Last Update: Friday, Jun 14th 2019 21:31Z 24320 Articles available Events from Jun 19th 1999 to Jun 14th 2019
www.avherald.com
Incidents and News in Aviation
List by:
Filter:
Accident: Miami B738 at Jacksonville on May 3rd 2019, runway overrun on landing, aircraft ends up in river
By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, May 4th 2019 05:41Z, last updated Friday, May 31st 2019 21:29Z
A Miami Air International Boeing 737-800, registration N732MA performing flight LL-293 from Guantanamo Bay Naval Air Station (Cuba) to Jacksonville Naval Air Station,FL (USA) with 136 passengers and 7 crew, landed on Jacksonville NAS's runway 10 at 21:42L (01:42Z May 4th) but overran the end of the runway and came to a stop in the shallow waters of St. John's River about 380 meters/1250 feet past the end of the runway and was partially submerged. All occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft, 22 occupants received minor injuries, one of them was taken to a hospital and released the following day.
Jacksonville's Sheriff Office reported Marine Units were called in to assist rescue. All persons on board are alive and accounted for. There were minor injuries, a number of people were transported to a hospital. The office later added 21 people were taken to hospitals with non-critical injuries.
The airport reported the aircraft crashed into the river past the end of the runway, about 100 feet off the paved surface.
Jacksonville's Mayor reported the aircraft landed during a rainstorm with low visibility, which may be a factor into the accident.
The NTSB have opened an investigation and dispatched an investigation team on site. The flight data recorder has been recovered.
On May 4th 2019 the NTSB reported in their press conference that 16 investigators have been dispatched to join this major investigation. The aircraft went off the right edge of the runway near the end of the runway and impacted a seawall before coming to a stop in the river. The runway is not grooved. The bottom half of the aircraft is covered with water. A number of pets carried in the cargo bays have perished. The flight data recorder is undamaged and is currently being read out. The CVR is currently under water and the NTSB can not get to it until the aircraft has been moved. The Naval commander stated that they do not know about the status of the pets, the cargo bay was checked and no pet noises could be heard and no pet carriers could be seen above the water line. The NTSB reported there may be surveillance videos around, however, they do not yet have those data. The runway had been renovated in 2016 and has a "crown", higher elevation around the center line, so that the water runs off the side of the runway. 22 people looked for medical attention, only one was hospitalized and released the following day. The airfield features a RNAV approach (no ILS available) or a SAR approach.
On May 5th 2019 the NTSB reported in their press conference, weather has complicated their efforts. The FDR was read out, preliminary information indicated the IAS at touchdown was 163 knots, 178 knots over ground (about 15 knots tail wind) at 30 degrees of flaps, ground spoilers deployed 3 seconds after touch down. The left hand thrust reverser was inoperative and the aircraft was dispatched under MEL. The CVR is still in the tail of the aircraft and under water. About 1200 gallons of fuel were remaining (some fuel spilled into the river). Divers are currently trying to remove the pets from the forward cargo bay. The crew initially planned to land to the west (runway 28), however, as the aircraft got closer to the airport they requested runway 10. Due to a deployed wire barrier the runway threshold was displaced by about 1200 feet leaving 7800 feet of landing distance available.
On May 7th 2019 the NTSB reported the aircraft was recovered onto a barge, as result the NTSB was able to access and recover the cockpit voice recorder.
In late May the NTSB released an investigative update stating that approach had advised the crew that both runway looked pretty bad and were "socked in". Winds favoured runway 28, however, as the aircraft came closer, tower queried whether the crew wanted runway 10 as it was looking better. The crew accepted runway 10. Tower reported the winds from 240 degrees at 10 knots when he cleared the flight to land. The aircraft touched down about 1600 feet past the displaced threshold of runway 10 about 20 feet to the right of the runway centerline, returned onto the center line about 1000 feet further down the runway, then veered right again and was 75 feet right of the runway, already off the runway about 6200 feet past the threshold and struck a rock embankment. The captain (ATPL, 7,500 hours total, 3,000 hours on type, therefore 1,000 hours in command) was assisted by a first officer (ATPL, 7,500 hours total, 18 hours on type). The NTSB wrote: "The accident flight was part of an operating experience trip for the first officer that began the day before the accident. On the day of the accident, the crew operated a flight from KNIP to MUGM, then operated the return flight to KNIP (accident flight)."
