Quote:
Originally Posted by N121PP
So "reports" say they landed with a tail wind because 13 has ILS, but 31 doesn't. True? Why wouldn't you just use 4 in that case as they said 4-22 have ILS. 31 is only one that doesn't have ILS? Also "reports" say the previous two landings had GOOD braking action. One of the news channels had a pilot on that said the previous two aircraft could have been B737's and the reserve thrust is more effective on a B737 than a MD-88 because of the location of engines.
It's true that 31 is the only runway without an ILS. And I'm not sure what the winds were at the time of landing, but landing on runway 13 is a rare event. In all my years of flying into LGA, I can count on one hand the number of times I've landed on 13.
Watching the initial coverage on TV, I was confused about where exactly the plane was. At first, I assumed that the plane went off the end of the runway, but none of the runways has such a berm at the end. Later reporting showed that the plane actually departed to the left of runway 13, approximately 2/3 of the way down the runway.
This seems to indicate a loss of directional control. The pilots would not intentionally take the plane off the runway and, in fact, runway 13 has an
EMAS overrun designed to bring the plane to a quick stop in such a situation. (Discussed in a post long ago.)
My guess (and that's all it is) is that they had asymmetric reverse thrust which, on a contaminated surface, can result in a loss of directional control if it's not immediately rectified. You remember an earlier post where I said I prefer the MD-90? This is one reason. The 90's reversers operate much more smoothly, while the 88's reversers require close attention to avoid excess power on one side or the other.
We'll find out for sure when the NTSB reports their findings.