Flight crew muses over flight crew planning preflight in-flight and decision made in their departure procedure from lga with a post flight look at terminal area WX and airport WX minimums for takeoff.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	263346
Time
Date	199402
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lga
State Reference	NY
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mex
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff ground other : taxi
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 4700
ASRS Report	263346
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 8900 flight time type : 4500
ASRS Report	263347
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Weather
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On a scheduled flight from lga to mia, a snow storm had begun and the aircraft had been deiced twice with type I and ii prior to leaving the gate. The out to off time was only 14 mins but, during that time, the ATIS changed and later RVR was reported to be 1000. We had briefed the requirement to be 600 (touchdown zone on rollout for runway 4) so even though legal, we were in a situation where visibility was low. Also, our corrections (using most restrictive) for runway conditions were also within limits. We also could see rclm and cl lights. Checking the low visibility crosswind limits (10 KTS) also showed the wind to be within limits. Even though everything was within limits, the margin was not very much. My point is that sometimes we need to consider the cumulative effects of all aspects of a situation. In this instance, even though individual limits were satisfied, the narrow margins by which they were satisfied were significant enough to take time to re-evaluate the takeoff decision.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC MUSES OVER FLC PLANNING PREFLT INFLT AND DECISION MADE IN THEIR DEP PROC FROM LGA WITH A POST FLT LOOK AT TERMINAL AREA WX AND ARPT WX MINIMUMS FOR TKOF.

Narrative: ON A SCHEDULED FLT FROM LGA TO MIA, A SNOW STORM HAD BEGUN AND THE ACFT HAD BEEN DEICED TWICE WITH TYPE I AND II PRIOR TO LEAVING THE GATE. THE OUT TO OFF TIME WAS ONLY 14 MINS BUT, DURING THAT TIME, THE ATIS CHANGED AND LATER RVR WAS RPTED TO BE 1000. WE HAD BRIEFED THE REQUIREMENT TO BE 600 (TOUCHDOWN ZONE ON ROLLOUT FOR RWY 4) SO EVEN THOUGH LEGAL, WE WERE IN A SIT WHERE VISIBILITY WAS LOW. ALSO, OUR CORRECTIONS (USING MOST RESTRICTIVE) FOR RWY CONDITIONS WERE ALSO WITHIN LIMITS. WE ALSO COULD SEE RCLM AND CL LIGHTS. CHKING THE LOW VISIBILITY XWIND LIMITS (10 KTS) ALSO SHOWED THE WIND TO BE WITHIN LIMITS. EVEN THOUGH EVERYTHING WAS WITHIN LIMITS, THE MARGIN WAS NOT VERY MUCH. MY POINT IS THAT SOMETIMES WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ALL ASPECTS OF A SIT. IN THIS INSTANCE, EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL LIMITS WERE SATISFIED, THE NARROW MARGINS BY WHICH THEY WERE SATISFIED WERE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO TAKE TIME TO RE-EVALUATE THE TKOF DECISION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.