本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的網站體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出
Back to Squawk list
  • 66

Delta Plane Skids Off Runway at LaGuardia Airport

提交時間:
 
An aircraft skidded on the runway at LaGuardia Airport and crashed into a fence ... It wasn't clear how many people were on the Delta plane when it slid off the runway (www.nbcnewyork.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


brillo9
Audio: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/klga/KLGA-Twr-Mar-05-2015-1600Z.mp3 Kudos to airport personnel keeping it cool with limited information.
rtjorgenson
DAL 1086 audio starts @ 2:37
vanstaalduinenj
1988? That is like a mid-life plane at DL.
They keepnthere birds in the fleet for the long haul.
sparkie624
sparkie624 5
Mid-Life.. Not sure... That is actually a very old aircraft... Especially seeing how much flying they do each day... I would venture to say that the plane is overall a very high time plane even though it is very well maintained.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
My understanding is Southwest is still painting DL livery to deliver the previous Airtran 717 birds to Delta for subleasing. Even Boeing kicked in on the deal to help cover the cost.

Birds like this one that crashed are probably soon to be replaced by the 717s.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Very good possibility... There are a lot of similarities and there are a lot of differences between the 717 and the MD80. Cockpit and Engines are the single biggest difference.
fiddlehead1
You happen to be right . worked on them , thye wont be around to much longer .
Seafleet
Oh dear god did anyone nave CNN on this afternoon boy did they try and sensationalise this story.
It got to the point I wanted to vomit. OK the runway got snowed up with ice underneath and the wheels didn't grip so it slid off the end of runway13 and wound up parked on the banking just before the water.There where I think 135 bodies involved including crew but apart from a few bumps and bruises no serious injuries thank the lord so it was a simple problem without deaths or life threatening injuries but CNN where making it out to be a major disaster I understand American TV is all about making everything sound worse than it is because they need the ratings to sell advertising space but surely there has to be a limit. I am a Brit aged 68 and grew up on BBC news which is accurate and concise because they don't have to worry about ratings except their truthfulness CNN you suck
joelwiley
joel wiley 13
CNN is a commercial operation primarily to provide advertisers access to your eyeballs. News and information content is tertiary. </sarcasm>
bentwing60
bentwing60 7
Too bad you have to add that last part nowadays.
preacher1
preacher1 9
I put in a request for a sarcasm font. I guess I should have asked for LOL too.
lschuc
I gave up watching CNN & Fox News & MSNBC a long time ago... They all sensationalize everything for ratings. Then I gave up cable TV, pretty much for the same reasons!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
I disagree. I thought Fox was being pretty reasonable in their report on Delta as well as Ford's accident.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Fox is pretty good.. But they all hold on to news and dramatize it.. Fox just is not nearly as bad as CNN and MSNBC
fltnsplr
Oh, that's good! Anybody for quaternary? :-)
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 3
"tertiary"...."quaternary"....

i didn't need a dictionary. These are terms well known to senior airline pilots when they are bidding for vacations. (Those who know, will know what I refer to....)....
30west
30west 2
I had to go to the dictionary!!
bbabis
Bill Babis 8
Its the 24hr new cycle. A 30 second story has to fill 3 hours of time. No cable news channel even tries to report the news anymore. They all try to make the news. Accurate and Concise left the news channels long ago along with their cousin Common sense. Give television up for a week or more. You won't believe how good you'll feel.
DSchultz101
I don't mind watching CNN most of the time. However, as a commercial pilot, I have never found someone as annoying and incompetent as Richard Quest. I cringe every time I hear his voice talking about an aviation issue. On top of it all, he has nothing to do with aviation in his background. He's a wannabe Jim Cramer from CNBC. Just sayin.... :)
dee9bee
dee9bee 2
MSNBC actually dragged Ed Shultz onto the set to comment. Apparently, he is a pilot of some sort. Hate to admit it, but he did a better job than anyone on CNN. (What I hate to admit even more was that I was watching MSNBC!)
pdixonj
pdixonj 2
I still remember when he was a commentator after the Asiana crash at SFO...CNN had him listed as an "Aviation Expert"...SINCE WHEN????
preacher1
preacher1 2
The MAS370 disappearance was a major happening and their coverage was actually pretty decent then. Forget it past that, plane crash or anything.
mhlansdell00
"If it bleeds it leads". Blood and guts sells news papers and air time. No one was seriously hurt so the have to sell with almost in teeny print.
Cantarela
Claude Levy 0
It may very well be that CNN "sucks" - I am not an expert on these matters - , but I doubt it can be worse than Fox News!
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
You can get downvoted faster if you spell it 'faux' <insert appropriate emoticon>
Lunarstorm777
(v)e Same 0
Shhhh they burn you at the stake around here for speaking ill of the almighty fox.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 3
Another everyday event. Sensationalism...yes. Inconvenience...yes.
Newsworthy...yes...because the event messed up traffic. West bound, East bound, North and South. And the people who were injured. .. didn't have their seatbealt fastened or not tight enough. Lawsuit waiting to happen. Sad but true.
gearup328
Everyday event? Rare in the US.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Peter. I have flown for over 30 years and have had "events" or incidents. Most of these events or incidents don't go public. Personally, I have experienced loss of hydraulics, landing gear not down and locked, bird strikes, have run off runways and a #2 engine blow out on a DC-10. Evacs, preps for emergency landings...you name it. Yes...these situations happen in the U.S. almost everyday. The public just doesn't hear about it. Not newsworthy unless people are injured or souls are lost. Not rare in the US.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I got to agree about the part of souls being lost. It seems like with the advent of 24 hour news, anything considered an abnormal happening by John Q. Public is newsworthy. I classify abnormal as something other than engine start, taxi out and take off; some of the things you have mentioned above. All routine, until something happens that a guy in the pointey end trains for all the time. Hopefully you don't have one of these everyday yyourself but they are not totally uncommon or we wouldn't train for them.There is more
to 3 or 4 on your shoulder than looking good walking thru the airport.
gearup328
Dee, I have 14000 hours and planes just don't skid off runways and wreck everyday. The other problems you mention do happen every day. Thanks.
gearup328
Sorry Dee. My post was overly simple. What I meant was here in the US, planes don't routinely fly off the runway everyday. There are certainly lots of close calls and in flight emergencies that we pilots face every time we say "V1, rotate". If you include the entire planet, it's a different story.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Peter- Point well taken.
preacher1
preacher1 0
While maybe not an everyday happening, and I don't know the details, but there were 2 this week, the DAL we are talking about and the Turkish airline that ran off the runway that hardly nobody is saying anything about; probably because no souls lost.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
A few years ago a SWA bird I was on shut down the right engine between El Paso and Phoenix. I thought it was pretty much a non-issue from an operational standpoint. As a pilot, I knew the primary concerns were reducing altitude accordingly and continue flying the plane. I imagine they monitored the left side a little more closely for a time to insure was operating normally.

