37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 481125 |
Time | |
Date | 200008 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : atl.airport |
State Reference | GA |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 300 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Weather Elements | Rain Windshear |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : atl.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | ATR 72 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : ns |
Flight Phase | descent : vacating altitude landing : roll |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 260 flight time total : 15300 |
ASRS Report | 481125 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter other other anomaly other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : regained aircraft control |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Weather ATC Human Performance Environmental Factor |
Primary Problem | Weather |
Narrative:
During approach we had visual contact with the airport. At about 4 mi runway was in sight, no turbulence or rain. Tower advised a microburst was on runway 27R/26L (that's what I heard, I thought). About 1 mi out, encountered moderate rain for about 15 seconds. I thought the previous aircraft had landed, so I continued (I was PF) as no turbulence or windshear conditions were being experienced. Tower had advised -50 KTS and then -40 KTS, but our speed was steady and the approach uneventful. I elected to leave flaps at 15 degrees in case a go around was conducted (normal landing 30 degrees flaps). Just as I flared for landing, we began to experience strong crosswind from the right. Landed aircraft and had some directional control problems (aircraft appeared to be hydroplaning) where the aircraft wanted to drift left during rollout. As we slowed, control was regained and we taxied off the runway to the ramp. Later, another company pilot (who was waiting to take off) told me that the preceding and following aircraft had gone around. As mentioned, I believed the preceding aircraft had landed. In hindsight, I should have gone around and waited for better WX conditions. I was continuing the approach as I had not experienced any serious WX, airspeed loss or gain, or any kind of windshear. As I mentioned, only a strong wind from the right was experienced during the flare for landing. This incident (although turning out ok) could have been serious. I have replayed this the past 3 nights and have scolded myself for continuing when the safer course would have been to go around. I thought tower had said a microburst was between runway 26L/27R, surface winds were like 340 degrees at 9 KTS, so I continued. All I can say is, I regret my actions and will not hesitate performing a go around next time. Although landing rollout was dicey and ended up successfully, it could have turned out for the worse. My judgement was poor when I am always respectful of WX. After 11 yrs flying airline equipment, this was a poor decision on my part to continue. It will not happen again.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN ATR72 PIC LAMENTS HIS DECISION TO CONTINUE A XWIND LNDG THAT WAS CHALLENGING BUT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AT ATL, GA.
Narrative: DURING APCH WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT. AT ABOUT 4 MI RWY WAS IN SIGHT, NO TURB OR RAIN. TWR ADVISED A MICROBURST WAS ON RWY 27R/26L (THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, I THOUGHT). ABOUT 1 MI OUT, ENCOUNTERED MODERATE RAIN FOR ABOUT 15 SECONDS. I THOUGHT THE PREVIOUS ACFT HAD LANDED, SO I CONTINUED (I WAS PF) AS NO TURB OR WINDSHEAR CONDITIONS WERE BEING EXPERIENCED. TWR HAD ADVISED -50 KTS AND THEN -40 KTS, BUT OUR SPD WAS STEADY AND THE APCH UNEVENTFUL. I ELECTED TO LEAVE FLAPS AT 15 DEGS IN CASE A GAR WAS CONDUCTED (NORMAL LNDG 30 DEGS FLAPS). JUST AS I FLARED FOR LNDG, WE BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE STRONG XWIND FROM THE R. LANDED ACFT AND HAD SOME DIRECTIONAL CTL PROBS (ACFT APPEARED TO BE HYDROPLANING) WHERE THE ACFT WANTED TO DRIFT L DURING ROLLOUT. AS WE SLOWED, CTL WAS REGAINED AND WE TAXIED OFF THE RWY TO THE RAMP. LATER, ANOTHER COMPANY PLT (WHO WAS WAITING TO TAKE OFF) TOLD ME THAT THE PRECEDING AND FOLLOWING ACFT HAD GONE AROUND. AS MENTIONED, I BELIEVED THE PRECEDING ACFT HAD LANDED. IN HINDSIGHT, I SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AND WAITED FOR BETTER WX CONDITIONS. I WAS CONTINUING THE APCH AS I HAD NOT EXPERIENCED ANY SERIOUS WX, AIRSPD LOSS OR GAIN, OR ANY KIND OF WINDSHEAR. AS I MENTIONED, ONLY A STRONG WIND FROM THE R WAS EXPERIENCED DURING THE FLARE FOR LNDG. THIS INCIDENT (ALTHOUGH TURNING OUT OK) COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS. I HAVE REPLAYED THIS THE PAST 3 NIGHTS AND HAVE SCOLDED MYSELF FOR CONTINUING WHEN THE SAFER COURSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GO AROUND. I THOUGHT TWR HAD SAID A MICROBURST WAS BTWN RWY 26L/27R, SURFACE WINDS WERE LIKE 340 DEGS AT 9 KTS, SO I CONTINUED. ALL I CAN SAY IS, I REGRET MY ACTIONS AND WILL NOT HESITATE PERFORMING A GAR NEXT TIME. ALTHOUGH LNDG ROLLOUT WAS DICEY AND ENDED UP SUCCESSFULLY, IT COULD HAVE TURNED OUT FOR THE WORSE. MY JUDGEMENT WAS POOR WHEN I AM ALWAYS RESPECTFUL OF WX. AFTER 11 YRS FLYING AIRLINE EQUIP, THIS WAS A POOR DECISION ON MY PART TO CONTINUE. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
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.