Jacksonville Naval Air Station features a runway 10/28 of 9003 feet/2740 meters length, landing distance available on runway 10 is 8006 feet/2440 meters. The airport features RNAV and TACAN approaches (as well as SAR approaches) to both runways 10 and 28.
Weather radar image NEXRAD at time of overrun, airport near the center of circle (Graphics: NTSB):
Aerial overview (Photo: NTSB):
N732MA seen the following morning across the river (Photo: APA):
N732MA sitting in the river (Photo: JAX Sheriff Office):
Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)
Rubber buildup By John on Monday, Jun 3rd 2019 13:31Z
I see rubber buildup at both ends of the runway. Water over rubber can reduce the coefficient of friction and have a negative effect on braking.
Will be interesting to see if the airport did a friction test after the mishap occurred, and what the readings were if they did.
Thrust reverser inop By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 14:17Z
@727 driver
Ok got you!!
@By anonymous on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 04:01Z By 727driver on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 12:29Z
Ah, got it.
T/R inop - no effect on dry runway for T/O & LDG T/R inop - weight/speed corrections for T/O on wet rwy
All I wanted to say for the non aviation readers here that it's perfectly legal to operate with T/R inop (no contamination).
Sorry for confusion (e.g. inop brakes example).
FO By Lukas757 on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 12:18Z
“part of an operating experience trip for the first officer”
I’m sure it was!
REVERSERS INOPERATIVE AGAIN? By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 12:09Z
REVERSERS INOPERATIVE AGAIN? By 727driver on Monday, May 6th 2019 20:13Z
“Inop TR, like inop brakes (!), are acceptable IF taken into account for take off and landing, e.g. weight reduction, increased landing distance, NO contaminated RWY, etc., etc.”
That’s what you said, you tell me if you see nothing wrong with that statement regarding inop T/R.
@By anonymous on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 04:01Z By 727driver on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 11:42Z
Sorry,
did I say/write anything wrong? What's your point?
Thx
Reversers inop again By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 04:01Z
REVERSERS INOPERATIVE AGAIN? By 727driver on Monday, May 6th 2019 20:13Z
Reversers are not accounted for in take off (ASDA) and landing Distance performance calculation, wet or dry runway, as a matter of fact on A320 for example, using landing Flaps 3 for landing you get +10 mtrs per reverser operative if using full reverse thrust.
As a B727 pilot or what ever is it you “fly” should know that, from many of your posts makes me wonder if you’re a real pilot at all.
Cheers
PS: on the TAM accident, thrust lever for the inop reverser, was wrongfully left on climb when thrust lever should have been retarded to disconnect A/T at touchdown, so that engine was commanded to climb thrust by A/T.
Wow what a chip By CrowEater on Saturday, Jun 1st 2019 01:52Z
Aviator I.R. must have massive shoulders to carry that around.
Qualit of pilots By Aviator i.R on Friday, May 31st 2019 23:25Z
Well, US Pilots are no better than pilots from the rest of the world, even if US Senators or Congress people as well as FAA Official propogate to the contrary telling the rest of the world how good US pilots are (LionAir and Ethiopean accident)
Flying pilot? By CrowEater on Friday, May 31st 2019 22:25Z
Any news on who was manipulating the controls considering the IOE FO had wet ink on his/her cert?
@DL By Buzz Lightyear on Sunday, May 12th 2019 01:26Z
Not all carriers allow pets in the cabin. I only fly with those that do if I'm taking pets with.
