Jet in the water in Jacksonville

The local news stations are just busting one over this, it’s insufferable. Looking at the radar and current conditions I have no idea why the PIC would have decided to land with the wind when it was coming almost dead on with rwy28. Or at least request a hold until the storm cell moved east then slip in behind it..
 
Last edited:
Third hand info: Knowledgeable source read the incident report, did a quick calculation, 9,800 required to land with only 7,500 available. So it seems the jet did just what it was supposed to.
 
Last edited:
Jeff767 said:
There is no way a 737 required 9800 to land unless it had some major MEL items like a reverser and anti skid inop.
Click to expand...
With a 15kt tailwind, one inop reverser, and Medium braking action, that's just about right. Would need to know the landing weight, too.
 
Jeff767 said:
There is no way a 737 required 9800 to land unless it had some major MEL items like a reverser and anti skid inop.
Click to expand...

One thrust reverser was INOP (left? I forget), so none available. Doubt the non-functional air cindutionung was involved, but they probably landed long over the Navy's carrier simulation cables and couldn't stop. Anti-skid won't help if you're hydroplaning across puddles. Plus fast from the tailwind.

I'm seeing holes in the swiss cheese lining up for a runway overshoot . . . . .
 
Cooter said:
Those aren’t for simulation, they’re for real use.
Click to expand...

Yep, the cables are for real use in real landings, while that stationary 9000' runway is simualting a 900' carrier deck moving 30 knots with a nice 25° right crosswind, while rocking side-to-side and riding the swells up and down . . . i.e., "simulated carrier" landings. Overshoot at Jax low on fuel, just keep on going and land; overshoot at sea while low on fuel, you may return tomthe deck in a helicopter. Simualtes carrier landings indeed! There's not even a need for an LSO at Jax . . . .
 
Larry in TN said:
With a 15kt tailwind, one inop reverser, and Medium braking action, that's just about right. Would need to know the landing weight, too.
Click to expand...
Those were examples of when a landing distance might be that long. I have no knowledge if they actually had any MEL items.
Edit: I see the news is reporting they did have one thrust reverser inop.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
Yep, the cables are for real use in real landings, while that stationary 9000' runway is simualting a 900' carrier deck moving 30 knots with a nice 25° right crosswind, while rocking side-to-side and riding the swells up and down . . . i.e., "simulated carrier" landings. Overshoot at Jax low on fuel, just keep on going and land; overshoot at sea while low on fuel, you may return tomthe deck in a helicopter. Simualtes carrier landings indeed! There's not even a need for an LSO at Jax . . . .
Click to expand...

Multiple emergency procedures in Navy tailhook aircraft may require either a short field or long field arrestment. That is why many navy runways are equipped with arresting gear at both ends. I don’t understand why that would reduce runway length available however as most aircraft can roll over the gear without issues.
Navy field carrier landing practice does not involve the use of arresting gear.
 
Jeff767 said:
Those were examples of when a landing distance might be that long. I have no knowledge if they actually had any MEL items.
Edit: I see the news is reporting they did have one thrust reverser inop.
Click to expand...
A single inoperative T/R adds just under 500' to the landing distance in a 737-800. The big ones are the 15kt tailwind (the 737's max tailwind limitation) and the Medium braking action (assumed from heavy rain associated with the TS).
 
Jeff767 said:
Multiple emergency procedures in Navy tailhook aircraft may require either a short field or long field arrestment. That is why many navy runways are equipped with arresting gear at both ends. I don’t understand why that would reduce runway length available however as most aircraft can roll over the gear without issues.
Navy field carrier landing practice does not involve the use of arresting gear.
Click to expand...
We service a couple joint use fields that have cables. We have runway codes to get perf data for when the gear is out because the company doesn’t want us rolling over the cables. Makes the runway available noticeably shorter.

Even at taxi speeds it is a very noticeable bump in the road. I have no desire to find out what it would be like at 140kts.
 
Keep in mind that every landing for Navy aircraft rolls over the gear. It’s a non issue even for small aircraft like the A-4. Air Force fields generally have a different type of arresting gear setup. Navy gear is always in battery and ready. AirForce gear is usually long field only and recessed. It has to be popped up for use. Standard navy gear has never presented any issues for airliner size aircraft.
 
Jeff767 said:
Keep in mind that every landing for Navy aircraft rolls over the gear. It’s a non issue even for small aircraft like the A-4. Air Force fields generally have a different type of arresting gear setup. Navy gear is always in battery and ready. AirForce gear is usually long field only and recessed. It has to be popped up for use. Standard navy gear has never presented any issues for airliner size aircraft.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying and don’t disagree. Just putting it out there that some air carriers choose not to land over the gear and provide perf data to shorter available runway when the cables are out.
 
The fact that they pushed the weather envelope is surprising to me, because I know first hand that Maimi Air has pretty stringent company policies. We diverted several times for weather over the years. Sometimes even low ceilings (we operated out or a smaller airport for the 737) would do it. The company that we went through that chartered the planes at one point needed more aircraft than Maimi air could supply, so they sometimes chartered an additional one from Southwest. Several times the Southwest plane went into our regular airport with no issue and we diverted to CLT...and on the bus we hopped.
 
I'm just trying to figure out why on earth they would land on that runway to start with. Even the minimums are lower to 28. Also, if NIP was refusing to give them 28, which makes zero sense, why not just divert to JAX?

Jeff767 said:
There is no way a 737 required 9800 to land unless it had some major MEL items like a reverser and anti skid inop.
Click to expand...

1) The runway is 9003', which is all available for landing. The A gear doesn't alter that when not in use.

2) They had a 15 knot tailwind and no reverse available, on a contaminated runway.
 
N1120A said:
2) They had a 15 knot tailwind and no reverse available, on a contaminated runway.
Click to expand...
They had one reverser available to them. The penalty for a single inoperative T/R is a little under 500' of runway distance.

The big factor would have been braking action. With moderate or greater rain on the ungrooved runway, braking action of Medium, or worse, could be expected. That would have pushed the landing distance required up around 9,000'.
 
I see that each passenger will get $2,500 for their troubles.
 
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c780245&opt=0

KNIP 040145Z 29008G16KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN015CB OVC032 24/22 A2999 RMK AO2
TSB04 FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E T1 SET P0063 T02440222 $=

KNIP 040122Z 35004KT 5SM +TSRA BR SCT008 BKN018CB OVC030 24/22 A2998 RMK AO2 TSB04
FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E T1 SET P0010 T02440222 $=

The crash occurred 20 mins after the first report and 3 mins before the second.
Between the two reports there was 0.63 inches of rain (in 23 minutes).

Sounds quite wet.
 
Lesson for the day: Don’t try to land with thunderstorms over the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top