The story of Alaska Airlines Flight 60 in 1976

Summary

The captain of Alaska Airlines Flight 60 made a serious error while attempting a go-around after a long landing.
There was a lack of crew coordination to correct the approach, which led to the fatal incident.
Importance of stabilized approaches and compliance with ILS procedures with emphasis on CRM.

On April 5, 1976, Alaska Airlines Flight 60, a Boeing 727-81, was scheduled to fly from Anchorage to Seattle, with stops in Juneau and Ketchikan. According to the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archive, the flight was uneventful, but what transpired during the approach to Ketchikan International Airport would become a significant event in the history of aviation safety. Let’s find out what the investigation revealed.

The flight conditions

Flight 60 departed Juneau at 07:38 local time and was cleared by Anchorage ARTCC to proceed to Ketchikan International Airport under instrument flight rules (IFR). The flight was carrying 43 passengers and seven crew members. As the aircraft approached Ketchikan, it was briefed on weather conditions: a cloud base of 800 feet, visibility of two miles with light snow and fog, and winds of 330° to 5 knots. Most importantly, braking on runway 11 was reported as poor, information the captain could not have heard.

Custom thumbnail of Turkish Airlines Polderbaan incident

Turkish Airlines Flight 1951: What caused the “Polderbaan Incident”?

Nine people were killed when the Boeing 737-800 crashed in 2009.

The approach and landing

After reaching the 17-mile DME fix and descending to 4,000 feet, the crew decided to convert from an ILS approach to a visual approach. The captain visually established his glide path at approximately 1,000 feet altitude.

Approximately three kilometres from the runway threshold, visibility was good again and the captain intended to land on runway 11. However, the approach was not stabilized; the aircraft crossed the runway threshold at high altitude and high speed and landed approximately 450 metres beyond the threshold.

The process

According to Aviation Safety Network, the captain deployed the ground spoilers and attempted to slow the aircraft using thrust reversers and wheel brakes. When he realized that the braking effect was insufficient, he decided to perform a go-around. This decision proved fatal. The thrust reverser mechanism did not fully disengage, preventing the engines from generating forward thrust. Consequently, the aircraft could not stop on the available runway.

To avoid disaster, the captain turned the plane to the right, raised the nose and left the runway. The plane came to rest in a ravine about 210 meters beyond the end of the runway and 38 meters to the right of the centerline. Tragically, one passenger was killed and several others were injured.

Investigation results

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the key findings of the investigation were:

Unstabilized approach: The approach did not follow prescribed procedures and the aircraft was unable to ensure a safe landing at decision height. The aircraft was too high and too fast.
Captain’s verdict: The captain made a serious error in deciding to perform a go-around after planning an emergency stop. His decision was influenced by his unprofessional reliance on a visual glide path rather than a precision approach.
Crew coordination: There was a lack of effective communication and intervention by the first and second officers to correct the approach or prevent the captain from deviating from safe practices.

Sukhoi Superjet 100 in flight shutterstock_347534399

Sukhoi Superjet 100 crashes in Russia: 3 crew members confirmed dead

The Russian Emergencies Ministry confirmed the incident and said three crew members on board the aircraft had died.

Problem with thrust reversal: After landing, the captain’s attempts to generate forward thrust were hampered by the thrust reverser mechanism, which did not fully disengage due to the high air load resulting from the aircraft’s excessive speed.
Runway conditions: Although the braking performance on runway 11 was reported as inadequate, it was considered sufficient to bring the aircraft to a stop had the approach and landing been conducted properly.
Hearing loss: Hearing tests conducted on the captain after the accident revealed a medically disqualifying hearing loss, although it was unclear whether this had directly contributed to the accident.

Impact on security

The probable cause of the accident was determined to be a misjudgment by the captain during a go-around attempt after a landing that was too long and too fast. Contributing factors included the unprofessional failure to perform a precision approach and the flight crew’s failure to follow standard procedures.

The Flight 60 accident underscored the importance of stabilized approaches and compliance with Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures, particularly in adverse weather conditions. It highlighted the critical need for effective Crew Resource Management (CRM), in which all crew members must actively contribute to ensuring flight safety.

This incident also led to a reassessment of airports’ emergency response capabilities, highlighting the need for adequate firefighting resources and preparation at airports handling large commercial aircraft.

In the years following the accident, aviation authorities and airlines have continuously improved their training programs, CRM protocols, and approach and landing procedures. These measures are aimed at preventing the recurrence of such accidents and increasing the overall safety of air travel.

Remembering Flight 60

The story of Alaska Airlines Flight 60 is a sad reminder of the complexity and responsibility that comes with aviation. It is a case study in the importance of strict adherence to established procedures and the critical role of clear communication and teamwork among crew members. The lessons learned from this tragedy have undoubtedly helped improve aviation safety standards and ensure that the skies remain safer.