Thursday, April 7, 2016

Former Navy commander builds his own Harmon Rocket II

Jim Stone sits in the cockpit of the 2008 Harmon Rocket II he built and flew to the Sun 'n Fun International Fly- in and Expo at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport.



LAKELAND — Jim Stone's interest in aviation took flight during college.

Stone, who flew a home-built Harmon Rocket II to Sun 'n Fun, grew up in Lancaster, Pa. His father flew planes during Stone's younger years from the time he was 7 until the age of 10. It was his first taste of what it felt like to be airborne.

The hobby for Jim's father became too expensive, and soon after Stone turned 10, his father gave up flying.

Flying again, let along building his own plane, seemed worlds away but during his sophomore year at Pensacola Junior College a spark was lit.

Twice a year a Navy recruiter would show up wearing a summer white uniform and informing students about the Navy and what it's like to fly.

"He had a table set up with a bunch of pictures on it," said Stone. "He also had a little sign that was advertising free airplane rides. I had only flown once or twice with my father many years prior. That memory came back to me as I was standing there at the table."

Stone at the time had an interest in biology, chemistry and medicine but the offer of being in the air again was too hard to pass up.

"I said to myself, 'Yeah, I would like to go for a flight,' he said. "I didn't know what I wanted to do at that time in regards to my education and career so I walked up to the recruiter and asked what I needed to do to get that free plane ride."

The recruiter told Stone he needed to take a test in the pilot entry program. It took Stone four hours and he passed. He was ready to rekindle that childhood memory he had with his father so many years ago.

"I put my helmet and flight suit on and talked to him on the ICS system," said Stone. "We flew in the Navy's basic trainer, the T-34 Bravo. I was instantly in love. It's like when you see that girl that you want to marry for the first time. I was like, 'Oh my God, this is it.' I loved it."

Shortly thereafter Stone sent in his application and within a year he was enlisted in the Navy. He attended flight school at Pensacola Junior College.

Kathy Stone, Jim's wife, met him in 1981 while she was working in Virginia Beach for McDonnell Douglas, an American aerospace manufacturing corporation and defense contractor. The couple currently live in Louisville, Ky.

"He was a Navy lieutenant," she said. "He had a small airplane at the time and that was my introduction to aviation."

Stone served for 20 years before retiring in 1995 as a commander. It was then Stone could focus on building his own plane.

"Around the 10-year mark in the Navy I became interested in building my own plane," he said. "At that time I moved around too often while serving in the Navy to start building anything and there weren't any good plane kits at the time."

A trip to the Airventure Oshkosh Fly-In Convention shortly following retirement, the largest fly-in convention show in the country in Oshkosh, Wis., was the moment Stone knew which model plane he wanted to build and fly. His friend alerted him to a Harmon Rocket and he was in love.

"I was walking back to the campground and then I just remember stopping and saying, 'That's the best looking plane I've seen,' " said Stone. "I did my own research and sent in for a kit soon after."

It took Stone nine years years to build the Harmon Rocket II that he said costs between $100,000 and $120,000. The six-cylinder, 300 horsepower engine built in Zephryhills was $31,000.

Construction began in 1998 and was finished in 2008. It took Stone 7,000 hours in the shop to finish.

The grey, black and red color scheme is custom, with the paint being purchased at a Chevrolet dealership. They are Corvette colors.

"It's amazing how it has evolved over time," said Stone. "I would come to Sun 'n Fun and take pictures of planes to see what colors and patterns I liked. It was something interesting and not boring. I accumulated hundreds of pictures.

He has been flying it once a week since 2008 and has flown to Colorado, South Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin. Stone said it looks brand new because he treats it like a weekend car, keeps it stored in a hangar out of the elements.

"My favorite part about having our own plane is it's something we can do together," said Kathy Stone. "It's something he loves and is passionate about. It's his life. If I want to be with him I have to jump in the back seat and fly."

Original article can be found here: http://www.theledger.com

Davinci Jets: Charlotte charter-flights company rides improving economy



Eric Legvold piloted his first flight at age 12, when his uncle, a U.S. Navy pilot, encouraged him to take his side of the controls during a ride in a Cessna 172.

After landing, his Uncle Jim complimented him: “You did a fantastic job.”

Legvold, now 41, now knows that his uncle was really the one in the control of the aircraft. But back then, “I believed him,” he says, laughing.

Later, during a career piloting corporate clients in Charlotte, Legvold again had moments when he believed he could do a good job – this time as a business owner. Along with Ryan Stone, a childhood friend from Orlando, Fla., who also was in Charlotte, they launched JetPool in 2004, which had its first flight in 2006.

They rebranded the company name in November to Davinci Jets (a nod to Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci’s fascination with flight.)



With annual revenues in the eight figures, according to Legvold, the privately-owned company specializes in aircraft management and private charter flight services – often for high-ranking companies, sports figures, celebrities, company owners and executive staff of professional sports teams.

Today, Davinci Jets manages 13 aircraft in Concord, Monroe, Greensboro, and Knoxville, Tenn., and its home base at Charlotte Douglas International Airport, where seemingly every window has a grand view of planes taxiing and landing.

Legvold says it’s important to the company’s leaders – him and Stone, third partner and CFO Paul Sameit, and Scott Voglesonger, executive vice president of business development – that Davinci Jets be known for treating both clients and employees right.

Aircraft management companies are “not a new idea,” Legvold says during an interview at the company’s leased hangar and office space at the Charlotte airport.

“The new idea for us was, if we treat everyone out there the best that we can, then what’s naturally going to happen is everyone’s going to have a smile, everyone’s going to do their job better, because they’re happy.”

He shares his takes on expansion plans, keeping their eye on innovation through new companies, and why some sports figures prefer Bojangles’ over fancy foods during their flights. Comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.



On Davinci Jets’ growth: Since 2006 until now, we have grown every year (in employees, now at 43, and in aircraft under management). That’s a testament to employees. Our customer service has been the best in the area. It’s what we can do for you, which is how this was born.

The majority of our clients are new aircraft owners. A few are existing flight departments in companies that decided to make a change and go to management. A lot of the younger companies that are growing and have the need for private transportation are leaning more toward the management style, rather than having an internal flight department.

We operate for a Fortune 200 company, all the way to private individuals that own or have sold companies. We have six clients that are Fortune 1000.

On its recently launched sports and entertainment division: It followed an internal study showing 45 percent of clients are tied to sports and entertainment, 40 percent are corporate, and 15 percent are private. Among our sports and entertainment clients, it broke down to going to events: Masters, Super Bowl, big NASCAR events, World Series - large sports or entertainments. Through our charter business, you can call the sales office and say ‘I need a trip to the Masters.’ If you needed help with hotel and tickets, we can facilitate that. We have very good relationships with several car and limousine companies.

For the actual sports figure or entertainment figure, we’ll handle their travel needs, as well as professional teams’ executive travel. What we do very well is the customer service side, door to door.

What we’ve learned over the years is a sports figures’ preferences are different from CEOs. They prefer lower key treatment, with respect and good customer service. We get to know our clients, we get to know their personalities and what they like. Some like certain foods, like Bojangles’ or Papa Johns. We get that for them.

Did the Carolina Panthers’ Super Bowl season help? We didn’t have any (aircraft) that were not used. (As local sports teams do well) it drives business. We have a lot of local clients who call us up and say what do you have? We give them options.




Costs: Range from $1,450 to $5,400 an hour (depending on length of trip and aircraft).

On expanding, and launching new projects: Our goal is to be a strong contender in the southeast. From there, we’d like to go to the deep south Texas area. Over the next couple of years,our challenge will be getting outside of the Charlotte area, and really growing Greensboro, Knoxville, and entering Charleston.

We’re in the early stages of starting another company in the drone field, Davinci AIS (aerial information systems). Because of our background in aviation, we feel we’ll be poised to take advantage of that. As the FAA starts to regulate this, it’s going to reflect what’s already in existence with airplanes somehow, and we know that area very well.

(Ryan Stone is a founder and president of SmartSky Networks LLC., which formed in 2011 and provides high-speed Internet service for airborne passengers. Legvold is vice president of flight operations.)

On clients’ experiences: As an example, we had a passenger who flew out and left his car idling in the parking lot. A maintenance employee saw exhaust coming out. He called scheduling to see who it might be. The car ran out of gas. He went to the passenger’s house, got a spare key from his wife, came back, got gas, and of course the battery died, so he got a new battery put in. Two days later, the client found out. He wrote an email saying thank you.

Story, video and photo gallery: http://www.charlotteobserver.com

Amazon’s Airfreight Move Raises Hopes in Cargo Business: Beleaguered freight operators say e-commerce giant may jump start demand and capacity growth




The Wall Street Journal
By ERICA E. PHILLIPS
Updated April 7, 2016 4:52 p.m. ET


Amazon.com Inc.’s recent deal to lease a small fleet of cargo planes to shuttle merchandise in the U.S. is raising hopes for a revival in the sputtering airfreight sector.

Since the retailer’s March announcement, some in the airfreight business say they’ve been working to arrange meetings with Amazon, offering up their services and capacity to try to snag a piece of what they believe could be a lucrative business.

“From the perspective of the industry, everybody is excited about this,” said Derek Jones, director of London-based freight marketing firm Pilot Marketing.

A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment on whether the company was meeting with aircraft owners or air cargo services providers.

Global airfreight volumes have been weak for several years, averaging 1.7% annual growth since 2011, according to the International Air Transport Association.

In the U.S., FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. dominate the sector, with a handful of smaller carriers and a network of freight forwarders—companies that coordinate shipping for retailers and manufacturers—competing for the remaining business.

But demand for expedited freight hauls within the U.S. is dwindling as truck and rail companies have improved their services and enhanced supply chain technology has helped retailers and manufacturers better map out their distribution plans. A smaller share of shipments move at the last minute, requiring speedy air service, and shippers are opting more often for cheaper transport.

While demand in the passenger airline business has improved steadily since the recession, cargo has remained relatively flat and dozens of freighter aircraft remain in storage. In a forecast published last month, the Federal Aviation Administration said the trend is likely to continue, with domestic air cargo volume projected to grow at an average of just 0.4% a year between 2016 and 2036.

Some companies believe Amazon’s entry into the market, although relatively small in scale, could drive increased demand for airfreight services over time as the retailer’s competitors scramble to keep up with the company’s rapid fulfillment pace.

Under a deal with Air Transport Services Group Inc., announced last month, Amazon will lease as many as 20 Boeing Co. 767 aircraft, boosting its independence from UPS and FedEx. ATSG’s stock price, which started 2016 below $10 a share, has jumped more than 50% this year, although it fell 2.9% in trading on Thursday to $14.47 a share.

But whether Amazon can push the rest of the airfreight industry into a growth spiral depends on how far the retailer goes in building up its own distribution network, said Adriana Diener, a freight and logistics consultant with Accenture. For now, Amazon will be carrying its own merchandise aboard the small fleet of ATSG planes. But, Ms. Diener said, if the company offers up spare capacity to other shippers, using better technology and with low rates, “that might generate more airfreight in the industry.”

Over time, Amazon may turn its delivery network into a business in its own right, charging other shippers to ferry packages and drop off merchandise. The retailer recently registered with the Federal Maritime Commission, which will allow it to offer freight forwarding services to suppliers shipping cargo in or out of the U.S.

One advantage Amazon has is its technological savvy. In an industry that has struggled to find systems to manage complex reservations and track shipments that can jump between several carriers on a journey, the tech outsider could drive big changes.

Still, Amazon’s capability also may present a competitive threat to smaller freight forwarders, said Brandon Fried, director of the Airforwarders Association, an industry group. “They could probably force us as an industry to up our game, improve our processes, be sharper and improve our service to the customer,” Mr. Fried said.

Rob Britton, a senior adviser at freight software firm SmartKargo said Amazon’s announcement has “driven so much speculative frenzy,” but the company’s full plans remain unclear. “OK, you’ve got people’s attention—what comes next?”

Original article can be found here:  http://www.wsj.com

Early indications: No essential air service • Worland Municipal Airport (KWRL) left off list of new request for proposals, according to Wyoming Department of Transportation

WORLAND – Worland Mayor Dave Duffy met with two Aeronautics Division employees from the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) and they told him Worland was left off the list of request for proposals for essential air service that had recently gone out.

The mayor announced his meeting with Dennis Byrne and Sheri Taylor at Tuesday night’s scheduled city council meeting.

He said they “weren’t very enthusiastic about our [Worland’s] possibility of receiving our EAS [essential air service] funding.

“That doesn’t mean it’s definitely dead, but it’s a pretty good indicator that it’s not going to happen,” Duffy said. He added, “They told me there has never been a community who has had the 1,100 per passenger subsidy that had their EAS funding restored.”

U.S. Department of Transportation Public Affairs Specialist Caitlin Harvey said, “We don’t have a timeline for a final decision yet, but I would say by summer,” in an email interview from late February.

In the city’s resolution to keep its EAS, it stated: “We earnestly desire the opportunity to acquire a more responsible carrier for the next contract cycle.”

In earlier interviews Worland Airport Manager Lynn Murdoch said, “A reliable carrier has a huge impact on our community providing safe, efficient transportation for our economic health and growth. This is particularly important in such a rural, sparsely populated area such as Wyoming.”

She said it is imperative that Worland be afforded equitable access to the national transportation systems without residents having to drive long distances.

Mayor Duffy earlier said the retention of the EAS is important because the city needs a service to attract residents from the surrounding counties, and our own, to fly out of here.

Background

Harvey also said, “Under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in order to be eligible for Essential Air Service (EAS), a community must have had an average subsidy per passenger of less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Great Lakes Airlines has served Worland for many years and under the current contract since October 1, 2014. For Fiscal Year 2015, Great Lakes’ average per passenger subsidy was $1,100, putting it over the $1,000 per passenger limit,” in reference to why the tentative decision to terminate the service was decided.

The city and other interested parties had 20 days from the original issued order posting date on Feb. 4 to show cause as to why the service should not be terminated.

“If the Department finalizes the tentative findings in a subsequent Order, the Department would terminate Great Lakes’ contract at the end of its current term, September 30, 2016, to allow for an orderly shutdown of service,” Harvey said.

The possibility of Worland’s Municipal Airport essential air service being reinstated is unknown and Harvey said, “If Worland’s eligibility for EAS is ultimately terminated after the Department reviews all objections, there is no reinstatement provision for communities that lose eligibility for exceeding the $1,000 per passenger limit.”

