Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MD-80 skidded off runway at LGA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I think maybe we've got our wires crossed. Did you read the final report I linked to?

    Vnav nailed it on page 1. Maybe I get an honorable mention for speculating a ground spoiler deployment failure, which did happen here, but the F/O caught it immediately and manually deployed them. Pilot Material.
    Evan, we are talking about the same event. You are talking about what happened in the cockpit which, together with other factors, led to the accident.
    I am talking about what happened in the control tower, which could have led (but didn't, partially thanks to luck) to another accident in the same event, with the airplane following the MD-80 landing and crashing against the MD-80 on / next to the runway.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      ...Blah blah blah landing clearance blah blah blah...
      Extremely valid, albeit a shred off topic.

      And an excellent example of blind procedure having a detrimental effect.

      Cleared to land does not mean clear runway to land on... we have defined procedures, and official traffic reports in many instances and read backs and even probably have unwritten SA where the landing plane ALMOST always monitors the runway status...

      ...except when they don't or can't.

      In IMC and night, the tower is supposed to monitor ground radar.

      But, 'we' have run over a metroliner in CA, ran over a conquest at Flyover, and who knows how many more not-especially-ideal cases like this one.

      Could TCAS assist and 'we' make sure that pilots ALWAYS check for a clear runway at some milestone like aMM / 250 feet / whatever?

      PS-I LOVED MCM's comments at how often the crew of two does not process their landing clearance (a few hours with a scanner at a busy airport is all it takes to hear one first hand)... and it is a super busy time with lots of stuff to do like monitoring the ILS and double checking height vs distance, arming spoilers, remembering the wet vs dry reverse EPR, dealing with thunderstorm gusts, New Yark ATC, turning off warnings, knowing if you have one vs two autopilots to do the go around, dealing with underslung engines, and the one time Evan will let you use the rudder pedals...
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Evan, we are talking about the same event. You are talking about what happened in the cockpit which, together with other factors, led to the accident.
        I am talking about what happened in the control tower, which could have led (but didn't, partially thanks to luck) to another accident in the same event, with the airplane following the MD-80 landing and crashing against the MD-80 on / next to the runway.
        Ah, now I see it...
        About 14 seconds later (and 33 seconds after the initial notification that the runway was closed), the controller instructed the flight crew of Delta flight 1999 (the next arriving airplane for runway 13) to go around.

        The danger wasn't coming from Delta 1086 at that point, as it was well off the runway, but from the snow coordinators vehicle's presence on the runway (as he had already reported to ATC twice that the runway was closed).

        However, this assumption led to a situation in which the snow coordinator’s vehicle was on the runway for about 23 seconds while Delta flight 1999 was on final approach. At the time of the controller’s go-around instruction, the flight 1999 airplane was only about 30 seconds from landing.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Ah, now I see it...
          About 14 seconds later (and 33 seconds after the initial notification that the runway was closed), the controller instructed the flight crew of Delta flight 1999 (the next arriving airplane for runway 13) to go around.

          The danger wasn't coming from Delta 1086 at that point, as it was well off the runway, but from the snow coordinators vehicle's presence on the runway (as he had already reported to ATC twice that the runway was closed).

          However, this assumption led to a situation in which the snow coordinator’s vehicle was on the runway for about 23 seconds while Delta flight 1999 was on final approach. At the time of the controller’s go-around instruction, the flight 1999 airplane was only about 30 seconds from landing.

          Yes, in this specific case your description is accurate.
          But in a more generic case... Can't you envision a weakness in the system?
          A plane landing in IMC can be disabled on the runway and the plane trailing 2 minutes behind can be already cleared to land, in IMC, and land on top of the first one.

          In this accident the plane was already cleared to land. It required an active instruction from the tower for the plane to go around. If, as in most of the world, a plane was never cleared to land until the preceding airplane is confirmed to have cleared the runway, then the plane will (or at least shall) initiate a go around on it's own if they don't get a landing clearance in time.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            ...Can't you envision a weakness in the system?
            A plane landing in IMC can be disabled on the runway and the plane trailing 2 minutes behind can be already cleared to land, in IMC, and land on top of the first one...
            Evan only sees procedural violations devoid of humanity.

