By Jim Stanford on December 29, 2010
Sick, brah. I think we got a few face shots. Click to enlarge.
An American Airlines plane overran the runway at Jackson Hole Airport today, amid snow and winds.
Good thing the landing was soft.
Update: Andrew Bennett, a photographer who was on board and submitted a photo (after the jump), reports, “The landing wasn’t all that bad, just a couple of big bumps and a huge cloud of snow.”
Bulldozer clears snow around the plane, south of Jackson Hole Airport.
View from west side of the airport. Terminal is at left in the distance.
Passenger Andrew Bennett shot this photo on the way out the door.
The flight originated in Chicago. Passengers unloaded at the scene and were transported by bus to the terminal.
The plane reportedly went 658 feet off the runway. No injuries were reported.
Airport manager Ray Bishop told AP: “As you know, this is a very busy time of year for us. The snow’s fantastic at the ski resort.”
(Top three photos by Walt Farmer; bottom photo by Andrew Bennett; click to enlarge and use arrow keys to navigate slide show.)
Posted under Environment, Weather
When are we going to wisen up and lengthen the runway? It is too short and leaves no margin of error. Is it going to take a tragedy to make this happen? We all love GTNP, but putting thousands of lives at risk each day instead of adding 1000 feet of concrete is absurd.
JH Pilot – I envision Lorraine Bonney in a Tiannamen Square-type runway blockade of 757s once the lengthening push gets serious.
6300 foot runway; 7500 would be nice !!!
Here is a video from a passenger.
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=87063
Interestingly… The thrust reverser doesn’t deploy until next to the terminal building, which is about 4000 feet down a 6300 foot runway. The thrust reverser on a B-757 is typically armed to auto-deploy as soon as the main landing gear touches down.
Another 1000 feet of runway and this wouldn’t have happened.
As long as a runway has an end, a plane will now and then surpass it.
Obviously, JH Pilot doesn’t have a clue about the last 50 yrs. of runway lengthening debate & how it’s repeatedly been declared safe for the aircraft used here. Tragedies will occur regardless, but read it, & you’ll probably realize it’s not necessary. Per Mr. Webber, 7500 would be nice; 50,000′ would be nicer, but there’s no point.
What is the percentage of planes that overshoot the runway? Don’t like your chances? Don’t fly here. Land in IF and catch a shuttle. Economy Schmomony. People will come here no matter what.
JHPilot-maybe the tragedy occurs and instead they get rid of the airport altogether. I know, I know, just wishful thinking…
Video was pulled from YouTube. Was there a threat of a lawsuit?
Fair enough, David, but an extra 1,000 feet will greatly reduce the odds. BUT: If we get that 1,000 feet, the issue then becomes, how long will it take for Gierau and JHAir to push for bigger planes?
dswift for mayor!!!!
Yes that video shows a lot of time – and runway – elapsing before the reversers deployed. A longer runway will clear the way for larger planes, who will then be trying not to get trucks rolling. Walt is right.
Rick C — When you click on it, that link shows the video was pulled by the user. How did you get to see it?
Pilots make mistakes, equipment malfunctions, and weather occurs without notice. The fact is that a longer runway turns what could become a tragedy into a non-event.
As for the bigger plane argument, it seems like a rather poor time to make the argument that we should risk hundreds of lives in order to prevent larger planes flying in to JH. If there is demand for that many more seats, all the airlines need to do is to increase the number of flights (which they can do today). Obviously, that demand is not there. Further, the performance characteristics of the larger planes makes them a very poor choice for JH (you don’t see 767′s flying to Vail either).
Walt is correct. JH airport is safe…when everything goes correctly.
I saw the video last night when it was still up. It was also linked on several sites out there which of course are not working now. No matter the length of runway, you will have the maximum size aircraft operating on it per it’s length.
The video can be seen on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blFw4Y1dtps
Thanks, Jim.
Let’s see…late touchdown, no spoilers, late tentative reverse thrusters before fully deploying, no brakes, for whatever reason. Will we ever know what was going on in that cockpit….
Gotta agree that we need more runway. That shoulda been priority 1 with the 38 million in funds that got spent at the terminal in the last year and a half. Form is nice, but function is what matters most in an airport.
trust me, Ispend a lot of time at the airport.
no body got hurt, where,s the beef?
In the video it appears the reverser panel tries to open, then is shut, then finally opens slowly.
Reports this morning are that the NTSB has removed American as a party to the investigation, from not handling the flight data recorders according to protocol. Evidently American downloaded the data in Tulsa OK before transferring to the NTSB. http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/ntsb-isnt-happy-with-american.html
The airplane is still here at the airport and there has been activity in and around it the past few days.
Regarding runway length, unless you have a major-length runway, which will not happen here, the largest aircraft safely possible will be operating into your length field. They will run the same risks they are today, only with bigger planes on longer runways. If a pilot or mechanical anomoly occurs there could be a problem on any runway.
Apparently the story was on page 2 of the NY Times today (slow holiday news week continues):
WASHINGTON — The National Transportation Safety Board has barred American Airlines from its investigation into why an American jetliner skidded off the end of a snowy runway in Jackson Hole, Wyo., on Wednesday morning, because the airline copied all of the data from one of the black boxes, or flight recorders, before turning it over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01airline.html
I think most folks know where I stand on this: Grand Teton National Airstrip — er, Park — does not exist for our economic well-being. And continuing to erode the quality of the park is not in our long-term economic self-interest, anyway.
It is important to recognize that the airport existed before GTNP was expanded to encompass the area that it occupies…
When they last made the strip lomger it was for safety but enabled larger jets to land here. Why don’t they go back to restricting the size of the planes allowed.
Airport update: Morning of the 2nd. Unable to check in passengers luggage quick enough results in some not being able to make flights. Pipes freezing at night makes toilets unable to flush. Hope they can work out the bugs before summer!
we noticed the toilet problem, too, when we tried to fly out before christmas. stranded passengers + toilets that don’t flush = gnarly.
WOW…a problem with a Weight On Wheels switch appears to be the cause of the overrun. Sources told Aviation International News that the aircraft had a previous problem with the switch system that automatically deploys engine reversers and autobrakes once weight on all the landing gear is detected.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/possible-ground-switching-failure-in-jackson-hole-overrun-28148/
Photos of crews inspecting engine and reverser panel are here.
http://jackson-hole-jet-charter-flights.blogspot.com/
Longer runways = bigger airplanes = call for longer runways = bigger airplanes = call for longer runways = infinite loop of JH airport.
Runway fine, safety zones already expanded, and this overshoot had nothing to do with the length of the runway. Plus, it’s not like the runway ends at a 200-foot brick wall or a plunge into an ocean — it’s open land, not a bad natural safety zone, if you ask me.
This is a small town airport in a national park, where an airport shouldn’t even be to be begin with. Let’s be thankful for what we have and be glad that the passengers survived the airplane’s mechanical failures.
No doubt you are right, Runway Fine. 747′s would be flying here direct from all over the world. Just look at Salt Lake City with its 3 parallel 12,000 ft. runways. A city with a couple million residents and great skiing has no 747′s flying there, neither does Eagle (Vail), but surely they will all want to fly to Jackson Hole.
We already have 757′s. 767′s don’t have adequate performance for Jackson Hole.
As for thinking it’s safe to skid off of a runway with thousands of pounds of jet fuel close to the ground, obviously your concept of a safety zone is far different from any intelligent life’s.
Adding a bit to our runway to insure the overshoot scenarios quit happening is a far cry from creating a “large” capacity airport. Firstly because the traffic isnt there. Like I said, I spend a lot of time at the airport, flights are close to full a fraction of the time. Secondly, because a wel functioning airport that serves the needs of its community needs some public oversight. Not another executive from the towns largest interests. time
Probable cause…Investigators have so far found a bushing was missing from the speed brake mechanism in the cockpit pedestal, which could cause signal to the autobrake and reverser systems to be interrupted.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1813-full.html#203949
The 757 finally departed Jackson Hole Airport, empty, last friday around 2pm.
And also possible “pilot mistakes” in “not recognizing automation failures” and manually deploying spoilers, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703889204576078531893643542.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I checked the 7th fetzer valve and found it needed a new set of 30-weight ball bearings. And a few quarts of antifreeze.
http://bit.ly/delMYD
There is absolutely no chance the runway will ever get extended.
Jackson Hole’s airport is an anomaly — the only commercial airport in a National Park*. The Park Service tolerates it, but does not like it. Although they just extended the airport’s lease on the ground through 2053, they will never agree to extend the runway beyond its current length. It it politically DOA.
(* – Not counting Cape Cod which is a National Seashore.)
Scott, glad you think so, but I don’t share your confidence, especially given the way the park rolled over and rubber-stamped the 20-year lease extension. The final EIS was dismissive of the majority of comments that wanted the airport moved out of the park, and it only suggested voluntary measures to reduce the airport’s impact. Given that Wyo’s congressional delegation favors expansion, I’d stay vigilant.
Two quick reponses:
1. The lease was extended by 20 years to maintain airport’s bond rating. Failure to extend the lease would have cratered the funding of the expansion. In the absence of credible alternatives (Idaho Falls anyone?), that was not going to happen.
2. A “majority of comments” is not the same as a majority of voters. I have not heard a serious proposal by anyone to terminate the airport. It would be obvious economic suicide for Jackson Hole. Have I missed that debate?
Although I may be too complacent on the issue, I don’t see the airport growing beyond its current GTNP footprint. At the same time, I don’t see it moving away.
Jim, Scott’s points make sense. If you wanted any proof the airport’s not going anywhere, see point #1. As to point #2, almost by definition, that comments section of the EIS will be populated mostly by people motivated by an anti-airport opinion. It’s not a true representation of the majority, most of whom may be apathetic on a GTNP airport at best.
Your post #16 sums up your view, but, if the points in your last paragraph are true, how did the airport get here, as it is today, if not for the valley’s “economic well-being”?
I realize it’s a nonstarter, and I’m not about to go on a quest to shut down the airport, but for the sake of discussion:
Scott — “obvious economic suicide” — the same thing was said when Grand Teton National Park was created and said again when GTNP was expanded. Time has shown that the more we do to safeguard this place and preserve its quality, the better off economically we are in the long run.
And I have seen the quality of the park degraded by JH Airport, with as many as 150 to 200 flights per day at peak times. There’s no disputing that. Spend all day several days a week in the vicinity of Moose, say around July 4, and see for yourself as jets thunder over the Snake River every 15 minutes or so. It’s embarrassing.
We owe it to everyone else to be better stewards than that.
And Brad, we have James Watt to thank for the predicament we’re stuck with today, for extending the lease in 1983 when credible alternatives existed.
Couldn’t agree with Jim more. Obviously the airport isn’t going anywhere, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of the airport in GTNP. I, like Jim, spend 4-5 days a week in the area of Moose and the NEGATIVE impact of planes flying in CANNOT be understated!
The airport is not going anywhere. Bigger planes = Fewer planes because there are more seats on each plane. Would the anti-growth people prefer to be buzzed by lot’s of noisy turboprops and regional jets, or an occasional 757?