Second NTSB update on Southwest 737 accident at LaGuardia

Earlier this week, the NTSB released a second update on the 22 July 2013 Southwest Airlines flight 345 landing accident at New York's LaGuardia Airport. The accident, which is being handled by the NTSB's Major Investigations Team, resulted in substantial damage to the aircraft.

---

---

Initial press release
The initial NTSB press release on 23 July 2013 stated that the jet's nose landing gear collapsed rearward and upward into the fuselage, damaging the electronics bay. The aircraft was also damaged from sliding over 2,000 feet (610 meters) before coming to rest off to the right side of the runway.

First investigative update
Key findings from the first NTSB investigative update released on 25 July 2013 included the following:

• Evidence from video and other sources was consistent with the nose landing gear making contact with the runway before the main landing gear (this is the reverse of what happens in a normal landing).
• Flaps were set from 30 to 40 degrees about 56 seconds prior to touchdown.
• Altitude was about 32 feet, airspeed was about 134 knots, and pitch attitude was about 2 degrees nose-up approximately 4 seconds prior touchdown.
• At touchdown, the airspeed was approximately 133 knots and the aircraft was pitched down approximately 3 degrees.
• After touchdown, the aircraft came to a stop within approximately 19 seconds.

Second investigative update
Key findings from the second NTSB investigative update released on 6 August 2013 revealed additional information about the accident flight:

• This was the first trip the flight crew had flown together and it was the second leg of the trip.
• The first officer had previous operational experience at LGA, including six flights in 2013.
• The captain had one previous flight into LaGuardia.
• On approach into LaGuardia, the first officer was the pilot flying and the captain was the pilot monitoring.
• The wind changed direction prior to landing, from an 11-knot tailwind when the aircraft was at 1,000 feet, to an 11-knot headwind at landing.
• The aircraft had been cleared for an ILS approach on runway 4 (see diagram below).
• The crew reported the airplane was on speed, course and glideslope down to about 200-400 feet.
• At some point above 400 feet, there was an exchange of control of the airplane and the captain became the flying pilot and made the landing.
• The NTSB has so far found no mechanical anomalies or aircraft malfunctions, and that a preliminary examination of the nose landing gear indicated that it failed due to stress overload.
• The NTSB has collected five videos showing various aspects of the crash landing. The team will be analyzing these recordings as part of the investigation.

---

---

Photos: NTSB, Wikipedia

FAA further restricts non-US airlines using the San Francisco airport

On 30 July 2013, the FAA issued additional restrictions for non-US airlines landing at the San Francisco International airport (SFO). In addition to the earlier restriction that non-US airline crews use their GPS systems to help guide them during landings operated under visual flight conditions, this new restriction does not allow non-US crews to land alongside another plane during visual flight conditions. Domestic carriers are still allowed to perform side-by-side landings.

Typical restrictions on parallel runways
Under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions, the FAA allows simultaneous aircraft arrivals and departures so long as the parallel runways meet minimum spacing requirements. Runways 28L and 28R, the longest two runways at SFO, meet these minimum requirements. Runway 28L is the one being used by Asiana flight 214 when it crashed on 6 July 2013.

Why is the FAA singling out non-US carriers at SFO?
One the reasons given by the FAA for its latest restriction was so that it would "minimize distractions during a critical phase of flight." Given the recent crash at SFO, and the fact that this restriction, as well as the earlier recommended use of a GPS device during visual approaches to SFO, is only aimed at non-US airlines, the actions of the FAA imply that the organization believes that all non-US airlines are at higher risk when landing under VFR conditions at SFO.

These decisions of the FAA would make sense, and would be justified, if the FAA could show a measurable difference between how well crews of US airlines land at SFO compared to crews of non-US airlines. Perhaps one of easiest to understand comparison would be the rate of missed approaches by the two groups of airlines. While the FAA has mentioned that there have been a number of missed approaches by non-US airlines at SFO since the Asiana crash, the FAA has not released detailed and comprehensive data that would allow a fair comparison between these two groups of airlines.