But the real surprising part was it was in the Phoenix paper the next day. Why? Then there was discussion on the AOPA forum, most of whom knew nothing.

From a pilot's perspective, it's carry on with appropriate procedures and fly the airplane. For the media, they had to iron their panties.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Actually 3 if you want to count the Popovich jet although had it not been owned by him, we'd probably never heard about it, except maybein passing.
ltcjra
ltcjra 3
This paragraph appears in USAToday's story about the skidding incident:Port Authority officials, however, said at early afternoon they were preparing to open at least one runway -- No. 422.
I want to find and land on runway 422.
preacher1
preacher1 6
That little dash or slash between things can be awfully important at times. Placed right, it can make you seem like you know something or as in this case, a fool among those that know.
Colgor8
Jhon Lewis 1
I think that runway's floating at 4000ft at heading 220 xD
cm5299
Chuck Me 2
Can someone explain why a runway is open but not the airport? Listening to atc it sound like 4/22 is "open". Vehicles are asking to cross just like they would if planes were coming and going. However, LGA still seems to be closed.

Why not just say 4/22 is closed (like 13/31 is) if the airport isn't open?

Is it an emergency thing? Flight departing JFK has emergency still keep 4/22 open just in case?

Thanks for the help.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
If you listen to the LiveATC audio, you can hear the tower calling to to the crashed plane. The plane does not respond. But the tower cannot see them because of low-visibility (RVR).

When you hear the vehicles (Car 100, Car 103) asking to cross the runways, there are still planes inbound, intending to land on a runway.

The piece you missed is that these vehicles are Port Authority Police vehicles. They were the eyes and (for lack of pilot response) the hears of the tower controller.

You can hear live the PA Police issuing an order to close runway 13, when they encounter that the plane is still on or near the runway. You can hear him close the airport moments later, and dispatch Red Team to Runway 13. The on-scene commander is issuing commands that the tower and rescue personnel comply with in a coordinated way to respond to the disaster.

1. He wants the rescue / fire trucks to have free reign of the airfield without worrying about planes running over them, as they respond to and tend to the plane and the people aboard it when it crashed.

2. He doesn't want another plane to crash into the now crashed and disabled pane on the airfield which is actively leaking fuel from its' left wing.

It all seems pretty straight-forward. You just have to realize that those statements about the runway being closed and airport being closed were commands, being spoken by airport police on the scene (airfield) who were in command of that scene, asking for the tower to IMMEDIATELY close the runway, and then the airport.

The planes are lined up to land or depart with narrow tolerances at bus places like LGA. What you didn't hear was a discussion about the merits of closing the runway, and a polite request to the tower to close the runway. There was a multi-ton hunk of metal with lots of souls aboard that was seconds away from landing on Runway 13. What you heard was command issued by an on-scene commander, which was imperative that the tower and rescue personnel act upon immediately. For the safety of all involved.

Hope that settles your questions.