The last time I did that was on an international flight in business class when I was relocating. Another passenger complained loudly that he was not flying with animals in the cabin. The FA tried to assure him that the carrier allows this and that my cat was in a carrier with a blanket over it. Passenger didn't care, demanded to talk to the captain. FA said that the captain is aware and approves and repeated again that it was in line with airline policy. Didn't make a difference. I was about to get up and help him exit the aircraft when the FA asked if he wanted to be re-seated. "Yes! Right now!" They moved him from business to economy where he stayed for the duration of the 10 hour flight. That wasn't the re-seating he was hoping for.
By Dave Cornutt on Friday, May 10th 2019 15:13Z
@MadFlavours, I noted those NOTAMs too... I wonder if the crew was concerned about clearing those obstacles at the approach end, in low-vis conditions. With 100% hindsight, it might have been better to divert to KJAX in those conditions.
I note that that 10/28 runway has TACAN. Although presumably a civilian 737 would not be equipped.
SafePilot By WTB on Friday, May 10th 2019 08:52Z
SafePilot, also known as Carl, of Palermo, is pretty vocal on another popular aviation web site, with many posts in all caps. His latest post on that site was also very unpopular. He’s a pretty animated commenter.
Runway markings By Kip Powick on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 21:18Z
Paul....
The chart you are probably looking at is very old,( if you Googled the airport diagram for NAS Jacksonville), possibly published 2006. With the passage of time runway headings change, (changing magnetic compass degrees --called Variation.....takes years for the changes but it does happen.
Presently the runway markings are correct..... 10/28 ...as noted in all the text above
Runway designators By Paul1958 on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 20:49Z
Just curious if anyone can tell me why the E-W runway is designated 9/27 on the FAA airport diagram (but actually marked 10/28 as seen in google aerial photo?
Thanks Paul
Landing performance By Pablo on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 16:03Z
Just for info, about landing performance. The calculations are done with max manual braking , which is more than RTO or autobrake set on MAX on any Boeing plane. I do not know, except of the test pilots doing the certification, who lands with max maual braking on regular basis. After such landings, some tyres will most probably need replacement but for certification is the way of braking desired. On the OPT some operators add an extra margin, around 200 ft, for the different flares of their pilots. Usually performance has been flight tested only on dry and wet runways but on contaminated runways is only a mathematical calculation, not flight tested.
Landing performance By Pablo on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 16:02Z
Just for info, about landing performance. The calculations are done with max manual braking , which is more than RTO or autobrake set on MAX on any Boeing plane. I do not know, except of the test pilots doing the certification, who lands with max maual braking on regular basis. After such landings, some tyres will most probably need replacement but for certification is the way of braking desired. On the OPT some operators add an extra margin, around 200 ft, for the different flares of their pilots. Usually performance has been flight tested only on dry and wet runways but on contaminated runways is only a mathematical calculation, not flight tested.
@Safe Pilot By captjns on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 13:32Z
I don’t see B737600-900 rating nor TAP ROOT training on your short CV. That said Safe Pilot, to retain a modicum of respect, you may want to keep the old fingers off the keyboard until you’ve got the facts in hand.
@Safe pilot By Croboy on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 13:14Z
Yeah, it's a shame, those THUNDERSTORMS and WIND SHEAR NOT FOLLOWING SAFETY RULES.
@Safe pilot By 727driver on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 13:04Z
Thank you superman for your thorough analysis.
FIRE FLIGHT CREW For total disregard for safety of passengers cabin crew By Safe pilot on Wednesday, May 8th 2019 12:47Z
For landing in THUNDERSTORMS WIND SHEAR NOT HOLDING DIVERTING NOT FOLLOWING SAFETY RULES .causing accident and almost killing everyone . There were plenty of airports to divert to where good weather was. From, B747/777/757/L1011 Pilot worldwide. 25 years From Palermo, Sicily .
