Shuttle America premlim NTSB report for CLE
 

Pilot Lost Sight Of Runway Briefly Just Before Touchdown

On Sunday, the National Transportation Safety Board issued its Preliminary Report on a February 18 runway overrun incident at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The unedited text of that report follows below.

NTSB Identification: CHI07MA072

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of Shuttle America (D.B.A. Delta Connection)

Accident occurred Sunday, February 18, 2007 in Cleveland, OH

Aircraft: Embraer ERJ-170, registration: N862RW

Injuries: 74 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On February 18, 2007, at 1506 eastern daylight time, an Embraer ERJ-170, N862RW, operated by Shuttle America, as Delta Connection flight 6448, was substantially damaged when it overrun the end of runway 28 (6,017 feet by 150 feet, snow covered) while landing at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE), Cleveland, Ohio. The airplane contacted the localizer antenna and a fence prior to coming to rest approximately 150 feet off the end of the runway. The captain, first officer, 2 flight attendants, and 70 passengers were not injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and the flight was operating on an instrument flight plan. The scheduled passenger flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. The flight originated from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia, at 1331.

The first officer was flying the airplane at the time of the accident. The captain reported they were cleared for the ILS runway 24R approach. He stated that approximately 10 minutes prior to landing, air traffic control changed the landing runway to runway 28. The captain stated they were informed that the runway visual range (RVR) was 6,000 feet and that the braking action was fair. He reported that after passing the final approach fix, they were informed that the RVR had decreased to 2,000 feet. The captain stated he had the approach lights in sight and at 50 feet above the ground, he had the runway in sight. He stated the first officer then turned off the autopilot to land. The captain stated that at 30 feet above the ground he momentarily lost sight of the runway. He stated he then regained sight of the runway and the airplane was landed. He stated they encountered strong gusty winds during the landing flare and after touchdown they could barely see the runway lights and taxiway turn-offs. The captain reported that despite the use of full reverse and braking, the airplane did not seem to slow down. The airplane traveled off the runway and into the snow covered grass where the nose gear collapsed and the airplane came to rest. The crew and passengers deplaned using a ladder with assistance from the fire department.

The glideslope for the ILS runway 28 approach was unusable at the time of the accident due to the snow. The crew stated they were made aware of this by air traffic control when they were cleared for the approach to runway 28.

The weather reported at CLE at 1456 was: wind 300 degrees at 16 knots, 1/4 mile visibility, heavy snow, broken clouds at 600 feet, broken clouds at 1,500 feet, overcast clouds at 4,100 feet, temperature -7 degrees Celsius, dewpoint - 11 degrees Celsius, altimeter 30.01 inches of mercury.

The weather reported at CLE at 1517 was: wind 330 degrees at 13 knots gusting to 19 knots, 1/4 mile visibility, heavy snow, broken clouds at 300 feet, broken clouds at 1,000 feet, overcast clouds at 1,500 feet, temperature -8 degrees Celsius, dewpoint - 11 degrees Celsius, altimeter 30.03 inches of mercury.

What confuses me is the capt said he had the rwy 50ft above ground? Was it the cat II or III app?

I don't think that there is a cat II or III localizer only approach.....but there should be.

Oh, I see I forgot they really took 28. I had 24R in my mind.

Hate to monday night quarterback, but......
Its a no brainer at 100' its either rwy in sight or missed approach.
The min RVR for this approach is 2400!!!!!!!! Which means they were legal to continue the approach because the report (2000rvr) was given inside the marker. That does not mean they were legal to land. Looks like their "senior" workforce is starting to show over there.

uhm not sure if you ment to say what you are saying. 100 feet would mean they were doing a cat II approach which is unavailable for that runway. now if you are refering to continueing past the mda (you can do this only if you have the runway environment in sight) then yes they could descend another 100 feet. If you have the vis before you get to the faf then you can shoot the approach. if the vis drops after you pass the faf you can continue the approach, if the vis continues to drop but you have the runway environment (approach lights, reils, threshold, etc, etc,) you can land. rvr, ceilings, vis, mean nothing once you pass the faf. from there on out you are going to go have a look no matter what happens to the vis. and even if you got down there and the rvr was reporting 600, but you could see the runway environment you can land. and your last sentence was uncalled for.