BTW For reference, that on-scene commander is probably making more, much more than the pilots flying the smallish planes in question, and the controllers in the tower. Just look up the salaries of Port Authority Police. Add in seniority pay and rank pay. Then account for over-time payments.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Don't forget accumulated sick and personal time, 40 years worth, that's cashed in at retirement!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
He probably does make a chunk of change but be advised that was not a Delta Connection or RJ. That was DAL big iron, an MD88.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I figured. But on the mad dogs, they're still at the bottom of the big iron pay scale, especially the newly-minted second officers. Sadly he probably makes more then most mad dog drivers. All but the most senior pilots, who could've moved on to bigger planes years ago, but elected not to. Many PA officers retire near $200k. They build up lots of overtime during their last 3 years to be eligible for huge payouts in retirement.
30west
30west 1
I'm sure you mean first officer.
preacher1
preacher1 1
They are close to the bottom but at DAL, they are above the 717's, and a couple of the RJ's that are company ran, but you are correct, they are getting down there.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
"Can someone explain why a runway is open but not the airport? Listening to atc it sound like 4/22 is "open". Vehicles are asking to cross just like they would if planes were coming and going. However, LGA still seems to be closed."

Low visibility. The airplane (DL 1086) somewhere near the end of Runway 13....uncertain whether it was impinging on Runway 04/22. Abundance of caution, given the weather and low visibility.
preacher1
preacher1 0
I would have thought they were both open. The post below pretty much sums up what you are saying but it does look like they would both be open.
cm5299
Chuck Me 1
Listening to ATC (LGA tower) a few minutes ago, they specifically said 13/31 closed and 4/22 open. Basically emergency vehicles asking as the moved around the field. As I listened the only permission I heard was asking to cross 4/22 not 13/31. So I assume they had free movement on 13/31.

Just trying to understand why airport appears closed but runway(s) are open. Trying to figure out the "why" there.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
When Car 100 asked to cross the Runway 4, the airport was still open. Then he sees the plane not yet clear of the runway, so he closes Runway 13 immediately. Then he sees that there is a disaster (crashed plane with fuel leaking) and he closes the entire airport to all incoming and departing traffic and dispatches the Red Team (airport rescue and fire) to Runway 13. You get to hear it live if you happen to be listening in. And/or you can hear in the recording as it is unfolding in real time (just later).
cm5299
Chuck Me 1
Delta 1875 just took off. Appears to be first departure. Glad things are moving along.
bbburroughs
Please remain seated with seat belt fastened until the aircraft comes to a complete stop.
preacher1
preacher1 4
Welcum to New Yawk City. Ya'll can git used to the snow at no extra charge, compliments of Delta.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
Large fee for opening emergency chutes.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
LOL... YUPPERS
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, after circling 3-4 times and finally getting a lineup, are you sure there were other options available?
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
I haven't seen what the rvr was reporting at the time of arrival but it sure looks like a below minimums landing and resulting tully trip. Very fortunate. It could have been so much worse.
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
Landing DOWNWIND on a short,slick RW w/limiited viz when there were other available opptions? Insane!!
gearup328
He was suckered in because other aircraft had just landed. I was guilty of this in my career too. I think he just didn't quite do it right.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
Whaddya mean "downwind"? RW 13 was the runway in use for arrivals, RW 04 for departures. Wind was at "worst" a very slight quartering tail, but mostly a crosswind. "020 @ 10 to 12kts".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UIs3TjltJw
annellandfrank
John Taylor 0
"Slight" at 12 kts? A tail wind is a tailwind and any thing aboved 10 kts under those conditions should have raised red flags. I can't speak for the NTSB, but an Air Force Bd would have immediately locked in on the pilot's questionable judgement as well as his skills!!
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 2
12 knots of CROSSWIND...please pay attention to direction of reported wind, and runway headings.

Adding....the crosswind/downwind component can be determined easily.

"020" @ 12 knots"...for example. Do you have a "whizz-wheel"? AKA an E6-B? Put it in.

Runway 13, magnetic heading of 132 degrees...see the ILS plate here:
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/LGA/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+13/pdf

WINDS are reported as per a MAGNETIC heading, for the reference of the pilots. '020' is NOT a "tail-wind'....except if there was a slight variation in wind direction....to add a VERY small component.

Really...this is aviation "101"!
annellandfrank
John Taylor -1
It's clear you totally endorse his actions. So be it! I and many others do not! (including his pax!) He boxed himself-in leaving ZERO room for either crew error or mech probs...and that's always a mistake. He had other options and didn't choose them!
About tailwind angle? I'm quoting you! You said "quartering"; and I agree.

And that's aviation "201"....."Really"!! Been fun...over and out!!
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
Huh?? An A-320 who preceded DL 1086 reported the 'braking conditions'. Did you hear the ATC tapes?

Really....whatever happened will be determined by the NTSB investigation. The DFDR and CVR are going to be read-out, and a full determination will result, in the final analysis.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
It's a 4 KT. tailwind component, which should've had minimal, if any effect on what happened.
fiddlehead1
Could be ice OR anti skid transducer fail .
gearup328
I doubt it.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
Addendum: Fuel leak. Uncertainty about rescue/evacuation of passengers and crew, and possible movements onto the crossing Runway (even though it's at a 90-degree right-angle).

