AA MD80 lands short in DEN? / AA MD-80 undershoots DIA rwy 35L

[h25b]

This seems to back up something I've notice in the industry in general. This idea that performing a GO-AROUND or MISSED-APPROACH is some sort of failure. I had a guy tell me that it scared the passengers before...

 

[Singlecoil]

This seems to back up something I've notice in the industry in general. This idea that performing a GO-AROUND or MISSED-APPROACH is some sort of failure. I had a guy tell me that it scared the passengers before...

I think that's a good point. One the one hand, you're a bad pilot if you have to go around and should be ashamed of yourself. On the other hand, you're a bad pilot and a fuel waster if you have to spool up the engines above 500' agl. That doesn't leave a lot of room in between for most mortals. I'm not saying those are my perceptions, but I do think those perceptions exist.

 

[AA717driver]

Singlecoil--At most airlines, you have to be stabilized by 500'. Engines spooled up and on the Loc and G/S.

Guys, the G/S had to be pegged at the top way before they hit. The CA blew it by not calling go-around sooner. I was always taught that if you start a go-around, finish it. Even if your wheels touch the runway, don't stop.

The FO was apparently out to lunch, too.TC

P.S.--Anyone want the rest of my furlough passes? I'll stick to riding on China Air or Aeroflot. I think they're safer...

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Singlecoil--At most airlines, you have to be stabilized by 500'. Engines spooled up and on the Loc and G/S.

Guys, the G/S had to be pegged at the top way before they hit. The CA blew it by not calling go-around sooner. I was always taught that if you start a go-around, finish it. Even if your wheels touch the runway, don't stop.

The FO was apparently out to lunch, too.TC

P.S.--Anyone want the rest of my furlough passes? I'll stick to riding on China Air or Aeroflot. I think they're safer...

I think that 1000' above TDZ is the minimum stabilization requirement for an ILS, and especially in that weather! With ceiling at 100', that means they were descending on the approach lights.

That type of approach scares me because I only get maybe one or two per year. You have to have discipline to stay on instruments until the captain calls the runway in sight. If you try a transition to visual, you have good roll reference from the terminating and wing bar lights, but terrible vertical reference. (edited: I believe that ICAO does not recommend using visual glidepath info below 200 feet, but I wouldn't exclude using PAPI as it is usually quite accurate and supposedly harmonized with the electroinc g/s. In any case, having the runway in sight will provide fair vertical reference when transitioning to visual.)

I am of the opinion that anything with a ceiling that low, unless they are flying a CAT II monitored approach, should be an autoland if the aircraft/runway has the capability. CAT II is for those of us without that feature. Disconnecting at 80' is not my kind of approach, but it can be done safely with the proper training and discipline.

Bottom line, when the weather's that low, you better be feeling the pressure to get it right. Thank god no one was hurt...

 

[TonyC]

P.S.--Anyone want the rest of my furlough passes? I'll stick to riding on China Air or Aeroflot. I think they're safer...

Can I take my wife? I'm a gambler!

 

[aa73]

From the NTSB report for AA1340, 2/9/98 at ORD: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flight crew to maintain a proper pitch attitude for a successful landing or go-around. Contributing to the accident were the divergent pitch oscillations of the airplane, which occurred during the final approach and were the result of an improper autopilot desensitization rate."

....demonstrating, in fact, that only a pilot with superhuman skills would be able to recover from a sudden autopilot-induced pitch down at 300agl, which can be blamed on the autopilot desensitization rate of the 727.

As a result of that hull loss, Cat 2 autopilot approaches were discontinued on the 727.

 

[aa73]

Singlecoil--At most airlines, you have to be stabilized by 500'. Engines spooled up and on the Loc and G/S.

Guys, the G/S had to be pegged at the top way before they hit. The CA blew it by not calling go-around sooner. I was always taught that if you start a go-around, finish it. Even if your wheels touch the runway, don't stop.

The FO was apparently out to lunch, too.TC

P.S.--Anyone want the rest of my furlough passes? I'll stick to riding on China Air or Aeroflot. I think they're safer...

I'll take your furlough passes anyday. Between China Air and KAL, something like 1000 pax have been killed in the last 15 yrs. And just make sure your Aeroflot captain is not taking his kids on the trip.

All airlines have had their "streak years"... hopefully AA's is ending.

