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

 

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?