some rational basis. Placing blame is outright wrong.
As I read threads such as this one, I think to myself....what a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks, jailhouse lawyers, word smithers and "one uppers". I wonder why the info can't be taken a face value rather than being beaten to a pulp. My bet is that the OP wanted to share some info and not convene a board of inquiry. Just MHOP
ATIS is modified according to information provided to the tower by ground crews. Known contamination will not be left on the runway. If it cannot be removed, the runway is shut down or that portion is shut down.
If that was true there would be many airports that would not operate a large part of the winter.Known contamination will not be left on the runway. If it cannot be removed, the runway is shut down or that portion is shut down.
Known contamination will not be left on the runway. If it cannot be removed, the runway is shut down or that portion is shut down.
I think there is a fine line between MMQBing and learning. In my circle we call this hangar flying. Put yourself in the shoes of the mishap crew. What would you have done? Would you have done it the same way? Yes, it's easier to answer those questions knowing what the result of their actions were, but it can still be a learning point to see what may or may not have gone wrong. I'm sure when the official reports are published for any mishap, folk see the details and say "I never thought of that" but by just thinking about the scenario, much can be taken from the misfortune of other fellow aviators.
You trying to get this into the SZ or did you mean George Kennedy?Maybe if the captain of the jet was named Kennedy.