Summary Alaska Airlines Flight 60 captain made a critical error attempting a go-around after a long touchdown. Crew coordination lacked intervention to correct the approach, leading to the fatal incident. Importance of stabilized approaches and adherence to ILS procedures, highlighting CRM.
On April 5, 1976, Alaska Airlines Flight 60, a Boeing 727-81, was scheduled to fly from Anchorage to Seattle, with en route stops in Juneau and Ketchikan. According to Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archive The flight began uneventfully, but what unfolded during the approach to Ketchikan International Airport would become a significant event in aviation safety history. Let's discover what the investigations revealed.
The flight conditions Flight 60 departed Juneau at 07:38 LT and was cleared by Anchorage ARTCC to proceed to Ketchikan International Airport under instrument flight rules (IFR). The flight carried 43 passengers and seven crew members. As the aircraft approached Ketchikan, it was informed about the weather conditions: a ceiling of 800 feet obscured, visibility of two miles with light snow and fog, and winds of 330° to 5 knots.
Most crucially, the braking action on runway 11 was reported as poor, information that the captain did not recall hearing. The 2009 Boeing 737-800 crash claimed nine lives. The approach and landing Upon reaching the 17-mile DME fix and descending through 4,000 feet, the crew decided to transition from an ILS approach to a visual approach.
The captain established his glide slope visually at approximately 1,000 feet altitude. Visibility was gained around two miles from the runway threshold, and the captain aimed to land on runway 11. The approach, however, was not stabilized; the aircraft was high and fast as it crossed the runway threshold, and the touchdown occurred approximately 1,500 feet past the threshold.
For the latest aviation news, follow Simple Flying! The sequence of events According to Aviation Safety Network , the captain deployed the ground spoilers and attempted to slow the aircraft using reverse thrust and wheel brakes. He decided to go around when he realized the braking action was inadequate. This decision proved fatal.
The thrust reverser mechanism did not fully disengage, preventing the engines from achieving forward thrust. Consequently, the aircraft could not stop at the available runway distance. To avoid a complete disaster, the captain turned the aircraft to the right, lifted the nose, and exited the runway, coming to rest in a ravine approximately 700 feet past the runway end and 125 feet to the right of the centerline.
Tragically, one passenger was killed, and several others were injured. Investigation Findings According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) , the key findings of the investigation were as follows: Unstabilized Approach: The approach was not conducted according to prescribed procedures, and the aircraft was not in a position to ensure a safe landing at decision height. The plane was too high and fast.
Captain's Judgment: The captain made a critical error in deciding to go around after committing to a full-stop landing. His decision was influenced by an unprofessional reliance on a visual glide slope rather than a precision approach. Crew Coordination: There was a lack of effective communication and intervention from the first and second officers to correct the approach or halt the captain's departure from safe practices.
The Ministry of Emergencies of Russia confirmed the incident, indicating that three crew members who were onboard the aircraft died. Thrust Reverser Issue: After landing, the captain's attempts to gain forward thrust were hindered by the thrust reverser mechanism, which did not fully disengage due to high air loads caused by the aircraft's excessive speed. Runway Conditions: Braking action on runway 11, despite being reported as poor, was deemed adequate for stopping the aircraft had the approach and landing been properly executed.
Hearing Loss: Post-accident hearing tests on the captain revealed a medically disqualifying hearing loss, although it was unclear if this contributed directly to the accident. Impact on safety The accident's probable cause was determined to be the captain's faulty judgment in attempting a go-around after an excessively long and fast touchdown. Contributing factors included the unprofessional abandonment of the precision approach and the flight crew's failure to adhere to standard operating procedures.
The Flight 60 accident underscored the importance of stabilized approaches and adherence to instrument landing system (ILS) procedures, especially under poor weather conditions. It highlighted the critical need for effective crew resource management (CRM), where all flight crew members must actively participate in ensuring the safety of the flight. This incident also led to re-evaluating airport emergency response capabilities, emphasizing the need for adequate firefighting resources and preparedness at airports serving sizable commercial aircraft.
In the years following the accident, aviation authorities and airlines have continuously improved training programs, CRM protocols, and approach and landing procedures. These measures aim to prevent the recurrence of such accidents and enhance the overall safety of air travel. Remembering flight 60 The story of Alaska Airlines Flight 60 serves as a sad reminder of the complexities and responsibilities involved in aviation.
It is a case study of the importance of strict adherence to established procedures and the crucial role of clear communication and teamwork among flight crew members. The lessons learned from this tragedy have undoubtedly contributed to the advancement in aviation safety standards, ensuring that the skies remain safer. How a bizarre switch of flight crew duties ended with fatal results.
.