I hope this guy sent in his nasa form. He essentially admitted that conducted a home-made CAT IIIa approach... without an operative GS :eek: :eek: :eek:

That's not quite correct. If you have the runway environment, but do not have the required flight visibility (sounds like 2400RVR in this case), you may NOT land.

Correct, but the trick with that is that the pilot determines the flight visibility. So if you say you had it then you had it. I am however very surprised that he admitted that he picked up the runway at 50 ft. He was using the MALSR, so he needed the runway by 100 ft. or it's a missed apch. Now if he had the runway, continued and then lost it, that is ok as long as he went missed apch.

Ok thanks for the unecessary IFR lesson that which we are all aware of. Don't play Monday morning quarterback either. We'd all like to think we'd go missed at the appropriate time but you just can't say now can you?

I see a little more explaining to do in the CA's near future. If he lost the RWY then it's an automatic missed approach.

As for the FLT Vis, if the PIC says he had it then he did. This can't be disproved, unless the FAA was in the jump, even then there's no proof.

Some may say, "why did he admit to anything?" The bottom line is that honesty usually leads to some retraining and not termination.

Honesty is respectable!

I'm confused. From what I understand, there was not glideslope so he was shooting a non pres app. I'm not sure what the MAP was (mabye someone can let me know) but what was he doing between it (and the MDA) and 50' when he saw the runway? Descending? I wasn't there so I'm not going to pass any kind of judgement. I'm just trying to understand what happened.

He said he had the approach lights, So he was free to descend form MDA to 100' above TDZE. I can see his statement "got the runway at 50 feet" may cause a little trouble with the feds.

yeah but don't you need the "red terminating bars" to descend to 100'ft? I havent looked at my ATP oral exam guid in a while though so I could be wrong:eek:

You are right

You do need the runway environment(terminating bars and all those other things we has to commit to memory) to go below 100' tdze. I was trying to point out that you can get below MDA without seeing the runway environment.

The pilot probably has some answering to do for his comment on getting the runway at 50'. I can't see anyway you sould be that low except for a CAT III ILS.

You neet see the red terminating bars to descend below 100' not to 100'. to descend to 100' all you need to see is the app lights. Thanks for clearing that up for me though, I'm going to assume that he saw the red terminating or side row lights. That would enable him to descend further which might explain why he told the FEDs that he saw the runway at 50'. Once again I wasn't there so...
I do, however, feel real bad for the guys. No matter what we say, this could happen to us. They are our brothers. We, as pilots have such unique jobs (just like firefighters or policemen) that we must stick together and support one another. The public will never understand what we do. I wish those guys the best of luck.

That runway has the MALSR, this shows that; http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00084I28.PDF. The MALSR does not have those red lights. So you need one of the other things in the runway environment at 100 ft. He also said he had it in sight at 50 ft. then lost it which is a missed approach anyway.

I agree I hate those who, especially with the COMAIR crash, play monday morning quarterback, for sure could happen to any of us.

So, he was cleared for the ILS 24R approach and then was cleared to runway 28? At that point, they were informed the glideslope was not working, so how could they be cleared for the ILS 28? It also sounds as if the FO took the autopilot off at 50 feet when the CA saw the runway. Don't most airlines make you turn the autopilot at 200 feet? I know the two I have worked for did. Something seems to missing in this testimony, or is it just me???

Next time you guys do an approach to minimums, count how many seconds it takes to go from mins. to the runway. Now tell me that in the split second you watched the runway disappear and then come back you'd do a go-around....

Tomorrow is Monday though....

you are still incorrect. RVR is not the same as flight visibility. rvr is a ground based instrument. like the post below me said pilots determine the flight visibility. If once you descend to the mda, you have the runway environment insight you can land no matter what the reported visibility is. you really need to study your 121 regs. Sorry if this is old news to some of you guys, just trying to help fokker28 out.

