For some reason I do not_remember this crash: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR9503.pdf
However, I find it extremely interesting.
1. It is very similar to Delta 191, and I’m always interested in my hometown Ozark 809 FH-227 crash.
2. BUT, this occurred after we supposedly fixed everything with quadrant-based wind shear alerts and procedures and sim training.
3. Much like Delta 191, this was a rapidly-developing, small storm.
4. Subtlety different, the plane ahead reported a smooth ride (the plane ahead of 191 did not REPORT anything, but supposedly encountered a severe shear. The plane ahead of 809 went around)
5. In both cases, some weather reporting was missed, but, unlike 191 and Ozark 809, the meteorologists seemed to be tracking mundane build ups. With 191, supposedly meteorologists were saying, “wow, this sucker is getting strong” in the minutes before the crash. With 809 a big system was already warning level, and it was more about its arrival on the approach path.
6. This crash and 809 both make mention of “walls of water”. I wonder if that has ever been researched as a possible signature that might be teased out of radar?
7. Very similar to 191, the crew identifies the activity, and discusses potential shear. With 191, the speed increase is noted but not immediately addressed. Here, the PM says 20 knots fast, go around. (809 discusses the weather, but downburst wind shear isn’t really “a known thing” back then.)
8. In both jet cases, the flying pilots are faulted for letting the nose drop and not extracting full performance, (with my favorite “yeah but”) the stall warning did activate which means they weren’t not_trying to climb. With 191, TOGA power was called for. Here, they were supposedly using a “normal go-around” power instead of some slightly higher setting. They were cited as also being slow to get the gear up. And again, this crash was after the development of the “Delta 191 procedures and sim trainings”. (809 did not get a heavy duty performance analysis and may not have had much FDR data.)
9. It’s interesting to contrast a big, lumbering jumbo jet and a “sporty” DC-9-31, but maybe JT-8Ds spool up slow, much like RB-211s.
10. The estimated wind shears were fairly similar and very impressive in this and 191.
11. Similar to 809, the pilots survived, with a similar death toll.
12. I don’t know the exact details, but terminal Doppler radar, with shear detection wasn’t installed yet, and I guess there was no on board shear detection vs nowadays.
13. I’ll have to think/study more- I always felt that 191 was a fumble as the meteorologists were noticing the storm and because in Texas, they have those intense, high-base “dry” thunderstorms” that act like ITS. The Carolina’s (and Flyover’s) are much more juicy- but it almost feels that the US Air encounter was unavoidable given everything. The 809 crash happened 2.5 miles short of the runway which hints at particularly hellacious winds.
However, I find it extremely interesting.
1. It is very similar to Delta 191, and I’m always interested in my hometown Ozark 809 FH-227 crash.
2. BUT, this occurred after we supposedly fixed everything with quadrant-based wind shear alerts and procedures and sim training.
3. Much like Delta 191, this was a rapidly-developing, small storm.
4. Subtlety different, the plane ahead reported a smooth ride (the plane ahead of 191 did not REPORT anything, but supposedly encountered a severe shear. The plane ahead of 809 went around)
5. In both cases, some weather reporting was missed, but, unlike 191 and Ozark 809, the meteorologists seemed to be tracking mundane build ups. With 191, supposedly meteorologists were saying, “wow, this sucker is getting strong” in the minutes before the crash. With 809 a big system was already warning level, and it was more about its arrival on the approach path.
6. This crash and 809 both make mention of “walls of water”. I wonder if that has ever been researched as a possible signature that might be teased out of radar?
7. Very similar to 191, the crew identifies the activity, and discusses potential shear. With 191, the speed increase is noted but not immediately addressed. Here, the PM says 20 knots fast, go around. (809 discusses the weather, but downburst wind shear isn’t really “a known thing” back then.)
8. In both jet cases, the flying pilots are faulted for letting the nose drop and not extracting full performance, (with my favorite “yeah but”) the stall warning did activate which means they weren’t not_trying to climb. With 191, TOGA power was called for. Here, they were supposedly using a “normal go-around” power instead of some slightly higher setting. They were cited as also being slow to get the gear up. And again, this crash was after the development of the “Delta 191 procedures and sim trainings”. (809 did not get a heavy duty performance analysis and may not have had much FDR data.)
9. It’s interesting to contrast a big, lumbering jumbo jet and a “sporty” DC-9-31, but maybe JT-8Ds spool up slow, much like RB-211s.
10. The estimated wind shears were fairly similar and very impressive in this and 191.
11. Similar to 809, the pilots survived, with a similar death toll.
12. I don’t know the exact details, but terminal Doppler radar, with shear detection wasn’t installed yet, and I guess there was no on board shear detection vs nowadays.
13. I’ll have to think/study more- I always felt that 191 was a fumble as the meteorologists were noticing the storm and because in Texas, they have those intense, high-base “dry” thunderstorms” that act like ITS. The Carolina’s (and Flyover’s) are much more juicy- but it almost feels that the US Air encounter was unavoidable given everything. The 809 crash happened 2.5 miles short of the runway which hints at particularly hellacious winds.
Comment