Does anybody find it odd that the aircraft left the runway at 3000 feet down from the approach end? Assuming they touched down in a normal 1000-1500 feet down the runway, seems strange to me that it only took 1000-1500ft to go off. Was there a strong crosswind? Aircraft not on centerline? No crosswind controls on landing?

The pilots reported there wasn't any braking sensation. If the brakes malfunctioned and provided no braking force, this doesn't seem to be what caused the jet to deviate off the runway.

The co-pilot said he/she manually deployed the speed brakes. This can occur on icy runways when the tires don't spin up and they slide. Was the Copilot the landing pilot and in reaching for the speed brake lever (on the left) cause the jet to deviate left? I've seen co-pilots do this before in other jets.

Any thoughts?

 

There have already been many 'thoughts' posted, but you'll have to go back to the beginning and start reading to get them. Yes, there was a crosswind.

 

Looks like high EPR for a contaminated runway. I thought MD issued an advisory that 1.3 should be the max due to rudder blank and asymmetrical thrust possibility?

Found the reference. Looks like it was back in 1996 that MD issued the 1.3 notice after LIT accident?

https://books.google.com/books?id=CS...thrust&f=false

From the NTSB update (bold emphasis by me):

o The airplane was aligned with the runway centerline during the approach to the runway.
o The autopilot was engaged until the airplane was about 230 feet above the ground.
o The airspeed during the final approach was about 140 knots.
o The main landing gear touched down close to the runway centerline, at a speed of about 133 knots.
o Two seconds after main gear touchdown both thrust reversers were deployed and engines began advancing in power.
o The spoilers were fully deployed within 2.5 seconds after main gear touchdown.
o The nose gear touched down and brake pressure began to rise in a manner consistent with autobrake application 2.8 seconds after the main gear touchdown.
o About six seconds after main gear touchdown, the airplane’s heading began to diverge to the left. At this point, both the left and right engine EPR were about 1.9 with the reversers still deployed.
o The engines reached peak recorded reverse thrust of 2.07 EPR on the left, and 1.91 EPR on the right, between six and seven seconds after touchdown. Engine thrust decreased after this point.
o The thrust reversers were stowed nine seconds after main gear touchdown when the engines were both at about 1.6 EPR.
o The airplane departed the left side of the runway approximately 14 seconds after main gear touchdown.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...20150402b.aspx

 

Bilsch,

read your link again....well, here's a shortcut from the NTSB update

"The Operations group has found that four airplanes landed on runway 13 between the conclusion of snow-clearing operations at about 10:40 local time and the accident flight. It also determined that the airplane that landed three minutes before the accident flight was another Delta MD-88 airplane. The group has interviewed or obtained statements from all four flight crews. The group reviewed the Delta MD-88 pilot operational materials and found guidance to limit reverse engine pressure ratios (EPR) to 1.3 on contaminated runways."

 

1.6 blanks the rudder at 90-100 kts on a dry runway... Yikes! Sounds like 1.6 is a bad idea landing in heavy X winds too. I think normal procedures need to go back to 1.3 EPR standard for all landings. 1.6 to save the brakes is not worth the safety hazard of blanking the rudder.

 

Accident: Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing