Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-10-114
Details
Synopsis: On December 20, 2008, about 1818 mountain standard time, Continental Airlines flight 1404, a Boeing 737-500, N18611, departed the left side of runway 34R during takeoff from Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, Colorado. A postcrash fire ensued. The captain and 5 of the 110 passengers were seriously injured; the first officer, 2 cabin crewmembers, and 38 passengers received minor injuries; and 1 cabin crewmember and 67 passengers (3 of whom were lap-held children) were uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The scheduled, domestic passenger flight, operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121, was departing DEN and was destined for George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas. At the time of the accident, visual meteorological conditions prevailed, with strong and gusty winds out of the west. The flight operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan.
Recommendation: TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Until the actions described in Safety Recommendation A-10-113 are accomplished, require manufacturers of transport-category airplanes to provide operators with interim crosswind takeoff guidelines that account for wind gusts.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Unacceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: Denver, CO, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA09MA021
Accident Reports: Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong and Gusty Crosswind Conditions Continental Airlines Flight 1404, Boeing 737-500, NN18611
Report #: AAR-10-04
Accident Date: 12/20/2008
Issue Date: 7/29/2010
Date Closed: 7/23/2015
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Unacceptable Action)
Keyword(s): Weather,

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/23/2015
Response: We point out that we issued this recommendation to ensure that operators had the needed interim guidance while your work in response to Safety Recommendations A-10-110, -112, and 113 was in progress. Although FTHWG’s plan to assess the variability in existing guidance and ways that gusting crosswinds should be included in this guidance may eventually prove to be beneficial, it is not acceptable for the FAA to wait until work is completed in response to Safety Recommendations A-10-110, 112, and -113 before beginning action to address Safety Recommendation A-10-114. You have not addressed our concern, and have indicated that your actions regarding Safety Recommendation A-10-114 are complete. Accordingly, the recommendation is classified CLOSED—UNACCEPTABLE ACTION.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 4/30/2015
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: As mentioned in our May 30, 2013, letter, airplane manufacturers have already provided interim crosswind guidance to operators. We understand that the Board does not agree with this approach, as the scope of the guidance varies among manufacturers. However, we believe this is the appropriate approach because manufacturers are experts in the operational characteristics of their aircraft. Until the FTHWG evaluates whether an empirically based, type specific maximum-gusting-crosswind limitations methodology is appropriate in the 2016 time period, we believe that the interim crosswind guidance provided by the manufacturers is sufficient to mitigate the risk. I believe that the FAA has effectively addressed Safety Recommendation A-10-114 and consider our actions complete. I will keep the Board informed on the progress of Safety Recommendations A-10-112 and -113 and provide an update by June 30, 2016.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/29/2013
Response: In our previous letter to the FAA concerning this recommendation, we expressed concern that interim crosswind takeoff guidelines that account for wind gusts had not yet been provided to operators. In its current letter, the FAA responded that, although airplane manufacturers have provided crosswind guidelines to operators, it had found that the scope of the guidelines varies among manufacturers, and accordingly has tasked its ARAC for recommendations regarding the variability. Safety Recommendation A-10-114 was issued to prompt the FAA to provide guidance to operators while the agency’s work in response to Safety Recommendations A-10-110, -112, and 113 was in progress. Although the ARAC’s assessing the variability in existing guidance and ways that gusting crosswinds should be included in this guidance may prove to be beneficial, it is not acceptable for the FAA to wait until work is completed in response to Safety Recommendations A-10-110, 112, and -113 before beginning action to address Safety Recommendation A-10-114. We encourage the FAA to act expeditiously to address this recommendation. In the meantime, pending the ARAC’s timely development of interim crosswind takeoff guidelines for operators that account for wind gusts, Safety Recommendation A-10-114 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 5/30/2013
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: As mentioned in our letter dated November 21,2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (fAA) collected a representative sample of airline crosswind policy and procedural information. We evaluated the information to determine whether an ..AJrplane Flight Manual limitation and standardized mean/gust crosswind policy would be feasible and appropriate. Due to the variability in the responses we received, we determined that additional consideration is required. We are referring the issue to the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Flight Test Harmonization Working Group. The FAA ARAC Flight Test Harmonization Working Group began work on these issues in May 2013. The ARAC group is addressing flight test methods used to determine maximum tailwind and crosswind capability. Also, crosswind testing will be exanuned to better define intended operational use of demonstrated maximum steady and gusting crosswind performance. The first phase, prioritization of tasks, is scheduled for completion by the end of2013. The prioritized list of tasks will help to define the follow-on schedule. To address A-10-114, airplane manufacturers have provided crosswind guidelines to operators. The scope of the guidelines varies among manufacturers. We intend to assess this variabiiity when evaluating the feasibility of introducing standardized mean/gust crosswind policy, and will also ask the ARAC Flight Test Harmonization Working Group for recommendations regarding the variability. I will keep the board informed of the FAA's progress on these safety recommendations and provide an updated response by April 30, 2014.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 3/6/2012
Response: Safety Recommendation A-10-114 was issued because the NTSB recognized that implementation of Safety Recommendations A-10-110, A-10-112, and A-10-113 would constitute a relatively lengthy process involving significant research and, therefore, would involve delays in the safety-enhancing benefits of the limitations. We are concerned that, almost 2 years after the issuance of this recommendation, interim crosswind takeoff guidelines that account for wind gusts have not yet been provided to operators. Pending the FAA’s implementing a timely interim solution as recommended, Safety Recommendation A-10-114 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 12/16/2011
Response: The FAA indicated that it is investigating the issues raised in Safety Recommendations A-10-112 through -114 and is considering the feasibility of using an Airplane Flight Manual limitation and standardized mean/gust crosswind values to address these recommendations. Pending the FAA’s developing a methodology to determine maximum-gusting-crosswind limitations and requiring its use, Safety Recommendations A-10-112 through -114 are classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/21/2011
Response: -From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is collecting a representative sample of airline crosswind policy and procedural information. We expect to have initial inputs by December 20 II. Once collected, we will analyze the information and determine whether an Airplane Flight Manual limitation and standardized mean/gust crosswind policy would be feasible and appropriate. If, as a result of this information collection, additional actions are justified, we expect to begin discussions with industry by December 2011 and complete discussions by December 2012.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 10/14/2010
Response: CC#201000393: - From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: The FAA is investigating these issues to determine whether an Airplane Flight Manual limitation and standardized mean/gust crosswind values, for use by airline operators, would be feasible and appropriate.