By (anonymous) on Tuesday, May 7th 2019 09:57Z
TAF KNIP 0323/0423 18004KT 9999 VCTS SCT015 BKN030CB BKN100 BKN250 532809 533705 QNH2991INS TEMPO 0323/0404 VRB10G20KT 4800 SHRA BR SCT010 BKN020CB BKN080 BKN250 FM040400 23005KT 9999 SCT015 SCT060 BKN250 - TS/CB activity forecasted - NOTAM RWY28 with WIP - RNAV (GPS) APCH ONLY for both RWYS - LEFT T/R inop - WET runway expected - Uncertainty of RWY in use before departure due to TEMPO 0323/0404 VRB10G20KT - I don't have the OFP nor the performance for the flight release, so not sure what data is used by the operator for this aircraft on wet runways without Thrust Reverse (and based on the WIP Notams)
I'm sure the crew programmed all that above - On TOD, RWY10 was still in use, check the winds - In the approach, heavy CB activity was overhead the airport with gusts for RWY28. VREF + margin was decided by the crew, hence the high GS. - The decision to request RWY10, probably based on radar observation of CB activity. - Not sure how much holding fuel they had - CRM? - SOPS?
@Gabriel By Av8tor on Tuesday, May 7th 2019 08:45Z
There is a difference between the dispatch landing requirements and the actual landing distance during flight execution...that’s where the 3000+ ft went. The effect of thrust reverse on landing distance increases with decreasing braking action. A wet runway with good braking actions will see limited benefit from TR besides brake cooling limits. The more slippery it gets, however...
Displaced threshold By CT GUY on Tuesday, May 7th 2019 03:41Z
I believe Landing on runway 28 would have also provided 9000 feet of runway vs 8000 for 10. That is because there is no displaced landing threshold of 1000 feet.
@Fred By CrowEater on Monday, May 6th 2019 22:28Z
Well done, Sir. I tip my hat to you.
Press outflow valve and links in a chain By CrowEater on Monday, May 6th 2019 22:19Z
Yes, 737-800...1 outflow valve but 3 actuators...normal, alternate and manual. Couple other valves and holes that keep that ol’ hull from being water tight. Water tight/air such thing with any airplane.
See those comments from anon at 0917Z. If all that’s true/legit, this was an accident waiting to happen. Too many things not normal in a dynamic weather scenario during the landing phase. While the press issue doesn’t excuse running off the end of a runway, I’ll repeat what I occasionally have to tell ATC:
“I’m perfect with two, pretty good with three, once u give me four (instructions)....something will have to get repeated.” Pilots are human and can only “cope” with so much. This crew had too many curveballs thrown at them. Very unfortunate...and management will never learn. C.Y.A., men, c.y.a.
REVERSERS INOPERATIVE AGAIN? By 727driver on Monday, May 6th 2019 20:13Z
TAM 3054 was an entirely different animal. The right engine was on CLB pwr!
Inop TR, like inop brakes (!), are acceptable IF taken into account for take off and landing, e.g. weight reduction, increased landing distance, NO contaminated RWY, etc., etc.
Concerning this accident I don't know if they could have made it with both TR operative.
But there are a lot of 737drivers here who will know....
REVERSERS INOPERATIVE AGAIN? By GEDSON MEIRA on Monday, May 6th 2019 19:44Z
"The left hand thrust reverser was inoperative and the aircraft was dispatched under MEL" This reminds TAM 3054 in Congonhas - São Paulo, in July 17, 2007, when 199 people perished. Why they still allow take-off of a/cs with inoperative reversers? This practice does not seems to be safe enough.
By Fred on Monday, May 6th 2019 15:44Z
I thought Barry Soetoro closed Guantanamo.
Oh well. Glad all are safe; sad about the pets.
738 By Jsaw on Monday, May 6th 2019 14:52Z
High touch down speed,almost no Rev, tail wind 15 kts .. Why not land the reciprocal r/w .. Some are calculated required distance for landing 200 feet less than LDA , maybe so provided landing is made at TDZ , let's wait and see ... I still believe this is a rushed landing and incident could have been avoided. ..