The Daily News attempted to contact Harvey Wednesday. She could not be reached by press time. 

Original article can be found here: http://www.wyodaily.com

Burnet Municipal Airport (KBMQ) construction cleared for final approach



City officials said despite weather delays, the resurfacing project at the Burnet Municipal Airport is expected to be on schedule for May completion.

This week, only daytime landings will be permitted at the airport as the facility will be transferring from old lighting to new, one of several updates that have been made to the airport.

Crista Bromley, Burnet City Director of Administrative Services, said work by contractor Chasco Constructors of Round Rock fell 90 days behind “largely due to rain and ground water.”

Bromley reported to council in a recent meeting that contractors had put the “pedal to the metal” to make up for lost time.

“Pending no more bad weather, the project will be complete in May,” she said on Thursday, adding that the airport will be closed twice more for only a few days at a time to complete construction. “The last closure will be for the striping of the runway.”

The project includes two new above ground fuel tanks, new runway and apron (tarmac) surfacing, new lighting, and removal and repositioning of the taxiway to meet new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, which required “the moving of infrastructure and acquiring land and easements,” Bromley said, as well as “rerouting Houston Clinton Drive.”

“It has been a long time since the runway had a resurfacing” Bromley said, adding that it was prior to her start on city staff 15 years ago.

The entire project is expected to cost $12 million upon completion.

For repaving and sealing, the runway and taxiway have been closed in sections. Bromley said closures may be expected twice more in April and May. The Annual Bluebonnet Airshow, which usually takes place during the Bluebonnet Festival in April, has been rescheduled to Sept. 10.

Bromley said pilots are notified of the closures through a NOTAM (Notice To Airmen) publicized by FAA contractors.

Bromley said despite occasional airport closures during the project, city staff have already seen an increase in jet fuel sales, due partly to the use of a jet fuel truck, which allows jet pilots to fuel up without having to pull up near to the fuel tanks.

“We expect to have based jets in the next year or two,” Bromley said, adding that pilots preferred the easy fill-up provided by the fuel truck. “It's something we were looking at doing anyway. We already had it in the budget to lease the jet fuel truck.”

In a meeting on Tuesday March 22, Burnet City Council approved the lease of the jet fuel truck monthly for $1,400.

Bromley said the cost of the truck will raise the cost of fuel by about $1 per gallon.

Original article can be found here: http://www.burnetbulletin.com

Morrissey 3150A, N5127V, Avionics Liaison Inc: Incident occurred April 06, 2016 at Hayward Executive Airport (KHWD), Alameda County, California

AVIONICS LIAISON INC: http://registry.faa.gov/N5127V

Date: 06-APR-16
Time: 22:27:00Z
Regis#: N5127V
Aircraft Make: MORRISEY
Aircraft Model: 2150
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Oakland FSDO-27
City: HAYWARD
State: California

AIRCRAFT ON LANDING SUSTAINED UNKNOWN DAMAGE, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.

Incident occurred April 07, 2016 at Richland Airport (KRLD), Benton County, Washington



No one was injured when a small glider had trouble gaining lift at the Richland Airport on Thursday afternoon.

Initial reports were that an aircraft had crashed at the end of a runway.

However, Scott Keller, executive director of the Port of Benton, said an experienced glider pilot put the glider back down off the runway when he did not gain sufficient lift.

Original article can be found here:  http://www.tri-cityherald.com

Ria Air LLC P-51-D, N351TG: Incident occurred April 06, 2016 in Opelousas, St. Landry Parish, Louisiana

http://registry.faa.gov/N351TG

Date: 06-APR-16
Time: 20:45:00Z
Regis#: N351TG
Aircraft Make:
Aircraft Model: P51
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Minor
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
FAA Flight Standards District Office:  FAA Baton Rouge FSDO-03
City: OPELOUSAS
State: Louisiana

AIRCRAFT, EXPERIMENTAL RIA P51, ON LANDING WENT OFF THE RUNWAY AND THE GEAR COLLAPSED, OPELOUSAS, LOUISIANA.

Bell Helicopter Responding To Noise Complaints

TARRANT COUNTY (CBS11) – Bell Helicopter is planning to ask the Federal Aviation Administration to let pilots at its training academy fly at a higher altitude, after noise complaints from residents and cities in Tarrant County.

The helicopter manufacturer also hired an engineering firm, deployed noise monitors and changed routes in an effort to reduce noise.

Concerns over the flights started to increase last year after Bell consolidated its training academy at its headquarters in east Fort Worth.

Pilots had to fly north to train in airspace near the Texas Motor Speedway. The flight path along US 377 took helicopters over heavily developed commercial and residential areas.

Ken Eagle, in Fort Worth’s Park Glen neighborhood, said flights were low enough to shake the house at times.

“My grandson and I were hitting golf balls several times, and ‘Papa, hit em hit em’,” he said. “He thinks I could hit em.”

A City of Keller newsletter said the noise from the flights was not out of compliance with any noise ordinance.

Bell decided in late March though to spread out the routes. Northbound flights now travel over Rufe Snow Drive.  Southbound flights are continuing to follow US 377.

“The pilots have that direction on how they fly,” said Bell’s Brian Chase. “We are in contact on almost a daily basis to ensure that route is being respected.”

Chase said pilots have also been directed to fly over the center line of roads, rather than over the neighborhoods that border them. Keller’s newsletter said Bell has installed GPS trackers on several helicopters to track their paths.

Directing pilots to fly at a higher altitude is a more complicated task though.

Airspace requirements for DFW International, Meacham and Alliance airports can all impact the current path.

Air traffic approaching Alliance is what keeps helicopter pilots right now from using I-35 as a flight path to the training area. Chase said the company is planning to request that the FAA carve out a space allowing helicopter pilots to ascend another 300 to 800 feet.

Bell has set up a dedicated phone line at 817-280-9009, and emailaddress, communityinfo@bh.com, for residents with more concerns about the operations.

Story and video:  http://dfw.cbslocal.com

Cessna 172, Westwind Aero Group LLC, N5275S; accident occurred April 06, 2016 in Payson, Gila County, Arizona -Kathryn's Report

WESTWIND AERO GROUP LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N5275S

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Scottsdale FSDO-07


NTSB Identification: GAA16CA188
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 06, 2016 in Payson, AZ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/14/2016
Aircraft: CESSNA 172, registration: N5275S
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

According to the student pilot, during landing on his solo flight the airplane porpoised. He reported that after landing he repositioned the airplane, but prior to takeoff, a fellow pilot, who witnessed the porpoise, contacted him on the VHF radio, and informed him that he should have the airplane checked out before attempting to takeoff. The student pilot taxied to the parking area and the airport manager and airframe and powerplant mechanic inspected the airplane. The student pilot called his flight instructor and conveyed the situation and the level of damage. However, according to the flight instructor, the student pilot only conveyed the damage to the tail skid. The flight instructor reported that he told the student to confer with the mechanic and determine if the airplane was airworthy. 

The student pilot departed and proceeded to the airport where his flight school was based. Shortly after the departure, the airport manager that looked the airplane over for the student pilot, called the flight school and conveyed the gravity of the situation and informed the school that the airplane actually sustained damage to the firewall, tail skid and rudder fairing. The flight instructor did not confer with anyone other than the student pilot to ensure the airplane was airworthy. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fire wall. 

The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The student pilot's failure to maintain pitch control during the landing flare, resulting in the subsequent porpoise during landing and substantial damage to the firewall.

Grumman AA-5B, N80CH: Incident occurred April 06, 2016 in Covington, Kenton County, Kentucky

http://registry.faa.gov/N80CH

Date: 06-APR-16
Time: 22:55:00Z
Regis#: N80CH
Aircraft Make: GRUMMAN
Aircraft Model: AA5
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Louisville FSDO-17
City: COVINGTON
State: Kentucky

AIRCRAFT FORCE LANDED IN A FIELD, 3 MILES FROM COVINGTON, KENTUCKY

REVO Lake 250, N8400F: Incident occurred April 07, 2016 near Pryor Field Regional Airport (KDCU), Decatur, Alabama

http://registry.faa.gov/N8400F



DECATUR — What turned into an average day working on the river for Peter Serodino turned into brief media frenzy near the Tennessee River Bridge Thursday afternoon. The Chattanooga resident was working in his seaplane when his battery went dead and he had to be towed by the Decatur Marine Police into a nearby marina.

When Serodino and fellow passenger, Rhonda Clayton, finally exited the plane, they were greeted by a swarm of news cameras and plenty of questions from Decatur police.

Serodino flew out of Chattanooga and was doing contract work for Southern Marine Construction Co. The company is interested in bidding for the Decatur Crossing water pipeline project.

“I was doing some investigative work in my boat and the battery went dead,” Serodino said about his seaplane. “We landed. It was very uneventful. I did my investigation as far as obstructions to the construction process and my battery went dead.”

When the craft was spotted on the river about 1:10 p.m. between the U.S. 31 bridge and the CSX Railroad Bridge, rescue boats, trucks and personnel from Morgan and Limestone counties were quickly dispatched to the scene of what was reported to be a plane that made a hard landing on the water, according to emergency scanner traffic at the time.

“We had been on the water for about an hour and found out it was dead,” he said. “It was too weak to start the motor. Hopefully, we'll charge it up and be on our way. ”

Serodino was flying a 1987 Lake Amphibian seaplane. Serodino said he has been flying for more than 30 years and never had an incident landing a plane.

“I hope it's not a slow news day,” joked Serodino. “I do this all the time. I don't have dead batteries very often. I can usually escape before the news comes.”


Original article can be found here: http://www.enewscourier.com




An airplane initially thought to have made a forced landing in the Tennessee River in Decatur today is a seaplane designed for water landings, an official said.

The pilot, Peter Serodino of Chattanooga, was deemed okay. He is with Serodino Inc., a marine and construction company interested in the Decatur Crossing water pipeline project. Athens-Limestone Rescue Squad truck towed his plane to the dock area of Decatur Boat Harbor.

The Lake 250 plane departed from Chattanooga. 

"The plane is basically a boat hull with wings that has a motor on top that stays out of the water," said Limestone County Deputy Stephen Young, public information officer for the Sheriff's Office.

When the craft landed on the river about 1:10 p.m. between Hudson Memorial Bridge and the Tennessee River Bridge, rescue boats, trucks and personnel from Morgan and Limestone counties were quickly dispatched to the scene of what was reported to be a plane that made a hard landing on the water, according to emergency scanner traffic at the time.

Original article can be found here: http://www.enewscourier.com






A plane made an emergency landing on the Tennessee River in Decatur Thursday afternoon.

The plane landed in the river between the Highway 31 bridge and the railroad bridge around 1:15 p.m., according to the Morgan County Emergency Management Agency. The pilot was not injured, officials said. Both the pilot and passenger are from Chattanooga.

The plane, which is a floatplane equipped for water landings, was towed into the Riverwalk Marina.

Lt. Jeremy Hayes with the Decatur Police Department says no laws were broken with landing. He says the plane flew close to the causeway and people thought it was crashing.

Police are now asking the public to inform them of a water landing if you are flying in the area. 

Lt. Hayes says the pilot and passenger were surveying the area for an upcoming project with Decatur Utilities and Athens-Limestone.

There's no word yet on what caused the pilot to make the landing in the river.

Original article can be found here: http://www.waaytv.com



DECATUR, AL (WAFF) -  A plane has made what the Morgan County EMA confirmed to be a hard water landing in Decatur.

Our ALFA camera captured the plane floating in the waters of the Tennessee River between the Hudson Memorial and railroad bridges around 1:30 p.m.

At least two boats approached the plane for about a half an hour after we began to see images of the plane in the water. One began towing the plane at about 2 p.m.

Stephen Young with the Limestone County Sheriff's Office said the plane is a Lake Renegade amphibious plane, built for water takeoff and landings.

Pilot Peter Serodino told us he is a contractor and was flying in from Chattanooga to perform water depth tests for a Limestone County Water Authority project.

Serodino, who said he has been flying for 30 years, believes his plane's battery may have died. He was flying with a passenger at the time of the hard landing, but no major injuries were reported.

An investigation is ongoing.

Original article can be found here: http://www.wtvm.com



DECATUR, Ala. – A pilot landed his plane in the Tennessee River just off the Hudson Bridge in Decatur on Thursday, but fortunately, it’s a type that can land on water.  A passenger was also aboard.  Both she and the pilot are fine.

The pilot, Peter Serodino, is from Chattanooga and was doing some survey work for a utilities project in the area.  He apparently flew too low and had to land the plane in the water, but wasn’t able to restart it.


Decatur Police came to tow the plane to shore, and they’re helping with a battery to get the plane restarted so Serodino can fly back to Chattanooga.



Original article can be found here:   http://whnt.com 

Boeing 737, N278EA, Eastern Airlines Group Inc: Incident occurred October 27, 2016 at LaGuardia Airport (KLGA), New York -and- Incident occurred April 06, 2016 at Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), Pennsylvania

The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this incident.

Additional Participating Entities:

Eastern Airlines; Miami, Florida
Boeing Aircraft Company; Seattle, Washington
Federal Aviation Administration; Washington, District of Columbia

Aviation Incident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf


Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms


Aviation Incident Data Summary - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf

http://registry.faa.gov/N278EA

NTSB Identification: DCA17IA020 
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of Eastern Airlines Group, Inc.,
Incident occurred Thursday, October 27, 2016 in New York, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 09/18/2017
Aircraft: BOEING 737 7L9, registration: N278EA
Injuries: 48 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various sources and may have traveled in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft incident report.


Automatic terminal information service (ATIS) "Bravo" was current when the first officer, who was the pilot flying, began to brief the instrument landing system approach for runway 22. The ATIS indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 1,500 ft broken, overcast at 2,200 ft, wind from 130º at 9 knots, and that braking action advisories were in effect. The approach briefing included the decision altitude and visibility for the approach and manual deployment of the speed brakes by the captain, with the captain stating "you're gonna do these. I'm gonna do this" to which the first officer replied "[that] is correct." (The airplane's automatic speed brake module had been deactivated 2 days before the incident and deferred in accordance with the operator's minimum equipment list, which was appropriate).


The flight crew completed the approach briefing after descending through 18,000 ft mean sea level and completed the landing checklist when the airplane was near the final approach fix. The airplane was configured for landing with the autobrake set to 3 and the flaps set to 30º. ATIS information "Charlie" was current at that time and indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 900 ft broken, overcast at 1,500 ft, and wind from 120º at 9 knots.


Flight data recorder (FDR) data and postincident flight crew statements indicate that the airplane was stabilized on the approach in accordance with the operator's procedures until the flare. The airplane crossed the runway threshold at 66 ft radio altitude at a descent rate of 750 ft per minute. When the airplane had traveled about 2,500 ft beyond the runway threshold, its descent rate decreased to near zero, and it floated during the flare. Its pitch attitude started to increase in the flare from 2.8° at a radio altitude of about 38 ft, which is high compared to the 20 ft recommended by the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual. Further, the first officer didn't fully reduce the throttles to idle until about 16 seconds after the flare was initiated and after the airplane had touched down. The initiation of the flare at a relatively high altitude above the runway and the significant delay in the reduction of thrust resulted in the airplane floating down the runway, prompting the captain to tell the first officer to get the airplane on the ground, stating "down down down down you're three thousand feet remaining."


The airplane eventually touched down 4,242 ft beyond the runway threshold. According to the operator's procedures, the touchdown zone for runway 22 was the first third of the 7,001-ft-long runway beginning at the threshold, or 2,334 ft. Touchdown zone markers and lights (the latter of which extended to 3,000 ft beyond the threshold) should have provided the flight crew a visual indication of the airplane's distance beyond the threshold and prompted either pilot to call for a go-around but neither did. The point at which the airplane touched down left only about 2,759 ft remaining runway to stop. The airplane's groundspeed at touchdown was 130 knots. 


The captain manually deployed the speed brakes about 4.5 seconds after touchdown and after the airplane had traveled about 1,250 ft down the runway. Maximum reverse thrust was commanded about 3.5 seconds after the speed brakes were deployed, and, with fully extended speed brakes and maximum wheel brakes (which were applied at main gear touchdown) the airplane achieved increasingly effective deceleration. Its groundspeed was about 35 knots when it entered the EMAS. With the effective deceleration provided by the fully extended speed brakes, maximum wheel brakes, and reverse thrust, the flight crew would have been able to safely stop the airplane if it had touched down within the touchdown zone.


The captain later stated that he had considered calling for a go-around before touchdown but the "moment had slipped past and it was too late." He said that "there was little time to verbalize it" and that he instructed the first officer to get the airplane on the ground rather than call for a go-around. He reported that, in hindsight, he should have called for a go-around the moment that he recognized the airplane was floating in the flare. The first officer said that he did not consider a go-around because he did not think that the situation was abnormal at that time. 


Training and practice improve human performance and response time when completing complex tasks. In this case, the operator's go-around training did not include any scenarios that addressed performing go-arounds in which pilots must decide to perform the maneuver rather than being instructed or prompted to do so. Thus, the incident flight crew lacked the training and practice making go-around decisions, which contributed to the captain's and first officer's failure to call for a go-around.


Following the incident, the operator incorporated go-around training scenarios in which flight crews must decide to go around rather than being instructed to do so. The company's director of operations also stated that the company has incorporated scenarios in which go-arounds are initiated from idle power and rejected landings are performed after touchdown with the automatic speed brake inoperative. It also added a training module emphasizing that "if touchdown is predicted to be outside of the [touchdown zone], go around" and intended to require a go-around if landing outside of the touchdown zone were predicted. The operator also intended to incorporate go-around planning into the approach briefing. Flight crews would determine the cues for the touchdown zone using the airport diagram and decide at which point they would initiate a go-around if the airplane had not touched down. 


Given the known wet runway conditions and airplane manufacturer and operator guidance concerning "immediate" manual deployment of the speed brakes upon landing, the captain's manual deployment of the speed brakes was not timely. NTSB analysis of FDR data for previous landings in the incident airplane determined an average of 0.5 second for manual deployment of the speed brakes. Using the same touchdown point as in the incident, postincident simulations suggest that, if the speed brakes had been deployed 1 second after touchdown followed by maximum reverse thrust commanded within 2 seconds, the airplane would have remained on the runway surface. Therefore, the captain's delay in manually deploying the speed brake contributed to the airplane's runway departure into the EMAS.


During the landing roll, the captain did not announce that he was assuming airplane control, contrary to the operator's procedures, and commanded directional control inputs that countered those commanded by the first officer. The captain later reported that he had forgotten that an EMAS was installed at the end of runway 22 and attempted to avoid the road beyond the runway's end by applying right rudder because he thought it would be better to veer to the right. However, the first officer applied left rudder to maintain alignment with the runway centerline and to counter the airplane pulling "really hard" to the right because of the captain's inputs. The breakdown of crew resource management during the landing roll and the captain's failure to call for a go-around demonstrated his lack of command authority, which contributed to the incident. 


At the time of the incident, EMAS training was not part of the operator's pilot training program, but such training was added after the incident. The circumstances of this event suggest that the safety benefit of EMASs could be undermined if flight crews are not aware of their presence or purpose.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:

The first officer's failure to attain the proper touchdown point and the flight crew's failure to call for a go-around, which resulted in the airplane landing more than halfway down the runway. Contributing to the incident were, the first officer's initiation of the landing flare at a relatively high altitude and his delay in reducing the throttles to idle, the captain's delay in manually deploying the speed brakes after touchdown, the captain's lack of command authority, and a lack of robust training provided by the operator to support the flight crew's decision-making concerning when to call for a go-around.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

**This report was modified on September 18, 2017. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.**

On October 27, 2016, about 1942 eastern daylight time, Eastern Air Lines flight 3452, a Boeing 737-700, N923CL, overran runway 22 during the landing roll at LaGuardia Airport (KLGA), Flushing, Queens, New York. The airplane traveled through the right forward corner of the engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) at the departure end of the runway and came to rest off the right side of the EMAS. The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 7 cabin crewmembers, and 39 passengers were not injured and evacuated the airplane via airstairs. The airplane sustained minor damage. The charter flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Night instrument flight rules conditions prevailed at the airport at the time of the incident, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the flight, which originated at Fort Dodge Regional Airport (KFOD), Fort Dodge, Iowa, about 1623 central daylight time.

The first leg of the trip began on October 14, 2016, and the captain and first officer were paired from then to the incident. In postincident statements, the flight crew indicated that the captain was the pilot monitoring (PM) for the incident flight, and the first officer was the pilot flying (PF). The first officer reported that the autopilot and autothrottles were engaged beginning about 2,500 ft after their takeoff from KFOD. Both pilots stated that the en route portion of the flight and the descent into the terminal area were uneventful but they encountered moderate-to-heavy rain during the final 15 minutes of the flight.

According to information from the airplane's cockpit voice recorder (CVR), the first officer partially briefed the instrument landing system (ILS) approach for runway 13 beginning about 1848, indicating an autobrake setting of 3 and a 30º flap setting. ATIS information "Bravo" was current at that time and indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 1,500 ft broken, overcast at 2,200 ft, wind from 130º at 9 knots, and that braking action advisories were in effect. About 1852, the first officer began briefing the ILS approach for runway 22 after the captain clarified, based on the ATIS recording, that runway 13 was being used for departures.

About 1902, as the airplane descended through 18,000 ft msl, the flight crew completed the approach briefing for runway 22, with the same autobrake and flap setting as indicated earlier, as well as the decision altitude and visibility required for the approach, the touchdown zone elevation, and a reference speed (Vref) of 137 knots. ATIS information "Charlie" was current at that time and indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 900 ft broken, overcast at 1,500 ft, and wind from 120º at 9 knots.

The flight crew also discussed the captain manually deploying the speed brakes (the airplane's automatic speed brake module had been deactivated 2 days before the incident and deferred in accordance with the company's minimum equipment list (MEL), with corrective action scheduled for November 4, 2016). In reference to the manual deployment of the speed brakes, the captain stated at 1902:44.5 "you're gonna do these. I'm gonna do this" to which the first officer replied "[that] is correct."

About 1927, the flight was provided vectors to the final approach course for the ILS approach to runway 22. About 1936, the flight was cleared for the approach. The first officer then called for the landing gear to be extended and the flaps set at 15º. About 1937, the captain stated that the localizer and glideslope were captured. About 1938, as the airplane neared the final approach fix, the flight crew completed the landing checklist and configured the airplane for landing, with flaps set to 30º. 

The CVR indicates that the captain pointed out the approach lights about 1939. The first officer reported, and flight data recorder (FDR) data indicate, that about 1940:12, he disconnected the autopilot when the airplane's altitude was about 300 ft radio altitude, as required by Eastern Air Lines standard operating procedure. FDR data indicate that the first officer disconnected the autothrottles about 1940:19.

FDR data indicate that, shortly after the first officer disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles (about 300 ft radio altitude), the airplane began to increasingly deviate above the glideslope beam and crossed the threshold at a height consistent with the threshold crossing height of the VGSI, which was not coincident with the glide slope beam. CVR data indicate that between 1940:35 and 1940:46, the enhanced ground proximity warning system alerted the decreasing altitude in increments of 10, beginning at 50 ft. The pitch attitude started to increase in the flare from 2.8° at a radio altitude of about 38 ft. After the 20-ft alert, the captain stated "down" at 1940:43.3. After the 10-ft alert, the captain stated, "down down down down you're three thousand feet remaining" at 1940:46.6. There was no callout of spoilers or thrust reversers during the rollout on the CVR.

FDR data and performance calculations indicate that the airplane crossed the runway threshold at a radio altitude of 66 ft, with an increasing glideslope deviation and a descent rate of about 750 ft per minute. When the airplane had traveled about 2,500 ft beyond the runway threshold, its descent rate decreased to near zero, and it floated before touching down. The captain later reported that the descent to the touchdown zone was normal until the flare. He stated that the airplane floated initially in the flare, which prompted the captain to tell the first officer to "get it down."

The first officer recalled hearing the captain's instruction to "put [the airplane] down" during the flare but was not certain how far down the runway the airplane touched down. FDR data indicate that, at 1940:51.8, the airplane's main landing gear touched down; maximum manual wheel brakes were applied at main gear touchdown. The throttles were not fully reduced to idle until about 16 seconds after the flare was initiated, and after the airplane had touched down. The touch down point was about 4,242 ft beyond the threshold of the 7,001-ft-long runway. The nose gear initially touched down about 2 seconds after the main landing gear but rebounded into the air due to aft control column input. The nose gear touched down a second and final time at 1940:56.8.

The captain reported that, as briefed, he manually deployed the speed brakes, which FDR data indicate were manually extended to full at 1940:56.3, about 4.5 seconds after the main landing gear touched down and the airplane had traveled about 1,250 ft farther down the runway from the touchdown point. At 1940:59.8, when the airplane had traveled about 1,650 ft down the runway from the touchdown point (and 5,892 ft from the threshold), maximum reverse thrust was commanded. The captain reported that he saw the end of the runway approaching and began to apply maximum braking, as well as right rudder because he thought it would be better to veer to the right rather than continue straight to the road beyond the end of the runway.

The first officer reported that the captain did not, as required in the operator's procedures, tell him that he was attempting to brake and steer the airplane during the landing rollout, and no such callout is recorded on the CVR. The first officer stated that the airplane was pulling to the right "really hard," which prompted him to apply left rudder. He reported that the left rudder input was counter to his expectation due to a 9-knot crosswind from the left, which he expected to counteract with right rudder input. He attempted to maintain alignment with the runway centerline by applying left rudder and overriding the autobrakes with pressure on the brake pedal.

At 1941:08.3, the CVR recorded the sound of rumbling, consistent with the airplane exiting the runway. The airplane then entered the EMAS about 35 knots groundspeed and came to rest 172 ft beyond the end of the runway and to the right of the EMAS. Review of the CVR recording revealed that, after the airplane came to a stop, the first officer twice remarked that they should have conducted a go-around, and the captain agreed. The first officer later reported that he did not believe the approach or landing were abnormal at the time. The captain later stated that he should have called for a go-around when the airplane floated during the flare.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The Captain

The captain, age 58, held an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate with a rating for airplane single- and multiengine land with commercial privileges, with type ratings on the Boeing 737, DC-10, DC-8, and MD-11, Bombardier CL-65, BAE Systems HS-114, and Lockheed Martin L-188. He also held a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) first-class medical certificate dated July 20, 2016, with a limitation for glasses or corrective lenses for near and intermediate vision. He was hired by Eastern Air Lines in June 2015 as a first officer and upgraded to captain in February 2016, when he received captain leadership training. At the time of the incident, he was based in Miami, Florida.

Before joining Eastern Air Lines, the captain was a pilot at Centurion Cargo, where he was hired as a first officer on the DC-10 in 2005 and subsequently upgraded to captain on the MD-11 in 2010. According to Eastern Airlines personnel records, the captain had 20,638 hours of flight experience, 14,767 hours pilot-in-command (PIC) time, with 3,000 hours on 737s and 202 hours as PIC on 737s. He flew 75 hours, 28 hours, and 11 hours during the 90-, 30-, and 7-day periods, respectively, preceding the incident. He also reported flying 1.5 hours during the 24-hour period before the incident.

His most recent 737 proficiency check occurred March 16, 2016. A review of FAA records found no prior accident, incident, or enforcement actions.

72-Hour History

On Monday, October 24, the captain flew from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Charlotte, North Carolina; Charlotte to Greensboro, North Carolina; and Greensboro to Indianapolis, arriving at 2119 EDT. He went to bed about 0030 EDT and slept until 1100 EDT.

On Tuesday, October 25, he and the first officer flew commercially to Salt Lake City, Utah, via Minneapolis, Minnesota. After arriving about 1700 mountain daylight time (MDT), he went to dinner with his son. He watched television for about an hour and went to sleep about 2230 MDT.

On Wednesday, October 26, he slept until 0800 MDT and went to breakfast about 1000 MDT. He met his son briefly in the morning and flew from Salt Lake City to Colorado Springs, Colorado, then Colorado Springs to Omaha, Nebraska. He was off duty at 2356 CDT and went to bed about 0130 CDT on October 27.

On Thursday, October 27, he awoke about 0830 CDT. He reported having no difficulties sleeping that night and stated that, when he awoke, he felt as rested as could be expected with "normal flying" 14 days into a trip (the first leg of the captain's trip began on October 14). He took a shuttle to the airport about 1000 CDT. He flew to KFOD from which he departed for the incident flight to KLGA.

