Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Miami Air 737 Runway Overrun in Jacksonville, Florida

  1. #1
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Miami Air 737 Runway Overrun in Jacksonville, Florida

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A commercial jet carring 142 people went down in the St. Johns River near Naval Air Station Jacksonville on Friday, according to the Jacksonville Fire Rescue Department.

    In a release from NAS Jacksonville, the Boeing 737 plane was arriving from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and coming in for a landing. The plane crashed into the St. Johns River at the end of the runway.

    All people on board were alive and accounted for, according to Fire Rescue and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.

    https://www.news4jax.com/news/fire-r...s-jacksonville

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D5sMpivWsAARuSd.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	164.6 KB 
ID:	24091

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D5sMYIEX4AArOE3.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	72.4 KB 
ID:	24092

    https://twitter.com/JSOPIO/status/1124506148256743424

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Amazing that the article doesn't have very basic information like the the airline or flight number, but then includes this:

    According to FlightAware, a live flight tracker, the jet:

    Departed Naval Station Norfolk around 5:30 a.m. and landed at NAS Jacksonville around 7:20 a.m.
    Departed NAS Jacksonville around 3 p.m. and landed in Guantanamo Bay around 5:30 p.m.
    The departed Guantanamo bay around 7:30 p.m. and was attempting to land at NAS Jacksonville around 9:40 p.m.

    --- 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 ---

  3. #3
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Amazing that the article doesn't have very basic information like the the airline or flight number, but then includes this:
    Wouldn't be an aviation incident without the media being lazy and/or showing they're aviation illiterates.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,718

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Amazing that the article doesn't have very basic information like the the airline or flight number, but then includes this:
    It was a charter operated by Miami Air International.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,718

    Default

    Tailwind (16kts?), wet runway and a passenger reported a hard landing and a bounce. Getthereitis, methinks.

    There are two switches on the pedestal. Go around.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Tailwind (16kts?), wet runway and a passenger reported a hard landing and a bounce. Getthereitis, methinks.

    There are two switches on the pedestal. Go around.
    You know what I would like to do with those two switches?

  7. #7
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,718

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    You know what I would like to do with those two switches?
    Push one of them, get positive climb, retract gear and flaps, try a stable approach this time or a nice, safe holding pattern?

  8. #8
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Push one of them, get positive climb, retract gear and flaps, try a stable approach this time or a nice, safe holding pattern?
    Not exactly what I had in mind!

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    13

    Default

    The energy within a thunderstorm and its cumulonimbus are foolish to underestimate. Sudden wind reversals, micro bursts, down draughts have all been well documented. At the same time, you have the benefit of onboard weather data and ATC information. Bearing in mind that such extreme weather systems move across the surface of the earth quite quickly, why not put your aircraft into a safe holding pattern and observe, assess and consult? You might be unfortunate to find that the developing system is aligned with your airport. If not, it might clear in just a few minutes. A lack of piloting skills or a fear of burning a few extra lbs of avgas?

  10. #10
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,086

    Default

    Of mild ironing, the media, as of 5/5 reports that the FDR has been recovered, but that they are still working on recovering the CVR.

    Many possible reasons- like tail cone damage and it was lost? Or you can’t quite get to it currently, or it’ll be much easier after the plane is on land...

    Maybe I’m gripy, but maybe the media could have asked (and reported) what the deal is vs saying the same line from a catastrophic crash where the recorders truly are lost among debris.
    Les rgles de l'aviation de base dcouragent de longues priodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,718

    Default

    FDR has been read out. 15kt tailwind, touchdown at 178kts groundspeed, delayed ground spoilers and one reverser inop (MEL'd).

    And contaminated runway. Boom.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    FDR has been read out. 15kt tailwind, touchdown at 178kts groundspeed, delayed ground spoilers and one reverser inop (MEL'd).

    And contaminated runway. Boom.
    I bet you there is more to this. It was a 2700 m 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 ---

  13. #13
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Of mild ironing, the media, as of 5/5 reports that the FDR has been recovered, but that they are still working on recovering the CVR.

    Many possible reasons- like tail cone damage and it was lost? Or you can’t quite get to it currently, or it’ll be much easier after the plane is on land...

    Maybe I’m gripy, but maybe the media could have asked (and reported) what the deal is vs saying the same line from a catastrophic crash where the recorders truly are lost among debris.
    The CVR is in a submerged part of the plane and they prefer to wait until the plane is moved rather than risking divers using tools in a confined space, since retriving the CVR a couple of days earlier would offer no advantage and the assessment is that there is no risk of losing information by waiting.

    --- 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 ---

  14. #14
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,718

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I bet you there is more to this. It was a 2700 m runway!!!
    Sure, from the threshold...

  15. #15
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I bet you there is more to this. It was a 2700 m runway!!!
    Ok, let me explain a bit more.

