DrewBlows
Go Tigers!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,031
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.
Pretty straight forward so far.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.