The First Officer

The first officer, age 49, held an ATP certificate with a rating for airplane single- and multiengine land with commercial privileges and with type ratings on the Boeing 737, Cessna Citation CE-500, and Embraer ERJ-170 and ERJ-190. He also had an FAA first-class medical certificate dated October 11, 2016, with a limitation for glasses for near vision. His date of hire with Eastern Air Lines was December 1, 2015. At the time of the incident, he was based in Miami, Florida.

Prior to Eastern Air Lines, he was employed by Republic Airlines as a pilot flying the ERJ-170. In 2007, he began working as a flight instructor, which he did for about 5 years. He began flight training in 2002. According to Eastern Airlines personnel and FAA records, the first officer had 6,200 hours of flight experience, 3,137 hours PIC time, and 225 hours on 737s. He flew 57 hours, 35 hours, and 11 hours during the 90-, 30-, and 7-day periods, respectively, preceding the incident. He also reported flying 1.5 hours during the 24-hour period before the incident.

The first officer's most recent 737 proficiency check occurred February 2, 2016. A review of FAA records found no prior accident, incident, or enforcement actions.

72-Hour History

On Monday, October 24, the first officer had a 31-hour rest period in Indianapolis that ended at 1530 EDT. He flew from Indianapolis to Charlotte, Charlotte to Greensboro, and Greensboro to Indianapolis. He reported sleeping well that night but did not indicate when he went to bed. 

He awoke between 0815 to 0830 EDT on Tuesday, October 25. He flew from Indianapolis to Salt Lake City arriving about 1641 MDT. He estimated he went to bed between 0130 and 0200 MDT on October 26.

On Wednesday, October 26, he had a report time of 1540 MDT and flew from Salt Lake City to Colorado Springs then to Omaha. He went to bed around 0100 CDT on October 27. 

He estimated that he awoke between 0815 to 0830 CDT on Thursday, October 27, and ate breakfast. He could not recall the quality of his rest the night before the incident. He remained in the hotel after breakfast and went to the gym, worked out, and did laundry. He then showered and departed for the airport. He operated the flight to KFOD then departed on the incident flight to KLGA.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The Boeing 737-700 airplane, serial number 28006, was manufactured May 15, 1998, and equipped with two CFM International CFM56-7B22 engines. At the time of the incident, the airplane had accumulated 48,179 hours of operation, the No. 1 (left) engine had 34, 671 hours, and the No 2. (right) engine had 20,456 hours.

The airplane was equipped with an auto speed brake system that, when armed, automatically deployed the spoilers after touchdown to reduce the airplane's lift and increase the effectiveness of the wheel brakes. Alternatively, the flight crew could use the speed brake lever to deploy the spoilers manually. As previously mentioned, the system's automatic mode was inoperative; maintenance records indicate that a ground spoiler did not automatically deploy during a previous landing. The status of the automatic mode was indicated by a paper sticker wrapped around the base of the speed brake handle. In addition, the amber SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM light above the captain's right display unit illuminated when the automatic mode was unavailable. The flight crew's paperwork for the flight contained the procedures for the MEL item (see Organization and Management Information for more information).

Each engine was equipped with a hydraulically operated thrust reverser, which consisted of left and right translating sleeves. Reverse thrust was produced by aft movement of the reverser sleeves, which caused blocker doors to deflect fan discharge air forward through fixed cascade vanes. According to manufacturer guidance, thrust reversers are manually deployed after touchdown to slow the airplane, reducing stopping distance and brake wear.

The autobrake system, which is part of the airplane's hydraulic brake system, monitored the airplane's deceleration after landing and metered hydraulic pressure (via the antiskid/autobrake control unit) to the brakes to achieve the level of deceleration selected by the autobrake select switch. The switch on the incident airplane was found positioned at "3." A manual brake application by either flight crewmember would override and disarm the autobrake system.

The airplane's antiskid system controlled the brakes to prevent the wheels from skidding during braking action. An antiskid transducer was located in each main landing gear axle to provide the system with rotational wheel speed. The system monitored the speed and metered hydraulic pressure to each brake to prevent skidding (see the Tests and Research section for additional information on this system).

Weight and Balance

Eastern Air Lines used the Jeppesen JetPlanner and a nomograph as the primary means of producing weight and balance and performance data for each flight. In accordance with the operator's procedures, following the calculations, flight crews loaded weight and balance information into the airplane's flight management system. Flight 3452 landed with a gross weight of about 116,560 pounds and a center of gravity (CG) of about 21.5 inches. According to operator and manufacturer guidance, the maximum landing weight as 129,000 pounds and the CG range was 10 to 28 inches.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

At 1851 EDT, (ASOS) at KLGA reported the wind from 090° true at 9 knots, visibility of 3 statute miles (sm), moderate rain, ceiling broken at 900 ft agl, overcast clouds at 1,500 ft agl, temperature of 13°C and a dew point temperature of 11°C, and altimeter setting of 30.14 inches of mercury. Remarks included: surface visibility of 4 sm, precipitation accumulation of 0.14 inch since 1751 EDT.

At 1951 EDT, KLGA ASOS reported the wind from 100° true at 10 knots with gusts to 15 knots, visibility of 3 sm, moderate rain, mist, ceiling overcast at 1,000 ft agl, temperature of 13°C and a dew point temperature of 12°C, and an altimeter setting of 30.10 inches of mercury. Remarks included: surface visibility of 4 sm, precipitation accumulation of 0.32 inch since 1851 EDT, precipitation accumulation of 0.61 inch during previous 3 hours.

COMMUNICATIONS

No problems with communications equipment were reported.

AIRPORT INFORMATION

KLGA is located about 8 miles east of Manhattan in the borough of Queens and is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The airport has an elevation of 22 ft and borders Flushing Bay and Bowery Bay. KLGA has two intersecting runways, 4/22 and 13/31, which were extended over water to their present length and width in 1966. Runway 22 was 7,001 ft long and 150 ft wide with a touchdown zone elevation of 12.4 ft mean sea level and a grooved paved surface constructed of asphalt and concrete. The runway had 7,001 ft of landing distance available. The ILS glideslope beam intersected the runway 1,022 ft from the threshold, leaving 5,979 ft of runway remaining.

Touchdown zone markers on runway 22 were positioned 500; 1,200; 2,000; and 2,500 ft from the threshold. Touchdown zone lights—two rows of steady burning white transverse light bars—ran symmetrically about the runway centerline from 100 ft beyond the threshold to 3,000 ft beyond the threshold, and lighted signs indicating remaining runway distance were placed at 1,000-foot increments from the runway end. The runway was also equipped with edge lights, centerline lights (which were out of service at the time of the incident), runway end identifier lights, and a four-light PAPI located on the right side of the runway with an ILS glideslope of 3.0º and a threshold crossing height of 52 ft. The visual glideslope indicator angle was 3.0º with a threshold crossing height of 67 ft (as mentioned previously, the visual glideslope indicator and the ILS were not coincident).

A 272-ft-long by 170-ft-wide EMAS was set back about 30 ft from the end of runway 22; it was originally installed in 2005 and replaced in 2014. The EMAS used crushable material designed to decelerate and stop an aircraft, traveling up to 80 mph (about 69.5 knots), that overruns the runway. This technology was developed and implemented to improve safety at airports where the full 1,000-ft runway safety area beyond a runway's end could not be obtained due to a lack of available land or obstacles, such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, populated areas, or terrain with a severe dropoff.

According to an FAA fact sheet (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13754; accessed June 6, 2017), as of November 2016, there have been 11 incidents in the United States—in addition to the event involving flight 3452—in which an EMAS has safely stopped an overrunning aircraft, with a total 247 passengers and crewmembers on board.

FLIGHT RECORDERS

The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and a flight data recorder (FDR). Both recorders were removed from the airplane and retained by the NTSB for further examination and readout at the NTSB's Recorder Laboratory in Washington, DC. The recorders showed no signs of damage.

Cockpit Voice Recorder

The CVR, a Honeywell 6022, serial number 3452, was a solid-state CVR that recorded 120 minutes of digital audio. It was played back normally without difficulty and contained excellent quality audio information. The recording was transcribed in two parts focusing on the en route approach briefing and the approach, landing, and events thereafter until the end of the recording. Part one began at 18:48:06 EDT, when flight 3452 was en route at FL390, and continued until 1902:52 EDT. Part two began at 1918:01 EDT and ended at 1948:32 EDT (the end of the recording). The transcript and additional information about the recording are included in the CVR Group Chairman's Factual Report.

Flight Data Recorder

The FDR, a Honeywell 4700, serial number SSFDR-16936, recorded airplane flight information in digital format using solid-state flash memory as the recording medium. The FDR could record a minimum of 25 hours of flight data and was configured to record 256 12-bit words of digital information every second. The FDR was designed to meet the crash-survivability requirements of Technical Standard Order C-124.

Data from the FDR were extracted normally. The event flight was the last flight of the recording, and its duration was about 2 hours and 19 minutes. Details of the FDR evaluation are available in the FDR Specialist's Factual Report.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT

As a result of the airplane's travel through the EMAS, pulverized EMAS material (a gray, powdery residue) was noted on portions of the airplane's exterior during postincident examination. The lower and forward portions of the airplane—fuselage, landing gear, and antennas—were coated with a dried residue resulting from the mixture of the EMAS material and rainwater. In addition, pieces of a matting material used in the EMAS were found in various locations on the airplane.

No damage or anomalies were noted during the visual examination of the nosewheel landing gear and associated assemblies. A preliminary visual examination of the main landing gear strut, doors, assemblies, associated hydraulic lines, and antiskid components did not reveal evidence of physical damage. However, after the airplane was cleaned of EMAS debris and the main landing gears were retracted, damage was noted on the underside of each gear strut. The operator indicated that the lower wire bundle support brackets for the left and right main landing gear were both damaged, as well as the wire conduit sleeve on the left main landing gear.

Each of the four main wheel tires showed cut damage in addition to normal wear. None of the observed cuts were deep enough to reach the tire treads. No flat spots or other evidence of hydroplaning was noted on any of the tires. Examination of the four brake assemblies found no evidence of damage or hydraulic leaks. No evidence of a hydraulic power malfunction or damage to any of the visible hydraulic lines was noted.

Both engines showed evidence of EMAS material and matting on the engine inlet and internal components. The No. 1 engine sustained fan blade damage, including four blades bent in the direction opposite of rotation, at the tip corner. No visible blade damage was noted on the No. 2 engine. Visual examination of the thrust reversers found no preincident anomalies. The operator later reported that, after cleaning and deploying the thrust reversers, damage was found on the inboard thrust reverser sleeves and blocker doors for both engines.

Examination of the speed brake control components on the incident airplane noted the speed brake handle positioned full forward. All spoiler panels, including the ground spoilers, were found in the down or retracted position. No damage was noted to any of the ground spoilers.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Eastern Air Lines conducted drug and alcohol testing for both pilots about 6 hours after the incident. Test results were negative for alcohol and major drugs of abuse.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

An analysis of the FDR data performed by Boeing and reviewed by the NTSB showed that the airplane was in a turbulent atmosphere with an increasing tailwind as it approached runway 22. At touchdown, the tailwind was about 10 knots (which is the maximum specified in the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual), and the airplane's airspeed was 123 knots, its groundspeed was 130 knots, and its sink rate was 3.3 ft per second. Boeing's analysis indicated that (the eventual) full deflection of the speed brakes, maximum wheel brakes, and maximum reverse thrust provided effective deceleration. From the time the nose gear touched down to the time the airplane entered the EMAS, the airplane's braking coefficient varied between 0.2 and 0.4. The increasing left control wheel input, which reached 50º by 1941:09, reduced the spoiler deflections on the right wing, in accordance with the airplane's design.

Boeing conducted a simulation of the airplane's stopping performance at the request of the NTSB. The simulation revealed that, had the speed brakes been manually deployed within 1 second of touchdown (the criteria for automatic deployment), followed by thrust reverser deployment 7 seconds later, the airplane's CG would have remained on the runway surface and only the nose of the airplane would have exited the runway surface. If, in addition to the prompt deployment of the speed brakes, the thrust reversers had been deployed about 2 seconds (instead of 7 seconds) after manual speed brake deployment, the entire airplane would have remained on the runway surface. NTSB review of FDR data for previous landings of the incident airplane determined an average of 0.5 second for manual deployment of the speed brake. 

The autobrake and antiskid systems were tested and no faults were found. In addition, no pre-existing faults were recorded.

ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Company Overview and Management Organization

Eastern Air Lines, Inc., received certification to operate as a Part 121 supplemental carrier on May 15, 2015. Subsequently, Eastern Air Lines began scheduled charter services to Havana and four other cities in Cuba. Before the incident, the airline also launched charter service to other Latin American and Caribbean destinations. The airline's sole base of operations was at Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida, at the time of the incident. It employed 64 pilots and had a fleet of five Boeing 737 airplanes, including the incident airplane; the other four airplanes were Boeing 737-800 series.

The airline's vice president of flight operations was responsible for the flying operations of the airline, flight crew training, the operations control center (OCC), and ground operations. The chief pilot, manager of flight operations training, director of inflight, OCC director, manager of flight standards, and manager of charter operations all reported to the vice president of flight operations.

At the time of the incident, Eastern Air Lines' director of safety and security reported directly to the chief executive officer and was the only staffed position in the safety department. The director of safety and security had been hired about 2 weeks before the incident and was in the process of being trained by his predecessor, who had held the position from 2013 until September 2016. While he was being trained, the vice president of regulatory compliance served as the acting director of safety and security. 

According to the vice president of flight operations and the manager of flight operations training, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual and the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual were used as the airline's systems training material and procedures manual, respectively.

Safety Management

The FAA approved Eastern Air Lines' safety management system (SMS) implementation plan in February 2016. The first segment of implementation included administering the SMS implementation plan and developing a tool (Aviation Resource Management Solutions) that was designed to help the company with safety risk assessment, assurance, and risk management. The former director of safety and security stated that, at the time of the incident, the first segment of the implementation was not fully realized and they were working toward an October 30, 2016, full implementation date.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) and EMAS Training 

The manager of flight operations training at the time of the incident was also a check airman. He had been manager of training for about 1.5 years and had been with the company for 2 years.

