Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun


Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
"Continuous skid marks were followed from the main wreckage, back to a point where they could no longer be segregated from the other skid marks on the runway. "

So was the anti-skid working or not?
Huck said:
"Continuous skid marks were followed from the main wreckage, back to a point where they could no longer be segregated from the other skid marks on the runway. "

So was the anti-skid working or not?

The anti-skid feature of the airplane's braking system was tested at Baltimore-Washington International Airport under the supervision of an FAA aviation safety inspector (Airworthiness), on May 8, 2002. In a written statement, the inspector described the procedures used for the test, and the results of the test. According to the inspector:

"[The] system operated as per instructions and is considered to be in a normal operating condition. Warning system operates as required. Results of testing shows that the anti-skid system is in proper working order."

Sounds to me as if it were working. However, I hardly think that's an issue.
NTSB will have a field day

There seem to have been many contributing factors, as I read this thing. The following is my opinion only, and is not to suggest that I would not have made some of the same mistakes....

First of all, never should both pilots have their heads down trying to program the FMS at the same time...it seems that from their statements these pilots pretty much admitted to doing this. Big NO NO...especially when you are that low and that close to the airport.

If you are not stabilized on your approach by 500 feet, you go around. Stabilized means many things....vref+20 MAX, 500 to 700 fpm descent or on vasi/glideslope, and set up for the TDZ. These guys werent stabilized if you listen to their statements.

CRM...and the two command rule. I dont know if the FO said go around more than once...but he SHOULD HAVE....the two command rule dictates this. Go around captain...nothing...GO AROUND CAPTAIN...nothing....I HAVE THE AIRCRAFT!!!...end of story.

Dont get me wrong...again...im not preachin here..just making some observations.

The Captain had 3000 hours...that in itself may or maynot raise concerns. Seems like that may have been a factor, though...they were in too much of a hurry to get this job done...should have gone around!

Anti Skid, working or not....they had enough runway theoretically to land anyway....if everything was done by the book. Come in too hot, and you might as well throw the book out the window cause now you ARE A TEST PILOT with regard to landing distances.

I feel bad for these guys.... unfortunately their mistakes are public knowledge for everyone in the world to read...including future customers of the Fractional Industry which is what worries me the most.

Over and out.
Credit to the captain for standing up to his errors. Too many people would automatically blame the aircraft or something else.

What kinds of reprocussions will these pilots face as a result of their poor decision making? If any...

Regardless of any repercussions which may come from the company or the FAA, perhaps the most damaging repercussion these pilots will face as a result of the poor decision making is the fact that an aircraft accident will follow wherever they go.
Similar to the Southwest accident at Burbank. Relativly short, runway, Captain flying, excessive speed over the threshold, landing beyond the touchdown zone. You can get way with that on a 10,000 foot runway, which is why we sometimes forget why it is so important to be on speed and glideslope.

After operating 727s into Midway, and L1011s into Maui, I've had it drilled into my head that you must be on speed. Remember kinetic energy varies proportionally to the square of velocity, so carrying a little extra speed at touchdown requires a whole lot more braking energy to stop.

I admire both guys for fessing up. We all make mistakes. It takes a big man to confess his screwups. I wish them well, but my guess is that their fate will be the same as that of the Southwest pilots at Burbank.
I agree with flint4xxx,

It is rare this day and age where people take responsibilty for their actions. I was way impressed.

Latest resources