Subpart U--Dispatching and Flight Release Rules
Sec. 121.651

c) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating below-minimum conditions, the pilot may continue the approach to DH or MDA. Upon reaching DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DH or MDA if either the requirements of Sec. 91.175(l) of this chapter, or the following requirements are met:]
(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and where that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used;
(3) Except for Category II or Category III approaches where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by authorization of the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
(ii) The threshold.
(iii) The threshold markings.
(iv) The threshold lights.
(v) The runway end identifier lights.
(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
(viii) The touchdown zone lights.
(ix) The runway or runway markings.
(x) The runway lights; and

Who determines flight visibility?? the crew of course. The guys in the tower cant determine flight visibility, the automated weather cant say what you as the pilot can see. Now is there a way to say how far you as the pilot can see?? of course not, but after shooting an approach, arriving at the minimums, and having the runway in sight, you are perfectly legal to land. I hope this helps you understand Fokker.

now as to whether they SHOULD have landed or not is a different story. I think the biggest mistake here is him saying he lost the runway. once the environment was lost he no longer satisfied the requirements of this section.

Not familiar with the mins in CLE. But, what are they for LOC ONLY for that runway? THAT'S the stickler. It seems like this thread is going the way of ILS interpretation. THIS WAS A LOC ONLY APPROACH!

Sec. 121.651 is for precision and non precision approaches. it doesn't matter if it was loc or ils.

I read and reread this report. I'm not sure by the wording if they got the runway in sight for the first time at 50' AGL, or if they were just stating that at 50' they had the runway and then at 30' or so, they lost it?

The thing that troubles me is that the F/O shouldn't have been flying the approach with that reported weather.

What makes you say that?

Well the captain would probably want to take the controls if he knows it's going to be a difficult situation. He will be responsible if anything happens so he does not want to take a chance on the FO screwing up; not that the captain could not screw up, but there is less of a chance of that happening with him.

Depends on the company and the equipment. One concept that some companies use when the weather conditions are poor is the 'monitored approach'...where the FO flys the approach coupled and the CA monitors the approach while looking for the runway. Monitored approaches are often associated with CAT II and III approaches.

Shuttle doesn't do CAT II approaches...nor do they use the monitored approach concept. Neither of those says anything about the manner in which this particular approach was flown. It remains to be seen what exactly happened, and we should all hold our thoughts until then.

I have done several approaches to minimums, and on snow covered runways. Happens alot when you fly out of dtw into all the areas of the northeast. I am not sure what happens at SA but at pinnacle you have to have a certain amount of time in the plane before you can land in certain circumstances, such as low vis, contaminated runway, high crosswind, etc... but once you have the expierence, and the captain has flown a couple legs with you, if they feel you can handle it then they should give you a shot. I wouldn't want the first time i landed on a snow covered runway to be my 1st flight out of upgrade oe. He had probably flown a couple legs with the guy and felt he was competent to do the job.

the report never stated when he first saw the runway. i expect that in another report. there would have already been a go round at 50 ft due to the MDA with GS out of service...

being a republic guy there is a lot more to this than you see

Maybe the FO is a better pilot. The Captain does not always fly when it is going to be a "difficult situation".

The big problem here is that at that company, in that airplane, on that runway, it is a Captains ONLY approach. That is what will really burn him.

are you serious??? thats really strange. i have only seen that once here at pinnacle and it was in the northeast (honestly cant remember the airport) but it was captains only, at night, because the runway was displaced 4000 feet for construction.

I don't care if the approach was legal because 2000 RVR was called inside the marker. The fact of the matter is that 2000 RVR is barely doable with an ILS approach. With the GS out it's very unwise to continue the LOC approach. The short snow covered runway didn't help either.

Not that this comment has any bearing on this accident...but an RVR of 2000 is above most CAT I minimums, let alone CAT II or III. It is very 'doable'.

2000rvr is quite a bit of visibility. i am not saying its clear and a million, but 2000 is good enough for everyone to get in.

That is what I was told by a friend of mine who fly's the 170. I thought that it was a little odd myself, because the runway is really not that short. I will have to get some more info from him. It could be because the runway was also contaminated.

Apparently not everyone or we wouldn't be having this discussion...

2000 RVR is just over 1/2 mile, factor in blowing snow, snow covered approach and touchdown zone, centerline, and runway edge lights and you make it very difficult to judge where the. BTW, min RVR for LOC only on 28 is 4000 RVR for their Cat.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00084I28.PDF