Again....best to be safe, ultimately.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Hell, just go to NTSB_NEWS@LISTSERV.NTSB.GOV
bcanderson
Landing with a quartering tailwind is not the best circumstance even when the runway is clean and dry. They should have been landing on 4 and launching on 31. Runway 4 has higher landing minimums so maybe that would have precluded that airport configuration? Anyone know what they were calling ceiling and visibility??
andrewstagg
KLGA 051551Z 01008KT 1/4SM R04/2800V3500FT SN FZFG VV009 M03/M05 A3012 RMK AO2 SLP199 P0006 T10331050

the ILS to 4 requires 5000 RVR. Runway 22 would have had too much of a tailwind component with the previous reported winds, so 13 was the only useable runway for arrivals at the time.
gearup328
Good call.
bcanderson
1/4 mile? There is no runway 13 RVR info in that METAR. So how's an air carrier landing on 13 which has no CAT I approach?
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
Tower was giving RVR for 13 as above minimums but you have to remember what RVR measures. You have to be down to the runway to see it. At 11am with moderate snow and fog, there was pure whiteout conditions at 200'.
bcanderson
Whoops I meant only a CAT I, not "no Cat I". Descending out of the white into the white while correcting for a left quartering tailwind. How easy is it to touch a left wingtip into a snow berm that wouldn't have been there in normal weather? Not a good situation to get oneself into.
Captgoldwing
Pat Ward 1
Any chance the left brake locked up on it?
preacher1
preacher1 1
NTSB issues 2nd report about Delta accident at LaGuardia
Decibel
Jim Nasby 1
Captgoldwing
Pat Ward 1
Any chance the left brake locked?
rds24a
I'm curious if there is any significance to seeing images without thrust reversers deployed while landing on a snowy runway? Do those not get used in snow, or do they reset at shutdown?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They could have stowed them before shutting them down, could have been part of the checklist...
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Glad there were no severe injuries... By looking at the landing path on the runway, it does not make since how he spun around like that....
distar97
The edge of 13/31 is just 200 feet from the seawall. A modest deviation off the runway, whatever the cause, got the left wing caught on it real quick. The resulting left yaw brought the nose up on the wall(thankfully avoiding the storm water pump stations). I get the impression the aircraft nose slid down the seawall as opposed to the media screams that they were headed straight towards the water.

The wall was just high enough to keep the bird on the dry side. In effect the energy was dissipated over several seconds, keeping the hull intact and injuries minimal. My guess is all this happened just after they passed the 'Welcome to New York' sign on the seawall.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
Doesn't the tower have view of RW4? I'm surprised the tower appears to be lost and only ground personnel inform the tower. What about the pilot? He did not respond for a long time. Had he already evacuated the plane?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They should have, but they could have been looking at something else.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Tower couldn't see them. Vis was a 1/4.
30west
30west 2
From the audio feed, the A/C on the ILS behind the accident aircraft, also a Delta jet, was given the TDZ RVR as 6000 and Rollout RVR as 3500. Low IFR, but above minimums. Ultimately, it was directed to go-around for obvious reasons. Tower visibility was significantly reduced and probably close to nil considering its height above the ground.

