MDW Overrun - SWA [Archive]

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 01:08 AM

Agreed, but it was a stupid thing to do, MDW is marginal on
good VFR days. IFR caused by low ceilings and visibilities
are not really a problem either, you either see and land on
a dry or wet runway or make a missed approach. But snow and
icy runways have poor braking, runway light obscured,
white-out conditions with attendant landing problems.
Airline pilots are well trained and regimented. This can be
good or bad. When "company pressure" makes non-operational
needs, such as the companies bottom line or on-time record,
more important issues can take a backseat.

PIC means that you take the heat, if necessary, from
passengers, chief pilot and upper management when you spend
a few hundred or thousands of dollars diverting. A good
chief pilot will support a well reasoned decision to divert.
There should be a pat on the back for a good safe diversion,
but often it is "chicken, we got in OK, why did everybody
else except you land." [The fact is that is rarely true,
lots of pilots divert or delay, but since they didn't crash,
who knows.]

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
| The fact that this is the airline's first fatal crash in
nearly 35
| years of operation speaks volumes about its safety
culture. I'd put
| its record up against any airline's.

Dave Stadt

December 10th 05, 04:50 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:vVpmf.17957$QW2.13192@dukeread08...
> Agreed, but it was a stupid thing to do, MDW is marginal on
> good VFR days. IFR caused by low ceilings and visibilities
> are not really a problem either, you either see and land on
> a dry or wet runway or make a missed approach. But snow and
> icy runways have poor braking, runway light obscured,
> white-out conditions with attendant landing problems.
> Airline pilots are well trained and regimented. This can be
> good or bad. When "company pressure" makes non-operational
> needs, such as the companies bottom line or on-time record,
> more important issues can take a backseat.
>
> PIC means that you take the heat, if necessary, from
> passengers, chief pilot and upper management when you spend
> a few hundred or thousands of dollars diverting. A good
> chief pilot will support a well reasoned decision to divert.
> There should be a pat on the back for a good safe diversion,
> but often it is "chicken, we got in OK, why did everybody
> else except you land." [The fact is that is rarely true,
> lots of pilots divert or delay, but since they didn't crash,
> who knows.]

You need to call the NTSB. They say it could take them a year to determine
the cause of the accident. You seem to have figured it out without having
been there. I am sure they will appreciate the help.

> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> "beavis" > wrote in message
> ...
> | The fact that this is the airline's first fatal crash in
> nearly 35
> | years of operation speaks volumes about its safety
> culture. I'd put
> | its record up against any airline's.
>
>

roncachamp

December 10th 05, 04:53 AM

We don't know that SWA was at fault. Let's wait for the investigation
to be completed before we assign blame.

roncachamp

December 10th 05, 04:54 AM

We don't know that SWA was at fault. Let's wait for the investigation
to be completed before we assign blame.

roncachamp

December 10th 05, 04:54 AM

We don't know that SWA was at fault. Let's wait for the investigation
to be completed before we assign blame.

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 08:33 AM

If I had a spare $10, to bet, you can send my winnings to me
when the NTSB is finished. I correctly described the final
report of the JFK,Jr. NTSB report the day of the crash. I
may be very smart or psychic (or is that psycho) but in any
case, I have no official standing or any reason to withhold
my opinion.
I do KNOW the length of the runway and the configuration of
an ILS. The last time I personally landed at MDW it was in
a blizzard with snow deep enough that the tips of the props
on the King Air 300 were cutting into the snow on the
unplowed taxiways.
I will tell you that 90% of the nose wheel tires on most
airplanes below 40,000 pounds are worn out on the right side
[left side when viewed from the front] and I can teach you
why this is so and improve all your flying technique, but
you'll need to send me more than $10 for that.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:vVpmf.17957$QW2.13192@dukeread08...
| > Agreed, but it was a stupid thing to do, MDW is marginal
on
| > good VFR days. IFR caused by low ceilings and
visibilities
| > are not really a problem either, you either see and land
on
| > a dry or wet runway or make a missed approach. But snow
and
| > icy runways have poor braking, runway light obscured,
| > white-out conditions with attendant landing problems.
| > Airline pilots are well trained and regimented. This
can be
| > good or bad. When "company pressure" makes
non-operational
| > needs, such as the companies bottom line or on-time
record,
| > more important issues can take a backseat.
| >
| > PIC means that you take the heat, if necessary, from
| > passengers, chief pilot and upper management when you
spend
| > a few hundred or thousands of dollars diverting. A good
| > chief pilot will support a well reasoned decision to
divert.
| > There should be a pat on the back for a good safe
diversion,
| > but often it is "chicken, we got in OK, why did
everybody
| > else except you land." [The fact is that is rarely
true,
| > lots of pilots divert or delay, but since they didn't
crash,
| > who knows.]
|
| You need to call the NTSB. They say it could take them a
year to determine
| the cause of the accident. You seem to have figured it
out without having
| been there. I am sure they will appreciate the help.
|
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > "beavis" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | The fact that this is the airline's first fatal crash
in
| > nearly 35
| > | years of operation speaks volumes about its safety
| > culture. I'd put
| > | its record up against any airline's.
| >
| >
|
|

