ABC's John J. Nance
Aviation Expert on the American Airlines Crash Flight #1420 - June 1,1999

June 2, 1999 - In a terrifying crash landing, an American Airlines flight arriving from Dallas with 145 people aboard skidded off a rain-slickened runway, broke apart and burst into flames just before midnight.

Flight 1420 crashed while attempting to land at Little Rock National Airport. At least 80 people were injured. Nine of the 145 people on board, including the pilot were killed - the first on a major U.S. airline in nearly one and a half years. Joining us today to discuss the crash is ABCNEWS aviation consultant John J. Nance.

Moderator at 3:01pm ET
ABCNEWS aviation consultant John Nance now joins us. Welcome to the chat. Please begin by telling us the latest.

John J. Nance at 3:03pm ET
We don't know a great deal at this point, and that is very typical in the rare airline accident. What we do know is that very heavy weather -- turbulent, thunderstorm-type of weather -- was flailing away at the Little Rock area for several hours before this accident and, to a certain extent, at the time of the accident.

John J. Nance at 3:05pm ET
Winds have been reported greater than 86 knots (95 miles/hour), although it is by no means clear that the winds were reported to be that high at Little Rock airport at the plane made its approach. One of the key questions for investigators in a situation like this is how bad the weather was, and what was the crew told as they flew toward Little Rock and listened to a thing we call ATIS (Automated Terminal Information Service) which is a radio frequency at an airport on which the latest weather is broadcast by recording in a continuous loop.

John J. Nance at 3:07pm ET
The decisional factor -- that is, the decision of the captain to begin an approach in foul weather -- is always a prime area of inquiry after a crash like this. Investigators will want to know why the pilot decided whatever he decided. This is not to say that because a crash occurred the captain's decision to make an approach was wrong, because we simply don't know that. What helps us to prevent future accidents is to know what the captain and copilot were using as criteria to make their decision and what might have been missing from the picture that could have warned them away.

John J. Nance at 3:09pm ET
Now, the reality is that we have only the evidence of an uncontrolled trip down the runway by this airplane, and do not know whether they suffered a wind shear encounter, or some other problem associated with the winds and bad weather. We also don't know whether the wide variance in experience between the copilot and pilot could have in any way contributed, although whenever there is a newly-hired copilot flying with a chief pilot, communications and corrections from that copilot become more difficult to elicit.

John J. Nance at 3:10pm ET
It could easily be true that this senior and junior crew in fact performed flawlessly, in terms of communicating with each other. Until we see the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder there will be know way to draw conclusions in this area.

John J. Nance at 3:12pm ET
Overall, a word of caution is called for anytime we are in the early hours and days of one of these very rare airline accidents: Don't jump to any conclusions or believe anyone who does until the real experts -- the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) have had time to do their extremely thorough and precise work in piecing together all the facts before analyzing them for conclusions. One thing we can say for certain: As with all of these blessedly rare events, we will learn volumes from this one, even if the process does take years to complete.

Jeff from sps.mot.com at 3:13pm ET
Has the commercial airline accident RATE increased, decreased or remained constant over the last 10 years? What is the increase in the number of flights over the same period?

John J. Nance at 3:17pm ET
In fact, Jeff, the accident rate as expressed by percentage has remained fairly constant and incredibly low until last year. In 1998, domestic U.S. airlines suffered not one single fatality. This is a very hopeful but inconclusive trend. Why inconclusive? Because there are so many flights per day and hour, and such an infinitesimal number of incidents and accidents that any professional statistician will tell you that the accident rate is actually in the statistical "noise" level. What that means is that a small increase or decrease in accidents or fatalities tells us nothing. The true measure of airline safety is the safety margins, and we are still unable to accurately measure those margins. Overall? My view is that the margins are increasing slowly, even as the number of passengers increases monthly, and that means the overall level of safety continues to improve.

JohnG. from tnt4.louisville.ky.da.uu.net at 3:17pm ET
Mr. Nance: Has any information been released on what weather data the pilot had available to him prior to landing at Little Rock?

John J. Nance at 3:18pm ET
That, John, is a very key question for which I have no immediate answer. Before we know why the crew decided to do whatever they did, we have to have key facts like that.

Curious Joe from fdcsg.1dc.com at 3:19pm ET
Is there any type of device that can put out or contain a cabin fire such as an automatic extinguisher? If such a device does exist why are they not installed and used?

John J. Nance at 3:22pm ET
So far, there has been no recognized need to supplement the hand held fire extinguishers in a cabin with an automatic system. There are many reasons for that: chief among them is the impediment that an automatic extinguishing system would place in front of passengers in an emergency evacuation. A fog, or mist, or fire retardant foam could be more of a detriment to getting people out safely, especially since the vast majority of smoke and fire-related accidents (rare as they are) involve death and injury by only smoke inhalation, which a fire retardant system may be ineffective in stemming. Certainly this area deserves more study. But I, for one, am at present unconvinced that such a system would carry more benefits than detriments.

Flight Att in PA from [129.71.122.69], at 3:23pm ET
We have learned from each and every incident how to operate our airlines more safely. I realize it is premature to ask, but do you think there will be new regulations as to what the wind speed limit will be for aircraft to operate in?

Also, What are the wind speed limits for an MD-80?

John J. Nance at 3:26pm ET
Wind speed maximums are not always established for air carrier aircraft, although, roughly speaking, you would not operate with a head wind greater than 50 knots or a cross wind greater than 25 knots (cross wind limits are usually established by the manufacturer). I fly the Boeing 737 (I'm an airline captain flying for a major carrier) and thus cannot tell you what limits, if any, apply to the MD-80 series for simple head winds on landing. However, not many of us in the front office of an airliner would consider landing with winds greater than 50 knots, unless we were in an emergency condition. Remember that we don't know what the wind speed was here, as reported to the pilot.

Charles Ward from [198.253.219.207] at 3:26pm ET
John, In reference to ATIS, it is not updated per second, or minute, it's usually updated every 10 to 15 minutes. So ATIS may not have done these guys any good. The controller should have warned the crew.

John J. Nance at 3:28pm ET
ATIS is normally updated by the tower controllers once per hour. However, when there are rapidly changing conditions, they will update it more often. There is a new and not terribly well-liked system called AWOS (Automated Weather Observation System) which operated independently of controller input and updates more often. What was available at Little Rock, I am not sure. But I believe from recent experience at the airport that has a traditional tower controller run ATIS.

C. Whitney Mandel from [209.70.172.81] at 3:30pm ET
John, We always see blame being passed around. It seems to me that when the evidence is in, most crashed occur because of a series of "breakdowns" in the system, whether it be judgment, equipment failure, weather, etc. And that it takes several breakdowns all around the same time for a crash to occur - if even one of the "breakdowns" had not occurred, the accident may not have taken place. Could you address this issue? Thanks.

John J. Nance at 3:33pm ET
Bravo! You captured the precise situation with respect to what we call the "blame culture," and the reality of what we call an accident causal chain. We could care less who's to blame in an accident from an investigatory point of view. Blame is for lawyers later on. If our purpose is to learn from an accident every element in the causal chain for the purpose of making sure that none of those links are ever forged again, then we only ask the question, what's wrong, not who's wrong.

John J. Nance at 3:35pm ET
Before concluding even emotionally that air safety must be questionable on the strength of the public horror over an accident like this, stop and consider the millions of people who have flown in airliners without a scratch all over the world for almost a year and half. This commercial aviation business is one of the greatest technological achievements in human history, primarily as to its safety and reliability.

Moderator at 3:36pm ET
Thanks so much for joining us today. Any final thoughts?

Back to top or previous page