The airline provided three courses on CRM: new hire, captain's upgrade, and recurrent. The new hire CRM course consisted of a 2-hour segment covering CRM background, communications processes and decision behavior, team building and leadership, workload management and situational awareness, individual factors and stress reduction, and error management. The upgrade training included 1 day of ground school in which 1 hour was dedicated to CRM. Upgrade training also incorporated a captain's leadership course that included content on the captain's authority, briefings, workload management, and sterile cockpit procedures in accordance with 14 CFR 121.542, "Flight Crewmember Duties." The recurrent training included a 3.5-day ground school for captains and first officers in which 1 hour was devoted to CRM training. All courses were taught using presentation slides, open discussion, and videos created by contracted training organizations.

The captain reported after the incident that he believed he and the first officer were working well as a crew during the trip. He stated that he did not call for a transfer of controls during the landing rollout and that, in hindsight, he should have. He further mentioned that he thought it was "OK" for both crewmembers to be applying brakes. The first officer reported a "lack of communication" during the landing rollout because the captain did not say that he was taking control of the airplane. Another Eastern Air Lines first officer who had flown with the captain before the incident described the captain's CRM as "good."

At the time of the incident, EMAS training was not part of Eastern Air Lines' pilot training program. The captain stated during postincident interviews that he had forgotten that an EMAS was installed at the end of runway 22, that he had read about the systems, but had not had any training on them.

FAA Oversight

The former FAA principal operations inspector (POI) stated that he had been assigned to Eastern Air Lines before the company received its operating certificate. He stated that his duties included, most critically, surveillance and reviewing the airline's manuals, including any changes to the manuals. He traveled to the airline's headquarters about once or twice a week. He also stated that he interacted most with the operations management, director of safety and security, and the CEO.

The former director of safety and security stated that during his time at Eastern Air Lines, he "seldom" interacted with the FAA POI or other FAA personnel. Other management personnel stated they interacted with the FAA daily or multiple times per week, via telephone, e-mail, or in person at the FAA's office or at Eastern Air Lines' office. The manager of flight operations training stated that he did not directly interact with the POI and usually went through the vice president of flight operations or the chief pilot. The vice president of flight operations stated that they had been assigned a new POI 5 months before the incident and that the interaction with the new POI was "really great."

The FAA POI at the time of the incident reported that he mostly communicated with Eastern Air Lines' director of flight operations and chief pilot but had also communicated with the director of flight training. He categorized the communication as "very good." He added that Eastern Air Lines was the only certificate he managed and that FAA resources were limited such that they only had one person in the office who was able to conduct checkrides in the Boeing 737. He estimated that he was at Eastern Air Lines' operations a "couple of times a week;" however, he had not taken part in Eastern Air Lines' pilot training. He also stated that the training in the manual for a go-around was similar to the syllabus used by other airlines, and he "assumed" that they did some go-around training in the flare and some training in low visibility. The POI stated that, following the incident, he and Eastern Air Lines management had discussed training go-arounds once the airplane was on the ground and that further discussion was needed.

Operational Procedures and Guidance

Missed Approach/Go-Around, Rejected Landing Guidance

Stabilized Approach Procedures. Stabilized approach criteria for precision approaches in IMC are defined in chapter 9, "Flight Policies—Phase of Flight" of the Eastern Air Lines Flight Operations Manual (FOM) and are described as follows: WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LAND FROM AN UNSTABILIZED APPROACH. THE DECISION TO GO AROUND IS NOT AN INDICATION OF POOR JUDGMENT, BUT RATHER GOOD JUDGMENT.

Precision Approaches in IMC

The aircraft should be stabilized no lower than 1000' above touch down zone elevation (TDZE).

Flight Parameters

To be stabilized, all of the following conditions must be achieved prior to, or upon, reaching this stabilization height:

• The aircraft is on the correct lateral flight plan. • The aircraft is in the desired landing configuration. • The thrust is stabilized above idle, to maintain the target speed on the desired glidepath. • No excessive flight parameter deviation. If the aircraft is not stabilized on the approach path in landing configuration, at 1000 feet (above TDZE) in instrument conditions, or at 500 feet (above TDZE) in visual conditions, a go-around must be initiated.

If an aircraft is not stabilized as described in Stabilized Approach or Flight Parameters, a go around should be initiated.

Missed Approach Procedures. In postincident interviews, Eastern Air Lines management stated that go-arounds were trained as missed approaches and that training for rejected landings included scenarios such as an aircraft or vehicle still being on the runway. At the time of the incident, pilots were trained to initiate rejected landings around 50 ft agl and were prompted by a simulated ATC instruction. At the time of the incident, Eastern Air Lines did not teach go-arounds being initiated after the airplane contacted the runway.

The Eastern Air Lines FOM, Section 9.11 "Landing or Go-Around" stated in part:

Execute a missed approach when:

• Arrival at the MAP or DH and visual reference to the runway environment is insufficient to complete the landing • A safe landing is not possible. • Instructed by ATC During interviews with other Eastern Air Lines pilots, a few stated that they had conducted go-arounds while line flying. One stated that it was due to low visibility and another pilot stated that he had performed the maneuver after being instructed by ATC to go around due to insufficient distance from a preceding aircraft.

Rejected Landing Procedures. The FOM 9.11.5 provided the following table for conducting a rejected landing:

Speed Brakes

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6, "Landing" provided the following information on the use of speed brakes:

Unless speed brakes are raised after touchdown, braking effectiveness may be reduced initially as much as 60%, since very little weight is on the wheels and brake application may cause rapid antiskid modulation.

Normally, speed brakes are armed to extend automatically. Both pilots should monitor speed brake extension after touchdown. In the event auto extension fails, the speed brakes should be manually extended immediately.

Minimum Equipment List Operations Procedure

The operations procedure on the MEL for the inoperative automatic speed brake module stated the following:

Prior to takeoff, make sure that the speed brake lever is in the full down detent. 

Base landing performance on manual speed brakes.

Extend speed brakes manually for rejected takeoff or landing. …

For landing, use the SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM non-normal checklist.

The SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM non-normal checklist in the Eastern Air Lines QRH states, in part, the following:

Do not [emphasis in original] arm the speed brakes for landing. Manually deploy the speed brakes immediately upon landing. Increased force may be needed to move the SPEED BRAKE lever to the UP position.

Autobrake Setting

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6 "Landing" provided the following information on the autobrake system:

Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways, or landing in a crosswind.

For normal operation of the autobrake system select a deceleration setting. Settings include:

• MAX: Used when minimum stopping distance is required. Deceleration rate is less than that produced by full manual braking • 3: Should be used for wet or slippery runways or when landing rollout distance is limited. If adequate rollout distance is available, autobrake setting 2 may be appropriate • 1 or 2: These settings provide a moderate deceleration suitable for all routine operations. Experience with various runway conditions and the related airplane handling characteristics provide initial guidance for the level of deceleration to be selected.

Immediate initiation of reverse thrust at main gear touchdown and full reverse thrust allow the autobrake system to reduce brake pressure to the minimum level. Since the autobrake system senses deceleration and modulates brake pressure accordingly, the proper application of reverse thrust results in reduced braking for a large portion of the landing roll.

The importance of establishing the desired reverse thrust level as soon as possible after touchdown cannot be overemphasized. This minimizes brake temperatures and tire and brake wear and reduces stopping distance on very slippery runways.

The use of minimum reverse thrust as compared to maximum reverse thrust can double the brake energy requirements and result in brake temperatures much higher than normal.

After touchdown, crewmembers should be alert for autobrake disengagement annunciations. The PM should notify the PF anytime the autobrakes disengage.

If stopping distance is not assured with autobrakes engaged, the PF should immediately apply manual braking sufficient to assure deceleration to a safe taxi speed within the remaining runway.

The incident flight crew set the autobrakes at 3 for the landing because of the reported weather conditions; they stated in postincident interviews that Eastern Air Lines preferred the autobrake selection be set at 2. However, other personnel interviewed at Eastern Air Lines indicated that there was no guidance provided by the operator on the preferred autobrake setting and that pilots would reference the performance chart when selecting the autobrake setting. A review of Eastern Air Lines manuals and performance charts found no specific recommended setting and no performance numbers for the four available autobrake settings. 

Transfer of Aircraft Control

Section 8.11.6 of the FOM stated "The captain shall ensure that one flight crewmember is at all times charged with the primary task of flying the aircraft. Change of control of the aircraft is always accomplished verbally… The flight crewmember transferring controls should say...'you have the controls.' …The flight crewmember accepting the controls … says, 'I have the controls' and takes over."

Landing Performance and Factors Affecting Landing Distance

The Boeing 737 Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual, Performance Inflight, Chapter PI, Section 32, "Advisory Information" contained a "Normal Configuration Landing Distance, Flaps 30" table that provided the following guidance concerning manual speed brakes:

For autobrake and manual speed brakes, increase reference landing distance by 45 meters [148 feet].

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6 "Landing" provided the following guidance regarding factors that affect landing distance:

Advisory information for normal and non-normal configuration landing distances is contained in the [Performance Inflight] chapter of the [Quick Reference Handbook]. Actual stopping distances for a maximum effort stop are approximately 60% of the dry runway field length requirement. Factors that affect stopping distance include: height and speed over the threshold, glide slope angle, landing flare, lowering the nose to the runway, use of reverse thrust, speed brakes, wheel brakes and surface conditions of the runway.

Note: Reverse thrust and speed brake drag are most effective during the high speed portion of the landing. Deploy the speed brake lever and activate reverse thrust with as little time delay as possible.

Note: Speed brakes fully deployed, in conjunction with maximum reverse thrust and maximum manual antiskid braking provides the minimum stopping distance.

Floating above the runway before touchdown must be avoided because it uses a large portion of the available runway. The airplane should be landed as near the normal touchdown point as possible. Deceleration rate on the runway is approximately three times greater than in the air.

Height of the airplane over the runway threshold also has a significant effect on total landing distance. For example, on a 3° glide path, passing over the runway threshold at 100 feet altitude rather than 50 feet could increase the total landing distance by approximately 950 feet. This is due to the length of runway used up before the airplane actually touches down.

Concerning the touchdown zone, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual stated in part:

Fly the airplane onto the runway at the recommended touchdown point. Flare only enough to achieve an acceptable reduction in the rate of descent. Do not allow the airplane to float. Floating just above the runway surface to deplete additional speed wastes available runway and increases the possibility of a tail strike. Do not risk touchdown beyond the normal touchdown zone in an effort to achieve a smooth landing.

As the airplane crosses the runway threshold it should be:

• Stabilized on approach airspeed to within +10 knots until arresting descent rate at flare • On a stabilized flightpath using normal maneuvering • Positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less). The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual describes the technique to be used to flare the airplane for landing as follows:

Initiate the flare when the main gear is approximately 20 feet above the runway by increasing pitch attitude approximately 2°-3°. This slows the rate of descent.

After the flare is initiated, smoothly retard the thrust levers to idle, and make small pitch attitude adjustments to maintain the desired descent rate to the runway.

The Aeronautical Information Manual also defines the touchdown zone as "the first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold."

The Eastern Air Lines FOM defined the touchdown zone as "the first 3,000 feet of the runway past the threshold or the first 1/3 of the usable runway length, whichever is shorter."

Postincident Changes to Training and Guidance

Following the incident, Eastern Air Lines incorporated go-around scenarios into its training in which flight crews must decide to go around rather than being instructed to do so and at least one scenario that involves manually flying an ILS approach. The operator's director of operations also stated that the company has incorporated scenarios in which go-arounds are initiated from idle power and rejected landings are performed after touchdown with the automatic speed brake inoperative. During this scenario, the instructor adds a side or tailwind gust of wind to destabilize the landing and prompt pilots' decision to go around.

The operator also added a training module emphasizing that "if touchdown is predicted to be outside of the [touchdown zone], go around." Further, the vice president of operations stated that they intend to make go-arounds mandatory if touchdown is not predicted within the touchdown zone.

The operator also intended to incorporate go-around planning into the approach briefing. Flight crews would determine the cues for the touchdown zone using the airport diagram and decide at which point they would initiate a go-around if the airplane had not touched down. 

The operator also added EMAS training to the short runway module of its pilot training program.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Sterile Cockpit Regulations

The CVR also contained conversation between the flight crew during the descent and approach below 10,000 ft that was not pertinent to the flight. Title 14 CFR 121.542, "Flight Crewmember Duties" states, in part, the following:

No flight crewmember may engage in, nor may any pilot in command permit, any activity during a critical phase of flight which could distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties. Activities such as…engaging in nonessential conversations within the cockpit and nonessential communications between the cabin and cockpit crews…are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

…critical phases of flight include all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight.

Runway Condition Reports from Other KLGA Arrivals

Flight crews from four flights that landed on runway 22 within 10 minutes of the incident flight reported braking as "good" or "fair." One crew reported noticing their airplane's antiskid brake system pulsating during the landing rollout. Others reported that there was no hydroplaning or decrease in braking performance.

Boeing 737, N278EA: Incident occurred April 06, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Philadelphia FSDO-17

Aircraft during taxi, winglet struck light pole on ramp.

Date: 07-APR-16
Time: 00:01:00Z
Regis#: N278EA
Aircraft Make: BOEING
Aircraft Model: 737
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Flight Phase: TAXI (TXI)
City: PHILADELPHIA
State: Pennsylvania





The Wall Street Journal
By MIKE VILENSKY and  ANDY PASZTOR
Oct. 28, 2016 8:39 p.m. ET


A device intended to automatically help slow aircraft upon landing wasn’t operating when a jet carrying vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence skidded off a La Guardia Airport runway Thursday night, federal investigators said.

The pilots had to manually deploy panels that pop up on top of the wings, called spoilers, delaying by some seconds their effectiveness, the National Transportation Safety Board said Friday.

Under federal rules and safety procedures, aircraft can operate temporarily without the devices’ automated feature, said Robert Sumwalt, the safety board’s vice chairman. It wasn’t clear if the spoilers issue contributed to the skidding but, Mr. Sumwalt said, “normally, they should work.”

Automatic deployment of the spoilers takes about a second while the manual process Thursday night took four seconds, Mr. Sumwalt said.

The malfunctioning device was among the NTSB’s preliminary information in the incident. He said his agency hadn’t yet determined a cause.

No one was injured when the Eastern Air Lines Boeing 737 jet slid about 200 feet past the runway. Mr. Pence’s chartered jet ran into a patch of materials intended to stop aircraft if they slide off the end of the runway. The NTSB said it is still analyzing if that safeguard worked correctly. Also, the agency has recovered recording devices from the jet.

Flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders are expected to provide specifics about the plane’s touchdown point.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the plane touched farther down the runway that is typical or considered safe, according to a person familiar with the details. Such accidents often occur when crews land too fast or planes float above runways and touch down too far from the beginning of the strip, making it harder to stop safely

La Guardia has had similar incidents. Last year, a Delta Air Lines jet skidded off a snowy runway at La Guardia; the NTSB eventually faulted the pilot. A Southwest Airlines jet crash-landed on the runway in 2013 and skidded; the NTSB said the captain had broken safety rules.


Original article can be found here:  http://www.wsj.com





Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence’s scary landing Thursday night is another example in a laundry list of problems that have taken place at LaGuardia Airport in New York City.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737, tore up two tracks of concrete on the runway before coming to rest on a patch of grass. The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement, "A crushable concrete runway safety technology called an Engineered Material Arresting System stopped the plane."

Pence’s incident isn’t the first problem to have taken place at the Queens airport. On March 5, 2015, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 skidded off Runway 13 at the airport, landing on a berm on the edge of the bay. About two dozen people were injured in that incident on the frigid day.

Two years earlier, landing gear on a Southwest Airlines plane collapsed on landing. The plane veered onto the grass in that incident, which injured 16 people.

The infamous “Miracle on the Hudson” in January 2009 happened after the U.S. Airways plane took off from LaGuardia. The jet made a water landing in the Hudson River after it had suffered dual engine loss. A flock of geese were sucked into the jet’s engines, which was determined to be the cause of the accident.

Two of the more tragic incidents in recent memory came within three years of each other.

In March 1992, USAir Flight 405 crashed into Flushing Bay just after taking off the LaGuardia. The accident killed 27 people. Icy wings and the failed process to de-ice planes was what caused the crash.

In September 1989, USAir Flight 5050 crashed while taking off, killing two passengers and injury 15 others. The plane had ran off the end of the runway and dove into Bowery Bay.

Thursday’s incident didn’t cause any injuries. There were roughly 40 passengers and crew on board. They were all evacuated through the back of the aircraft as a large amount of emergency personnel responded to the scene.

Source:   http://www.foxnews.com




A charter plane carrying Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence skidded off a runway shortly after landing at New York’s La Guardia Airport on Thursday night, authorities said.

The plane was carrying more than 40 people, including members of Mr. Pence’s staff and reporters. There were no injuries reported and everyone on board got off the aircraft safely, said a spokesman with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Mr. Pence, the governor of Indiana, could be seen shaking hands with first responders shortly after the incident.

“So thankful everyone on our plane is safe. Grateful for our first responders & the concern & prayers of so many. Back on the trail tomorrow!” he tweeted later Thursday.

The plane skidded off the runway shortly before 8 p.m. in the rain and came to rest in the grass just past the runway, authorities said.

The airport was briefly shut down after the incident but was reopened later Thursday night.

At a rally in Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he had spoken with his running mate. “The plane skidded off the runway and was pretty close to grave, grave danger. But I just spoke to Mike Pence and he’s fine,” Mr. Trump told the audience.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Glad to hear @mike_pence, his staff, Secret Service, and the crew are all safe.”

Mr. Pence had been flying from Iowa to New York for a fundraiser, which was canceled after the incident. After the plane landed, he went back to make sure other passengers were unharmed, according to reporters on board.

The National Transportation Safety Board was expected to take over the investigation of the incident, Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority, said at a news conference on Thursday night.

Mr. Foye said an earlier plane reported the runways as being in good condition.

Original article can be found here:  http://www.wsj.com





WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pilot and first officer of the plane carrying U.S. Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence that skidded off a runway in October 2016 thought the incident would end their careers, according to documents released on Thursday.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board published transcripts of the cockpit voice recorders from the incident in which the Boeing 737-700 operated by Eastern Air Lines Group ran off the runway at LaGuardia Airport in New York.

There were 37 passengers on the plane, including Pence, his wife, Karen, daughter Charlotte and 11 crew. The plane was coming from Fort Dodge, Iowa, where Pence, who was elected vice president in November's election, had participated in a campaign event.

The plane was stopped by a crushable type of concrete runway, stopping the aircraft's movement. No one was injured.

"My career just ended," one of the pilots said. The other responded: "Mine too."

One added after landing: "Unfortunately I should have gone straight ahead and we would have been fine, when I made the turn is when I screwed up." The other pilot responded: "I was fighting you because I was trying to stay on the centerline."

The pilot said in a statement that the first officer made a maneuver he was not expecting "and I instinctively applied maximum manual braking."

Eastern Air Lines did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The transcript showed a Secret Service agent entered the cockpit and praised the pilots: "Nice job... you stopped it at least."

In November, the NTSB reported the plane "floated" above the runway without touching down and landed about 3,000 feet (915 meters) beyond the runway threshold - far more than normal.

The Eastern flight crew did not report any mechanical problems and the flight crews of the four airplanes that landed immediately beforehand did not report any problems with braking on the runway.

Eastern Air Lines is based in Florida and privately held. 

Original article can be found here:   http://www.businessinsider.com


  
(Bloomberg) -- A several-second delay by pilots activating wing panels critical for stopping contributed to a charter plane carrying then-vice presidential candidate Mike Pence skidding past the end of a New York runway last October.

A factual report from the National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday stopped short of concluding the incident’s cause while revealing miscues by pilots of the Eastern Air Lines Group Inc. charter plane. The plane also flew thousands of feet beyond the optimal touchdown area at LaGuardia Airport, the NTSB said previously.

Devices known as spoilers, panels on the top of wings that drive a plane into the ground to help the brakes, weren’t activated until 4.5 seconds after touchdown, according to the NTSB. An analysis by Boeing Co., which manufactured the 737-700, found that if they had been deployed within one second of landing, only the plane’s front wheels would have left the runway, the NTSB said.

Spoilers normally activate automatically when a plane’s wheels hit the ground, but the devices on this aircraft weren’t working and had to be operated manually, NTSB said. Airlines are permitted to delay repairing such items.

Pence’s plane skidded off the runway during a rainstorm on Oct. 27. None of the nine crew members and 39 passengers was hurt after a crushable concrete pad helped stop the plane from going onto a nearby highway.

Pilot Chatter

The plane floated, touching down 4,242 feet (1,293 meters) beyond the start of the runway, more than half way on the 7,001-foot landing strip’s length, according to NTSB.

“Down, down, down, down,” the plane’s captain implored the copilot, who was at the controls, according to a transcript of a cockpit recording.

The NTSB said pilot errors exacerbated a difficult landing with a tail wind that was about 12 miles per hour, which is the maximum allowed in the 737.

The pilots apparently violated U.S. aviation regulations by chatting about issues unrelated to the flight while on approach to the airport, NTSB also said. Investigators didn’t specify what was said.

In addition to the delay in activating the spoilers, also known as speed brakes, the plane’s captain began braking and steering the plane after landing even though the copilot was supposed to be at the controls. Pilots are taught not to take over the controls without announcing that they’re doing so.

Under Eastern’s procedures, the pilots should have aborted the landing because they weren’t properly lined up for the runway, according to NTSB. http://registry.faa.gov/N278EA

NTSB Identification: DCA17IA020
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of Eastern Airlines Group, Inc.,
Incident occurred Thursday, October 27, 2016 in New York, NY
Aircraft: BOEING 737 7L9, registration: N278EA
Injuries: 48 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various sources and may have traveled in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft incident report.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On October 27, 2016, about 1942 eastern daylight time, Eastern Air Lines flight 3452, a Boeing 737-700, N923CL, overran runway 22 during the landing roll at LaGuardia Airport (KLGA), Flushing, Queens, New York. The airplane traveled through the right forward corner of the engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) at the departure end of the runway and came to rest off the right side of the EMAS. The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 7 cabin crewmembers, and 39 passengers were not injured and evacuated the airplane via airstairs. The airplane sustained minor damage. The charter flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Night instrument flight rules conditions prevailed at the airport at the time of the incident, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the flight, which originated at Fort Dodge Regional Airport (KFOD), Fort Dodge, Iowa, about 1623 central daylight time.

The first leg of the trip began on October 14, 2016, and the captain and first officer were paired from then to the incident. In postincident statements, the flight crew indicated that the captain was the pilot monitoring (PM) for the incident flight, and the first officer was the pilot flying (PF). The first officer reported that the autopilot and autothrottles were engaged beginning about 2,500 ft after their takeoff from KFOD. Both pilots stated that the en route portion of the flight and the descent into the terminal area were uneventful but they encountered moderate-to-heavy rain during the final 15 minutes of the flight.

According to information from the airplane's cockpit voice recorder (CVR), the first officer partially briefed the instrument landing system (ILS) approach for runway 13 beginning about 1848, indicating an autobrake setting of 3 and a 30º flap setting. ATIS information "Bravo" was current at that time and indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 1,500 ft broken, overcast at 2,200 ft, wind from 130º at 9 knots, and that braking action advisories were in effect. About 1852, the first officer began briefing the ILS approach for runway 22 after the captain clarified, based on the ATIS recording, that runway 13 was being used for departures. 

About 1902, as the airplane descended through 18,000 ft msl, the flight crew completed the approach briefing for runway 22, with the same autobrake and flap setting as indicated earlier, as well as the decision altitude and visibility required for the approach, the touchdown zone (the first third of the 7,001-ft-long runway), and a reference speed (Vref) of 137 knots. ATIS information "Charlie" was current at that time and indicated visibility 3 miles in rain, ceiling 900 ft broken, overcast at 1,500 ft, and wind from 120º at 9 knots.

The flight crew also discussed the captain manually deploying the speed brakes (the airplane's automatic speed brake module had been deactivated 2 days before the incident and deferred in accordance with the company's minimum equipment list (MEL), with corrective action scheduled for November 4, 2016). In reference to the manual deployment of the speed brakes, the captain stated at 1902:44.5 "you're gonna do these. I'm gonna do this" to which the first officer replied "[that] is correct."

About 1927, the flight was provided vectors to the final approach course for the ILS approach to runway 22. About 1936, the flight was cleared for the approach. The first officer then called for the landing gear to be extended and the flaps set at 15º. About 1937, the captain stated that the localizer and glideslope were captured. About 1938, as the airplane neared the final approach fix, the flight crew completed the landing checklist and configured the airplane for landing, with flaps set to 30º. 

The CVR indicates that the captain pointed out the approach lights about 1939. The first officer reported, and flight data recorder (FDR) data indicate, that about 1940:12, he disconnected the autopilot when the airplane's altitude was about 300 ft radio altitude, as required by Eastern Air Lines standard operating procedure. FDR data indicate that the first officer disconnected the autothrottles about 1940:19.

FDR data indicate that, shortly after the first officer disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles (about 300 ft radio altitude), the airplane began to increasingly deviate above the glideslope beam and crossed the threshold at a height consistent with the threshold crossing height of the VGSI, which was not coincident with the glide slope beam. CVR data indicate that between 1940:35 and 1940:46, the enhanced ground proximity warning system alerted the decreasing altitude in increments of 10, beginning at 50 ft. After the 20-ft alert, the captain stated "down" at 1940:43.3. After the 10-ft alert, the captain stated, "down down down down you're three thousand feet remaining" at 1940:46.6. There was no callout of spoilers or thrust reversers during the rollout on the CVR.

FDR data and performance calculations indicate that the airplane crossed the runway threshold at a radio altitude of 66 ft, with an increasing glideslope deviation and a descent rate of about 750 ft per minute. When the airplane had traveled about 2,500 ft beyond the runway threshold, its descent rate decreased to near zero, and it floated before touching down. The captain later reported that the descent to the touchdown zone was normal until the flare. He stated that the airplane floated initially in the flare, which prompted the captain to tell the first officer to "get it down." 

The first officer recalled hearing the captain's instruction to "put [the airplane] down" during the flare but was not certain how far down the runway the airplane touched down. FDR data indicate that, at 1940:51.8, the airplane's main landing gear touched down; maximum manual wheel brakes were applied at main gear touchdown. The touch down point was about 4,242 ft beyond the threshold of the 7,001-ft-long runway. The nose gear initially touched down about 2 seconds after the main landing gear but rebounded into the air due to aft control column input. The nose gear touched down a second and final time at 1940:56.8.

The captain reported that, as briefed, he manually deployed the speed brakes, which FDR data indicate were manually extended to full at 1940:56.3, about 4.5 seconds after the main landing gear touched down and the airplane had traveled about 1,250 ft farther down the runway from the touchdown point. At 1940:59.8, when the airplane had traveled about 1,650 ft down the runway from the touchdown point (and 5,892 ft from the threshold), maximum reverse thrust was commanded. The captain reported that he saw the end of the runway approaching and began to apply maximum braking, as well as right rudder because he thought it would be better to veer to the right rather than continue straight to the road beyond the end of the runway.

The first officer reported that the captain did not, as required in the operator's procedures, tell him that he was attempting to brake and steer the airplane during the landing rollout, and no such callout is recorded on the CVR. The first officer stated that the airplane was pulling to the right "really hard," which prompted him to apply left rudder. He reported that the left rudder input was counter to his expectation due to a 9-knot crosswind from the left, which he expected to counteract with right rudder input. He attempted to maintain alignment with the runway centerline by applying left rudder and overriding the autobrakes with pressure on the brake pedal. 

At 1941:08.3, the CVR recorded the sound of rumbling, consistent with the airplane exiting the runway. The airplane then entered the EMAS about 35 knots groundspeed and came to rest 172 ft beyond the end of the runway and to the right of the EMAS. Review of the CVR recording revealed that, after the airplane came to a stop, the first officer twice remarked that they should have conducted a go-around, and the captain agreed. The first officer later reported that he did not believe the approach or landing were abnormal at the time. The captain later stated that he should have called for a go-around when the airplane floated during the flare.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The Captain

The captain, age 58, held an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate with a rating for airplane single- and multiengine land with commercial privileges, with type ratings on the Boeing 737, DC-10, DC-8, and MD-11, Bombardier CL-65, BAE Systems HS-114, and Lockheed Martin L-188. He also held a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) first-class medical certificate dated July 20, 2016, with a limitation for glasses or corrective lenses for near and intermediate vision. He was hired by Eastern Air Lines in June 2015 as a first officer and upgraded to captain in February 2016, when he received captain leadership training. At the time of the incident, he was based in Miami, Florida.

