Back to Squawk list
  • 208

(VIDEO) AAL 757 Jackson Hole Landing Video

Shot by a passenger out the window. Shows the touchdown & roll-out. ( Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Art Davis 1
I think the full aphorism is:
A good landing is one everyone walks away from.
An excellent landing is one where everyone walks away AND the aircraft can be used again immediately.
chalet 0
Captaindl are you sure that a good landing is when everyone walks away from, are you gaddamn sure?. Well check this Reuter news report about an American Airlines 737-800 (yes, the same airline of the Wyoming incident) landing long in the Kingston, Jamaica Airport a little over a year ago destroying the aircraft good -it only cost US$ 60 million- but thank God all 150 people WALKED AWAY from. They telling those 150 people that it was a good landing and see if you can live to tell us about their reaction.
klimchuk 0
I wonder why video has such strange proportions?
There was something else but was cut off
sbirch 0
chalet - first, this was a 757 in this latest incident, not a 737. Second, it is clear the thrust reversers were not functioning properly. This is not a pilot error item and I can tell you that I have had this happen on a couple occasions over 14,000 hours of flying corporate jets. It happens, and thus the saying that captaindl repeats, any landing where everyone walks away is a good one remains true. And while we all prefer the shiny side up, it is always a possibility it will not be.
Thrust reversers should not be factored into this. If they don't deploy, so be it,the airplane should still be able to stop within the factored distance. Of course prudence may dictate going somewhere else even if the numbers work out but conditions dictate otherwise. It's not the smooth landings that make a good pilot, it's the good decision making.
lavalampluva 0
Is JAC really an appropriate airport to handle a 757, especially during the winter? Though IMO this is a mixture of mechanical/pilot error.
Watch Dog 0
Thanks for linking to the video Daniel.


I garner from your comments you have never flown for a Part 121 Carrier. 121 Operators are allowed to factor in the use of thrust reversers, so long as the data is available. I reference the Southwest 737 overrun at MDW a few years ago. While the circumstances were different, and there was pilot error involved, the FAA allowed SWA to factor in the use of the TRs. Without the TRs, they did not have the factored landing distance needed. With the TRs they did.

Perhaps you are an individual who does not believe we can set Vr above V2? Improved climb performance coming out of places such as DEN and SLC during the summer.

I cannot argue with your other comments however, and agree that good decision making is what makes good pilots.

I love the way the pilot planted the aircraft on the ground, before the VASI, just beyond the numbers. Spoilers should have auto deployed with tire spin up, and if armed. However, without all of the data, and inclusive video evidence, we can not say for certain whether or not the spoilers deployed. I will venture to say perhaps there was a squat switch issue which in turn could also cause a spoiler problem and the lack of available TRs.