Opinion: What may be behind the recent rule changes
The early factual information that has come from the NTSB investigation of the Asiana crash indicates that the Asiana crew was unable to execute a stabilized approach to one of the longest runways in the US under daylight VFR conditions. Instituting these rule changes for all non-US airlines in the absence of any kind of NTSB recommendation for changing landing procedures at SFO makes sense if following things happen to be true:

• That there are only a subset of the airlines that have issues with visual approaches.
• The FAA was aware of this potential problem with specific airlines before the NTSB began its investigation of the Asiana crash.
• The FAA does not wish to publicly embarrass a particular airline or the civil aviation organization of that airline's home country by suggesting that it is allowing pilots to fly airliners without having those pilots demonstrate mastery of basic VFR piloting skills.

What's the FAA's next move?
The last two announcements by the FAA were not expected. After an accident, it is unusual to have procedural changes implemented that focus on a group of airlines. If changes are made to procedures associated with a particular airport, then all aircraft using that airport would be subject to those changes. This combination of changes affecting only particular airlines at one airport is not only unusual, but the logic behind it has at least one obvious flaw.

When the FAA issued its earlier recommendations to use a GPS during SFO approaches, an FAA representative stated that the recommendation was a response to concerns that some non-US airline pilots may not have sufficient experience or expertise to land an airliner using visual approach procedures, which don't rely primarily on electronic landing aids.

While this explanation may make sense for non-US airlines that are flying to SFO from Europe or Asia, but it would not make sense for airlines from Canada and Mexico. Also, by implementing these rule changes for all non-US airlines, the FAA is implying that airlines like British Airways and Qantas, airlines that are noted within the airline industry for the capability of their crews and quality of their training and operating procedures, and which have been flying to SFO for decades, have suddenly become operators of aircraft flown by higher risk flight crews.

Additional information

• AirSafeNews.com 30 July 2013: FAA suggests non-US airline crews lack basic piloting skills
• AirSafeNews.com 15 July 2013: Questions about the crash of Asiana flight 214
• AirSafeNews.com 13 July 2013 article summarizing the two prior NTSB press conferences
• AirSafeNews.com 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
• AirSafeNews.com 8 July 2013 article on early findings of the crash investigation
• Other Asiana plane crashes
• Other 777 plane crashes
• Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
• Wikipedia page on this accident

Lion Air 737 lands in water short of runway

13 April 2013; Lion Air; 737-800; PK-LKS; flight 904; Bali, Indonesia: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Bandung, Indonesia to Bali, arriving during a rain storm. The aircraft landed in shallow water short of the runway during final approach. Although the aircraft had a break in the fuselage just behind the wings, none of the 101 passengers or seven crew members were killed.

---

---

---

Ditching vs. unplanned contact with water
The FAA would not consider this event a ditching because it did not involve a planned, controlled contact with water where the passengers and crew had time to prepare for the event[1]. Also, AirSafe.com puts a further restriction on its ditching definition by defining a ditching event where the crew makes an intentional water landing where the water is deep enough that if the aircraft sinks, some or all of the occupants would have to evacuate the aircraft to avoid drowning [2].

AirSafe.com lists only four ditching events involving airline flights using large jet transports, the most recent being the 2009 accident where a US Airways A320 landed on the Hudson River in New York.

Lion Air Safety History
The airline, which began operations in 2000, is based in Indonesia and is that nation's largest domestic air carrier. According to AirFleets.net, it has a fleet of about 95 aircraft, including over 80 of the latest models of the 737, the 737-800 and 737-900.

This is not the first serious incident or accident for this airline. On 4 November 2004, a crew member and 24 passengers were killed in the crash of a Lion Air MD82 in Solo City, Indonesia. The airline has had several other non-fatal accidents:

• 2 November 2010 - Lion Air 737-400 overran the runway on landing and the aircraft was substantially damaged, but none of the 169 passengers or six crew were injured.


• 9 March 2009 - Lion Air MD90 with 166 passengers or six crew on board was substantially damaged after a hard landing where the crew was able to keep the aircraft only partially on the runway. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.


• 24 December 2006 - Lion Air 737-400 with 164 passengers or seven crew on board was substantially damaged, after a hard landing. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.


• 4 March 2006 - Lion Air MD90 with 138 passengers or six crew on board was involved in a landing incident that resulted in damage to the nose landing gear and the forward part of the fuselage.


