AAL331 Off Runway in Jamaica - No Fatalities

N519AT said:
This is what somebody posted up at A.net. Not sure about the exact time it happened, however.

[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230430Z 34011KT 44000 <ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 FEW016CB BKN100 21/13 Q1013 RESHRA[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230400Z 32014KT 11500 +SH<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 FEW016CB SCT028 BKN090 21/18 Q1013 RE<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM>[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230300Z 32008KT 33000 +SH<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/20 Q1014 RETSRA[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230228Z 31009KT 5000 TS<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 22/19 Q1013[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230200Z 30012KT 5000 SH<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 SCT030 BKN100 22/20 Q1013 RE<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM>[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230100Z 040033KT 5000 SH<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN016 SCT030 BKN100 23/20 Q1013 RE<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM>[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230000Z 32004KT 9999 FEW016 BKN030 BKN100 24/19 Q1012[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 222300Z 00000KT 9999 VCSH SCT016 SCT030 BKN100 24/20 Q1011[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Im not positive but im pretty sure it happened about 0300Z last night....



[FONT=ARIAL,]MKJP 230300Z 32008KT 33000 +SH<ACRONYM title="Royal Nepal Airlines">RA</ACRONYM> BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/20 Q1014 RETSRA[/FONT]

Oh no rain im scared!!!!!....(please note my sarcasm)
I hate what the media is gonna say on this..
 
Looking at the pictures, the LIT crash keeps flashing through my mind. At least nobody was killed, thats the main thing. You can always buy another plane, but you can't replace a lost life.

And whats with the posts trying to work the Colgan crash into this? How is this remotely similar, at all?:dunno:
 
ChasenSFO said:
Looking at the pictures, the LIT crash keeps flashing through my mind. At least nobody was killed, thats the main thing. You can always buy another plane, but you can't replace a lost life.

:
Click to expand...

Add an approach lighting system, and the end-dynamics of both accidents would be eerily similar.
 
Guess it wouldn't be appropriate to link to the Advisory Circular that references the usual causes of runway overruns now would it?
 
rorypang said:
The Colgan flight and this AA flight are two different things. I am going to go out on a limb, all by myself and disagree with the 1500 hr rule, many ace pilots with thousands of hours have had brain farts and cause accidents. We may think we are super humans and every accident/incident are cause by weaker individuals. We are humans who are trained to handle adverse conditions, but we are all humans. The biggest airline accident was in Tenerife, and the man in the cockpit, was KLM ace pilot. Wether 500 hrs or 5000 hrs, things can happen we can get complacent and accidents happen.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. Basically it can happen to anybody.
A300Capt said:
Don't know if the runway is crowned but my understanding is that the runway in Jamaica is not "Grooved" which makes hydroplaning in those conditions a very real possibility.
Click to expand...

srleslie said:
This eerily reminds me of AA 1420 at LIT. Landed in probably similar conditions, hydroplaned off runway, impacted the runway landing lights and split in two, stopping just short of the Arkansas River. Some of the passengers on that flight were not fortunate to walk away, including the CA.
Click to expand...

ChasenSFO said:
Looking at the pictures, the LIT crash keeps flashing through my mind. At least nobody was killed, thats the main thing. You can always buy another plane, but you can't replace a lost life.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the exact same thing when I first heard the news.

I did a check to make sure, cause I've been to KIN as a passenger before and always thought the runway was quiet long. Wiki has it listed at 8900'. I don't know for sure, but I'd like to think there's a displacement threshold there as well. I wonder what the landing distance for 12/30 is respectively.
 
deek said:
So if you were another AA pilot and were going to take that plane in a few days, does the company notify you that your plane is now scrap metal and that entire trip is canceled and you have the rest of the month off? I'm guess the dispatchers go through hell trying to reschedule crews and planes when one goes down. Unless they have some on reserve sitting in the desert waiting to go??
Click to expand...

Nah, American's a very big airline. Chances are, they have a 737 that just came out of inspection at the hangar to replace it or can manipulate their aircraft utilization percentage to "virtually replace" the aircraft fairly easy.

So instead of a jet terminating for the night in MIA, or doing a three or four hour sit during the day, it can be used to do a MIA-KIN turn at some point.

Even at Skyway, with only 15 airplanes, when one was taken out of the mix, the resulting effects were minimal at most.
 
Firebird2XC said:
AA usually has a few spare aircraft in the system somewhere. There has to be leeway for maintenance, mishaps, misconnects, or other SNAFUs in the system.

There's routinely a 757 or 737 parked just waiting at DFW.


The thing that burns in terms of airframe count here is that it IS in fact one of AA's newest 737-800s. The other day I flew home from Chicago on an airframe on its FIRST revenue flight ever.

Most of the -800s have been acquired fairly recently- if not within the last two years.
Click to expand...

N977AN was delievered new to American in 2001.
 
surreal1221 said:
Guess it wouldn't be appropriate to link to the Advisory Circular that references the usual causes of runway overruns now would it?
Click to expand...
Sure it would. IIRC they are involve things like overshooting the TDZ, trying to "hold it off" for a soft landing, and carrying too much speed. The question then becomes "why did 2 experienced, trained professionals overshoot the TDZ/hold it off/carry too much speed?". If it turns out that the rumors of a 7.5 flight/14 duty day are true... this looks very bad for the airlines and very good for those fighting for better rest/duty rules.
 
Roger said:
Sure it would. IIRC they are involve things like overshooting the TDZ, trying to "hold it off" for a soft landing, and carrying too much speed. The question then becomes "why did 2 experienced, trained professionals overshoot the TDZ/hold it off/carry too much speed?".
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think ANY of things were what happened in this case?

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly???
 
SteveC said:
Not sure why you think ANY of things were what happened in this case?

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly???
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound that way...poor comms on my part. Surreal's post brought up runway overrun causes (pilot related). I should have said "IF any of these things happened, the important question is not necessarily precisely what happened (excess speed or what have you) but WHY 2 experienced mainline pilots made the mistake.

Surreal had me thinking along pilot related lines because as I recall the AC he was talking about mainly addresses pilot technique. I could be wrong though.
 
Roger said:
I should have said "IF any of these things happened, the important question is not necessarily precisely what happened (excess speed or what have you) but WHY 2 experienced mainline pilots made the mistake.
Click to expand...

Agreed! :)
 
Most because people make mistakes. They'll use lines like, "Well we stopped last time I did it!"

Unfortunately, when people get away with unsafe procedures they suddenly deem them to be acceptable. I'm not saying that was the case here, but if it was, then it wouldn't be the first a pair of pilots eyeballed it and said, "Eh, it should work" when they should have taken it around. Or when people say things like, "The guy in front of us got in alright!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top