A A Aircraft Undershoots Denver Runway
- Thread starter TWAnr
- Start date
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
whats up with aa and overshooting and undershooting runways. seems to be the norm for them. not good .
etops1 said:
When you say "seems to be the norm for them," are you implying that more AA aircraft miss the landing zone than land in it?
That's a rather misleading statement, wouldn't you say?
It's an unfortunate incident, but fortunate there were no injuries. We don't know all the details yet. Let's hold judgment until we have more facts, shall we?
Those runways up there are nice and long. No need to put it on the numbers in order to get stopped in time. They could have overshot the touchdown zone by 3-4,000 ft and still had plenty of concrete leftover.
Perhaps some more sim time is in order.
Perhaps some more sim time is in order.
mjk said:
I agree with your first statement, but to jump to conclusions regarding the need for more sim time is a bit premature. As far as I know, there have not been enough facts released to form a scenario that's anything more than pure speculation. If it turns out that it was a perfectly good airplane on a fair weather day, then I'd say your suggestion would likely have some merit.
Until we know more, we really shouldn't jump to conclusions.
NTSB Identification: DEN05IA027
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of CIT Leasing Corp. (D.B.A. American Airlines)
Incident occurred Sunday, November 21, 2004 in Denver, CO
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, registration: N234AA
Injuries: 106 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On November 21, 2004, at 1038 mountain standard time, a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, N234AA, operating as American Airlines Flight 1115, sustained minor damage when during landing at the Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, Colorado, the airplane struck several approach and runway threshold lights. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was being conducted on an instrument flight rules flight plan under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 121. The captain, first officer, 3 flight attendants, and 101 passengers on board reported no injuries. The flight originated at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Ft. Worth, Texas, at 1004 central standard time, and was en route to DEN.
The captain reported that the first officer was flying the airplane. Approach control vectored the airplane on to a short approach to runway 35L. The airplane overshot the localizer. The first officer was chasing the glide slope. Approach control asked American Airlines Flight 1115 if they wanted to go-around. The captain said that they (the crew) could take the approach. The first officer intercepted the glide slope at 500 to 600 feet above ground level (agl). The captain announced at 100 feet agl that he had the runway environment in sight. The first officer then looked outside and began flying a visual approach. The captain said there was sufficient runway environment in sight. The captain said the first officer did not see the PAPIs (Precision Approach Path Indicator lights). At 50 to 75 feet agl, the first officer "dipped below the glide slope." The audible warning alarm sounded. The captain called for a go-around. The first officer attempted to go-around, but did not advance the throttles in time. The airplane "landed firm" but the crew noticed nothing wrong with the airplane. The crew taxied the airplane to the gate. When they got to the gate they noticed the hydraulic quantity indicator was low, but the pressure was normal.
At 1046, the weather at DEN was 100 broken, 1/2 mile visibility with freezing fog, temperature was 27 degrees Fahrenheit (F), dew point 28 degrees F, winds 320 degrees at 8 knots, altimeter 30.13 inched, and remarks "surface visibility 1/2 mile, visibility north through east 2 mile, ceiling 100 feet broken varies overcast."
The National Transportation Safety Board arrived on scene at 1300.
An examination of runway 35L showed one approach light, 19 feet from the beginning of the paved overrun, broken forward at its base. Approximately 49 feet from the start of the paved overrun surface, the beginning of 2 pairs of parallel-running tire marks were observed. The left pair of tire marks ran through 3 sets of center approach lights in the overrun, 2 runway threshold lights, a distance of 354 feet, and continued down runway 35L for approximately 700 feet. Light stanchions, broken lens pieces, and bulb debris was observed extending down the runway along the tire marks.
An examination of the airplane showed damage to the left main landing gear tire and brake lines, dents and scraped in the bottom left aft fuselage, chips in the aft bottom radio antennae, and cracks and puncture damage to the bottom of the left engine cowling. There was puncture damage to the inside of the left engine cowling, just forward of the stator vanes to the engine's compressor section. Several of the engine's compressor blades showed dents and scrapes. A ground check of the airplane's avionic system revealed no anomalies.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of CIT Leasing Corp. (D.B.A. American Airlines)
Incident occurred Sunday, November 21, 2004 in Denver, CO
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, registration: N234AA
Injuries: 106 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On November 21, 2004, at 1038 mountain standard time, a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, N234AA, operating as American Airlines Flight 1115, sustained minor damage when during landing at the Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, Colorado, the airplane struck several approach and runway threshold lights. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was being conducted on an instrument flight rules flight plan under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 121. The captain, first officer, 3 flight attendants, and 101 passengers on board reported no injuries. The flight originated at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Ft. Worth, Texas, at 1004 central standard time, and was en route to DEN.
