Shuttle America over run

[Sinca3]

What was the outcome of the SA E170 that ran off the end of the runway...I believe it was in CLE.

 

[Paul R. Smith]

no injuries/ fatalities.

It seems like the plane is still in CLE. Is that the same 170 in the air svc hgr? It can't be. Can it?

 

[Axel]

The pilots were both drowned when upper management stood on their shoulders to keep their own sorry heads above the water.

 

[samballs]

no injuries/ fatalities.

It seems like the plane is still in CLE. Is that the same 170 in the air svc hgr? It can't be. Can it?

I can't say its there today, but it was still there as of two weeks ago.

 

[samballs]

The pilots were both drowned when upper management stood on their shoulders to keep their own sorry heads above the water.

I hope your not defending these two. It would be fine to define them if all they did was screw up and go off the end of the runway, but what they did after they went off the runway is the reason they should be fired and not defended.

 

[gojo]

I hope your not defending these two. It would be fine to define them if all they did was screw up and go off the end of the runway, but what they did after they went off the runway is the reason they should be fired and not defended.

what was it?

 

[Way2Broke]

I hope your not defending these two. It would be fine to define them if all they did was screw up and go off the end of the runway, but what they did after they went off the runway is the reason they should be fired and not defended.

What did they do?

 

[TAWS]

The CA allegedly stayed in the cockpit - not enquiring after the pax. The FO (who was a nice guy) apparently left the cockpit and asked after the pax/FAs.
One was fired (CA), the other resigned (FO) before they could fire him.

 

[Axel]

I hope your not defending these two. It would be fine to define them if all they did was screw up and go off the end of the runway, but what they did after they went off the runway is the reason they should be fired and not defended.

That was not the reason they were fired. Their alleged actions after the fact, or lack thereof, (you were there, were ya?) were never mentioned in the terse letters I saw that they received terminating their employment.

Whether or not their actions before, during and after the accident rose to the level of firing offenses never had the chance to be determined. They drowned for the above stated reason.

I hope "your" never on my jury.

 

[cwebster2]

Their alleged actions after the fact, or lack thereof, (you were there, were ya?) were never mentioned in the terse letters I saw that they received terminating their employment.

Their alleged actions were in some letter your CEO blasted. It was posted here and some other places. Dont remember the details but it centered around operational frustrations and highlighted that the crew sat in the cockpit and didnt even make PA's to let the PAX know what was going on. That and it took ops some time to get the pax off the airplane. There were also some issues with pax names not being passed to the mainline incident people and the pax didnt get followup calls like they were supposed to.

Most of the message was operational stuff, but it did say some stuff about the pilots.

 

[Axel]

Their alleged actions were in some letter your CEO blasted...

You mean this:

The flight deck crew reported the incident to the tower who notified CFR. CFR was on the scene
within 5 minutes of the incident. The passengers were still on the plane in their seats wondering
what just happened. They remained on the plane for 55 minutes until CFR unloaded them down
a step ladder. Again I am not in a position to second guess the crew as to why they chose not to
blow the slides and evacuate the passengers; what I do take exception to is the flight deck crew
never once made a public address to the passengers; never came out of the cockpit to see if their
passengers and crew were all okay. No apology, no communication whatsoever, nothing. I don’t
know how you feel about this, but I find this aspect of the incident to be the most disappointing.

That was issued 5 days after the accident. Thank you, Miles O'Brien.

I wasn't there, neither were any of you and neither was BB. I am not in a position to defend or condemn anyone and neither are any of you, BB included.

However, the fact remains (and my point is/was) that when anything happens here that gets the attention of the FAA (or has the potential to get the attention of the FAA) the crews are sacrificed on the altar of self-disclosure.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Was the airplane on fire? Was there a fuel leak? Did the fire services recommend a full evacuation? Now a PA is surely in order, but to risk injury evacuating everyone into the snow was probably not the right thing to do at the time. Stupid even to mention it.

 

[rickair7777]

Was the airplane on fire? Was there a fuel leak? Did the fire services recommend a full evacuation? Now a PA is surely in order, but to risk injury evacuating everyone into the snow was probably not the right thing to do at the time. Stupid even to mention it.