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 08:35 AM

Not blame, or assigned, but there is no need to wait for a
final NTSB report if a reasoned judgment can suggest an
improvement.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"roncachamp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| We don't know that SWA was at fault. Let's wait for the
investigation
| to be completed before we assign blame.
|

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

December 10th 05, 08:53 AM

roncachamp wrote:
> We don't know that SWA was at fault. Let's wait for the investigation
> to be completed before we assign blame.

The NTSB will find pilot error. That's a given. I'm not suggesting the pilot
made a mistake; only that the NTSB will make that a finding. It's their way:
"PIC failed to maintain clearance from ground obstacles".

Anyone want to bet? Can you feel my love for the NTSB?

All that being said, I feel sorry for everyone involved in this. The flight
crew will carry the sense of guilt forever and the family who's child died will
always associate snow with loss now.

Nobody should be too quick to assign guilt in this. None of us were there.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Jay Honeck

December 10th 05, 03:31 PM

> I will tell you that 90% of the nose wheel tires on most
> airplanes below 40,000 pounds are worn out on the right side
> [left side when viewed from the front] and I can teach you
> why this is so and improve all your flying technique, but
> you'll need to send me more than $10 for that.

Okay, 'fess up. Why is this so?

(You'll earn ten bucks off your next stay at the Inn... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike Schumann

December 10th 05, 04:24 PM

News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail wind. Anyone know how
much of a tailwind it was? Why were they landing with a tailwind?

Mike Schumann

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-051208midway,1,5533660.story?co
> ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
>
> Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history. I've driven past
> that intersection many times, and it's partly exhilarating and partly
> terrifying to have the jets take off so close above you. And it's almost
> always a little disconcerting landing there with the usual lake effect
> turbulence on final, especially when you seem to float over the runway
> forever before actually touching down. I've never piloted anything beyond
> my
> simulator, but isn't it really pushing the envelope to land (on 31C) in
> fairly heavy snow with winds from the east at 13 mph?
>
> - Rick
>
>

beavis

December 10th 05, 04:33 PM

In article t>, Mike
Schumann > wrote:

> News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail wind. Anyone know how
> much of a tailwind it was?

I think the report was that it was around 7-8 knots of tailwind.

> Why were they landing with a tailwind?

Because the tower assigned it, and they accepted it. The longer answer
is that the other arrival interfered with O'Hare, and requesting it
guarantees you'll hold for at least 45 minutes, and probably end up
diverting because you don't have the fuel for that.

I know, hindsight, but this happens at airports all the time. It
happens to me in BOS pretty regularly, because they can pack more
traffic in one way than the other. My airline can land with up to 15
knots of tailwind, if our landing data show we're within weight limits
for it.

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 04:45 PM

Pilots tend to sit on the left side and not look truly
straight ahead, but look a few degrees toward the center of
the airplane. Thus they think the airplane's longitudinal
axis is not aligned with the direction of travel, since
their reference point is incorrect. I've even seen pilots,
in calm wind conditions, setup a slip to align their
incorrect aim point. Then since they also fail to properly
flare and follow through with the landing, allowing the nose
to slam down when the torque from main wheel spin-up occurs,
the nose wheel tire makes hard contact with the ground while
swinging to the right as the CG corrects their direction of
travel.
The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set from
the centerline; Then always get that point pointed straight
down the runway;And follow through with the flare so that
the pilot controls the nose wheel touchdown.

That will also make your airwork better, since that same
reference point is used for in-flight maneuvers and the
attention to detail makes you a better pilot.

BTW, I've actually had a professional pilot, CFI taking a
flight review want to come to blows when I told him what he
was doing. It took a few trips around the pattern before he
saw his error. This is not just a problem with SE trainers,
look at the tires on a Lear or King Air next time you have
the chance, it isn't uncommon to see all the tire wear on
the co-pilot's side because the Captain does all the
landings.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HxCmf.394396$084.134791@attbi_s22...
|> I will tell you that 90% of the nose wheel tires on most
| > airplanes below 40,000 pounds are worn out on the right
side
| > [left side when viewed from the front] and I can teach
you
| > why this is so and improve all your flying technique,
but
| > you'll need to send me more than $10 for that.
|
| Okay, 'fess up. Why is this so?
|
| (You'll earn ten bucks off your next stay at the Inn...
:-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 04:55 PM

Low IFR weather, 31C is the ILS runway. The wind was NE at
13 knots, I think that is what I heard.