With that said, blue skies.
Todd Marks 0
@ klimchuk I think it was recorded with an iPhone held vertically, not horizontally...
Roger Deeringer 0
Is there any statistics on how often thrust reversers fail to deploy? Also, what is the likelyhood of snow mucking up the "squat" switches? I would think that those are fully enclosed.
sparkie624 0
My first thought here is: "Where Is The News". One of 2 things happened: 1.) Plane had a maintenance fault, 2.) Captain (and or First Officier) committed a BOOBOO!. No One Died, No One Was Injured, Everyone Walked away with some minor inconvences. Some goof ball who was videotaping was violating 2 FAA Rules and Regulations. WHich 2, they are simple 1.) Failure to obey direct commands from a Flight Attendant and 2.) All personal electronics must be in the OFF positon during take off and landing. Hello Mr. FAA, lets talk to this guy, maybe the electonics in his camera messed up an a/c signal (IE: Electonics interfere with the Radio Altimeter and do not allow the TR's to deploy in a timly fashion). I do not believe that is what happened, but it could have been. This guy is being advertised as a hero, and he is really a villian that is being praised for breaking rules... Also, there are ads with the Video, you watch it, you are putting money in his pocket. Sorry this guy is not a good guy publizing this for personal gain and putting down a perfectly good and safe plane and crew.
sparkie624 0
Comment to rdeeringer, As far as failing to deploy, I do not know of any. For the qty of flights out there, I think the percentage would be very low for all the Jet A/C out there using them, guessing less than 1%. However for the SQUAT switches, they are PROX swithes, meaning that when medal gets close to them, they change state, out side weather does not affect them. These switches do fail, but they do not fail as a result of muck getting on them (in this case snow. If there was some snow or ice, when the tonnage or ice is in the middle it would be mashed away. Also, notice the term PROXIMITY, meaning close, not touch. The Target in the correct position never has physical contact with the switch itself.
chalet 0
Comment for Sparkie624 and other bloggers blaming some (silly) camera recording the landing as the possible culprit of this and other incidents is utter nonsense, BS, nada supported with facts, a big lie. All common used electronic gadgets emit infinitesimally small amounts of radiation that would never send a plane into a tailspin or causing them behave like a mad dog, otherwise there would have been thousands, not just hundreds of accidents or have not you seen people working with their laptops or using electronic games and all sorts of gadgets and even using their phones on the climb or descend and what happened, nada, absolutely nada. The reason whey cell phones should not be used aloft is because each one of them would "soak" the capabilities of the repeating antennaes within sight on the ground causing the cell phone systems to crash.
sparkie624 0
LOL CHALET, Read my post alittle more closely. I said "I do not believe that is what happened, but it could have been." Point in case, this guy violated Federal Law in 2 cases. 1.) Disobeyed Federal Law by not listening to direct commands from a Flight Crew Member, and 2.) Did not turn off all electronics during landing or take off phase of the flight. I do not care what anyone says, you can be arrested and charged. Like it or not this is Federal Regulation not just some local stuff, It is not made up by the Airlines, and if the Flight Crew does not enforce this, then they are liable as well. The Guy was video taping where he shouldn't have violating rules and regulations. I personally would love for someone to make an example of him :)
meeverett 0
Let this be a lesson to everyone, turn your iPhone sideways when you are recording video.
Merv Thornton 0
Any Bets on how many times the Captain and F/O said "STOP YOU BIG BIOTCH!!" ?
chalet 0
For Sparkie624. Ask any flight crew member what he thinks of this federal regulation and 99% of them will say that this is silly thing that has no scientifical or real merit, it was conceived by some bureaucrat who wanted to justify his or her salary. A few years ago a passenger traveling in the wee hours on a flight within Conus pulled out his GPS device and adhered the antennae to the window for better reception; all he wanted to do was track his own flight. A flight attendant catches him in the act and reports it to the flight crew. Next thing the copilto comes back to check the incident and asks the passenger to come to the cockpit to compare the readings of this devise vs. those coming from the aircraft's own system and surprise! the little thing costing maybe $ 1,000 was just accurate as the half-a-million bucks or whatever installed on the plane. The crew did not report him to the authorities or anything like that ans it did not compromise the safety of the flight. There!
sparkie624 0
To Charlet: The incident that you are referring happened above 1000 feet. You are comparing apples and oranges. As I stated, he broke the rules. Like it or not. I disagree with 1/2 the rules I have to follow. For a task that I do every day, I still have to have a maint manual ref for it, and have to have a copy of the manual with me, and if I do not have it with me when a FED comes by to check on me, then I am in trouble.. Alot of things in this world are stupid and the airlines have more stupid things than average, but we all have to follow them like them or not!
chalet 0
Sparkie624 you are the one mixing up oranges and apples. Instead of bitching about this video, which is going to be an important element in the investigation thanks to the passenger who filmed it, you should bitch to your authorities about this and other unfounded regulations -something that is a part of a democracy- not just trying to tell the world that you are a law-abiding citizen which is also an important element within a democracy.
Art Davis 0
Hence the landing shown is a good but not excellent landing.
chalet 0
No Art Davis, you are wrong. Try to tell the insurers who end up paying hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars due to botched landings destroying the aircraft but crew and passengers walk away are good landings. One more example: during Oshkosh 2010 Jack Roach DESTROYED his brand new Beechcraft jet and thank God he did not kill himself, his female companion or hundreds of people on the ground!!. You think that was a good landing, PLEEAAASE!!!. Good landings, which are the norm, are when everybody and the aircraft remain intact. Excellent landings are what are also known as "grease jobs" and often the passengers aplaud the flight crew. End of discussion!.
Nige Lites 0
Regardless of the 'Interference' debate and whether it is a pointless rule or not I can think of a few good reasons to restrict passenger use of Gadgets during landing;

In the case of a 'Firm Arrival' the passenger may lose their grip on their Gadget, and it may be damaged or broken when dropped. "Boo Hoo, my shiny toy broke".
In the case of an 'Abrupt Arrival' the Gadget might become a Projectile, causing injury or damage. "Ouch, that hurt"

In either case, any subsequent claim against the Airline for injury or damage can be fairly countered with "We told you to put it away, but you wouldn't listen"

Another thought;

In the case of a 'Very Abrupt Arrival' a passenger zoned out in their own little mp3 world of music turned up to 11 may be slow to respond to the Urgent Instructions of Cabin Crew.
Nige Lites 0
In the same vein as the aphorism about 'A good Landing' I believe it is also said that;
"A Good Pilot is one with the same number of Take-off's and Landing's"
Gary Paquette 0
I thought that ALL passenger electronics were to be in the off position. Guess does not apply to those "special" passengers that also never turn off their phones.