I'm pretty sure the gear collapsed...in that case you have to assume structural damage and fuel leaking (the fuselage and wings are not designed for off-roading).

 

[BankAccount=0$]

As of yesterday the SA 170 was still in the Air Services hangar being put back together. A couple of weeks ago a giant stork came to CLE to deliver a brand new nose section to the CHQ mechanics in CLE where they are Frankensteining (is that even a word??) the thing together. Eventually it will be back in the air again and I should hope it will somewhere in the cockpit sport some sort of Humpty Dumpty sticker in honor of it's "being all put back together again" legacy.

And just as an aside to the topic. I was the flying pilot of the aircraft that landed just prior to the SA 170, and I can attest to you first hand that it was a really ugly time to be attempting to land on the shortest runway in CLE in a blizzard on a LOC only approach (that you found out about at the last minute..thanks CLE).

 

[cwebster2]

However, the fact remains (and my point is/was) that when anything happens here that gets the attention of the FAA (or has the potential to get the attention of the FAA) the crews are sacrificed on the altar of self-disclosure.

what probably got the attention of the FAA is what they said to the NTSB after the fact. I know thats what did it for me.

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. He stated the first officer then turned off the autopilot to land. 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. 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 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.

The weather reported at CLE at 1456 was: wind 300 degrees at 16 knots, 1/4 mile visibility, heavy snow, broken clouds at 600 feet, broken clouds at 1,500 feet, overcast clouds at 4,100 feet, temperature -7 degrees Celsius, dewpoint - 11 degrees Celsius, altimeter 30.01 inches of mercury.

The weather reported at CLE at 1517 was: wind 330 degrees at 13 knots gusting to 19 knots, 1/4 mile visibility, heavy snow, broken clouds at 300 feet, broken clouds at 1,000 feet, overcast clouds at 1,500 feet, temperature -8 degrees Celsius, dewpoint - 11 degrees Celsius, altimeter 30.03 inches of mercury.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Never seen a LOC approach authorized in 1/4 mile visibility.

 

[princeton]

As of yesterday the SA 170 was still in the Air Services hangar being put back together. A couple of weeks ago a giant stork came to CLE to deliver a brand new nose section to the CHQ mechanics in CLE where they are Frankensteining (is that even a word??) the thing together. Eventually it will be back in the air again and I should hope it will somewhere in the cockpit sport some sort of Humpty Dumpty sticker in honor of it's "being all put back together again" legacy.

And just as an aside to the topic. I was the flying pilot of the aircraft that landed just prior to the SA 170, and I can attest to you first hand that it was a really ugly time to be attempting to land on the shortest runway in CLE in a blizzard on a LOC only approach (that you found out about at the last minute..thanks CLE).

I flew into CLE that day too and I thought I recalled a NOTAM that the GS was out of service

 

[cwebster2]

I flew into CLE that day too and I thought I recalled a NOTAM that the GS was out of service

!FDC 7/3107 (KCLE A0785/07) CLE FI/T CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL, CLEVELAND, OH. ILS RWY 28, AMDT 22.... DUE TO EFFECTS OF SNOW ON THE GLIDE SLOPE MINIMUMS TEMPORARILY RAISED TO LOCALIZER ONLY FOR ALL CATEGORY AIRCRAFT. GLIDE SLOPE REMAINS IN SERVICE. HOWEVER, ANGLE MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN PUBLISHED.

and approach was clearing people specifically for "ILS runway 28 no glideslope".

 

[Paul R. Smith]

Never seen a LOC approach authorized in 1/4 mile visibility.

Cleveland gets bad in the winter with vis/braking reports going up and down. Damn lake effect.

It is very possible that the previous a/c landed with good vis, and then a big snow band comes through and 5-10 mins later its a friggin mess.

 

[Bank Angle]

If I remember correctly most of the glideslopes in CLE were out of service. This was during that time when we got like 2 feet of snow. Winters are harsh in CLE. You have to be on the top of your game when you see blowing snow with crosswinds, low vis. and the usual poor braking action. I'm not saying that they were not, just remember that if you find yourself in BEAUTIFUL CLE this winter.