 

[TonyC]

As a result of that hull loss, Cat 2 autopilot approaches were discontinued on the 727.

That restriction must have been specific to a carrier or subsequently lifted, as our 727s can perform Cat I, II, or III Autolands.

 

[TWA Dude]

....demonstrating, in fact, that only a pilot with superhuman skills would be able to recover from a sudden autopilot-induced pitch down at 300agl, which can be blamed on the autopilot desensitization rate of the 727.

I don't understand your argument. The NTSB, not me, determined that the pilot failed to correct for the autopilot's pitchdown. They apparently didn't think such a thing required "superhuman" skills.

 

[bobbysamd]

AA incident

I agree that the Denver media has done an alright job covering this story.

Here is an excerpt from the preliminary NTSB report mentioned above:

The captain reported that the first officer was flying the airplane. Approach control vectored the airplane on to a short approach to runway 35L. The airplane overshot the localizer. The first officer was chasing the glide slope. Approach control asked American Airlines Flight 1115 if they wanted to go-around. The captain said that they (the crew) could take the approach. The first officer intercepted the glide slope at 500 to 600 feet above ground level (agl). The captain announced at 100 feet agl that he had the runway environment in sight. The first officer then looked outside and began flying a visual approach. The captain said there was sufficient runway environment in sight. The captain said the first officer did not see the PAPIs (Precision Approach Path Indicator lights). At 50 to 75 feet agl, the first officer "dipped below the glide slope." The audible warning alarm sounded. The captain called for a go-around. The first officer attempted to go-around, but did not advance the throttles in time. The airplane "landed firm" but the crew noticed nothing wrong with the airplane. The crew taxied the airplane to the gate. When they got to the gate they noticed the hydraulic quantity indicator was low, but the pressure was normal.

Of course, I hope the final outcome is okay. But, as it stands, this would be a good case study for CRM and possible interview question material. Of course, it's easy to say what one should have done in this situation while typing at the computer, but I would have taken the go-around that ATC offered. I realize they were landing aircraft two minutes apart, but this situation almost goes back to Private training, where students are taught early that a good landing is preceded by a good final which is preceded by a good base, etc. and to reject landing if the approach, etc. is unstable or anything else is wrong, which clearly was according to this information.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

 

[aa73]

I don't understand your argument. The NTSB, not me, determined that the pilot failed to correct for the autopilot's pitchdown. They apparently didn't think such a thing required "superhuman" skills.

Doesn't matter whether they think it required "superhuman skills" or not. The infamous Pilot Error label sometimes does not take into account certain conditions in which we do not have the time to react. Case in point, you are probably familiar with this one, the TWA DC-9 in BNA in '99.

Don't forget, the NTSB also blamed Sten Molin in the A300 NY crash, despite never having affirmed whether the rudder pedals were moved by him or by some yaw damper runaway.

How about them blaming Hoot Gibson in the '79 727 altitude upset? Nobody believed them back then either.

NTSB rulings sometimes must be taken with a grain of salt, and an understanding of human limitations in certain conditions.

I think it'll be easy to understand what went wrong in DEN, however.

 

[aa73]

That restriction must have been specific to a carrier or subsequently lifted, as our 727s can perform Cat I, II, or III Autolands.

True. It was an AA decision as a result of the accident.

 

[wndshr]

Singlecoil--At most airlines, you have to be stabilized by 500'. Engines spooled up and on the Loc and G/S.

and that is in VMC!!!! IMC would be more like 1000'

oops...i didn't bother reading the rest of the posters who already chimed in!

 

[Lequip]

I'll predict there was a woman in the cockpit. Just like all the other recent accidents and mishaps. Just to name a few and I'm sure there are many more, NASCAR Kingair, FedEx @ MEM, Some RJ at ROA, Payne Stewert. For women being a small percentage of the pilot population, it seems like they are always up front when something goes wrong.

 

[AA717driver]

YES! Let's make women the scapegoat in this one! Excellent idea...

Barefoot and pregnant, I say! TC

 

[TWA Dude]

Doesn't matter whether they think it required "superhuman skills" or not. The infamous Pilot Error label sometimes does not take into account certain conditions in which we do not have the time to react.

Actually, the NTSB does take into account situations where a pilot should reasonably be able to react. It's not my intent to slam the captain of that 727 but the fact is that the a/p started deviating and the NTSB believed he had time to react appropriately.