That A/C on the ILS was also given the current wind as 020@12, a tailwind component of 4-5 knots depending on how sharp your pencil is.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Got the 1/4 from metar. See Andrew Staggs comment. All I was saying is tower couldn't see them and thus the commo breakdown when the a/c didn't answer.
30west
30west 1
Got it. I agree that the tower had near zero/zero vis and the controller couldn't see what had happened to the Delta flight. Not unusual in low vis operations.
preacher1
preacher1 1
For what it's worth, NTSB is on scene. They arrived yesterday and got CVR and FDR to DC last nite. CVR has been downloaded. FDR is downloading. Hopefully more details tomorrow. Naturally both contained the whole flight.
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 1
Does anyone know how much the thrusters vs the brakes account for stopping a plane. If it isn't high why would any one try to stop on an icy runway? And if like a car then never never apply brakes on ice. Not a Canadian pilot I guess.
andrewstagg
Thrust reversers are not part of calculating the Landing Distance Required, only brakes. Runway 13 should have been sufficient despite the 4 knot tailwind component.
preacher1
preacher1 0
This is true but they are nice to have there; makes it easier on the brakes and sometimes if you need to clear the active in a hurry and shorten your landing distance. That said, with a sloppy runway such as this, I would have had them ready to deploy. I did not see the pics but some have said they weren't deployed here. There is the possibility that they were stowed quickly. Flying the same plane and a lot of the same places all the time and being familiar, we did not use them every landing on our 757.
gearup328
Thrust reversers are not an option. When the throttles are reduced into reverse, a switch deploys them. When out of reverse, they retract. The crew must have come out of reverse or when shutting down. Reverse is only effective at high speeds even though the "bucket" type of reverse is much more effective than the type on under wing engines. Personally, at LGA I would use reverse on every landing and if I were going off the runway, have kept it in reverse all the way.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Everybody has to have a better idea, hence the buckets went away. Mad dog buckets on this on probably stowed during shutdown. Regardless of those before him, if some
"freezy fog " or such came in, it was a skating rink and no amount of thrusters would have helped him. I didn't see much in the way of pics but I'm a guessing he kicked some rudder and took it to the side rather than off the end into the bay.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Have you seen any info as to where they departed rw and how far from the end they wound up?
preacher1
preacher1 1
No, I really haven't. Saw some of the pic's. I don't know if airport footage or not, but it seems I saw a quick strip of motion in there somewhere and he apparently just kicked rudder in and took it to the side. Either way it was water but he'd have definitely made it to it if he'd went off the end.
mhlansdell00
I may have spoken out of turn a while ago. I have no experience with reverse thrusters other than I've watched them being used. A "few" years ago, I watched an EAL flight back away from a gate, unassisted except for "spotters". Why wouldn't RTs be effective in this case?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I got a friend down in Desitin, and is a retired Easter Captain. We talked about that. I saw it once or twice at ATL but he said it didn't stay around long as a couple put the birds into the terminals, forgetting to drop the reversers. Just so ingrained on training for landing only. Entirely new procedure that seemed simple but apparently wasn't. To boot, if you were loaded bad heavy, especially on a 9 or early mad dog, that it really gave you a control problem getting out of the gate.
mhlansdell00
I only used the gate example to show they could be deployed at low speeds. Wouldn't they be effective to slow and ultimately stop the aircraft in the iced over runway? I'm guessing landing speed for the Delta to be about 120 kts so the pilot's reaction would have had to be very, very, fast in order to decide that the friction braking was not going to be adequate and RTs were the answer.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'm not sure. Knowing I had a contaminate runway, I think I would have my finger on the trigger ready to deploy. What few pic's I saw, did not show them deployed but that is not a factor as they will stow quickly during a shutdown sequence.
mhlansdell00
You eat a lot of rnwy before you discover you ain't stoppin like you planned. Runway you needed to make a different decision in time to stop before transitioning to a float plane.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Generally speaking the TR's produce more braking than the actual brakes do.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, putting a lot of the speculation aside, here is the 2nd update on this plane and then you can probably navigate around the website and find some more but to make a long story short, regardless of what those ahead of him said, the runway turned white and he lost control. NTSB Issues Second Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it was a link on their website
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Here ya go, Preacher. I hope your deductive reckoning skills are better than navigating the web. ;-)

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150309.aspx

A line I took notice of is: "The autobrake selector switch in the cockpit was found in the “max” position."

When autobrakes are applied, are they equal in force to all trucks and every wheel? If the pressure is not equalized to every wheel, especially to each truck, I can picture how unexpected, differential braking can turn the aircraft and start a runway excursion.

Here's a related piece addressing the NTSB's suspicions...

http://www.bidnessetc.com/36418-faulty-braking-system-to-blame-for-delta-air-lines-inc-flight-1086-crash/
preacher1
preacher1 1
Thanks Ken, Normally I'll do better than that. We just got in from town and I got in a hurry. Regarding the auto brakes. Pressure should be equal, and stay so until a certain speed, which varies just a tad with AC type. Everybody seems OK. They have interviewed the crew and at some point and time, one of their reports said they were going to interview the crew of DAL 1990 which was inbound behind this one.
paultrubits
There was a posting on FA a little while back about "crab landings". If you don't hit the runway parallel and it is slippery, it could be a wild ride. It appears from the report that they did not go straight toward the berm, but were parallel to it(they took out 1000 ft of fence). It may not been a good landing, but it was some damn good driving. Maybe NASCAR is in their future. Great job of getting stopped!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
There's no indication of direction upon touchdown and rollout but the tracks upon excursion were 10º off runway heading. From what I've been able to glean from some photos along with using a taxi diagram and Google satellite, it came to a rest on the angled part of the berm just east of what appears to be drainage lines and across from Lima. Photos showing Kilo intersecting with Alpha behind the plane. That falls in line with the left wing hitting the berm with such force to shear off.

As for getting stopped, that berm was the only thing that saved them. In the snow, they had no control whatsoever. Once they left the runway, the rest was pure luck.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7772017,-73.8662303,375m/data=!3m1!1e3