 

[eaglefly]

Even if past the FAF, you cannot use the approach lights for guidance to go below MDA. They could've continued to MDA, but should have remained there until the runway was in sight and that is the only proper call to leave MDA.

Getting the approach lights, leaving MDA and finally seeing the runway at 50 Ft. is a no/no on Non- Precision approaches.

Is the A/P allowed to be on at 50 ft. in an E-170 ?

Doubt that.

Then the supposed inaction after the incident and the aircraft came to a stop ?

Pretty big hole dug by this crew, but hey at least they're alive. When they have the opportunity to get their licenses back after the revocation period (many thousands of dollars), they might be able to get a job flying ratty old Aztecs carrying checks.

If either does, hopefully, they won't repeat that mistake.

 

[airplane wizard]

What was the outcome of the SA E170 that ran off the end of the runway...I believe it was in CLE.

NTSB's findings: The E170 ran off the end of the runway because it failed to stop in time

 

[wmuflyguy]

Even if past the FAF, you cannot use the approach lights for guidance to go below MDA. They could've continued to MDA, but should have remained there until the runway was in sight and that is the only proper call to leave MDA.

You can go below MDA with only the approach lights visible.

You can go down to 100' above TDZE with seeing only the approach lights.

 

[blott]

actually, the autopilot is certified to 50'. (company imposed 200' limitation on non-precision, but 50 on an ILS)

B

 

[Airline Driver]

You can go below MDA with only the approach lights visible.

You can go down to 100' above TDZE with seeing only the approach lights.

When the Visibility is below landing minimums you can't even shoot the approach. They did which was one of their many mistakes. The Captain said twice "this doesn't look good, we should go around", and did not take the Aircraft from the FO. Too many mistakes snowballed into this accident which should not have even happen. I am happy that everyone walked away unharmed,. I wish the 2 Pilots well and hope their future endeavors work out for them. Just keep them away from the controls of an airplane. I am however glad they are no longer employed with RAH.

 

[Airline Driver]

Even if past the FAF, you cannot use the approach lights for guidance to go below MDA. They could've continued to MDA, but should have remained there until the runway was in sight and that is the only proper call to leave MDA.

Getting the approach lights, leaving MDA and finally seeing the runway at 50 Ft. is a no/no on Non- Precision approaches.

Is the A/P allowed to be on at 50 ft. in an E-170 ?

Doubt that.

Then the supposed inaction after the incident and the aircraft came to a stop ?

Pretty big hole dug by this crew, but hey at least they're alive. When they have the opportunity to get their licenses back after the revocation period (many thousands of dollars), they might be able to get a job flying ratty old Aztecs carrying checks.

If either does, hopefully, they won't repeat that mistake.

Yes you can use the autopilot to 50' on an ILS

 

[wmuflyguy]

When the Visibility is below landing minimums you can't even shoot the approach. They did which was one of their many mistakes. The Captain said twice "this doesn't look good, we should go around", and did not take the Aircraft from the FO. Too many mistakes snowballed into this accident which should not have even happen. I am happy that everyone walked away unharmed,. I wish the 2 Pilots well and hope their future endeavors work out for them. Just keep them away from the controls of an airplane. I am however glad they are no longer employed with RAH.

I realize that, but that wasn't the point of contention in my post.

If the captain said that, it is too bad he didn't follow his gut.

 

[CA1900]

Even if past the FAF, you cannot use the approach lights for guidance to go below MDA.

Yes, you absolutely can:


Sec. 91.175 - Takeoff and landing under IFR.

...(c) Operation below DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft... below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH unless--
... (3) ... at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable...

They could've continued to MDA, but should have remained there until the runway was in sight and that is the only proper call to leave MDA.

A refresher on 91.175 might be in order.

Getting the approach lights, leaving MDA and finally seeing the runway at 50 Ft. is a no/no on Non- Precision approaches.

Or Cat I precision approaches, for that matter. The "saw the runway at 50 feet" statement will probably hang them.

But as to your topic above, 100 feet is perfectly legal, precision or nonprecision.

 

[Microclimates]

Eaglefly, sounds like you need a little refresher there... maybe an IPC?

 

[B727FA]

What was the outcome of the SA E170 that ran off the end of the runway...I believe it was in CLE.

They eventually stopped. (j/k)