• 16 January 2002 - Lion Air 737-200 with 96 passengers and seven crew on board overran the runway after a rejected takeoff, hitting some trees several hundred meters beyond the end of the runway. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

737-800 Accident History
There were nine previous accidents involving a 737-800, including five crashes involving passenger fatalities. The first crash was a September 2006 midair collision involving a Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800 in Brazil that killed all six crew members and 148 passengers, and the most recent was a July 2011 non-fatal landing accident involving a Caribbean Airlines airliner in Guyana that injured several passengers and crew members.

1. 29 September 2006; Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800; Flight 1907; near Peixoto de Azevedo, Brazil: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Manaus to Brasilia when it had a midair collision in the area of São Félix do Xingu with an Embraer ERJ135 Legacy 600 executive jet operated by ExcelAire. The ExcelAire Legacy 600 jet had been on a flight from São José dos Campos to Manaus. After the collision, which damaged the left wing, left stabilizer, and left elevator of the executive jet, the crew of the damaged ExcelAire aircraft was able to land at a nearby military airfield at Cachimbo, Brazil. The 737 subsequently experienced an inflight breakup and crashed about 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of the Peixoto de Azevedo municipality.
   
   The Legacy 600 was on the first leg of a delivery flight to the US The 737 aircraft was also relatively new, having come into service with the airline less than three weeks before the crash. All six crew members and 148 passengers on the 737 were killed. The two crew members and five passengers on the Legacy 600 were not injured.


2. 5 May 2007; Kenya Airways 737-800; Flight 507; near Douala, Cameroon: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Douala, Cameroon to Nairobi, Kenya. The aircraft crashed into a swampy area near the airport less than one minute after takeoff. The aircraft departed just after midnight local time and the aircraft sent at least one communication to the control tower prior to the crash. All nine crew members and 105 passengers were killed.


3. 20 August 2007; China Airlines 737-800; Flight 120; Naha, Japan: Shortly after landing at Naha on the island of Okinawa, the left engine caught fire and the crew initiated an emergency evacuation. Although the aircraft was destroyed by fire, all 157 passengers (including two toddlers) and eight crew members survived.


4. 10 November 2008; Ryanair 737-800; Flight 4102; Rome, Italy: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Rome, Italy encountered a flock of birds during approach to Rome, sustaining damage to both engines, the wings, and the nose. The crew was able to land on the runway, but aircraft had a collapsed landing gear and serious damage to the rear of the fuselage. All six crew members, and 166 passengers survived.


5. 25 February 2009; Turkish Airlines 737-800; Flight 1951; Amsterdam, Netherlands: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Istanbul, Turkey, to Amsterdam, Netherlands crashed in a field about a mile (1.6 km) short of the runway. Four crew members, including both pilots, were killed, as were at five of the 128 passengers.


6. 22 December 2009; American Airlines 737-800 (N977AN); Flight 331; Kingston, Jamaica: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Miami, FL to Kingston, Jamaica. The aircraft landed during a rainstorm, and was unable to stop on the runway. After departing the runway, the aircraft went beyond the airport fence, and crossed a road before coming to rest on a beach. The landing gear collapsed, both engines separated from the wings, and there were two major breaks in the fuselage, but all 148 passengers and six crew members survived. The landing was carried out with a slight tail wind.


7. 25 January 2010; Ethiopian Airlines 737-800 (ET-ANB); Flight 409; near Beirut, LebanonThe aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Beirut, Lebanon to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after takeoff. There were 82 passengers and eight crew members on board, all of whom were killed in the crash.


8. 22 May 2010; Air India Express; 737-800; flight 812; Mangalore, India: The aircraft (VT-AXV) was on a scheduled international flight from Dubai, UAE, to Mangalore, India, arriving just after 6 a.m. local time. The aircraft landed on one of the runways at Mangalore airport, but was unable to stop on the runway. There were six crew members and 160 passengers and on board, including four infants. All six crew members, and 152 of the 160 passengers were killed.


9. 30 July 2011; Caribbean Airlines; 737-800; flight BW523; Georgetown, Guyana: The aircraft (9Y-PBM) was on a scheduled international flight from Port of Spain, Trinidad, arriving at about 1:25 a.m. local time at Georgetown, Guyana. The flight had originated at New York's JFK airport.
   