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1503/00289AD.PDF
PeterMcDevitt
From the pictures it does not appear that the thrust reversers were deployed. If that indeed was the case, it would have contributed to the inability to stop. Plus, LGA is not the best major airport that we have in the US
jaxonboy
Video of passengers exiting over starboard wing also shows part of aft fuselage missing. Is there some type of cone that comes off? Emergency personnel shown looking inside.
psychfred
Greg Smith 3
Hi William, yes, the tail cone section comes off to allow for access and evacuation through the tail exit.
PeterMcDevitt
On the DC/MD-9 series there is an emergency exit through the tail cone.
Lunarstorm777
(v)e Same 1
Haha, I've almost blown a few of those over the years. Sure fire way to put a flight attendant on the fritz.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
That's the famous D.B. Cooper exit :)
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Close on this one... However none of the MD-80 series had airstairs.. Just an exit... DB Cooper could not had exited from the tail of the MD80 as he most likely could not have released the tail cone in the air... The Tail cone does not just open and close as a door does.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Back in the day, BC (as in before Cooper) and jetbridges, the 727's and DC-9's/Mad Dogs, all had rear exits that were used regularly for their intended purpose rather than just emergency. When they were in use there wasn't near the problem boarding or deplaning as we seem to have today.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Back then, many large airports still boarded by walking across the ramp. Now, if your feet touch an area outside of passenger spaces or anywhere they deem a SIDA, you'll probably get charged with a crime.
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
One newscaster said he was landing w/a tailwind??
eaddinall
I thought it landed downwind as well. Strange!
preacher1
preacher1 1
I believe it did. Saw that somewhere, but pilot accepted 4kt tail because minimums were so crappy and I think even below for other rnwy.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I'll bet the slight tail wind component ain't the culprit.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I can't imagine four knots or even a 50% error making it six knots being an issue. I'm betting on worsening runway conditions since previous arrivals resulting in no grip and loss of directional control. I'm picturing that margin where speed has decreased enough control surface authority is non-existent and with no runway grip, tiller control is worthless.

CNN provides a graphic but no clue how accurate it is. They hurt themselves by bringing 214 into the mix when that was an entirely different scenario of nothing but pilot error.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/us/new-york-plane-runway/
preacher1
preacher1 1
Me neither. 4kt and he was down and just went skating, for whatever reason, regardless of what the 3 ahead of him said. I really don't care what they say, maybe I'm just getting to old but when you get down to an RVR of 200', and you are coming over the fence at about 130kt or so, you are just along for the ride. I guess if it's too crappy, you can call TOGA and get the hell out but where you gonna go? If you can get more on your game in the go around and get in, then I guess you are OK. Looks like this guy made several go arounds or at least ATC looped him. Either way it wasn't pretty. I think he'd have been better off to divert.
paultrubits
Preacher: What happened to the traffic behind them? ATC told them to go around. Nothing on the news about any diversions. Did they eventually bring them all in on the open runway?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I didn't hear anything either Paul, other than they told them to go around. IDK what happened to them either
paultrubits
Still doing 360s?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, if they are, fuel is probably running a tad low.LOL
vanstaalduinenj
Delta repair this maddog or is it a goner?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I guess it will depend on damage amount. It is a 987 mfg date according to N number, but unless it is just superficial, I doubt it. That's just me.
gearup328
Depends on insurance and what it will take. Delta might be self insured and may actually own this old plane. I've seen an E-170 that skidded off at CLE, looked pretty bad, re-built and was back in service. I doubt this MD-88 will ever fly again. Cannibalize parts to keep the others flying.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
If mfg date is 987 I'm sure they will retire it. Definitely got their moneys worth. 8:)
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I saw that and wondered how long it would take for somebody to pop off about it. You gettin' slow in your old age. I posted that yesterday. LOL
BaronG58
BaronG58 2
Yeah..You know your gettin' slow when 10 o'clock only comes once a day!
preacher1
preacher1 1
You mean it comes twice; say it ain't so. LOL
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Maybe once if you get up late or hit the hay early... or none in some cases ;-)
preacher1
preacher1 1
I looked at the clock and I guess mine is from hitting the hay early. LOL
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think with DST now, that sunshine will come thru my bedroom window.LOL
gearup328
If you use 24 hour time, it comes up only once. Ha!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Hey, never really thought about that. Does it help. Yesterday I laid down early, just to relax and watch the news. Fell asleep and woke up before 10. Thought it was morning already til I saw it was still dark outside.
gearup328
Been there, done that. LOL
gearup328
The cat knows this too. She keeps moving with the sun.
ronaldgraiff
OK all you ATP's and A&P's how can a 121 aircraft in revenue service have "experimental" engines attached to it and presumably in operation? See N number look up at the FAA site
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
It probably falls under "The administrator may allow deviation from any rule" category. That engine has known issues with uncontained failures. Maybe this version, even though experimental, is proven much safer than what it replaced. Just a guess. Maybe someone knows the real answer.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Didn't they come up with a fix on some of that a good while back?
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Yeah, but maybe the fix is still experimental. It's kind of like, here is a grenade that has a chance of exploding in 10 seconds and here is an experimental grenade that we think will not explode. Which one will you chose to sit on for 10 seconds?
preacher1
preacher1 1
LOL. understand, like I said, I'm not a P&W man and just didn't know
preacher1
preacher1 0
Not real sure about the FAA site. What you say is true but it also says P&WJT8D-200 on there originally. No idea why it changed to experimental, but not a P&W man either. It is 1987 mfg AC.
PeterMcDevitt
Ignorance is bliss
wlwjr
This is no lie....I have not watched CNN or any other mainstream news since Asiana 214 crashed at SFO....NONE! I had had enough! I turned it off that day for good. Any aviation news I get now is from the professional aviation media outlets. It made me wonder how much other news is skewed.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
On average, 217%
gearup328
In this entire thread, I read all kinds of "what if's". We are all Monday morning quarterbacks. Weather at the time precluded any other option. He was also suckered into believe he could do it because the planes in front had done it OK. LGA has EMAS at the end of RW13. I don't believe they departed the runway on purpose--we'll soon know. EMAS will stop an aircraft if slowed to about maybe 80 kTS. If he knew about this he should have gone straight ahead into it. I think the aircraft was out of control. Pilot flying had no option. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fnews%2Ffact_sheets%2Fnews_story.cfm%3FnewsId%3D13754&ei=icn7VKfVA5etyASszYHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNH4QqyGzonyEupE4ZTGoQZGjsWX5A&sig2=DIpyx4qI14n7S8R4v1TNoA&bvm=bv.87611401,d.aWw
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
'EMAS' is certainly important in this incident/accident (an "accident" because it it DID incur "substantial damage" to the airplane).

