AA Plane overshoots runway in Jamaica

[X]

Re: AA Plane overshoots runway in Jamaica

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Diabolical_Tanya</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder why those pilot forums are open to the public </div></div>

dunno, guess it would take some doing on decipereing who is a pilot from joe smoe during the registration process.
gives a good insight into the minds of these bredrens in whose hands wi put wi safety from time to time..

anyhow an interatesting exchange here re the tailwinds and the tower..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quote:
<span style="font-style: italic">Originally Posted by 2Co2Fur1EXwife
<span style="color: #660000">Im sure that had something to do with it; those guys (controllers)down there will let you try any approach; below mins/downwind/no vis..... </span></span>

+++++++++
<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #000066">BS flag!

Two weeks in a row last month I shot low weather approaches into IAH in rain and heavy rain. Both times a 30 knot tailwind on final at 1000' AGL that was right at legal maximum on the runway. Why? Because, it was easier to land the current arrival bank than to go into holding and swap the airport around.

&quot;Those guys&quot; are no different than &quot;our guys&quot; when it comes time to cut the mustard</span></span>.</div></div>

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: AA Plane overshoots runway in Jamaica

Wheel brakes cant manage nothing. since the wheels areas smooth as paper with just grooves to keep them cool.
And the landing gear is not sturdy enough to hold that plane under the stress of braking. the wheel brakes are just to stop it after it is well below 30mph.

They could engineer waterways in the tires to take are of wet surface landing though.
With the size of the tires ther is enough area to allow for up to 2 inches of water without hydroplaning.
They just don't consider it that important to do it.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: AA Plane overshoots runway in Jamaica

Since all the runways at Norman Manley run in the same direction,if there is a tail wind on 12 it is on the other one too. So the pilot should actually land from the opposite direction to avoid the tail wind.
The Only runway they could use was 12 due to the need for auto landing. They should have landed from the opposite direction. Unless the wind direction change suddenly. What would have been of much assistance would be the presence and use of a 'doppler'; radar. Jamaica paid for one that has not been put into operation for the 10 years it was supposedly to been installed. I have a feeling that they were sold some inoperable piece of thrash, and because of incompetence in the legal contract, they cannot force the suppliers to make it good. They claim that it is due to the lack of trained operators. Jamaica maritime training college or Caribbean as they call it could find enough candidates for 50m such shifts. I just hope something come out of this to get that doppler functional. Not even the hurricane speeds Jamaica can check for themselves. They Have to rely on Miami. And the insurance claims depend on the wind speed. The politicians priorities are according to what the rulers order them to do <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xKs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok.. not so good news.. well for any passengers looking to sue and meck $$$$$

just shared with this engineer bredren (we both working today, so have nothing better to do but chat bout planes)that the runway they landed on had ILS , BUT they landed in a tailwind.

He says you never land a plane in a high tailwind.
he explains that the tower tells what runway to use and maybe they used 12 becuase of the weather condition and it was the only one with the ILS, but if tower knew there was a tailwind on 12, they should not have instructed the plane to land on 12. they should have set it down on a differnt runway.
Now sure how many runways at norman manley doe..

aie sah
</div></div>

[evanovitch]

so supposedly a light been out fi a mont at dis airport

wonda if dat could happen at di odda airport whe mostly non citizens fly een but stop, dont di govament hyah out di running of di airports fi mek tings gwane smooth... mi had was to laff wen dem teck di peeps go KPH..wonda if water did awn r dem tun it awn fi mek sure seh some deh deh

mi really feel seh yaadies abroad an yaadies at home need fi lock dung Ja fi a day....we abroad need fi stop send home remittance n dose at home need fi stay home so as to mek di govament stawt govern fi Jcans fuss n oddas after....

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: so supposedly a light been out fi a mont at dis airport

When the land ILS they don't need the light
since they can't see them due to cloud cover That is the reason for ILS landing anyway.
it does not neceaasrily contribute to the accident.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wonda if dat could happen at di odda airport whe mostly non citizens fly een but stop, dont di govament hyah out di running of di airports fi mek tings gwane smooth... mi had was to laff wen dem teck di peeps go KPH..wonda if water did awn r dem tun it awn fi mek sure seh some deh deh

mi really feel seh yaadies abroad an yaadies at home need fi lock dung Ja fi a day....we abroad need fi stop send home remittance n dose at home need fi stay home so as to mek di govament stawt govern fi Jcans fuss n oddas after.... </div></div>

[Tuff Gong]

Re: so supposedly a light been out fi a mont at dis airport

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wonda if dat could happen at di odda airport whe mostly non citizens fly een but stop, dont di govament hyah out di running of di airports fi mek tings gwane smooth...</div></div>

I would say hold for investigations. They hinted at some technical problems.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: so supposedly a light been out fi a mont at dis airport

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Same Airline, Same Reckless Error</span>

12/26/09
On June 1, 1999, the pilots of American Airlines Flight 1420 attempted to out run a fast-moving thunderstorm that was approaching their destination of Little Rock, Arkansas. The thunderstorm won the race but the pilots attempted the landing regardless of the treacherous conditions. In their haste and confusion, the harried pilots failed to properly set up the aircraft for landing. Worse yet, the high winds, wind shear and driving rain were simply unsuitable for landing. As a result, the airplane skidded off the end of the runway, collided with airport structures and caught fire. Ten of the 139 passengers were killed and many more sustained serious and life altering injuries. Inexcusable.

This week in Jamaica history repeated itself when the pilots of American Flight 331 attempted to land a Boeing 737-800 in a driving rainstorm. Same reckless mistake. Fortunately there was no post-impact fire. Otherwise the outcome would been more tragic.

But whether there were fatalities in the Jamaica crash is not the point. The point is that American Airlines made the same grave mistake this week as it did 10 years ago. Did American management not take the lessons of Flight 1420 seriously? Did American not alter its severe weather avoidance training as it told the NTSB that it would? Is American still the arrogant “we do it our way” airline regardless of their passengers’ safety? All very real and troubling questions.

Until we know more it appears to be the same airline making the same reckless errors. That’s the tragedy for those who suffered through the disaster of Flight 1420 and had hoped it would never happen again. Mike Slack