Case in point, you are probably familiar with this one, the TWA DC-9 in BNA in '99.

I'm actually very familiar with that incident/accident after having flown with one of the ALPA accident investigators. The FO screwed up in a big way, yet the captain also bore responsibility since he wasn't covering the throttle quadrant with his hand. To be fair, up to that point practically no captain did so even thought it was in the FOM because nobody expected an FO to do something so stupid. (The idiot was fired because he refused to accept responsibility and claimed he'd been taught to pull throttles to idle at 100AGL, which was a lie.)

Don't forget, the NTSB also blamed Sten Molin in the A300 NY crash, despite never having affirmed whether the rudder pedals were moved by him or by some yaw damper runaway.

I believe the NTSB's conclusion was reasonable considering there was no evidence of a YD malfunction. If such evidence surfaces then the probable cause can be corrected.

NTSB rulings sometimes must be taken with a grain of salt, and an understanding of human limitations in certain conditions.

I can't argue with that, however, the big profile crashes do draw the NTSB's maximum efforts and resources. Just keep in mind that their findings are labelled "probable cause" and not "definitive cause". Furthermore lay juries tend to find much more cause than the NTSB.

 

[Singlecoil]

I guess I didn't articulate my point as well as I should have. No sh1t you have to be spooled up by 500 feet. Have you ever flown with somebody who called into question your pilot skills if you had to add power at, say, 1500 feet? Even if they were joking, I think that is a link in the chain to some of these accidents/incidents where unstabilized approaches are a factor.
As a pilot, you're kind of getting bombarded with messages from both ends of the spectrum. Don't be fast and have to go around, but don't be so slow that you have to add power before you are required to (500agl VFR/1000agl IFR) because that wastes fuel. I'm just saying that those ideas can creep into the subconscious of a pilot who finds him/herself in these situations and can be contrary to the principles of a safe operating environment.

 

[aa73]

I'm actually very familiar with that incident/accident after having flown with one of the ALPA accident investigators. The FO screwed up in a big way, yet the captain also bore responsibility since he wasn't covering the throttle quadrant with his hand. To be fair, up to that point practically no captain did so even thought it was in the FOM because nobody expected an FO to do something so stupid. (The idiot was fired because he refused to accept responsibility and claimed he'd been taught to pull throttles to idle at 100AGL, which was a lie.)

I flew with the captain not too long ago, great guy put into an unfortunate situation. I have to concur that 98% of pilots I fly with don't back up the throttles because of the reasons you state. I used this example to compare with the AA727 because of the quick reaction times needed, but not accomplished.


I believe the NTSB's conclusion was reasonable considering there was no evidence of a YD malfunction. If such evidence surfaces then the probable cause can be corrected.


Are you kidding, the probable cause will never be corrected. It is much easier to blame a pilot group than a reputable worldwide-known manufacturer. No one knew what caused the rudder to move, so the NTSB has no choice but to blame the pilot flying. Unfortunately it will remain that way.


Just keep in mind that their findings are labelled "probable cause" and not "definitive cause". Furthermore lay juries tend to find much more cause than the NTSB.[/QUOTE] This is true.

 

[aa73]

Darn I still haven't figured out how to quote in sections! Sorry for the fragmented format.

 

[TWA Dude]

I used this example to compare with the AA727 because of the quick reaction times needed, but not accomplished.

I believe the NTSB re-creates scenarios in a simulator and has run-of-the-mill pilots fly the profiles to determine what a reasonable reaction time is.

It is much easier to blame a pilot group than a reputable worldwide-known manufacturer. No one knew what caused the rudder to move, so the NTSB has no choice but to blame the pilot flying.

You say the NTSB had no choice but to blame the pilot yet you imply that they did so only because it was expedient. That's contradictory. To the NTSB is looked like the pilot reacted improperly and barring any evidence to the contrary they made their decision. Just like you I'd love to hear that it wasn't the pilot's fault but sometimes it just is.

To create quotes you first type {quote} and then at the end type {/quote}, except instead of the braces I just used you use brackets [].

 

[Cutlass1287]

"If the plane is too high or too low, an alarm voice should have sounded in the cockpit. "


"The First Officer, as opposed to the Captain, was flying the plane. That's considered routine."