   After landing, the aircraft departed the runway and broke into two large sections. While there were several serious injuries among the 156 passengers and six crew members, no one was killed in this crash. Reportedly, the aircraft narrowly missed rolling into 200-foot deep ravine.

References:
[1] Transport Water Impact and Ditching Performance; DOT/FAA/AR-95/54; Office of Aviation Research; March 1996
[2] Jet Airliner Ditching Events; http://www.airsafe.com/events/ditch.htm

United Express Flight Crash in Ottawa Injures Three

16 June 2010; United Express; Embraer E145; flight 8050; Ottawa, Canada: United Express 8050, a nonstop flight from Washington's Dulles airport to Ottawa's Macdonald-Cartier airport, landed on runway 7, was unable to stop on the runway, coming to rest about 150 meters off the end of the runway. It was raining at the time of the accident.

One witness claimed that the aircraft was hydroplaning on the runway, and a second witness who was monitoring air traffic control communications reported that the pilot told the control tower he had no traction on the wet runway.

The nose landing gear appears to have collapsed, although the rest of the aircraft appears intact. There was no post crash fire. Both pilots and one passenger were injured. The other 32 passengers and the flight attendant were not injured.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is conducting an accident investigation, with the assistance of the NTSB.

About the ERJ-145
The Embraer ERJ-145, along with the similarly designed ERJ-135 and ERJ-170, were involved in three previous crashes during passenger flights, and none have resulted in any fatalities. In 2006, an ERJ-135 operating as an executive aircraft was involved in a midair collision with a Gol Linhas Aereas 737-800 over the Amazon in Brazil. The ERJ-135 was able to land and none of the occupants were injured. However, the 737 crashed and all six crew members and 148 passengers were killed.

About United Express
There have been three crashes involving United Express aircraft that have killed passengers, with the most recent being in 1996. None of them involved an aircraft operated by Trans States. The NTSB database also lists about 35 previous incidents and accidents involving United Express.

About Trans States
Trans States airlines, which has been operating under its current certificate since 1988, currently has a fleet of about 28 Embraer 145 aircraft. Prior to this accident, the NTSB lists four previous serious incidents involving Trans States. In the past, it has operated as a regional affiliate of a number of larger airlines including Delta (Delta Connection>, Northwest Airlines (Northwest Ailink), TWA (Trans World Express), United (United Express), and US Airways (US Airways Express).

Air India Express 737-800 Crashes in Mangalore India

22 May 2010; Air India Express; 737-800; flight 812; Mangalore, India: The aircraft (VT-AXV) was on a scheduled international flight from Dubai, UAE, to Mangalore, India, arriving just after 6 a.m. local time. The aircraft landed on Mangalore airport's 2,450m-long runway, reportedly beyond the normal touchdown zone, and was unable to stop on that runway. After the plane departed the runway, it crashed through the airport's boundary wall and slid into a valley. The aircraft caught fire shortly afterwards.

There were six crew members and 160 passengers and on board, including four infants. Early reports indicate that there were eight survivors. Both pilots were killed in the crash. At the time of the crash, visibility was 6km, with calm winds. The instrument landing system on that runway was also operating normally.

Previous 737-800 Crashes
This is the eighth serious crash involving a 737-800. The first was a September 2006 midair collision involving a Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800 in Brazil that killed all six crew members and 148 passengers, and the most recent was a January 2010 fatal crash of a Ethiopian Airlines jet near Beirut. Four of the previous seven crashes involved passenger fatalities.

1. 25 January 2009; Ethiopian Airlines 737-800 (ET-ANB); Flight 409; near Beirut, LebanonThe aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Beirut, Lebanon to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after takeoff. There were 82 passengers and eight crew members on board, all of whom were killed in the crash.