            ...it would seem some sort of confirmation procedure by the tower WAS skipped... by the same ole mechanism... the plane 'ALWAYS' exits and sometimes forgets to check in.

            I guess I want the pilots to have their own mechanism to 'see' the runway and confirm that the runway is clear for landing.

            ATL and Bobby may scoff... and I doubt the officials will give this thread much attention, but I will at least waste a few bytes on the server...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Yes, in this specific case your description is accurate.
              But in a more generic case... Can't you envision a weakness in the system?
              A plane landing in IMC can be disabled on the runway and the plane trailing 2 minutes behind can be already cleared to land, in IMC, and land on top of the first one.

              In this accident the plane was already cleared to land. It required an active instruction from the tower for the plane to go around. If, as in most of the world, a plane was never cleared to land until the preceding airplane is confirmed to have cleared the runway, then the plane will (or at least shall) initiate a go around on it's own if they don't get a landing clearance in time.
              The scenario you describe is certainly not defended by layers of procedure, and yes, I would like it to be so. But this accident was very unique in one aspect. When the nose of the plane breached the wall, it destroyed ALL battery power (APU not running), so ALL comms were lost. In just about any scenario that doesn't involve a rather noticeable fireball or thunderous crunching sound (such as a minor runway excursion), the crew is going to report their situation immediately to the tower. So this was a fluke, but it happened, and, while extremely unlikely, it could happen again.

              I just think you have to consider the very unlikely prospect of a total (AC, DC and BAT) power loss after a minor runway excursion.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                The scenario you describe is certainly not defended by layers of procedure, and yes, I would like it to be so. But this accident was very unique in one aspect. When the nose of the plane breached the wall, it destroyed ALL battery power (APU not running), so ALL comms were lost. In just about any scenario that doesn't involve a rather noticeable fireball or thunderous crunching sound (such as a minor runway excursion), the crew is going to report their situation immediately to the tower. So this was a fluke, but it happened, and, while extremely unlikely, it could happen again.

                I just think you have to consider the very unlikely prospect of a total (AC, DC and BAT) power loss after a minor runway excursion.
                I didn't say minor runway excursion. There are a number of ways a plane can be disabled on the runway and the pilots unable to communicate with the tower (including them being hurt, dead, or giving priorities to other matters like evacuating the plane filled with smoke).

                Do you see any cons to withholding the landing clearance until the runway is clear and there are no other planes scheduled to occupy it? I only see pros.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Do you see any cons to withholding the landing clearance until the runway is clear and there are no other planes scheduled to occupy it? I only see pros.
                  Yes, I see a big con: Last minute clearance is a distraction during the criticalest of the criticalest times.

                  Instead of a last second black and white clearance, the pilots just need to know THAT the runway is clear and maybe have more data to truly track the situation, as opposed to a black and white radio call with legal ramifications.

                  Making any sense?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    I didn't say minor runway excursion. There are a number of ways a plane can be disabled on the runway and the pilots unable to communicate with the tower (including them being hurt, dead, or giving priorities to other matters like evacuating the plane filled with smoke).
                    Sure, but what are the odds of those things happening on an aircraft disabled on (or partially off) the runway, with no comms, and no obvious fire or indications of a crash to tip off operations? And if comms are working, I think in poor visibility a quick ( two-second) request for emergency services should always be part of the pre-evacuation procedure.

                    Do you see any cons to withholding the landing clearance until the runway is clear and there are no other planes scheduled to occupy it? I only see pros.
                    No, not offhand. As long as it comes before DH/MDA. You want go-arounds from a safe altitude. I've been on a flight that went around due to separation issues just aeround that point. No big deal.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Sure, but what are the odds of those things happening on an aircraft disabled on (or partially off) the runway, with no comms, and no obvious fire or indications of a crash to tip off operations?
                      If there is no fire (or in certain conditions even if there is), what are the obvious indications of a crash in very poor visibility?