The "EMAS" prevented a slippery run-way over-run to end up in the River....which had happened before. Easy to "Google" it. Sadly, even a Continental MD-80 once had this occurrence. (EDIT):? I know of this occurrence....it was a rejected take-off...but Wikipedia seems to have been "scrubbed" of any references. Circa 1987, for those interested.
30west
30west 1
It happened on March 2, 1994. I was there that evening. Started out at about number twenty-something for takeoff, made it to the single digits in line for takeoff when the RTO took place. Two hours later, we made it back to the gate. That could have been much worse.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
One more observation with this event. They plowed the runway. Prior aircraft advised ATC that breaking was good. Well...weather and conditions can change in a matter of seconds. They experienced "ice fog", which rendered the runway a skating rink. Brakes and Thrust reversers are totally inept.Basically the A/C was skating on the ice. Hydro planning. Nothing will stop the A/C. I think the PIC did the right thing to kick in a rudder to avoid going in to the "Bay" straight on. Otherwise the plane Would have gone swimming. In my opinion it was a good move by the PIC. Kudos.
bcanderson
You're thinking he departed the runway intentionally? From the pictures it looks like he came to rest adjacent to highspeed Mike. That would give him at least another 1750 ft. of runway remaining from the point he came to rest. Beyond that 1750 ft. of runway remaining there is another 327 ft. of EMAS. So why in the world would one make an intentional left turn when the dike and water beyond are only 200 feet from the runway's edge? The centerline is the safest line.
gearup328
How do you know the pilot "kicked" a rudder to purposely go off the runway? Also, who was flying? Was it the Captain or FO?
mhlansdell00
I disagree with you regarding the reverse thrusters. In this case, because of the apparent failure of friction braking, reverse thrusters were probably the only thing that stood a chance of slowing the aircraft. It remains to be seen whether or not they were deployed or if so were deployed in time. While I'm completely unfamilliar with LGA, I'm a little confused to why the pilot agreed to land down wind although, I realize that airspace is pretty crowded with two major airports so close. Looks to me like all the evidence in this case, will turn on the information from the recorders. Unfortunately it looks like Delta has a new supply of nuts and bolts
gearup328
Yep. I saw them pull it into the hangar. NTSB will do their job and then----cannibalize for parts to keep the remaining MD-80's flying on the cheap.
preacher1
preacher1 1
NTSB should have had an update yesterday off the boxes. AC was taken into the hanger Thursday night and boxes were recovered and sent to DC. CVR had been downloaded and FDR was downloading Friday and they were due to be integrated, but either I missed it or there has not been an update
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I have to disagree partially with what you are saying... Especially in regards to the Thrust Reversers. Your statement "Brakes and Thrust reversers are totally inept.". TR's cannot be deferred for operations on a contaminated runway because they are the primary force that stops the plane. The Aircraft is equipped with Anti-Skid... The wheels would not have been able to lockup if the a/c was over approx 20 kts.... that does not mean he did not have a failure in a system which we should soon know about. Assuming all systems were working, this does not sound like a weather or mechanical issue... The FDR/CVR will tell the real story. BTW, TR's Do Not Skid on the Runway unless he Flares the Nose Too High :)
gearup328
Good recall, sparkie624. Anti-skid only works above a certain wheel speed. If it didn't, you would not be able to stop the aircraft. Below that speed, you can lock the wheels.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Thanks... Specializing in Avionics Electrical, I have been all over those systems for almost 3 decades.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Don't you feel, Sparkie, that the MD-80 is an unforgiving bird in runway conditions like LGA had. If the brakes and thrust reversers didn't slow the a/c down, wouldn't an option, like a hard rudder, to get the aircraft off the ice rink and into heavy slush and/or snow be a better scenario than going nose first into the bay? Especially at the speed the were going?
preacher1
preacher1 1
There must have been an NTSB update that I missed but CBS was reporting this morning that thrusters appeared normal but that there was a brake problem. I think on the rudder kick, we will have to wait and ask the pilot.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Dee, that is a loaded question. Mad Dog is unforgiving in several circumstances over a true Boeing counterpart, but IDK about the rudder and intentional turning. I guess we'll have to ask the pilot. It would probably make sense on one had but there is the matter of the EMAS at the end, whether thought about or not.
gearup328
Here's a statement from a source familiar with the investigation.

