Contract carrier 737 ends up in St John's river after departing prepared surface at NAS JAX, details still being made public.
Early reports are that the crew and PAX all got out OK.
Early reports are that the crew and PAX all got out OK.
Civilian 737 runs long off NAS JAX and into St John's river
- Thread starter FlyNavyP3
- Start date
- Status
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
I saw the same. "Miracle on the St John's "
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
I saw the same. "Miracle on the St John's "
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
Yep.
Media is idiotic.
Huge difference between "miracle this plane made it safely" and "miracle this mistake didn't kill everyone on board."
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Talking heads saying shades of Sully Sullenberger. Idiots.
Yep.
Media is idiotic.
Huge difference between "miracle this plane made it safely" and "miracle this mistake didn't kill everyone on board."
Originally Posted by Mr_Joe
Yeah, the 8-16kt tailwind on the wet, possibly ungrooved runway didn't help. Glad they made it out ok, except the pets.
Runway is not grooved.
Yeah, the 8-16kt tailwind on the wet, possibly ungrooved runway didn't help. Glad they made it out ok, except the pets.
Runway is not grooved.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Well, let's see.
Land long and fast on a wet runway with a tailwind.
What could possibly go wrong?
I feel for all involved. The Pilots, the crew, the Pax, the loss of pets and personal property.
Thankfully no one was seriously hurt (aside from the pets).
Will be curious to see how long (if at all) it impacts operations at work.
Well, let's see.
Land long and fast on a wet runway with a tailwind.
What could possibly go wrong?
I feel for all involved. The Pilots, the crew, the Pax, the loss of pets and personal property.
Thankfully no one was seriously hurt (aside from the pets).
Will be curious to see how long (if at all) it impacts operations at work.
I hope I didn't come off as flippant, since that wasn't my intent.
It's just that I wonder how many times crews need to repeat the mistakes of others?
This accident replicates one involving and AF A340 in Toronto as well as another involving an AA 737-800 at Montego Bay.
While I agree that it is a pity that those in the back lost their personal possessions as well as their pets, I feel no pity for the guys up front.
How many times do crews need to make unstabilized approaches dodging cells before they finally figure out that it's a bad idea?
Had this crew either requested a hold or landed at one of the many available airports in the area to wait things out, this flight would have ended without incident.
The fact that dodgy approaches usually work out just fine is more a matter of luck than a good justification for trying one.
It's just that I wonder how many times crews need to repeat the mistakes of others?
This accident replicates one involving and AF A340 in Toronto as well as another involving an AA 737-800 at Montego Bay.
While I agree that it is a pity that those in the back lost their personal possessions as well as their pets, I feel no pity for the guys up front.
How many times do crews need to make unstabilized approaches dodging cells before they finally figure out that it's a bad idea?
Had this crew either requested a hold or landed at one of the many available airports in the area to wait things out, this flight would have ended without incident.
The fact that dodgy approaches usually work out just fine is more a matter of luck than a good justification for trying one.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
I hope I didn't come off as flippant, since that wasn't my intent.
It's just that I wonder how many times crews need to repeat the mistakes of others?
This accident replicates one involving and AF A340 in Toronto as well as another involving an AA 737-800 at Montego Bay.
While I agree that it is a pity that those in the back lost their personal possessions as well as their pets, I feel no pity for the guys up front.
How many times do crews need to make unstabilized approaches dodging cells before they finally figure out that it's a bad idea?
Had this crew either requested a hold or landed at one of the many available airports in the area to wait things out, this flight would have ended without incident.
The fact that dodgy approaches usually work out just fine is more a matter of luck than a good justification for trying one.
Not at all, and I don't disagree with your sentiments.
As a Navy trained aviation safety officer we strive to have a culture of open and honest reporting in order to prevent near misses from becoming an incident for others who weren't so lucky.
It's been said many times, wave offs are free. Sure it's easy to sit here in a chair and not in the cockpit and judge as there's a very small window of time to make critical decisions when things are going poorly. But when you're in a bad spot having the wherewithal to wave off a bad approach can be the difference between an incident and recovering safely on another try or at another airport.
The potential impact of weather in the area and propensity for a microburst to set up a dangerous tail wind component combined with standing water on the runway can't be ignored either.
That doesn't alleviate the crew of blame for not waving off, but it's a possible explanation for why things went so badly so quickly.
I hope I didn't come off as flippant, since that wasn't my intent.
It's just that I wonder how many times crews need to repeat the mistakes of others?
This accident replicates one involving and AF A340 in Toronto as well as another involving an AA 737-800 at Montego Bay.
While I agree that it is a pity that those in the back lost their personal possessions as well as their pets, I feel no pity for the guys up front.
How many times do crews need to make unstabilized approaches dodging cells before they finally figure out that it's a bad idea?
Had this crew either requested a hold or landed at one of the many available airports in the area to wait things out, this flight would have ended without incident.
The fact that dodgy approaches usually work out just fine is more a matter of luck than a good justification for trying one.
Not at all, and I don't disagree with your sentiments.
As a Navy trained aviation safety officer we strive to have a culture of open and honest reporting in order to prevent near misses from becoming an incident for others who weren't so lucky.
It's been said many times, wave offs are free. Sure it's easy to sit here in a chair and not in the cockpit and judge as there's a very small window of time to make critical decisions when things are going poorly. But when you're in a bad spot having the wherewithal to wave off a bad approach can be the difference between an incident and recovering safely on another try or at another airport.
The potential impact of weather in the area and propensity for a microburst to set up a dangerous tail wind component combined with standing water on the runway can't be ignored either.
That doesn't alleviate the crew of blame for not waving off, but it's a possible explanation for why things went so badly so quickly.
- Status
Similar threads
