saw runway at 50' w/GS out of service

[DrewBlows]

If you read the article clearly, it doesn't say that 50 feet was the FIRST sight of the runway and approach lights. It says that at 50 feet when the autopilot was turned off by the first officer, the runway and approach lights were both in sight. They could have seen them a mile out at 300 feet or anywhere else for that matter according to that statement.

As for the whacktard with the highschooler comment, I personally know that the captain was in his mid 30's with exceptional experience and skills. Can't say about the FO though. It could happen to all of us just as easily.

It is very poorly written. It doesn't say 50' was the first sight of the runway, but it doesn't say 50' wasn't the first sight of the runway either. I expect the final report will be written more clearly.

As far as loosing the runway at 30' goes, that's a rock and a hard place. Low energy go around (where the engines spooled?) or blind landing? Neither option is very advisable.

I would suggest the decision making process could have prevented this accident by not accepting the short runway, but I obviously have the advantage of hindsight. Everyone's been in situations they wish they (or someone else) didn't put themselves in, most don't end in an accident. I've been with Captains with far more experience than this Captain, who put me in situations I didn't want to be in.

 

[be-400xpdriver]

The glideslope for the ILS runway 28 approach was unusable at the time of the accident due to the snow. The crew stated they were made aware of this by air traffic control when they were cleared for the approach to runway 28.

So if the glideslope is unusable wouldn't this become a localizer only approach!!!!!! WTF!!!! They should not have never desended below the MDA and should not have been following the glideslope. I am assuming that they were actually following the glideslope and the reason I say this is that the FO still had the autopilot on at 50'. They both should be fired, thier pilot licenses revoked and go to work for Home Depot.

 

[Hvy]

It is very poorly written. It doesn't say 50' was the first sight of the runway, but it doesn't say 50' wasn't the first sight of the runway either. I expect the final report will be written more clearly.

As far as loosing the runway at 30' goes, that's a rock and a hard place. Low energy go around (where the engines spooled?) or blind landing? Neither option is very advisable.

I would suggest the decision making process could have prevented this accident by not accepting the short runway, but I obviously have the advantage of hindsight. Everyone's been in situations they wish they (or someone else) didn't put themselves in, most don't end in an accident. I've been with Captains with far more experience than this Captain, who put me in situations I didn't want to be in.

No question about it...a go-around from 30' is not be a big deal. Attempting to land after losing sight of the runway is not only illegal it's stupid (I'm refering to the statement above, not the incident in question since we DON'T have the facts).

 

[CitationLover]

armchair quarterbacking appears to be happening here....

the old fart crash list is just as stupid (and these old farts killed people).

two recent examples:
- and old fart AA chief pilot decapitates himself and kills others as they push through a thunderstorm and attempt to land in LIT.
- an old fart SWA CA slides off the runway at MDW killing a boy.

let's not turn this into a young pilot lacks experience nonsense. we all know we're jealous of their youth and only wish to be that young again.

 

[wow]

It should be Eastern Standard Time, not eastern daylight time on February 17, 2007.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Lots of armchair quarterback action here.

Maybe it's spot on. Maybe not.

Youth is good. Experience is good.

The Feds have a habit of pointing out things like failing to eat a balanced breakfast and label it "contributing" or "causal" when it actually is not.

I don't think there is any argument that, as the report reads, it was illegal and unwise to continue. We all know the rules and what is smart. But we don't actually know what happened. I, for one, don't trust the quality of this report or the accuracy of its contents.


What I would like to know is why did they go off the end. Did they land long? Was braking action not good enough?? Did the airplane exhibit an abnormal characteristic?

 

[boxjockey]

Be400,

Thank you very much for pointing out the fact that the GS was U/S. This is a point many seem to be missing. If the runway was not in sight until 50', then they should never have been there. They should have never been below 100' above TDZE. Also, to land on a 6000' runway with fair indicated as the braking action, maybe not such a good idea either. This is purely speculation, as none of us have the facts. Perhaps not accepting 28 in the first place would have been the best course of action. Hopefully all works out for these pilots. We have all made mistakes, some of us just haven't had to pay for them....

box

 

[Popeye0537]

FAR 121.651 does not say that you have to have the runway in sight to descend below 100 feet. It says that if you are using [only] the approach light system to descend below DH/MDA, then in order to descend BELOW 100 feet above TDZE you must have the red terminating or red siderow bars [of an ALSF-1 or 2] in sight. It does NOT specify any a height at which the runway must be in sight. 50 feet would be technically legal if the other parameters are met. That includes, by the way, that in order to actually land, the required flight visibility must also be present.

That does not preclude the possibility that they had other elements of the runway enviroment in sight already... any one of these, IN ADDITION to the approach lights, would permit descent below MDA, even with no red terminating bars (i.e. a MALSR.) Remember, since the runway was presumably snow covered, it is possible that the actual runway (as opposed to the runway environment, i.e. some pavement markings) may not have been visible until 50 feet. This is legal.

Be-400 your a Fcuking tool, go study for your ATP loser

Eaglebitch, get back to what you know....slinging gear you 45yr old EMB FO

 

[bestpilot]

If I had been the captain, it wouldn't have happened.

Duuuuude! Bad kharma, dude, jus plain bad!

Axel freeking rose! Nock nock nockin on hevvinz door!

 

[WMUSIGPI]

So if the glideslope is unusable wouldn't this become a localizer only approach!!!!!! WTF!!!! They should not have never desended below the MDA and should not have been following the glideslope. I am assuming that they were actually following the glideslope and the reason I say this is that the FO still had the autopilot on at 50'. They both should be fired, thier pilot licenses revoked and go to work for Home Depot.

Wouldn't Home Depot be a blessing, not to mention a pay raise instead of a punishment?