The captain reported that the first officer was flying the airplane. Approach control vectored the airplane on to a short approach to runway 35L. The airplane overshot the localizer. The first officer was chasing the glide slope. Approach control asked American Airlines Flight 1115 if they wanted to go-around. The captain said that they (the crew) could take the approach. The first officer intercepted the glide slope at 500 to 600 feet above ground level (agl). The captain announced at 100 feet agl that he had the runway environment in sight. The first officer then looked outside and began flying a visual approach. The captain said there was sufficient runway environment in sight. The captain said the first officer did not see the PAPIs (Precision Approach Path Indicator lights). At 50 to 75 feet agl, the first officer "dipped below the glide slope." The audible warning alarm sounded. The captain called for a go-around. The first officer attempted to go-around, but did not advance the throttles in time. The airplane "landed firm" but the crew noticed nothing wrong with the airplane. The crew taxied the airplane to the gate. When they got to the gate they noticed the hydraulic quantity indicator was low, but the pressure was normal.
At 1046, the weather at DEN was 100 broken, 1/2 mile visibility with freezing fog, temperature was 27 degrees Fahrenheit (F), dew point 28 degrees F, winds 320 degrees at 8 knots, altimeter 30.13 inched, and remarks "surface visibility 1/2 mile, visibility north through east 2 mile, ceiling 100 feet broken varies overcast."
The National Transportation Safety Board arrived on scene at 1300.
An examination of runway 35L showed one approach light, 19 feet from the beginning of the paved overrun, broken forward at its base. Approximately 49 feet from the start of the paved overrun surface, the beginning of 2 pairs of parallel-running tire marks were observed. The left pair of tire marks ran through 3 sets of center approach lights in the overrun, 2 runway threshold lights, a distance of 354 feet, and continued down runway 35L for approximately 700 feet. Light stanchions, broken lens pieces, and bulb debris was observed extending down the runway along the tire marks.
An examination of the airplane showed damage to the left main landing gear tire and brake lines, dents and scraped in the bottom left aft fuselage, chips in the aft bottom radio antennae, and cracks and puncture damage to the bottom of the left engine cowling. There was puncture damage to the inside of the left engine cowling, just forward of the stator vanes to the engine's compressor section. Several of the engine's compressor blades showed dents and scrapes. A ground check of the airplane's avionic system revealed no anomalies.
That report indicates the aircraft was vectored to too short a final than required by FARS, a grossly unstable approach in instrument conditions and a classic duck-under error. Not good. Wait for the final report.
"At 50 to 75 feet agl, the first officer "dipped below the glide slope.""
Not sure I understand that part. If the aircraft was on glideslope at 50 agl, it would have been crossing the runway threshold. If at 75 agl, it would have been about 500 feet short. The aircraft would have to be in hellluva sink rate at that point, passing though the glideslope, rather than departing from it in order to touchdown at 354 feet short of the threshold.
"At 50 to 75 feet agl, the first officer "dipped below the glide slope.""
Not sure I understand that part. If the aircraft was on glideslope at 50 agl, it would have been crossing the runway threshold. If at 75 agl, it would have been about 500 feet short. The aircraft would have to be in hellluva sink rate at that point, passing though the glideslope, rather than departing from it in order to touchdown at 354 feet short of the threshold.
ITRADE
Veteran
What was the final result of that MD-80 that undershot at BDL and hit some trees on the hill before the runway?
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
alot of tree limbs and gravel in the aft cargo and some soiled underwear in the cockpitITRADE said:
but no injuries that i recall 
ITRADE
Veteran
Winglet said:
Winglet,
Just a lil nitpicking. No where does the report say the aircraft was vectored in too short in violation of the the reqirements. It just says it was a short approach.
"The captain reported that the first officer was flying the airplane. Approach control vectored the airplane on to a short approach to runway 35L. The airplane overshot the localizer"
From past experience DenverATC does like to put you about 2 miles outside the final approach fix when able versus a 10-20 mile final one might be accustomed too at other places. Things get busy in a hurry. But you are below the glideslope at this point (as required). The FAF is at 7000' MSL (about 1600' AGL) and almost 5 miles from the runway.
Not laying blame on anyone (pilots or ATC) as I (or anyone else) wasn't there. We dont know all the facts yet. Just a bad situation all around if you are not prepared for it.
I'll admit we pilots sometimes have a hard time accepting that its not going to work and the best (actually only) course of action is a go around. Add in the cost pressure of fuel (maybe cutting the reserves available to a minimum so you only have enough to shoot one approach before diverting) these days and a go around is unfortunately a cost consideration.
DC
OP
This incident, the BDL incident, two Seattle landings on the taxiway, flight 587, Little Rock along with a string of others has me concerned about pilot training at AA. I intend to write Arpey a letter about these incidents. Just too many in too short a time period. I'm getting uncomforatble with AA's safety record.
