Posted on 05/03/2019 8:46:12 PM PDT by PA Engineer
Ping
Please. This is not a 737 issue.
Click here to view: Highlights in the History of Aviation and Aerospace - The Past, The Present, and The Future:
Please ping me to aviation and aerospace articles. Thank you.
If you want added to or removed from this ping list, please contact EveningStar or Paleo Conservative.
Landed long and fast (IMHO)
A 9000’ runway is enough for the B-737 unless you are not paying attention.
Check NTSB Reporter for that date.
Landed long and fast (IMHO)\
************
Don’t know about fast but it was a little bit long.......
Read some more posts and it seems some wx factor like heavy rain/ micro-burst might have played a factor.
Yep that is mentioned in one of the articles I read that was posted on FR.
They’ll eventually get the details all pulled together. There should be
radar info regarding the weather at that moment I’m hoping. Thankfully
there weren’t any deaths or serious injuries that I’m aware of.
Contracted airline should have contract canceled. Air conditioning was out before departure, still flew. What other issues?
This is a problem with poorly maintained plane, probably distracted crew. Flight without A/C will have impact. What else was wrong with plane and crew. This is government contract to fly service members and facilities. It should be top condition and crew. Obviously not. Shameful.
Air conditioning was out? Where did you see that?
Several other news reports say it was already a flight from hell.
Did they say the air conditioning was out?
Yes. I am on my iPhone now, don’t recall where read the report. It was linked off of Drudgereport last night I believe. Maybe vis UK Sun?
That’s interesting. The air conditioning system consists of two packs. The packs provide conditioned air, temperature controlled from the cockpit. The pack system also pressurizes the aircraft. Both packs are used in flight and use pressurized air, called bleed air, supplied from the engines. If one pack is INOP, there aircraft is limited to FL 250, with both INOP, limited to 10k foot altitude. It would be very unusual for an aircraft to be dispatched with both packs INOP, and would be considered a ferry flight with no passengers onboard. So just guessing here, maybe one pack was INOP and they were restricted to a lower altitude. Flighttracker showed the flight’s max altitude was about 15k feet, so maybe it did fly with one pack INOP.
I listened to the archived ATC radio traffic before the public site blocked it. Sounded like the pilot on the radio was not confident about what to do with the fact that the weather was very bad changed his mind about using runway 28 and at the “suggestion” of JAX Center air traffic controller said “sure” let’s go for it or give it a shot or something to that effect. Looking at the runway data//. runway 10 has a significant displaced threshold which makes the runway even shorter than it already is much shorter than normal runways at commercial airports. Also given the weight of the aircraft and the fact that the runway is wet from the storm etc etc. The braking distance is seriously increased. So just from an analytics standpoint the pilot should never have attempted the approach in my personal opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.