    The required landing distance available on a dry runway is the distance it takes to cross the threshold at 50 ft and the approach speed, descend with a 3-degrees slope, flare, touch down, and decelerate using normal means (no reverses) and stop, and then take all this cumulative distance and multiply it by 1.66. Oh, and by the way, you can take into account no more than 50% of the headwind, and need to take into account no less than 150% of the tailwind.

    The distance on a wet runway is the same (except that the deceleration and stopping distance needs to take into account the condition of the runway), but then multiply it by an additional 1.15 (as a margin because the condition of the runway is hard to assess accurately).

    So let's reverse-engineer the calculation starting with a 2700 m runway, and assuming the worse condition which is that that was exactly the same as the required landing distance (i.e. they were landing in the shortest runway they could legally land). Divide by 1.15 and by 1.66 and you get 1414 m. That is how much it should have taken to stop land and stop the airplane starting at a point 50 ft over the threshold, with the assessed conditions of the runway and with a tailwind 50% stronger than the assessed one.

    But wait, from these 1414 ft, how many of those were with the airplane flying? If yo start with 50 ft and draw a 3-degree line, it will intersect the runway 954 ft or 290 m after the threshold, but we still need to flare else you will touch down with a sink rate of some 700 fpm. A typical number for this "air" part of the landing distance is 1500 ft, or 457 m. Just to round off the numbers let's take 414 m of air distance, so you have 1000m left of landing roll.

    Now, 2700-1414=1286m. Meaning that they should have been able to cross the threshold at 50 ft, land and stop, and still have 1286m of runway ahead. And that with 50% more tailwind than calculated.
    Now note that the 1286 m distance that they should have had left is 1.28 times the expected ground roll. What does it take to use more than double the expected ground roll and still not being able to stop, use 360 m more of distance in the runway safety area, and still not being able to stop, and being able going into the water?

    I'll tell you what, one or more of the following (probably more):
    1) Approaching too fast. The 178 kts ground speed - 15 kts tailwind = 163 knots TAS. That's WAAYYY too fast for a 737.
    2) Too long touchdown (a result of coming too high, or floating too long which in turn can be a byproduct of coming too fast).
    3) Long or multiple bounces.
    4) Considerable delay in extending the spoilers, but why? They should deploy automatically upon touchdown and it is a callous by the PNF immediately after touchdown and, if not extended automatically, the PIC should extend it immediately.
    5) Using less braking action that available and necessary because anyway we have a lot of runway, except that then we realize we don't.
    6) Extremely low traction when a good traction had been assumed.
    7) A mechanical failure that would prevent the braking.
    8 ) Significant thrust left in the engine not reversed (can be like in the Tam accident in Congonhas where they just forgot to idle it, or can be that they activated the reverses and due to something done wrong in the MEL process the reverses didn't activate but the engine thrust still increased).
    Not-9) That 1 reverser was MEL'd shpuld not be a factor, since the landing distance is calculated without reversers, so having 1 reverser available should till be a plus, even if not as big a plus as having both.

    In 2700 m a 737 should be able to almost stop on the runway with little more that drag, rolling friction and idle reverse. With 2300 m of runway ahead of the touchdown point it would only take 1.9 kts/s (0.1g), and even at 180 kts it takes 3.6 kts/s (still less than 0.2g, which should be easily achievable even in very slippery runways except perhaps iced up ones).

    --- 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 ---

  16. #16
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Sure, from the threshold...
    Exactly.

    --- 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 ---

  17. #17
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    The CVR is in a submerged part of the plane and they prefer to wait until the plane is moved rather than risking divers using tools in a confined space, since retriving the CVR a couple of days earlier would offer no advantage and the assessment is that there is no risk of losing information by waiting.
    And the recovered FDR isn’t basically right next to it?
    Les rgles de l'aviation de base dcouragent de longues priodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    And the recovered FDR isnt basically right next to it?
    No.

    The FDR is located above the ceiling above the rear galley.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fdr-above-galley.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	35.7 KB 
ID:	24178

    The CVR is located in the aft cargo hold.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cvr-in-hold.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	41.8 KB 
ID:	24179

    --- 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 ---

  19. #19
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,086

    Default

    Today's internet headline admonishes the pilots for a stupid decision to change runways to enable training on a preferred and longer runway.

    I don't think the choice of a shorter runway is necessarily the problem- but perhaps the switchover got rushed, was "not-so-stabilized", and subsequently botched in a few different ways.
    Les rgles de l'aviation de base dcouragent de longues priodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #20
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    No. The FDR is located above the ceiling above the rear galley. The CVR is located in the aft cargo hold.
    Noted.

    When will you quit doing QA on cheap composites and become an aviation reporter? (Warning- a little bit of brevity is key).
    Les rgles de l'aviation de base dcouragent de longues priodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •