Jackson Hole Landing

Everskyward said:
At Jackson I think the problem is not so much the town fathers as the National Park Service. The airport is located within Grand Teton National Park.

Here's an interesting article about the history of the airport... once you get past reading about her wedding dress. :mad2:

http://www.lifeinthetetons.com/Jack...tion/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc
Click to expand...

Mari.... I agree , that is a VERY interesting article. Since this is the only airport in a National Park the regulations for existance, day to day running, any and all improvements have to be proposed to Grand Teton National Park. They in turn do a brief study to see if the change is even feasible, then a extensive environmental inpact study is performed to look at all the different impacts the proposal would encompass. Then a public comment period and if all is well Grand Teton National Park, through direction from head office, the Dept of the Interior, the approval is granted for that particular proposal. The article says the runway has to remain 6300 long by 100 feet wide.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/pdfs/nw_185_13JAN2011.pdf

I am very curious on how the FAA has it listed at 150 feet wide ?
1- Maybe someone can't read a measuring tape?
2- Maybe someone forgot to tell GTNP they widened it ?
3- Maybe the FAA has their facts wrong ?
maybe, maybe maybe .......

I enjoy a good fact finding mission and this one should be 'quite' entertaining to follow through on.

I will report back on what gets dug up..

Ben.
 
After rereading the article Mari posted a link to one thing, well maybe more then one thing :rolleyes2:. But the most glaring thing is this section on page 4...... I cut and pasted this....

“As far as airport improvements, a longer runway would certainly help as we run into operation limitations with the current short runway.”
Though the topic often pops up, an extension is unlikely; for one thing, there’s really no standard for just how long a runway should be. “If you ask a pilot, it would be about nine miles long,” says airport director Ray Bishop. “If you ask an environmentalist, we wouldn’t have a runway. So there’s not really a set size.”
Instead, airport administration is at work on a $29.5 million terminal expansion expected to help the facility comply with FAA standards while providing more room for passengers.


I guess my question is to the people who know FAA regs, song and verse, like Capt Ron and Steven Mc Nicol or anyone else who might know.

Is there not performance specs that are issued by Boeing, Airbus, Embriar. etc, that clearly spell out take off distances, runway remaining required in case of a V-1 engine cut, landing distances, yada, yada, yada. ???

1-Would those numbers pretty much dictate minimum runway length ?

2-Doesn't the FAA have a say in a safe length of runway for each type of aircraft using it ?

3- Is there really FAA standards an airport needs to comply with for the size of the terminal ?

It just seems to my simple little mind that a long enough runway far ourweighs a bigger terminal, But I admit I never really understood Federal regulations and their bizzare concept.

Ben.
 
Ben, the answers to your questions are really moving targets. It depends on temperature, aircraft weight, runway conditions, density altitude, yada yada.

A municipality builds a runway. An airline looks at that runway and does all the calculations to determine what airplane can safely operate on that piece of concrete. If the conditions are such that a given airplane cannot operate on that piece of concrete safely, the flight is canceled, or an airplane that CAN safely use the piece of concrete is subbed.
 
N801BH said:
The article says the runway has to remain 6300 long by 100 feet wide.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/pdfs/nw_185_13JAN2011.pdf

I am very curious on how the FAA has it listed at 150 feet wide ?
1- Maybe someone can't read a measuring tape?
2- Maybe someone forgot to tell GTNP they widened it ?
3- Maybe the FAA has their facts wrong ?
maybe, maybe maybe .......
Click to expand...
Typo that nobody caught?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ben, the answers to your questions are really moving targets. It depends on temperature, aircraft weight, runway conditions, density altitude, yada yada.

A municipality builds a runway. An airline looks at that runway and does all the calculations to determine what airplane can safely operate on that piece of concrete. If the conditions are such that a given airplane cannot operate on that piece of concrete safely, the flight is canceled, or an airplane that CAN safely use the piece of concrete is subbed.
Click to expand...

But couldn't the formula be worked backwards? In other words the Jackson Hole folks tell the airlines we really want you to be able to bring in x number of people. The airlines then say to do that profitably requires y equipment. The typical Den Alt and or Runway Conditions, etc are fairly well known for that location, so by working the numbers you could determine the ideal runway length for most conditions. :confused:
 
stagecoachco said:
But couldn't the formula be worked backwards? In other words the Jackson Hole folks tell the airlines we really want you to be able to bring in x number of people. The airlines then say to do that profitably requires y equipment. The typical Den Alt and or Runway Conditions, etc are fairly well known for that location, so by working the numbers you could determine the ideal runway length for most conditions. :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe it is done that way. Airport management is told by an airline what kinds of facilities there would need to be for them to consider service there, including runway length, and then the airport management tries to upgrade their airport to those standards, and then the local residents try to quash the program because they don't want even more large traffic over their houses, and then someone sues someone else, and then there are countersuits, and so on and on. Then politics kicks in big time. Then you either get your longer runway and a chance at expanded airline service, or you don't.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, given the propensity of everyone to try to hang the crew, you are probably right, but I won't take that view yet. Let's see what the NTSB has to say about the systems before we pass judgment.

