Flight down in Jacksonville river

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Overran the runway, all pax safe, coming in from Guantanamo

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jim Young
Link removed as it leads to massive advertising with apparently no way to stop it.

[stans 702]

Glad that everyone survived and no serious injuries.

[planenut 19]

Just read that 4 pets in the cargo hold are presumed dead.  Rescurers looked in the hold which was full of water so not much hope.  Sad thing.

Jim

[HighBypass 2,339]

Aww.. sad indeed. The owners will be distraught too.   Unfortunately you can't put cargo in the overhead bins. I wonder if this will create an upsurge in requests to have pets travelling in the cabin?

Similarly, on a freighter, only a portable oxygen bottle and mask are provided should the crew need to visit the main hold to carry out checks. In case of de-pressurisation; it's game over for any livestock or pets..

[spilok 1,132]

Anyone know what runway was used at Jacksonville for this landing?  I've tried to replicate the flight there from Cuba and I was wondering which runway was used.  All GPS runways, and no ILS.

Stan

[n4gix 4,947]

5 hours ago, spilok said:

Anyone know what runway was used at Jacksonville for this landing?  I've tried to replicate the flight there from Cuba and I was wondering which runway was used.  All GPS runways, and no ILS.

Stan

Stan that would be Rwy 9*, as it is the only one that ends directly into the water and is the longest at 9,300'.

*NB: it is now Rwy 10 on the latest airport diagram

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KNIP

https://www.airports-worldwide.com/usa/florida/jacksonville_naval_air_station_towers_field_florida.htm

[spilok 1,132]

Thank you. Appreciate your comprehensive answer

stan

[W2DR 1,859]

I read in one of the newspapers that the crash was caused by "the failure of a landing feature". The problem was that the thrust reversers wouldn't activate. I just had to chuckle at the term "landing feature"..........Doug

[Bobsk8 12,492]

On the news this morning they said there was a last minute runway change to the shorter runway, which also included a tail wind component which may have contributed to the crash. 

[HighBypass 2,339]

That certainly would not have helped matters - 2300 little reasons why - almost half a mile less.

[Bobsk8 12,492]

2 hours ago, HighBypass said:

That certainly would not have helped matters - 2300 little reasons why - almost half a mile less.

 

Doesn't appear to be any instrument approach procedure for that runway either. 

[Wink207 78]

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

On the news this morning they said there was a last minute runway change to the shorter runway, which also included a tail wind component which may have contributed to the crash. 

From the information leaking out, it was definitely RW 10 that was attempted. 15 kt tail wind. Looks like they landed "high and hot", touched down way past the LZ, bounced a few times, and couldn't stop within the runway left. I have read that one reverse thruster was unavailable and they attempted to land flaps 30 on a wet runway. And as was posted earlier, no ILS. don't know what the WX was at the time except for the tail wind. It is looking like just a terrible bit of flying. It will be tough to blame this one on Boeing.

Thank God no passengers dead or badly hurt, just 4 dogs. We have dogs, love dogs, but would never trust them to any airline, much less this pseudo airline. Heart breaking.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Wink207

[HighBypass 2,339]

So... should they have told the tower no way they were taking the shorter runway? Go missed etc.

[Wink207 78]

3 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

So... should they have told the tower no way they were taking the shorter runway? Go missed etc.

Dunno. But there is no way the shorter runway would have been legal for this aircraft.

[Wink207 78]