Jackson Hole Landing

N801BH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
17,188
Location
Jackson Hole Wy
Display Name

Display name:
FBH
You guys have probably seen this on the news.....

Now a video has surfaced showing the whole thing. Pilots landed the plane at the very beginning of the runway to help with this short runway.... Turned the pilots into passengers.:hairraise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blFw4Y1dtps

Ben
 
Looks as if the thrust reversers malfunctioned.

The spoilers also didn't deploy.
 
Looks as if the thrust reversers malfunctioned.

The spoilers also didn't deploy.

Add to that the brakes did not apply either. Looks like the circuit that has a squat switch deploys the spoilers and activates the brakes went TU. :hairraise::dunno::dunno:.

These guys were LUCKY it snowed alot the night before and that is what stopped them as they ran into the deep snow that's off the end of the runway. I tell ya... I watched it happen and it was surreal for sure.....

Apparently this crew was experienced in landing at JAC as they planted it in the first few hundred feet of the runway, must have been Navy pilots, <G>.. If they would have landed 1000' further down the runway like most other commercial carriers do the outcome would have been unthinkable. This crew should be given a raise, time off for a paid vacation and several atta boys for their excellent flying skills. IMHO

Ben.
 
Last edited:
Thank the lord the guy holding the camera prayed for "No Motor Failures" on the ground...just imagine if the engine had failed after the plane had already stopped in a snow bank.

The Almighty He must have listened, since the plane didn't plummet into the sky.
 
Thank the lord the guy holding the camera prayed for "No Motor Failures" on the ground...just imagine if the engine had failed after the plane had already stopped in a snow bank.

The Almighty He must have listened, since the plane didn't plummet into the sky.

I dont get it...
 
NTSB press release

Blah, blah, blah about the incident but then isn't this strange?

The Safety Board has long-established protocols for the handling and transportation of CVRs and DFDRs that contain recorded information from a commercial aviation incident, which by definition is one where no serious injuries or substantial damage to the aircraft or other property has occurred.

In such incident investigations, the Safety Board frequently asks the airline involved to transport the recorders on their own aircraft as such an arrangement often provides the most expeditious means of conveying the devices to Safety Board labs in Washington. The airline is instructed to transport the recorders without delay and without accessing the information contained within them by any means. This practice has worked efficiently and without complication for more than 40 years.

During this incident investigation, the Safety Board learned that the recorders were flown to Tulsa, Okla., where American Airlines technicians downloaded information from the DFDR; the CVR was not accessed by American.

"Although a thorough examination by our investigators determined that no information from the DFDR was missing or altered in any way, the breach of protocol by American Airlines personnel violates the Safety Board's standards of conduct for any organization granted party status in an NTSB investigation," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "Because maintaining and enforcing strict investigative protocols and procedures is vital to the integrity of our investigative processes, we have revoked the party status of American Airlines and excused them from further participation in this incident investigation."
 
Add to that the brakes did not apply either. Looks like the circuit that has a squat switch deploys the spoilers and and activates the brakes went TU. :hairraise::dunno::dunno:.

These guys were LUCKY it snowed alot the night before and that is what stopped them as they ran into the deep snow that's off the end of the runway. I tell ya... I watched it happen and it was surreal for sure.....

Ben.

Aka the cheap man's EMAS. :)

The auto spoilers didn't deploy with WOW and you can see from the video that TR deployment was really messed up. You can see them crack open, close, and then not open again until passing the terminal building.
 
What danger could possibly happen from an engine failure in an airplane that ran off the end of the runway?

"Please lord, please Jesus, no motor failure!"


cut the guy a little slack
 
Bah. I think someone just screwed up (the Flight Recorder thing, not the landing). No way AA would try to play hide the ball on this.

I am waiting to hear more on the landing, but it sure seems as if whatever it is that triggers the "we're on the ground, deploy all the anchors" system, failed. No TR's, no spoilers.

Bad deal.
 
IIRC, Spike, these TRs only deploy if the wheels are spun up to a certain land speed. That's so we don't repeat the in air accidental TR reversals that brought down a 757 about fifteen years ago.

So TRs that come partially out, close, then come out again, are are compatible with a contaminated runway and sliding tires.....

Contaminated runways have so many factors that airline companies pretty much leave the crews hanging by saying you can go in with multiple systems inop.
 
IIRC, Spike, these TRs only deploy if the wheels are spun up to a certain land speed. That's so we don't repeat the in air accidental TR reversals that brought down a 757 about fifteen years ago.

Oh, yeah, the Lauda incident. Bad deal.

So TRs that come partially out, close, then come out again, are are compatible with a contaminated runway and sliding tires.....