 

[enigma]

Darn I still haven't figured out how to quote in sections! Sorry for the fragmented format.

try this. Select the quote a post feature. The next screen you will see is the reply to thread screen. At the top of the message box will be post you chose to quote. Look at that paragraph. You will see the word quote in brackets at both the begining and end of the paragraph. The first time the word quote appears it will be followed by an equal sign and the name of the person who originally wrote it. The quote at the end will be preceeded by a /.

just use the "bracket-quote-bracket", "bracket-/-quote-bracket" to surround the text and you've got a quote. The slash in front of the ending quote tells the program that the quote is ended. The first bracket-quote- bracket" is already there for you. The ending "bracket-/-quote-bracket" is already there for you. '
All you have to do is add your own internal ending and starting quotes within the selected quote and you can break it down word by word if you like. You can also clik on the quote ballon in the tool bar above the text box, but that adds too many brackets and still creates some confusion.

enigma

 

[aa73]

You say the NTSB had no choice but to blame the pilot yet you imply that they did so only because it was expedient. That's contradictory. To the NTSB is looked like the pilot reacted improperly and barring any evidence to the contrary they made their decision. Just like you I'd love to hear that it wasn't the pilot's fault but sometimes it just is.

Maybe it's not coming out the way I meant. I view the NTSB ruling on this crash in the same light as TWA 800. In other words, a cover up.

I realize they are professionals with years of experience in accident investigation. But sometimes the interests of higher parties must be protected regardless of "what probably happened."

BTW, I hope I passed quoting IOE, thanks.

 

[Hawker rider]

Is the new identifier for the relocated airport at denver KDIA? or is it the iata ident?

I hear more people mention DIA so was just wondering about that... didn't show up in my papers yet..

 

[TWA Dude]

Maybe it's not coming out the way I meant. I view the NTSB ruling on this crash in the same light as TWA 800. In other words, a cover up.

Excellent quoting technique. As far as NTSB cover-ups, well, I guess anything's possible so I can't dispute your claim. But IMHO very few big conspiricies turn out to be true because there's just so many people involved it's hard to keep 'em all quiet. My only objection to the "pilot error" verdict (and I'm sure you'll agree) is that the "contributing factors" often don't get enough air time. Had that A300 been a 767 with a more normal rudder pedal sensitivity even the FO's inputs (assuming that's what they were) wouldn't have likely ripped the tail off. No doubt that'll all be big when the trials come.

 

[CSY Mon]

Good thing they're Nordstrom pilots and not K-mart types... TC

How do you know what "type" of pilots they were?
Native AA? Ex-Reno-Air? Ex-TWA? Ex-Eagle?

We all screw up from time to time regardless of "type"....Remember the TWA L-1011 that aborted after V1 and after VR then crashed and burned?
K-Mart or Nordstrom?

Pretty much every airline in the world have had their share of accidents.
For a while SWA had a clean record, then it happened to them as well.

Same with Quantas, squaky clean record for years and years, then they did something in Bangkok a few years ago that made the news..

Today it was AA's turn, tomorrow it may be your airline or somebody else.

 

[FlyingToIST]

Is the new identifier for the relocated airport at denver KDIA? or is it the iata ident?

I hear more people mention DIA so was just wondering about that... didn't show up in my papers yet..

DIA is what locals refer to it as in Denver International Airport. It was also used as an interim code when Stapleton was about to close and DEN was about to open.

Denver International's ICAO code is KDEN, and IATA is DEN. Period.

 

[NewBlue]

DIA also, at one time, was interpreted as "Doesn't Include Airplanes," and "Delay It Again."

 

[TWA Dude]

How do you know what "type" of pilots they were?
Native AA? Ex-Reno-Air? Ex-TWA? Ex-Eagle?

On C&R it was revealed that it was a SFO based crew.

 

[habubuaza]

Singlecoil--At most airlines, you have to be stabilized by 500'. Engines spooled up and on the Loc and G/S.

Guys, the G/S had to be pegged at the top way before they hit. The CA blew it by not calling go-around sooner. I was always taught that if you start a go-around, finish it. Even if your wheels touch the runway, don't stop.

The FO was apparently out to lunch, too.TC


P.S.--Anyone want the rest of my furlough passes? I'll stick to riding on China Air or Aeroflot. I think they're safer...

I'm not sure about the G/S even needing to be pegged because you only have like what, 190' obstacle clearance guarantee on an ILS? Can someone confirm? (sorry too lazy to crack a book right now)