Flight crew did a great recovery from an obvious problem!
alfadog 0
I think it is time to rethink the "good landing" aphorism. I do not think a "good landing is any landing that one can walk away from". I think a "good landing" is one where the pilot puts the aircraft on the ground in the manner in which he intended. I think that whenever anything else happens, it is a "bad landing"; there obviously being degrees of bad landing. I think the new aphorism should be "a lucky landing is any bad landing that one can walk away from". This was a lucky landing.
doublesharp44 0
When did "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" stop being a classic pilot's aphorism and become some end-all metric for rating landings? Should the US Airways flight that ditched in the Hudson two years ago be considered a 'bad' landing just because the plane was destroyed? Personally, I don't think so.

One would think that thousands/millions of dollars worth of damage, while unpleasant and preferably avoidable, would be inconsequential compared to any injuries or fatalities (or lack thereof).

It's JUST a saying...
alfadog 0
Fits my definition of a "good landing", "ground" being a figure of speech, in this case :)
Matt Lacey 0
AIUI, it's the collective effect of hundreds of PEDs that could interfere with avionics that would be the problem. As an engineer who's seen the control surfaces of a UAV twitch when two pieces of metal were clapped near the antenna and unknown RF sources scrub rocket launches, I shut off my PEDs and gripe at anyone who doesn't.
toolguy105 0
Not the time to play Monday morning quarterback. Best thing is everyone walked away, that in my book is a good landing. I will wait and see if there is a maintenance fault or if it is determined to be pilot error. I'm hedging towards maintenance fault what with the spoilers and TR's both not operating as they should have. Never been to Jackson Hole but is 19 a short runway. As to squat switches malfunction; had a problem in Southeast Asia on a C141. Tricky little things they are but they do fail and more often then you may think. Could be a case of Murphy's Law at work here.
Neal Trombley 0
I blame on it on the cell phone( camera) being on..., lol, Just glad everyone walked away safe.
chalet 0
Doublesharp44 you have a valid point, the US Aiways Airbus 320 landing on the Hudson ended up with a destroyed aircraft but everybody was saved but it was caused by birdstrike, and by the way this one in particular has been hailed as one of the most outstanding pieces of airmaship in the entire history of aviation since the Wright brothers took to the air. Go Capt. Sully show them how it is done.
mikey mikey 0
perhaps some folks would be happier if the pilot had tested the reverse thrusters prior to landing...
Arthur Baumanns 0
This 'any landing' BS was made up by bad pilots. This was a bad landing. Then you have this kid name sparkie624 talking nonsense about some e-gadgets that had nothing to do with this landing. Wow, grow up kid. My son is on you tube a lot and everyone there is an expert. You can't believe some of the stuff that is posted there under the Planes section. He calls me every time to response to some of the BS. I stopped. Why me, because I do know what I am talking about.
wasim abbas 0
at least no one lost their life
markaz 0
Would someone WHO REALLY KNOWS THE ANSWER please educate me on something said in the video. The narrator explains three (3) functions of the spoilers (beginning @ 1:40 on the video clock). The last one given is "apply aerodynamic braking". Please explain this as spoilers having any effect on slowing 120+ tons of aircraft, other than killing the wing to ensure that all 120+ tons are on the ground, is a little tough to fathom.
Thanks in advance.
chalet 0
marcaz try this explanation that seems to be quite illustrative and right on the nose, so to speak
Captaindl 0
I guess I've just been around to long, I still believe any landing eveyone walks away from is a good landing. Did the Captain or his co-pilot do right? It's not for us to speculate, it's up to the NTSB
markaz 0
Thanks, chalet.
So transfer of weight to the undercarriage to allow for mechanical braking without skid sounds like the answer. I'll buy that. I went on to read about form drag and it lost me when trig functions were used to explain it.


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..