American Airlines in Jamaica Incident

[rich[_2_]]

[hielan' laddie]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:22:30 -0500, rich wrote
(in article >):

Thanks for the pix.

It should be noted that the original news reports out of Kingston said that
the aircraft was broken into two pieces. AA denied this. Apparently they were
correct; it's broken into _three_ pieces.

I'd like to know how on _Earth_ the pilot managed to overrun when using a
9,000 foot plus long runway. 747s flying trans-Atlantic fly into Norman
Manley. The _Concorde_, back when it was flying, would on occasion fly into
Norman Manley. Unless I'm in error, 737s can land in _5,000_ feet. How short
did he touch down, and how fast was he going? And if Norman Manley gave him
trouble, I do hope that AA doesn't fly into St. Lucia. Hewanorra in the south
is bad enough, but Vigie up north in Castries, now... Let's just say that
Vigie's runway is a hell of a lot shorter than 9,000 feet, that one end of
the runway is literally in Castries harbour and the other end is in the
Caribbean, and that the first time someone put a jet into Vigie (a BWIA 727)
the pilot took it in low over Castries, so low that he blew out the windows
in the French embassy...

[John Szalay]

hielan' laddie > wrote in
n
> I'd like to know how on _Earth_ the pilot managed to overrun when
> using a 9,000 foot plus long runway.



Reports were stating that it was during a torrential rain,

JUST AN OPINION OF COURSE...
I suspect hydroplaning will be the major issue in this case..

[hielan' laddie]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:52:22 -0500, John Szalay wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie > wrote in
> n
>> I'd like to know how on _Earth_ the pilot managed to overrun when
>> using a 9,000 foot plus long runway.
>
>
>
> Reports were stating that it was during a torrential rain,
>
> JUST AN OPINION OF COURSE...
> I suspect hydroplaning will be the major issue in this case..

There's _serious_ rain in Kingston every year around this time. And the same
news reports which AA was in such a rush to deny had at least two passengers
stating that the aircraft touched down nearly in line with the terminal
building... If you look at the pix 3d1ab3 shows the two taxiways that lead
from the main runway to the terminal. Allegedly the 737 touched down just
beyond the first taxiway. If that's so, then it's a miracle that it didn't go
into the water.

All I can say is that I've lost count of the number of times I've flown into
Norman Manley in aircraft ranging from 747s to DH Twin Otters. Not even the
cowboys who used to fly for Eastern ('The Wings of Man') back in the day
managed to overrun the runway and I swear that some of those boys thought
they were still in the Navy.

[John Szalay]

hielan' laddie > wrote in
:
.. If you look at the pix 3d1ab3 shows the
> two taxiways that lead from the main runway to the terminal. Allegedly
> the 737 touched down just beyond the first taxiway. If that's so, then
> it's a miracle that it didn't go into the water.
>
>


Agreed,
using GE measuring gauge that puts it at about 2,500 ft +_

really short, even on a dry runway..

and if I read the chart right, the landing distance for a 737-800
on a wet runway is 6,675 ft, could not find a chart for absolute
minimum.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/aerodynamics/Performance_Ma
rgins.pdf

[hielan' laddie]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:54:53 -0500, John Szalay wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie > wrote in
> :
> . If you look at the pix 3d1ab3 shows the
>> two taxiways that lead from the main runway to the terminal. Allegedly
>> the 737 touched down just beyond the first taxiway. If that's so, then
>> it's a miracle that it didn't go into the water.
>>
>>
>
>
> Agreed,
> using GE measuring gauge that puts it at about 2,500 ft +_
>
> really short, even on a dry runway..
>
> and if I read the chart right, the landing distance for a 737-800
> on a wet runway is 6,675 ft, could not find a chart for absolute
> minimum.
>
> http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/aerodynamics/Performance_Ma
> rgins.pdf

The local press in Jamaica is reporting that the aircrew were advised to
execute a missed approach and go around again, but declined. Apparently there
was a serious tailwind and they were coming in too hot and ATC thought that
they were going to land short.

<http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Before-AA331-crashed>

(Note: I know Vernon Davidson at the Observer, and about now he's ripping a
few strips off whoever copy-edited his story thanks to certain obvious errors
which I _know_ that he knows better than to have printed...)

If ATC is on the voice recorder telling them to go around, but the pilot
ignored them and went in anyway, then the pilot's gonna be cooked. And AA's
gonna have a problem, given that some of the passengers have hired a hot-shot
lawyer.
<http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091229/business/business1.html>

Also, it seems that water on the runway was not a factor as several aircraft
had landed earlier, when the rain was heavier. And, of course, this is the
first time that anyone's overrun at Norman Manley since it was opened (as
Palisadoes International) in the 1950s.