Contaminated runways have so many factors that airline companies pretty much leave the crews hanging by saying you can go in with multiple systems inop.

The timing on all this seems pretty consistent with the sliding tires, the crew's recognition of the issue and instituting whatever manual overrides are called-for. Maybe Greg can chime-in (he's 757 typed, IIRC), as to system design and function (no, I would never expect nor ask him to speculate on the actual cause of this event).
 
So TRs that come partially out, close, then come out again, are are compatible with a contaminated runway and sliding tires.....

As is spoiler deployment, and autobrakes, IIRC.

Contaminated runways have so many factors that airline companies pretty much leave the crews hanging by saying you can go in with multiple systems inop.

Hmm. Not so sure about that. But even so, if I were going into some place like Jackson Hole, with contaminated runways, with multiple systems inop that affect stopping distances, I would definitely turn the plane down or make them fix them. One, maybe. Multiple? NFW.

In this case, with the video, we kind of sort of know WHAT, but we don't know WHY. I want to know the WHY.
 
Sorry, Greg, did not mean to insult you! (grin)

---

I sincerely cannot stand AA's policies when it comes to treatment of its victims... err, passengers, especially those unfortunate enough to be based at their largest hub, but I have never seen anything but very high standards where flight safety is involved, and have had this impression reinforced by conversations on topic with AA pilots.
 
There is only one possible outcome from this investigation. Since all the operational equipment on the aircraft had been approved by the FAA as airworthy, it could not possibly be an equipment failure issue. Therefore, the only possible conclusion has to be pilot error. Since the very beginning of the FAA and the NTSB, it has always been shown that over 95% of all accidents and incidents are caused by the pilot. It has become a tradition. Pilot error, no doubt about it. :)

John
 
Looks as if the thrust reversers malfunctioned.

The spoilers also didn't deploy.

Nope but the question is...."Why"

Thank the lord the guy holding the camera prayed for "No Motor Failures" on the ground...just imagine if the engine had failed after the plane had already stopped in a snow bank.

The Almighty He must have listened, since the plane didn't plummet into the sky.

Damn you Nick! snarfed all over the laptop.:rofl:

IIRC, Spike, these TRs only deploy if the wheels are spun up to a certain land speed. That's so we don't repeat the in air accidental TR reversals that brought down a 757 about fifteen years ago.

So TRs that come partially out, close, then come out again, are are compatible with a contaminated runway and sliding tires.....

Wow very interesting and darn good hypothosis IMHO. I expect we shall find out the answser shortly.
 
Ok, you have three components at work here. I can speak with authority on the 777, but from those I have talked to that should know, the 757/767 systems are similar.

First are the thrust reversers. For the reversers to deploy, the airplane must be on the ground, throttles must be at idle, and the respective engines must be running. Clue #1, the airplane didn't think it was on the ground OR the throttles weren't fully closed.

Second are the spoilers. When the spoilers are armed, they extend on the ground when the landing gear is fully on the ground, and both throttles are at idle. If they are NOT armed, they will extend when the throttles are put into reverse thrust. Clue #2, in addition to the above, the throttles may not have been at idle for some reason.

Third is the auto brake system. Auto brakes are applied when the wheels have spun up and both throttles are at idle. Clue #3, the throttles may not have been at idle. Or at least the plane didn't think the throttles were at idle.

The common denominator here appears to be the throttle position. IF the throttles were not fully closed, all three of those systems would not have operated properly. Given the design of the reverser levers, I can't see how it is possible that the throttles were NOT at idle. Stranger things have happened, I guess.

Having said all that, there is one other system that may have come in to play here. It is called an Air/Ground Sensing System. There are sensors on each main landing gear (Can you say "Squat Switches"?) that sense when the airplane is on the ground. Signals from those sensors configure various airplane systems to the appropriate air or ground status. If for some reason those sensors did not sense that the airplane was on the ground, I can see how the above three systems would have not operated properly.
 
At what point on the approach are the throttles usually brought back to idle for a big plane like this?
 
There is only one possible outcome from this investigation. Since all the operational equipment on the aircraft had been approved by the FAA as airworthy, it could not possibly be an equipment failure issue. Therefore, the only possible conclusion has to be pilot error. Since the very beginning of the FAA and the NTSB, it has always been shown that over 95% of all accidents and incidents are caused by the pilot. It has become a tradition. Pilot error, no doubt about it. :)

John

Who said all of the equipment was deemed airworthy? There have been dozens of incidents over the last decade where maintenance and records were fudged by 121 carriers. We can't really rule anything out until the NTSB does their job and releases their factual report. I'm not trying to say that American did indeed fudge records, but it has happened before in this industry so it can't be completely ruled out.

I agree with Greg -- I can't see how the TR's would deploy, even partially with the throttles out of the idle position. It's the same in the 727, there is a mechanical lock that won't allow you to operate the reverse lever without the respective throttle in the idle position. In the simulator we tried to deploy all 3 TR's with the throttles above idle and it just wouldn't happen. That said, strange things do happen.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, the good news is that no one was hurt.
 
Bah. I think someone just screwed up (the Flight Recorder thing, not the landing). No way AA would try to play hide the ball on this.
Coverup or not I still think it's pretty strange. I'm sure a company as big as American Airlines would have known the protocol for incidents like this. I'm sure it's not their first time.
 
Having said all that, there is one other system that may have come in to play here. It is called an Air/Ground Sensing System. There are sensors on each main landing gear (Can you say "Squat Switches"?) that sense when the airplane is on the ground. Signals from those sensors configure various airplane systems to the appropriate air or ground status. If for some reason those sensors did not sense that the airplane was on the ground, I can see how the above three systems would have not operated properly.
I have had the opposite problem. The squat switch was stuck in the ground mode after takeoff so the gear did not retract and the airplane didn't pressurize. We speculate it was because of ice on at least one of the squat switches. It blew off or something after a few minutes because then the gear came up and the cabin slammed down...
 
What danger could possibly happen from an engine failure in an airplane that ran off the end of the runway?

"Please lord, please Jesus, no motor failure!"

I'd be praying for the same thing as well - on an iced-up runway and no spoilers, you've got basically nil braking action and functional engines are the only thing that will save your butt - either for thrust reverse to stop on the runway or for go-around power.
 
Second are the spoilers. When the spoilers are armed, they extend on the ground when the landing gear is fully on the ground, and both throttles are at idle. If they are NOT armed, they will extend when the throttles are put into reverse thrust. Clue #2, in addition to the above, the throttles may not have been at idle for some reason.

But the spoilers still didn't deploy even after the TR's finally came on. What do you make of that?
 
Unless you have information that I don't have, I couldn't see enough of the wing in the video to tell whether they did or not.

If you are on PPW, there is a similar thread in the accident forum. Someone posted a couple stills from the video and compared it to a similar angle from another 757 with spoilers deployed. The spoilers were indeed not deployed after TRs came on.
 
If you are on PPW, there is a similar thread in the accident forum. Someone posted a couple stills from the video and compared it to a similar angle from another 757 with spoilers deployed. The spoilers were indeed not deployed after TRs came on.

Well, like I said in #23, I am a 777 guy, not a 757 guy. Maybe there are differences in the system. Maybe there was something else amiss. At this point, I don't know anything more than you do.
 
Update out from the NTSB http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2011/110112.html

NTSB ISSUES SECOND UPDATE ON JACKSON HOLE B-757 RUNWAY OVERRUN INCIDENT

In its continuing investigation of the runway overrun of a jetliner in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information:
At about 11:38 am MT on Wednesday, December 29, American Airlines flight 2253, a B-757-200 (N668AA) inbound from Chicago O'Hare International Airport, ran off the end of runway 19 in snowy conditions while landing at Jackson Hole Airport. No injuries were reported among the 181 passengers and crew on board.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) weather conditions prevailed around the time of the incident with a ceiling of 400 feet, light snow and visibility of 1 mile. Winds were 10 knots from 240 degrees. Runway friction measurement data obtained before and after the event have been provided by the Jackson Hole Airport Authority for further evaluation by the NTSB.
In the continuing investigation, work groups have been formed to examine the subject areas of air traffic control, airports, meteorology, flight crew operations, airworthiness, maintenance records, cockpit voice recorder (CVR), flight data recorder (FDR), and airplane performance.
The NTSB systems investigator conducted testing on the incident airplane from December 31, 2010, through January 6, 2011. Operational testing and examination was accomplished on the spoiler/auto speed brake, air/ground, autobrake, and thrust reverser systems. No discrepancies were found in the air/ground, autobrake, and thrust reverser systems. Examination of the auto speed brake mechanism in the cockpit pedestal found that the linear actuator aft attachment was improperly installed and was missing a bushing. This loose connection allowed the cam to be rotated slightly relative to the switch, which could cause the switch roller and the notch in the cam to not always align. System operation with this condition present is being investigated.
The maintenance group convened at the American Airlines facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to review airplane logbooks. The group focused primarily on the spoiler/speed brake, air/ground, and thrust reverser systems. No significant issues with any of these systems were recorded prior to the incident, and there were no open minimum equipment list (MEL) items at the time of the incident. The airplane was manufactured in June 1992 and, at the time of the incident, had accumulated 58,879 hours and 20,518 cycles. No discrepancies were noted during the last periodic service maintenance check conducted on December 26, 2010. The last heavy maintenance was accomplished in October 2005. The auto speed brake actuator was replaced in January 2008.
The CVR group convened on January 4, 2011, at the NTSB recorder laboratory. The group completed a transcript of the last 30 minutes of the recording and a summary of the previous 90 minutes. The transcript will be released when the public docket is opened.



The FDR group has begun the process of determining which of the documented parameters are installed and should be functional, and is checking the recorded data for validity. The group has verified the following factual information:
  • The FDR download contains the last 43.9 hours of data, more than the required 25 hours, and includes all of the incident flight.
  • The recorded speed brake handle position indicates that the speed brakes were manually extended by the flight crew during the approach after which the handle was left in the armed position until landing. The FDR records only the speed brake handle position and not the individual speed brake (spoiler) panel positions.
  • The FDR data indicate that the aircraft touched down at approximately 132 knots.
  • At touchdown, the air/ground parameter changes to "ground" for approximately one second and then switches to "air" for approximately ½ second before changing back to "ground" for the remainder of the recording.
  • During the time period when the air/ground parameter switched back to "air," the speed brake handle position momentarily moved toward the down position and then returned to the armed position where it stayed for the remainder of the recording.
  • Thrust Reverser (T/R) discrete parameters indicate that the T/Rs moved into the in-transit position during the ½ second that the air/ground logic parameter indicated "air."
  • The T/Rs remained in the in-transit position for approximately 10 seconds before transitioning to the stowed position for one second. The T/Rs then moved back to the in-transit position for an additional 6 seconds before becoming deployed.
  • The T/R discrete parameters indicate that approximately 18 seconds elapsed from the time the T/Rs began moving until they were fully deployed.
Additionally, the team has examined security camera videos provided by the airport as well as a video of the landing taken by one of the passengers.
The accident docket, which will contain additional factual information, is expected to be opened in 60-90 days. It will be available on the NTSB website

Sounds like the speedbrake handle was in the armed position on touchdown.....very interesting.
 
Examination of the auto speed brake mechanism in the cockpit pedestal found that the linear actuator aft attachment was improperly installed and was missing a bushing. This loose connection allowed the cam to be rotated slightly relative to the switch, which could cause the switch roller and the notch in the cam to not always align. System operation with this condition present is being investigated.

Hmm. If not a smoking gun, then a smoldering fire.

* The recorded speed brake handle position indicates that the speed brakes were manually extended by the flight crew during the approach after which the handle was left in the armed position until landing.

Nothing abnormal there.

The FDR records only the speed brake handle position and not the individual speed brake (spoiler) panel positions.

Wow. I didn't know that. I would think they would want to record the actual position of the panel.

* The FDR data indicate that the aircraft touched down at approximately 132 knots.

Also normal

* At touchdown, the air/ground parameter changes to "ground" for approximately one second and then switches to "air" for approximately ½ second before changing back to "ground" for the remainder of the recording.

NOT normal. And the pilots have no input into this. Having said that, I wonder if a "skip" or a bounced landing would have caused that.

* During the time period when the air/ground parameter switched back to "air," the speed brake handle position momentarily moved toward the down position and then returned to the armed position where it stayed for the remainder of the recording.

That kind of makes sense. But not if the previous point was caused by a bounce on landing. I am not sure how the logic deals with that.

* The T/Rs remained in the in-transit position for approximately 10 seconds before transitioning to the stowed position for one second. The T/Rs then moved back to the in-transit position for an additional 6 seconds before becoming deployed.

6 seconds is a long time to deploy.

* The T/R discrete parameters indicate that approximately 18 seconds elapsed from the time the T/Rs began moving until they were fully deployed.

I take that to mean from the point of the very first initial movement of the TRs.


Sounds like the speedbrake handle was in the armed position on touchdown.....very interesting.

As it should be.

The only think I can find fault with as far as the crew is concerned is not jumping on the brakes as soon as they knew they had a problem. But at this stage, I see no evidence that they did NOT do that.
 
NOT normal. And the pilots have no input into this. Having said that, I wonder if a "skip" or a bounced landing would have caused that.

It didn't look like it on the video from Avweb, but maybe it's hard to tell from a video.
 
It didn't look like it on the video from Avweb, but maybe it's hard to tell from a video.

I am not following. Speed brake extending? IMO you can't see enough of the wing to tell.

Other than that, I don't know what you mean.
 
Back
Top