                      No, not offhand. As long as it comes before DH/MDA. You want go-arounds from a safe altitude.
                      That makes no sense for various reasons:
                      1- DH/MDA can be anything from 0 ft to 400 ft depending on the type of approach.
                      2- There is no unsafe altitude for a go-around. Last minute wind gust, too long flare... you go around.
                      3- It is perfectly routine that airplanes expect the preceding airplane to clear the runway just on time for their landing, and that they go around at almost the last second if it didn't. The go-around can be initiated by the crew (provided that they have enough visibility) or by the tower (provided that they have enough visibility or that they receive a communication that the plane is disabled on the runway or that they proactively act when the landed plane did not call clearing the runway).

                      This happens quite often today. The only difference is that if the tower fails to cancel the landing, if the visibility is poor the next plane can land on an occupied runway. While in most of the world the crew would be required to go-around because they would have not received the landing clearance in the first place.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel
                        ...There is no unsafe altitude for a go-around...
                        Ummm, remember that we can't dismiss that go arounds are kind of a big deal.

                        And, maybe we shouldn't be comparing VMC where the crew can mentally prep for a go around vs IMC where it will be more of a surprise. Additionally, in IFR there are greater separation standards...the last second thing should not apply. The failure was the tower not checking the ground radar and whether the back up is adequate.

                        AND, it just hit me...the answer is that the landing aircraft be reqired to call in when clear and the tower AND THE LANDING PLANE be required to note it. (And perhaps acknowledge it.). Not too different from what guys do on unicoms- although I always thought that calling clear in VMC was a waste of EM radiation.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          If there is no fire (or in certain conditions even if there is), what are the obvious indications of a crash in very poor visibility?
                          Think about ANY scenario whereby a plane can be so damaged that the crew is unable to communicate (either due to COMPLETE loss of power, destruction of ALL the equipment or grievous injury/death), yet is still blocking the runway. That will almost certainly be in pieces following a major crash. Even in poor visibility (RVR still ok to land) I think those are going to be hard to miss by ground operations. I'm not saying impossible, but HIGHLY unlikely. Again, I'm in favor of what you propose but I think this risk is still extremely remote.

                          This was a relatively quiet accident where the a/c departed the runway and then crashed into a wall only hard enough and in just the right spot to knock out the batteries. That's easy for ground ops to miss in these RVR conditions. And it had to travel a good distance off the runway, well out of harms way, to find a wall to hit.

                          2- There is no unsafe altitude for a go-around. Last minute wind gust, too long flare... you go around.
                          You're not paying attention. While they are necessary in those cases, last minute go-arounds are more dangerous and only safe in the right hands, and there are many wrong hands out there, unpracticed hands and human factors, and the closer you are to the ground, the less margin for error. In my opinion, a go-around that cannot tolerate a 5-second delay AND an initial error in applying pitch or power (caught and corrected by CRM) is to be avoided whenever possible and especially when issuing late landing clearances. I don't want planes going down to 100' while still awaiting landing clearance.

                          Remember a 747 crash not so long ago where go-around was called at 108', executed at 52' and almost certainly with some error involved...

                          And remember, this is all in POOR visibility. As you said, if the visibility is good, a plane cleared to land but observing traffic ahead stalled on (or partially off) the runway will go-around anyway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            I've been on a flight that went around due to separation issues just aeround that point. No big deal.
                            When and where was this?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                              When and where was this?
                              Weather too, if you don't mind.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                When and where was this?
                                I think it was the Parkway Visual approach to JFK's 13L, just after crossing over Bennet Field . It was perfect daytime VMC. Probably under 1000'. It was more of an abandoned approach. There was a sudden and steep bank off to about 90° from the approach heading, gear and flaps came up and we went back out over the bay for another go at it. The pilot came on and announced that he had a separation issue with traffic ahead. At that point, it must have either been an aircraft on the runway or one coming in from the ILS approach for 13L or 13R.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X