saw runway at 50' w/GS out of service

[DrewBlows]

There seems to be a lot of inferences to what this actually says. It's a preliminary report, which means it could contain errors. In addition, it's written very poorly (my opinion).

Below is the paragraph that is getting the most attention. Let's break it down and see what it really says.

The first officer was flying the airplane at the time of the accident. The captain reported they were cleared for the ILS runway 24R approach. He stated that approximately 10 minutes prior to landing, air traffic control changed the landing runway to runway 28. The captain stated they were informed that the runway visual range (RVR) was 6,000 feet and that the braking action was fair.

Pretty straight forward so far.

He reported that after passing the final approach fix, they were informed that the RVR had decreased to 2,000 feet. The captain stated he had the approach lights in sight and at 50 feet above the ground, he had the runway in sight.

This doesn't say when he first saw the approach lights or the runway. What it does say is the Captain, who was the non-flying pilot, had the runway at sight at 50' agl. We can't infer by this sentence that the Captain did or didn't have the approach lights or runway in sight at a higher (legal) altitude. More importantly we can't infer that the FO, who was the PF, did or didn't have the approach lights or runway in sight at any time.

The captain stated he had the approach lights in sight and at 50 feet above the ground, he had the runway in sight. He stated the first officer then turned off the autopilot to land.

The first sentence is a carry over. If we were to take these sentences in sequence (we have no reason not to), it appears the autopilot was not disconnected until 50' agl, or lower. Unless this is an error, it sounds pretty bad, considering they knew the GS was out of service.

The captain stated that at 30 feet above the ground he momentarily lost sight of the runway. He stated he then regained sight of the runway and the airplane was landed.

This says the Captain, who was the NFP, lost sight of the runway at 30' agl. It doesn't mention what the FO saw. It's possible the FO never lost sight of the runway, but based on this, we don't know.

He stated they encountered strong gusty winds during the landing flare and after touchdown they could barely see the runway lights and taxiway turn-offs. The captain reported that despite the use of full reverse and braking, the airplane did not seem to slow down. The airplane traveled off the runway and into the snow covered grass where the nose gear collapsed and the airplane came to rest. The crew and passengers deplaned using a ladder with assistance from the fire department.

Self explanitory.

It's pretty obvious something went wrong as evidenced by the Jet in the grass. History suggests the pilots probably screwed up, but I think it's premature to indict these guys based on this preliminary report, which doesn't quote the first officer or offer any sequence of events outside of the very basic chain of events.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Does the 170 have the capability to fly an IAN approach? This would give you LOC/GP - with the GP standing for glide path. This will give you vertical guidance which looks just like the GS on an ILS.
This is still a non precision approach. Autopilot off by 50' below mins applies (well it does where I work). I would like to think that with reported visibility of 1/4 or 2000, I would be ready to execute a go-around and proceed to our alternate.
There is a lot of info we don't have - what things did the crew discuss prior to the approach? Where did they really see the runway environment? Did the FO have sight of the runway the whole time? Did they land long?

 

[slapstick]

I landed in lake effect snow in SYR a few weeks ago. Had the approach lights and runway in sight from 2 miles out. Lost everything at 50'. Also landed in CLE 2 months ago. 1/2 mile vis, and then pulling into the gate, the sun came out... of course, both times, the GS was working.

 

[tyuwerty]

Shouldn't bee too much longer before we can read the CVR. That ought to be interesting, as they always are.

From inside information, you will find that the approach was flown as an ILS approach, not a localizer only.....

 

[ultrarunner]

From inside information, you will find that the approach was flown as an ILS approach, not a localizer only.....

As I suspected in an earlier posting.

 

[Plunder Hound]

28 works best as a taxiway

 

[ponder]

This guy I know was landing a 170 in Pit on a snow covered
runway and landed long and made an RJ go around.
Here's what happened:
10 knot additive to ref if aircraft detects ice.
20 knot additive to Vapp due to 40 knot steady state headwind
Gentle touchdown on contaminated runway, so the airplane
didn't detect 50 knot wheel speed and did not immediately
allow brakes. If it would have been CLE, I, (I mean this guy I
know) maybe would've gone four wheelin' too.

 

[Mike man]

Last time I was on a Shuttle America jumpseat, both guys looked like they were in high school. When you get an airline job before you shave for the first time, these things happen.

Because no one on here was ever young...who cares what they look like. Not to mention that just about every other airline has put one off that runway in similar conditions...United, USAir, CO, and so on...search the NTSB site. Despite what was said it could have happened to anyone (see NTSB)...but the loosing site of the runway in the statement, not smart.

 

[SkiDawg]

Last time I was on a Shuttle America jumpseat, both guys looked like they were in high school. When you get an airline job before you shave for the first time, these things happen.

Ignorant statement! You obviously have never read accident reports from "back in the day." Accidents where entire hulls were lost and hundreds killed when 10,000+ hr pilots were all staring at a gear position light, or a chief pilot of an airline starts a takeoff roll without verifying that another airplane is clear of a foggy runway!

Unfortunately, Sh*t happens, REGARDLESS of flight time!

 

[SkiDawg]

Lots of armchair quarterback action here.


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?

All I know is that I went to CLE one night in Jan (ish) 07, late flight, landed 24R, tower was reporting braking action fair, CA landed, we could barely see the centerline, he said the braking was nil!