As a postscript, about the only thing I can fault the crew for at this time is not jumping on the brakes sooner, if they saw issues developing. That, of course, is if they weren't already on the brakes. If that is the case, I can't see anything to hang the crew on, based solely on the information I have seen to this point.
Click to expand...

Agreed on passing judgement, Greg. This is "pre-real-data" speculation. This is an Internet message board, where we get to guess and make up things. Ha. :D We can even take bets! :cornut:

The main point of my posting was... Spoilers and reversers aren't needed at all if this was done right, and the runway braking action actually was in real life, what was reported. Add in perhaps... if the braking systems worked properly.

Your confusion over what I was talking about in the braking scenarios, was that I had wandered off into speculation, and was mixing scenarios. I do that. :)

I had no intention of "hanging the crew", however. Just to be clear. They've either already hung themselves, or their systems failed in an interesting chain. The key here is that what happened is already past-tense. We're just speculating until someone compiles all the data. :)
 
Reviving the thread. NTSB report is out.

Systems failed in an interesting chain.

Both the speedbrakes and the thrust reversers failed to deploy.

The speedbrakes failed due to a "rare" mechanical/hydraulic condition/interaction.

Crew saw the speedbrake handle move and (presumably) decided that meant they actually deployed and went to work on the thrust reverser problem.

The thrust reverser failure mode required moving the thrust reversers forward to the stow position after they didn't come out, counterintuitively, and then backward again for a second attempt.

Captain is holding the bag for not confirming true speedbrake deployment beyond the handle snapping into the deployed position. Both crew members were taken to task for having both of them working the same problem at the same time.

Bad day at the office, for sure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/jackson_hole_wy/index.html
 
Geez...............................

Cap't Tim and the FO are probably the most experienced airline crew to fly into JAC... They know this place better then any other pilots and because of that, their actions saved the day, the plane and lives on board.....

1- If they had not landed in the first 700 feet of the runway, they would not have had the rest of the available runway to work all the problems dumped in their laps.. They get gold stars for planting it perfectly on the approach end.:yesnod:

2- Funny the report didn't mention anything about the wheel brake issues. Altho I didn't proceed out to the aircraft as we are told to let the rescue guys do their thing it was mentioned by several of them that a minute or so after the plane came to a stop, the the temps of the brakes were cool to the touch as if they never activated. :dunno:


3- Not a mention of the CVR / FDR fiasco that played out during the initial invertigation.:dunno:

4- There is a VERY narrow corridor at the south end of the runway where the plane ran off... Had they gone straight ahead they would have sheared off the light bars, ventilated the lower wing skins which would have breached the fuel tanks and probably caused a big fire. Had they veered too far right they would have gone into the irrigation ditch, folded the gear and the same result would have happened. They guided the plane perfectly between both obsticles and stuffed it into the only safe place they had to pick from. The snow saved them... had it been not as deep to stop them they would have gone through the fence and into the neighborhood / subdivision I live in.

Thank god for deep snow.:yesnod:....

I watched that plane land from a few hundred feet away while I was plowing snow off the GA ramp . It came by me and ran off the end at what I estimated to be 50 -60 mph, and I reported to the NTSB /FAA in a telephone interview less then an hour after the incident. My statement was " the reversers finally came on, throwing up huge clouds of snow dust which blocked my ability to see if the speed brakes were deployed, I did see the slats out and the flaps down, it appeared to me as if the plane had absolutely NO brakes. I could clearly see the rudder being deflected as the crew aimed the plane into the only safe place they could stuff it "....

I will always believe that someone or something strange happened to that aircraft at the departure end of the flight,, I think it was inbound from Chicago. Jackson is a VERY demanding place to fly into and too many things went wrong on that flight in a very time tested and safe series of Boeing 757 aircraft.

The crew should have been praised and given a raise in pay for not killing all on board as any other less seasoned crew would have crashed that plane. IMHO.

Rant off.....................................
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
The crew should have been praised and given a raise in pay for not killing all on board as any other less seasoned crew would have crashed that plane. IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree, but unfortunately that isn't AMR's style since C. R. died.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Threefingeredjack said:
At :48 you can see the reversers open on the nacelle of the engine in view. Does the report go into what exactly failed on them??
Click to expand...
I have no personal experience here, but from some discussion/speculation over at ProPilotWorld, it sounds like there may have been a problem with the ground sensing - essentially a squat switch system that due to the spoilers not deploying, the ground sensing was intermittent and prevented the TRs from deploying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top