Before joining Eastern Air Lines, the captain was a pilot at Centurion Cargo, where he was hired as a first officer on the DC-10 in 2005 and subsequently upgraded to captain on the MD-11 in 2010. According to Eastern Airlines personnel records, the captain had 20,638 hours of flight experience, 14,767 hours pilot-in-command (PIC) time, with 3,000 hours on 737s and 202 hours as PIC on 737s. He flew 75 hours, 28 hours, and 11 hours during the 90-, 30-, and 7-day periods, respectively, preceding the incident. He also reported flying 1.5 hours during the 24-hour period before the incident.

His most recent 737 proficiency check occurred March 16, 2016. A review of FAA records found no prior accident, incident, or enforcement actions.

72-Hour History

On Monday, October 24, the captain flew from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Charlotte, North Carolina; Charlotte to Greensboro, North Carolina; and Greensboro to Indianapolis, arriving at 2119 EDT. He went to bed about 0030 EDT and slept until 1100 EDT.

On Tuesday, October 25, he and the first officer flew commercially to Salt Lake City, Utah, via Minneapolis, Minnesota. After arriving about 1700 mountain daylight time (MDT), he went to dinner with his son. He watched television for about an hour and went to sleep about 2230 MDT.

On Wednesday, October 26, he slept until 0800 MDT and went to breakfast about 1000 MDT. He met his son briefly in the morning and flew from Salt Lake City to Colorado Springs, Colorado, then Colorado Springs to Omaha, Nebraska. He was off duty at 2356 CDT and went to bed about 0130 CDT on October 27.

On Thursday, October 27, he awoke about 0830 CDT. He reported having no difficulties sleeping that night and stated that, when he awoke, he felt as rested as could be expected with "normal flying" 14 days into a trip (the first leg of the captain's trip began on October 14). He took a shuttle to the airport about 1000 CDT. He flew to KFOD from which he departed for the incident flight to KLGA.

The First Officer

The first officer, age 49, held an ATP certificate with a rating for airplane single- and multiengine land with commercial privileges and with type ratings on the Boeing 737, Cessna Citation CE-500, and Embraer ERJ-170 and ERJ-190. He also had an FAA first-class medical certificate dated October 11, 2016, with a limitation for glasses for near vision. His date of hire with Eastern Air Lines was December 1, 2015. At the time of the incident, he was based in Miami, Florida.

Prior to Eastern Air Lines, he was employed by Republic Airlines as a pilot flying the ERJ-170. In 2007, he began working as a flight instructor, which he did for about 5 years. He began flight training in 2002. According to Eastern Airlines personnel and FAA records, the first officer had 6,200 hours of flight experience, 3,137 hours PIC time, and 225 hours on 737s. He flew 57 hours, 35 hours, and 11 hours during the 90-, 30-, and 7-day periods, respectively, preceding the incident. He also reported flying 1.5 hours during the 24-hour period before the incident.

The first officer's most recent 737 proficiency check occurred February 2, 2016. A review of FAA records found no prior accident, incident, or enforcement actions.

72-Hour History

On Monday, October 24, the first officer had a 31-hour rest period in Indianapolis that ended at 1530 EDT. He flew from Indianapolis to Charlotte, Charlotte to Greensboro, and Greensboro to Indianapolis. He reported sleeping well that night but did not indicate when he went to bed. 

He awoke between 0815 to 0830 EDT on Tuesday, October 25. He flew from Indianapolis to Salt Lake City arriving about 1641 MDT. He estimated he went to bed between 0130 and 0200 MDT on October 26. 

On Wednesday, October 26, he had a report time of 1540 MDT and flew from Salt Lake City to Colorado Springs then to Omaha. He went to bed around 0100 CDT on October 27. 

He estimated that he awoke between 0815 to 0830 CDT on Thursday, October 27, and ate breakfast. He could not recall the quality of his rest the night before the incident. He remained in the hotel after breakfast and went to the gym, worked out, and did laundry. He then showered and departed for the airport. He operated the flight to KFOD then departed on the incident flight to KLGA.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The Boeing 737-700 airplane, serial number 28006, was manufactured May 15, 1998, and equipped with two CFM International CFM56-7B22 engines. At the time of the incident, the airplane had accumulated 48,179 hours of operation, the No. 1 (left) engine had 34, 671 hours, and the No 2. (right) engine had 20,456 hours. 

The airplane was equipped with an auto speed brake system that, when armed, automatically deployed the spoilers after touchdown to reduce the airplane's lift and increase the effectiveness of the wheel brakes. Alternatively, the flight crew could use the speed brake lever to deploy the spoilers manually. As previously mentioned, the system's automatic mode was inoperative; maintenance records indicate that a ground spoiler did not automatically deploy during a previous landing. The status of the automatic mode was indicated by a paper sticker wrapped around the base of the speed brake handle. In addition, the amber SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM light above the captain's right display unit illuminated when the automatic mode was unavailable. The flight crew's paperwork for the flight contained the procedures for the MEL item (see Organization and Management Information for more information).

Each engine was equipped with a hydraulically operated thrust reverser, which consisted of left and right translating sleeves. Reverse thrust was produced by aft movement of the reverser sleeves, which caused blocker doors to deflect fan discharge air forward through fixed cascade vanes. According to manufacturer guidance, thrust reversers are manually deployed after touchdown to slow the airplane, reducing stopping distance and brake wear.

The autobrake system, which is part of the airplane's hydraulic brake system, monitored the airplane's deceleration after landing and metered hydraulic pressure (via the antiskid/autobrake control unit) to the brakes to achieve the level of deceleration selected by the autobrake select switch. The switch on the incident airplane was found positioned at "3." A manual brake application by either flight crewmember would override and disarm the autobrake system.

The airplane's antiskid system controlled the brakes to prevent the wheels from skidding during braking action. An antiskid transducer was located in each main landing gear axle to provide the system with rotational wheel speed. The system monitored the speed and metered hydraulic pressure to each brake to prevent skidding (see the Tests and Research section for additional information on this system).

Weight and Balance

Eastern Air Lines used the Jeppesen JetPlanner and a nomograph as the primary means of producing weight and balance and performance data for each flight. In accordance with the operator's procedures, following the calculations, flight crews loaded weight and balance information into the airplane's flight management system. Flight 3452 landed with a gross weight of about 116,560 pounds and a center of gravity (CG) of about 21.5 inches. According to operator and manufacturer guidance, the maximum landing weight as 129,000 pounds and the CG range was 10 to 28 inches.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

At 1851 EDT, (ASOS) at KLGA reported the wind from 090° true at 9 knots, visibility of 3 statute miles (sm), moderate rain, ceiling broken at 900 ft agl, overcast clouds at 1,500 ft agl, temperature of 13°C and a dew point temperature of 11°C, and altimeter setting of 30.14 inches of mercury. Remarks included: surface visibility of 4 sm, precipitation accumulation of 0.14 inch since 1751 EDT.

At 1951 EDT, KLGA ASOS reported the wind from 100° true at 10 knots with gusts to 15 knots, visibility of 3 sm, moderate rain, mist, ceiling overcast at 1,000 ft agl, temperature of 13°C and a dew point temperature of 12°C, and an altimeter setting of 30.10 inches of mercury. Remarks included: surface visibility of 4 sm, precipitation accumulation of 0.32 inch since 1851 EDT, precipitation accumulation of 0.61 inch during previous 3 hours.

COMMUNICATIONS

No problems with communications equipment were reported.

AIRPORT INFORMATION

KLGA is located about 8 miles east of Manhattan in the borough of Queens and is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The airport has an elevation of 21 ft and borders Flushing Bay and Bowery Bay. KLGA has two intersecting runways, 4/22 and 13/31, which were extended over water to their present length and width in 1966. Runway 22 was 7,001 ft long and 150 ft wide with a touchdown zone elevation of 12.4 ft mean sea level and a grooved paved surface constructed of asphalt and concrete. The runway had 7,001 ft of landing distance available. The ILS glideslope beam intersected the runway 1,022 ft from the threshold, leaving 5,979 ft of runway remaining.

Touchdown zone markers on runway 22 were positioned 500; 1,200; 2,000; and 2,500 ft from the threshold. Two rows of touchdown zone lights ran from 100 to 3,000 ft beyond the threshold about the runway centerline, and lighted signs indicating remaining runway distance were placed at 1,000-foot increments from the runway end. The runway was also equipped with edge lights, centerline lights (which were out of service at the time of the incident), runway end identifier lights, and a four-light PAPI located on the right side of the runway with an ILS glideslope of 3.0º and a threshold crossing height of 52 ft. The visual glideslope indicator angle was 3.0º with a threshold crossing height of 67 ft (as mentioned previously, the visual glideslope indicator and the ILS were not coincident).

A 272-ft-long by 170-ft-wide EMAS was set back about 30 ft from the end of runway 22; it was originally installed in 2005 and replaced in 2014. The EMAS used crushable material designed to decelerate and stop an aircraft, traveling up to 80 mph (about 69.5 knots), that overruns the runway. This technology was developed and implemented to improve safety at airports where the full 1,000-ft runway safety area beyond a runway's end could not be obtained due to a lack of available land or obstacles, such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, populated areas, or terrain with a severe dropoff.

According to an FAA fact sheet (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13754; accessed June 6, 2017), as of November 2016, there have been 11 incidents in the United States—in addition to the event involving flight 3452—in which an EMAS has safely stopped an overrunning aircraft, with a total 247 passengers and crewmembers on board.

FLIGHT RECORDERS

The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and a flight data recorder (FDR). Both recorders were removed from the airplane and retained by the NTSB for further examination and readout at the NTSB's Recorder Laboratory in Washington, DC. The recorders showed no signs of damage.

Cockpit Voice Recorder

The CVR, a Honeywell 6022, serial number 3452, was a solid-state CVR that recorded 120 minutes of digital audio. It was played back normally without difficulty and contained excellent quality audio information. The recording was transcribed in two parts focusing on the en route approach briefing and the approach, landing, and events thereafter until the end of the recording. Part one began at 18:48:06 EDT, when flight 3452 was en route at FL390, and continued until 1902:52 EDT. Part two began at 1918:01 EDT and ended at 1948:32 EDT (the end of the recording). The transcript and additional information about the recording are included in the CVR Group Chairman's Factual Report.

Flight Data Recorder

The FDR, a Honeywell 4700, serial number SSFDR-16936, recorded airplane flight information in digital format using solid-state flash memory as the recording medium. The FDR could record a minimum of 25 hours of flight data and was configured to record 256 12-bit words of digital information every second. The FDR was designed to meet the crash-survivability requirements of Technical Standard Order C-124.

Data from the FDR were extracted normally. The event flight was the last flight of the recording, and its duration was about 2 hours and 19 minutes. Details of the FDR evaluation are available in the FDR Specialist's Factual Report.

DAMAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

As a result of the airplane's travel through the EMAS, pulverized EMAS material (a gray, powdery residue) was noted on portions of the airplane's exterior during postincident examination. The lower and forward portions of the airplane—fuselage, landing gear, and antennas—were coated with a dried residue resulting from the mixture of the EMAS material and rainwater. In addition, pieces of a matting material used in the EMAS were found in various locations on the airplane.

No damage or anomalies were noted during the visual examination of the nosewheel landing gear and associated assemblies. A preliminary visual examination of the main landing gear strut, doors, assemblies, associated hydraulic lines, and antiskid components did not reveal evidence of physical damage. However, after the airplane was cleaned of EMAS debris and the main landing gears were retracted, damage was noted on the underside of each gear strut. The operator indicated that the lower wire bundle support brackets for the left and right main landing gear were both damaged, as well as the wire conduit sleeve on the left main landing gear.

Each of the four main wheel tires showed cut damage in addition to normal wear. None of the observed cuts were deep enough to reach the tire treads. No flat spots or other evidence of hydroplaning was noted on any of the tires. Examination of the four brake assemblies found no evidence of damage or hydraulic leaks. No evidence of a hydraulic power malfunction or damage to any of the visible hydraulic lines was noted. 

Both engines showed evidence of EMAS material and matting on the engine inlet and internal components. The No. 1 engine sustained fan blade damage, including four blades bent in the direction opposite of rotation, at the tip corner. No visible blade damage was noted on the No. 2 engine. Visual examination of the thrust reversers found no preincident anomalies. The operator later reported that, after cleaning and deploying the thrust reversers, damage was found on the inboard thrust reverser sleeves and blocker doors for both engines.

Examination of the speed brake control components on the incident airplane noted the speed brake handle positioned full forward. All spoiler panels, including the ground spoilers, were found in the down or retracted position. No damage was noted to any of the ground spoilers.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Eastern Air Lines conducted drug and alcohol testing for both pilots about 6 hours after the incident. Test results were negative for alcohol and major drugs of abuse.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

An analysis of the FDR data performed by Boeing and reviewed by the NTSB showed that the airplane was in a turbulent atmosphere with an increasing tailwind as it approached runway 22. At touchdown, the tailwind was about 10 knots (which is the maximum specified in the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual), and the airplane's airspeed was 123 knots, its groundspeed was 130 knots, and its sink rate was 3.3 ft per second. Boeing's analysis indicated that (the eventual) full deflection of the speed brakes, maximum wheel brakes, and maximum reverse thrust provided effective deceleration. From the time the nose gear touched down to the time the airplane entered the EMAS, the airplane's braking coefficient varied between 0.2 and 0.4. The increasing left control wheel input, which reached 50º by 1941:09, reduced the spoiler deflections on the right wing, in accordance with the airplane's design.

Boeing conducted a simulation of the airplane's stopping performance at the request of the NTSB. The simulation revealed that, had the speed brakes been manually deployed within 1 second of touchdown (the criteria for automatic deployment), followed by thrust reverser deployment 7 seconds later, the airplane's CG would have remained on the runway surface and only the nose of the airplane would have exited the runway surface. If, in addition to the prompt deployment of the speed brakes, the thrust reversers had been deployed about 2 seconds (instead of 7 seconds) after manual speed brake deployment, the entire airplane would have remained on the runway surface. NTSB review of FDR data for previous landings of the incident airplane determined an average of 0.5 second for manual deployment of the speed brake. 

The autobrake and antiskid systems were tested and no faults were found. In addition, no pre-existing faults were recorded.

ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Company Overview and Management Organization

Eastern Air Lines, Inc., received certification to operate as a Part 121 supplemental carrier on May 15, 2015. Subsequently, Eastern Air Lines began scheduled charter services to Havana and four other cities in Cuba. Before the incident, the airline also launched charter service to other Latin American and Caribbean destinations. The airline's sole base of operations was at Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida, at the time of the incident. It employed 64 pilots and had a fleet of five Boeing 737 airplanes, including the incident airplane; the other four airplanes were Boeing 737-800 series.