2. 29 September 2006; Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800; Flight 1907; near Peixoto de Azevedo, Brazil: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Manaus to Brasilia when it had a midair collision in the area of São Félix do Xingu with an Embraer ERJ135 Legacy 600 executive jet operated by ExcelAire. The ExcelAire Legacy 600 jet had been on a flight from São José dos Campos to Manaus. After the collision, which damaged the left wing, left stabilizer, and left elevator of the executive jet, the crew of the damaged ExcelAire aircraft was able to land at a nearby military airfield at Cachimbo, Brazil. The 737 subsequently experienced an inflight breakup and crashed about 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of the Peixoto de Azevedo municipality. The Legacy 600 was on the first leg of a delivery flight to the US The 737 aircraft was also relatively new, having come into service with the airline less than three weeks before the crash. All six crew members and 148 passengers on the 737 were killed. The two crew members and five passengers on the Legacy 600 were not injured.


3. 5 May 2007; Kenya Airways 737-800; Flight 507; near Douala, Cameroon: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Douala, Cameroon to Nairobi, Kenya. The aircraft crashed into a swampy area near the airport less than one minute after takeoff. The aircraft departed just after midnight local time and the aircraft sent at least one communication to the control tower prior to the crash. All nine crew members and 105 passengers were killed.


4. 20 August 2007; China Airlines 737-800; Flight 120; Naha, Japan: Shortly after landing at Naha on the island of Okinawa, the left engine caught fire and the crew initiated an emergency evacuation. Although the aircraft was destroyed by fire, all 157 passengers (including two toddlers) and eight crew members survived.


5. 10 November 2008; Ryanair 737-800; Flight 4102; Rome, Italy: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Rome, Italy encountered a flock of birds during approach to Rome, sustaining damage to both engines, the wings, and the nose. The crew was able to land on the runway, but aircraft had a collapsed landing gear and serious damage to the rear of the fuselage. All six crew members, and 166 passengers survived.


6. 25 February 2009; Turkish Airlines 737-800; Flight 1951; Amsterdam, Netherlands: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Istanbul, Turkey, to Amsterdam, Netherlands crashed in a field about a mile (1.6 km) short of the runway. Three crew members, including both pilots, were killed, as were at least six others among the 134 passengers and crew members.


7. 22 December 2009; American Airlines 737-800 (N977AN); Flight 331; Kingston, Jamaica: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Miami, FL to Kingston, Jamaica. The aircraft landed during a rainstorm, and was unable to stop on the runway. After departing the runway, the aircraft went beyond the airport fence, and crossed a road before coming to rest on a beach. The landing gear collapsed, both engines separated from the wings, and there were two major breaks in the fuselage, but all 148 passengers and six crew members survived. The landing was carried out with a slight tail wind.

About Air India Express
Air India Express is a subsidiary of Air India. The airline began operations in 2005, and has about 23 other aircraft in its fleet, all 737-800s. This is the first accident or serious incident involving this subsidiary of Air India, and the fourth fatal plane crash overall for Air India since 1970.

AirSafeNews.com will provide updates on the investigation as information becomes available.

Additional Resources
Wikipedia page about the crash
Air India plane crashes
Fatal 737 plane crashes
Fatal airliner crash rates by model
Do plane crashes happen in threes?

---

Rescue and recovery efforts at crash site

---

Bird's eye view of flight path and accident location

---

Photo Credits: Rick Schlamp, AP, BBC

New crash videos and more stories of questionable airline customer service

Latest Crashes from Plane-Crash-Videos.net
The two most recent crash videos are both from 2009. The first is of a very closeup view of a float plane that crashed just after takeoff from a lake in Anchorage, AK. The photographer had to duck, and was barely missed by the plane.

The second features a landing that appears to be a normal landing of a Piper Aztec on Saint Barthélemy island in the Caribbean. Things don't end well as the aircraft goes beyond the runway and ends up partially in the water.

Featured Complaints from FlightsGoneBad.com
Since the site's launch earlier this week, several other noteworthy airline complaints were added.

One woman on a flight from San Antonio who exhibited flu-like symptoms was very stressed out by her experience, which included medical treatment in the terminal, a late arrival, and uncompensated costs from missing a connection. Also interesting was the current guidance that the Centers for Disease Control has given to passengers and airlines about the threat from the H1N1 virus (swine flu).

A passenger on a flight from Mexico to the US was quite upset by the lack of compensation for costs associated with a late flight. That same passenger would likely be more upset if he knew just how little US airlines are required to provide as a result of flight delays.