Airports that they could have gone to within a 30 minute
diversion, Springfield, IL has ILS 04 on a long runway,
Peoria, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Milwaukee. WI and of course
O'Hare.
It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew, IMO, and
they are lucky this is not Europe, in the EU they could be
facing criminal charges for the death of the kid.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
| News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail
wind. Anyone know how
| much of a tailwind it was? Why were they landing with a
tailwind?
|
| Mike Schumann
|
| "Rick" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-051208midway,1,5533660.story?co
| > ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
| >
| > Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.
I've driven past
| > that intersection many times, and it's partly
exhilarating and partly
| > terrifying to have the jets take off so close above you.
And it's almost
| > always a little disconcerting landing there with the
usual lake effect
| > turbulence on final, especially when you seem to float
over the runway
| > forever before actually touching down. I've never
piloted anything beyond
| > my
| > simulator, but isn't it really pushing the envelope to
land (on 31C) in
| > fairly heavy snow with winds from the east at 13 mph?
| >
| > - Rick
| >
| >
|
|

Mike Schumann

December 10th 05, 05:04 PM

Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be OK due to longer
runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind in a blizard with fair to poor
braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously not a good idea.

Mike Schumann

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, Mike
> Schumann > wrote:
>
>> News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail wind. Anyone know
>> how
>> much of a tailwind it was?
>
> I think the report was that it was around 7-8 knots of tailwind.
>
>> Why were they landing with a tailwind?
>
> Because the tower assigned it, and they accepted it. The longer answer
> is that the other arrival interfered with O'Hare, and requesting it
> guarantees you'll hold for at least 45 minutes, and probably end up
> diverting because you don't have the fuel for that.
>
> I know, hindsight, but this happens at airports all the time. It
> happens to me in BOS pretty regularly, because they can pack more
> traffic in one way than the other. My airline can land with up to 15
> knots of tailwind, if our landing data show we're within weight limits
> for it.

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 05:13 PM

The landing threshold is displaced, only 5800 feet available
and the ILS/GS will bring you down with only about 4600-4800
feet remaining. That will be reduced by the tailwind
extending the flare-touchdown. Then the stopping distance
will be increased by 50-200% because of the ice/snow.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in
message
k.net...
| Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be
OK due to longer
| runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind in a blizard with
fair to poor
| braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously not a good idea.
|
| Mike Schumann
|
| "beavis" > wrote in message
| ...
| > In article
t>, Mike
| > Schumann > wrote:
| >
| >> News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail
wind. Anyone know
| >> how
| >> much of a tailwind it was?
| >
| > I think the report was that it was around 7-8 knots of
tailwind.
| >
| >> Why were they landing with a tailwind?
| >
| > Because the tower assigned it, and they accepted it.
The longer answer
| > is that the other arrival interfered with O'Hare, and
requesting it
| > guarantees you'll hold for at least 45 minutes, and
probably end up
| > diverting because you don't have the fuel for that.
| >
| > I know, hindsight, but this happens at airports all the
time. It
| > happens to me in BOS pretty regularly, because they can
pack more
| > traffic in one way than the other. My airline can land
with up to 15
| > knots of tailwind, if our landing data show we're within
weight limits
| > for it.
|
|

roncachamp

December 10th 05, 05:32 PM

>
> Not blame, or assigned, but there is no need to wait for a
> final NTSB report if a reasoned judgment can suggest an
> improvement.
>

A reasoned judgment cannot be made before the facts are known and the
facts cannot be known until the investigation is complete.

beavis

December 10th 05, 05:56 PM

In article <sNDmf.18754$QW2.11364@dukeread08>, Jim Macklin
> wrote:

> It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew...

Apparently you've already figured the whole thing out. Why don't you
call the NTSB and tell them you can save them a whole bunch of time and
expense?

How do you know there wasn't a mechanical malfunction with the plane?
You don't.

How do you know the airport wind indicator was calibrated correctly?
You don't.

How do you know the braking action report was accurate? You don't.
Saranac Lake, NY, had an airplane stop sideways in the snow because the
person who was supposed to make the field condition report MADE IT UP.
Read it if you like:

<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X09454&ntsbno=IAD98LA
023&akey=1>

Here's an excerpt:

===
The ground agent stated:

"...At 1900, airport employee...came into the terminal. I immediately
asked him for a field conditions report. He replied that he hadn't
checked them (the field conditions) and that I should put in my report
the same conditions as were last reported. He then asked me what the
last report stated the field conditions to be. I replied that the
airport had reported one quarter inch of dry snow over hard packed snow
and ice, braking action reported as poor. He again told me to make the
same report and sat down to watch television...."
===

So... How about letting the investigators do their jobs before you hang
the crew out to dry with only the "facts" the news media gave you?