The airline's vice president of flight operations was responsible for the flying operations of the airline, flight crew training, the operations control center (OCC), and ground operations. The chief pilot, manager of flight operations training, director of inflight, OCC director, manager of flight standards, and manager of charter operations all reported to the vice president of flight operations.

At the time of the incident, Eastern Air Lines' director of safety and security reported directly to the chief executive officer and was the only staffed position in the safety department. The director of safety and security had been hired about 2 weeks before the incident and was in the process of being trained by his predecessor, who had held the position from 2013 until September 2016. While he was being trained, the vice president of regulatory compliance served as the acting director of safety and security. 

According to the vice president of flight operations and the manager of flight operations training, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual and the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual were used as the airline's systems training material and procedures manual, respectively.

Safety Management

The FAA approved Eastern Air Lines' safety management system (SMS) implementation plan in February 2016. The first segment of implementation included administering the SMS implementation plan and developing a tool (Aviation Resource Management Solutions) that was designed to help the company with safety risk assessment, assurance, and risk management. The former director of safety and security stated that, at the time of the incident, the first segment of the implementation was not fully realized and they were working toward an October 30, 2016, full implementation date.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) and EMAS Training 

The manager of flight operations training at the time of the incident was also a check airman. He had been manager of training for about 1.5 years and had been with the company for 2 years.

The airline provided three courses on CRM: new hire, captain's upgrade, and recurrent. The new hire CRM course consisted of a 2-hour segment covering CRM background, communications processes and decision behavior, team building and leadership, workload management and situational awareness, individual factors and stress reduction, and error management. The upgrade training included 1 day of ground school in which 1 hour was dedicated to CRM. Upgrade training also incorporated a captain's leadership course that included content on the captain's authority, briefings, workload management, and sterile cockpit procedures in accordance with 14 CFR 121.542, "Flight Crewmember Duties." The recurrent training included a 3.5-day ground school for captains and first officers in which 1 hour was devoted to CRM training. All courses were taught using presentation slides, open discussion, and videos created by contracted training organizations.

The captain reported after the incident that he believed he and the first officer were working well as a crew during the trip. He stated that he did not call for a transfer of controls during the landing rollout and that, in hindsight, he should have. He further mentioned that he thought it was "OK" for both crewmembers to be applying brakes. The first officer reported a "lack of communication" during the landing rollout because the captain did not say that he was taking control of the airplane. Another Eastern Air Lines first officer who had flown with the captain before the incident described the captain's CRM as "good."

At the time of the incident, EMAS training was not part of Eastern Air Lines' pilot training program. The captain stated during postincident interviews that he had forgotten that an EMAS was installed at the end of runway 22, that he had read about the systems, but had not had any training on them.

FAA Oversight

The former FAA principal operations inspector (POI) stated that he had been assigned to Eastern Air Lines before the company received its operating certificate. He stated that his duties included, most critically, surveillance and reviewing the airline's manuals, including any changes to the manuals. He traveled to the airline's headquarters about once or twice a week. He also stated that he interacted most with the operations management, director of safety and security, and the CEO. 

The former director of safety and security stated that during his time at Eastern Air Lines, he "seldom" interacted with the FAA POI or other FAA personnel. Other management personnel stated they interacted with the FAA daily or multiple times per week, via telephone, e-mail, or in person at the FAA's office or at Eastern Air Lines' office. The manager of flight operations training stated that he did not directly interact with the POI and usually went through the vice president of flight operations or the chief pilot. The vice president of flight operations stated that they had been assigned a new POI 5 months before the incident and that the interaction with the new POI was "really great."

The FAA POI at the time of the incident reported that he mostly communicated with Eastern Air Lines' director of flight operations and chief pilot but had also communicated with the director of flight training. He categorized the communication as "very good." He added that Eastern Air Lines was the only certificate he managed and that FAA resources were limited such that they only had one person in the office who was able to conduct checkrides in the Boeing 737. He estimated that he was at Eastern Air Lines' operations a "couple of times a week;" however, he had not taken part in Eastern Air Lines' pilot training. He also stated that the training in the manual for a go-around was similar to the syllabus used by other airlines, and he "assumed" that they did some go-around training in the flare and some training in low visibility. The POI stated that, following the incident, he and Eastern Air Lines management had discussed training go-arounds once the airplane was on the ground and that further discussion was needed.

Operational Procedures and Guidance

Missed Approach/Go-Around, Rejected Landing Guidance

Stabilized Approach Procedures. Stabilized approach criteria for precision approaches in IMC are defined in chapter 9, "Flight Policies—Phase of Flight" of the Eastern Air Lines Flight Operations Manual (FOM) and are described as follows: 

WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LAND FROM AN UNSTABILIZED APPROACH. THE DECISION TO GO AROUND IS NOT AN INDICATION OF POOR JUDGMENT, BUT RATHER GOOD JUDGMENT.

Precision Approaches in IMC

The aircraft should be stabilized no lower than 1000' above touch down zone elevation (TDZE).

Flight Parameters

To be stabilized, all of the following conditions must be achieved prior to, or upon, reaching this stabilization height:

The aircraft is on the correct lateral flight plan.

• The aircraft is in the desired landing configuration. • The thrust is stabilized above idle, to maintain the target speed on the desired glidepath. • No excessive flight parameter deviation. If the aircraft is not stabilized on the approach path in landing configuration, at 1000 feet (above TDZE) in instrument conditions, or at 500 feet (above TDZE) in visual conditions, a go-around must be initiated.

If an aircraft is not stabilized as described in Stabilized Approach or Flight Parameters, a go around should be initiated.

Missed Approach Procedures. In postincident interviews, Eastern Air Lines management stated that go-arounds were trained as missed approaches and that training for rejected landings included scenarios such as an aircraft or vehicle still being on the runway. At the time of the incident, pilots were trained to initiate rejected landings around 50 ft agl and were prompted by a simulated ATC instruction. At the time of the incident, Eastern Air Lines did not teach go-arounds being initiated after the airplane contacted the runway.

The Eastern Air Lines FOM, Section 9.11 "Landing or Go-Around" stated in part:

Execute a missed approach when:

• Arrival at the MAP or DH and visual reference to the runway environment is insufficient to complete the landing • A safe landing is not possible. • Instructed by ATC During interviews with other Eastern Air Lines pilots, a few stated that they had conducted go-arounds while line flying. One stated that it was due to low visibility and another pilot stated that he had performed the maneuver after being instructed by ATC to go around due to insufficient distance from a preceding aircraft.

Rejected Landing Procedures. The FOM 9.11.5 provided the following table for conducting a rejected landing:



Speed Brakes

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6, "Landing" provided the following information on the use of speed brakes:

Unless speed brakes are raised after touchdown, braking effectiveness may be reduced initially as much as 60%, since very little weight is on the wheels and brake application may cause rapid antiskid modulation.

Normally, speed brakes are armed to extend automatically. Both pilots should monitor speed brake extension after touchdown. In the event auto extension fails, the speed brakes should be manually extended immediately.

Minimum Equipment List Operations Procedure

The operations procedure on the MEL for the inoperative automatic speed brake module stated the following:

Prior to takeoff, make sure that the speed brake lever is in the full down detent. 

Base landing performance on manual speed brakes.

Extend speed brakes manually for rejected takeoff or landing. …

For landing, use the SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM non-normal checklist.

The SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM non-normal checklist in the Eastern Air Lines QRH states, in part, the following:

Do not [emphasis in original] arm the speed brakes for landing. Manually deploy the speed brakes immediately upon landing. Increased force may be needed to move the SPEED BRAKE lever to the UP position.

Autobrake Setting

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6 "Landing" provided the following information on the autobrake system:

Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways, or landing in a crosswind.

For normal operation of the autobrake system select a deceleration setting. Settings include:

• MAX: Used when minimum stopping distance is required. Deceleration rate is less than that produced by full manual braking • 3: Should be used for wet or slippery runways or when landing rollout distance is limited. If adequate rollout distance is available, autobrake setting 2 may be appropriate • 1 or 2: These settings provide a moderate deceleration suitable for all routine operations. Experience with various runway conditions and the related airplane handling characteristics provide initial guidance for the level of deceleration to be selected.

Immediate initiation of reverse thrust at main gear touchdown and full reverse thrust allow the autobrake system to reduce brake pressure to the minimum level. Since the autobrake system senses deceleration and modulates brake pressure accordingly, the proper application of reverse thrust results in reduced braking for a large portion of the landing roll.

The importance of establishing the desired reverse thrust level as soon as possible after touchdown cannot be overemphasized. This minimizes brake temperatures and tire and brake wear and reduces stopping distance on very slippery runways.

The use of minimum reverse thrust as compared to maximum reverse thrust can double the brake energy requirements and result in brake temperatures much higher than normal.

After touchdown, crewmembers should be alert for autobrake disengagement annunciations. The PM should notify the PF anytime the autobrakes disengage.

If stopping distance is not assured with autobrakes engaged, the PF should immediately apply manual braking sufficient to assure deceleration to a safe taxi speed within the remaining runway.

The incident flight crew set the autobrakes at 3 for the landing because of the reported weather conditions; they stated in postincident interviews that Eastern Air Lines preferred the autobrake selection be set at 2. However, other personnel interviewed at Eastern Air Lines indicated that there was no guidance provided by the operator on the preferred autobrake setting and that pilots would reference the performance chart when selecting the autobrake setting. A review of Eastern Air Lines manuals and performance charts found no specific recommended setting and no performance numbers for the four available autobrake settings. 

Transfer of Aircraft Control

Section 8.11.6 of the FOM stated "The captain shall ensure that one flight crewmember is at all times charged with the primary task of flying the aircraft. Change of control of the aircraft is always accomplished verbally… The flight crewmember transferring controls should say...'you have the controls.' …The flight crewmember accepting the controls … says, 'I have the controls' and takes over."

Landing Performance and Factors Affecting Landing Distance

The Boeing 737 Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual, Performance Inflight, Chapter PI, Section 32, "Advisory Information" contained a "Normal Configuration Landing Distance, Flaps 30" table that provided the following guidance concerning manual speed brakes:

For autobrake and manual speed brakes, increase reference landing distance by 45 meters [148 feet].

The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6 "Landing" provided the following guidance regarding factors that affect landing distance:

Advisory information for normal and non-normal configuration landing distances is contained in the [Performance Inflight] chapter of the [Quick Reference Handbook]. Actual stopping distances for a maximum effort stop are approximately 60% of the dry runway field length requirement. Factors that affect stopping distance include: height and speed over the threshold, glide slope angle, landing flare, lowering the nose to the runway, use of reverse thrust, speed brakes, wheel brakes and surface conditions of the runway.

Note: Reverse thrust and speed brake drag are most effective during the high speed portion of the landing. Deploy the speed brake lever and activate reverse thrust with as little time delay as possible.

Note: Speed brakes fully deployed, in conjunction with maximum reverse thrust and maximum manual antiskid braking provides the minimum stopping distance.

Floating above the runway before touchdown must be avoided because it uses a large portion of the available runway. The airplane should be landed as near the normal touchdown point as possible. Deceleration rate on the runway is approximately three times greater than in the air.

Height of the airplane over the runway threshold also has a significant effect on total landing distance. For example, on a 3° glide path, passing over the runway threshold at 100 feet altitude rather than 50 feet could increase the total landing distance by approximately 950 feet. This is due to the length of runway used up before the airplane actually touches down.

Concerning the touchdown zone, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual stated in part:

Fly the airplane onto the runway at the recommended touchdown point. Flare only enough to achieve an acceptable reduction in the rate of descent. Do not allow the airplane to float. Floating just above the runway surface to deplete additional speed wastes available runway and increases the possibility of a tail strike. Do not risk touchdown beyond the normal touchdown zone in an effort to achieve a smooth landing.

As the airplane crosses the runway threshold it should be:

• Stabilized on approach airspeed to within +10 knots until arresting descent rate at flare • On a stabilized flightpath using normal maneuvering • Positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less). The Aeronautical Information Manual also defines the touchdown zone as "the first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold."

Postincident Changes to Training and Guidance

Following the incident, Eastern Air Lines incorporated go-around scenarios into its training in which flight crews must decide to go around rather than being instructed to do so and at least one scenario that involves manually flying an ILS approach. The operator's director of operations also stated that the company has incorporated scenarios in which go-arounds are initiated from idle power and rejected landings are performed after touchdown with the automatic speed brake inoperative. During this scenario, the instructor adds a side or tailwind gust of wind to destabilize the landing and prompt pilots' decision to go around.

The operator also added a training module emphasizing that "if touchdown is predicted to be outside of the [touchdown zone], go around." Further, the vice president of operations stated that they intend to make go-arounds mandatory if touchdown is not predicted within the touchdown zone.

The operator also intended to incorporate go-around planning into the approach briefing. Flight crews would determine the cues for the touchdown zone using the airport diagram and decide at which point they would initiate a go-around if the airplane had not touched down. 

The operator also added EMAS training to the short runway module of its pilot training program.

OTHER INFORMATION

Sterile Cockpit Regulations

The CVR also contained conversation between the flight crew during the descent and approach below 10,000 ft that was not pertinent to the flight. Title 14 CFR 121.542, "Flight Crewmember Duties" states, in part, the following:

No flight crewmember may engage in, nor may any pilot in command permit, any activity during a critical phase of flight which could distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties. Activities such as…engaging in nonessential conversations within the cockpit and nonessential communications between the cabin and cockpit crews…are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

…critical phases of flight include all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight.

Runway Condition Reports from Other KLGA Arrivals


Flight crews from four flights that landed on runway 22 within 10 minutes of the incident flight reported braking as "good" or "fair." One crew reported noticing their airplane's antiskid brake system pulsating during the landing rollout. Others reported that there was no hydroplaning or decrease in braking performance.
< br /> Boeing 737, N278EA: Incident occurred April 06, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Philadelphia FSDO-17

Aircraft during taxi, winglet struck light pole on ramp.

Date: 07-APR-16
Time: 00:01:00Z
Regis#: N278EA
Aircraft Make: BOEING
Aircraft Model: 737
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Flight Phase: TAXI (TXI)
City: PHILADELPHIA
State: Pennsylvania