"At the time of landing, when the reversers are deployed, the MD-88’s rudder is not powerful enough to turn the aircraft in either directions and cause a crash, which is why investigators have turned their focus on to the braking system on the aircraft. The federal regulator is investigating whether a possible greater pressure exerted by the brakes on one side of the plane caused the aircraft to steer off the center of the landing strip".

Just think of trying to stop a vehicle with only front brakes. The rear can easily slide to one side. Stop with rear brakes and the front will naturally go straight. In rear engined aircraft the same applies. If both buckets were out and engines spooled, the nose would have gone straight down the runway. I would look into reverse thrust also. There's a safety mechanism to prevent one deploying without the other but what about failures?
VisApp
Dave Mills 1
N909DL
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
MD88 certificated in 1988 (old plane), Owned and Leased from Wilmington Trust Company in Delaware.
FallenAnjel
FallenAnjel 5
Flushing Bay, not the ocean.
preacher1
preacher1 6
It still was water, and not meant for the plane.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -2
Even with maybe a fuel smell, looking at what happened, there were still turds grabbing their bags and taking pics.. Looking at one video, the response unit looked very lackadaisical, not directing exiting passengers at all. Some people need to end up in cold water, get them thinking!!!
paultrubits
They are New Yorkers. It takes a lot more than that to get their heart rate up. Just a few years ago, they were standing on the wing of their plane in the Hudson rebooking to KCLT on their smart phone.
e022850
earl harmon 4
The first question out of a New Yorker would be, " What about my luggage? "..
paultrubits
Did the 20 minute bag guarantee apply?
Dreamflyer13
What I wonder is why the runway was open when it was pouring snow and the runway was snow-covered.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Apparently the 3 takeoffs just ahead of them reported OK.
mhlansdell00
Ahhh, some guys just can't drive anything in the snow.
loveshaver12
John Grimes 0
There is no way this should have occurred. Where was the ground crew, that monitors the runways?
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I do not understand what you are saying... The guy was landing and somehow lost control on the runway... Last note from them was the runway braking was considered to be good.
ssjan
Jan F -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Delta plane skids in New York

A Delta Air Lines plane skidded off the runway after landing in NYC.

http://jansaviation.com/news.php?art=delta-plane-skids-in-new-york
Doobs
Dee Lowry -1
The one thing that seems problematic is runway 13. The wind was apparently coming off the wings tail. As we all know, we want to land into the wind. When conditions are such at LGA...beit, snow, ice or standing water, the A/C might experience hydroplaning, no brake or thrust reverser reaction to slow the A/C down. Most likely because of the direction of the wind, it may have come in to fast with no traction. Freezing fog was a major factor as well. Conditions can change in seconds in the brutal weather the East Coast has had.
gearup328
Peter Steitz -1
Do any of you guys remember SWA sliding off the end at MDW in winter weather? They killed a little boy who had nothing to do with the plane landing. They almost went into houses. These guys "pilots" used an on-board, hand held calculator to determine if they could land. It was approved by company. It calculated that if the airspeed,touchdown and braking were perfect, they would only have about 500 feet remaining. When did you ever plan to do a perfect landing? Are you a Navy carrier pilot? 500 feet remaining? At MDW? Give me a break! There's no tail hook on a 73. There's no cable at MDW either. These guys were cowboys. Look what happened.
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
Bingo!!!
WingletsAviation
James Hanley -1
oh my god.Did any one notice how crsh filled runway 13 is?
FlyingPirate
If it was a regional they'd already. E calling for the pilots heads
preacher1
preacher1 2
As time goes and Pilots get harder to come by, THAT situation may reverse itself.
preacher1
preacher1 1
As in don't scratch my airplane. You in the big boy's club now.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Plus the fact this may not have been pilots fault. They didn't go off the end but rather skidded/veered left. we'll see.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You surely to God don't think TechOps would admit something is wrong with their airplane do you Jimbo? LOL
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
My limited expierece is that there is something wrong with every plane all the time. But nobody gonna admit nothing.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Roger that. LOL
bishops90
PIC must have been a southerner, y'all know we can't drive in that crap.... ;-)
canuck44
canuck44 4
Sure as hell wouldn't be a Canadian.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
Actually ATL based should have more experience then most in icy runways the last few years.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can't remember as ever having been there but how come if he landed on 13, they had 4 closed, or did they have the whole airport shut down
margeauxk
Margeaux K -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Jet Stopped Just Short of Water at LaGuardia

It was a scary close: A Delta plane skidded off a runway at LaGuardia Airport while landing today and stopped just short of an icy bay. The jet with about 130 people aboard came to rest on an embankment near the water's edge.

http://www.newser.com/story/203602/plane-skids-off-laguardia-runway.html
vanstaalduinenj
Richard quest is so mint
Mh370 made his career really
As for the mad dog
I heard from a delta employee I know at Laguardia that the damage to the nose and wing is extensive, liky had its last flight. Delta will harvest it for every nut and screw as they are sti very committed to the mad dog/717's.

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!