Jay Honeck

December 10th 05, 06:45 PM

> This is not just a problem with SE trainers,
> look at the tires on a Lear or King Air next time you have
> the chance, it isn't uncommon to see all the tire wear on
> the co-pilot's side because the Captain does all the
> landings.

Interesting observation, Jim -- thanks.

As a new pilot I used to occasionally have trouble landing in a slight crab,
even when there was no crosswind. (In fact, it was sometimes worse with NO
wind at all.) I cured that problem by consciously aligning the nose and
tail of the plane with the runway, not just aligning *me* with the runway.

Now, it's second nature, but it took some analysis to figure out what I was
doing wrong. It never dawned on me that this was common, and would result
in uneven nose-tire wear!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 06:49 PM

I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type rated in
the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet. I have flown
single pilot into O'Hare and Midway, Atlanta and St. Louis
in all weather conditions.
I have been pressured to make flights by employers and
passengers. I have gone as far as to tell passengers that
"if we go, you'll die" and I have diverted, delayed and even
cancelled [don't like to do that, it costs me money].

Many pilots, in my experience, do not fully read and
understand the info that is on an approach plate. Many
don't realize the limitations of an ILS.

Yes, in my mind I have figured this out. I expect the NTSB
will reach the same conclusion in a year or so, they must be
99.99% sure, I don't need to be that positive.

Because snow was falling during and after the accident, it
is likely that the actual touchdown point will never be
known, my guess is that it was with about 4,000 remaining.
With a snow covered and icy runway and a 7 knot tailwind
component, that wasn't enough.

Personally, waiting for the NTSB before making critical
training and operational decisions based on this accident
is like waiting for the next terrorist attack before arming
the pilots with 45 ACP 200 grain flying ashtrays.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
| In article <sNDmf.18754$QW2.11364@dukeread08>, Jim Macklin
| > wrote:
|
| > It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew...
|
| Apparently you've already figured the whole thing out.
Why don't you
| call the NTSB and tell them you can save them a whole
bunch of time and
| expense?
|
| How do you know there wasn't a mechanical malfunction with
the plane?
| You don't.
|
| How do you know the airport wind indicator was calibrated
correctly?
| You don't.
|
| How do you know the braking action report was accurate?
You don't.
| Saranac Lake, NY, had an airplane stop sideways in the
snow because the
| person who was supposed to make the field condition report
MADE IT UP.
| Read it if you like:
|
|
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X09454&ntsbno=IAD98LA
| 023&akey=1>
|
|
| Here's an excerpt:
|
| ===
| The ground agent stated:
|
| "...At 1900, airport employee...came into the terminal. I
immediately
| asked him for a field conditions report. He replied that
he hadn't
| checked them (the field conditions) and that I should put
in my report
| the same conditions as were last reported. He then asked
me what the
| last report stated the field conditions to be. I replied
that the
| airport had reported one quarter inch of dry snow over
hard packed snow
| and ice, braking action reported as poor. He again told me
to make the
| same report and sat down to watch television...."
| ===
|
|
|
|
| So... How about letting the investigators do their jobs
before you hang
| the crew out to dry with only the "facts" the news media
gave you?

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 06:59 PM

It is not stressed during check-outs, to get a true sight
picture. In many airplanes the pilot sits about 5 degrees
from his eye to the only visible part of the cowl/nose and
that is the hump over the prop. Unless to conscientiously
avoid using it as a reference, your eye will use it as a
default reference for alignment.

It is very easy to fix as a pilot or instructor if you know
to look for the signs. If you are an instructor giving a
flight review to an owner, you can gain extra points by
telling him about his landing problem even before you start
the engine.

A grease penciled mark (I like crosshairs on the spot) makes
it easy to cure the pilot and teach the student. Soon they
won't need it.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DnFmf.394608$084.59578@attbi_s22...
|> This is not just a problem with SE trainers,
| > look at the tires on a Lear or King Air next time you
have
| > the chance, it isn't uncommon to see all the tire wear
on
| > the co-pilot's side because the Captain does all the
| > landings.
|
| Interesting observation, Jim -- thanks.
|
| As a new pilot I used to occasionally have trouble landing
in a slight crab,
| even when there was no crosswind. (In fact, it was
sometimes worse with NO
| wind at all.) I cured that problem by consciously
aligning the nose and
| tail of the plane with the runway, not just aligning *me*
with the runway.
|
| Now, it's second nature, but it took some analysis to
figure out what I was
| doing wrong. It never dawned on me that this was common,
and would result
| in uneven nose-tire wear!
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

beavis

December 10th 05, 07:17 PM

In article <KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08>, Jim Macklin
> wrote:

> I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
> single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type rated in
> the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet. I have flown
> single pilot into O'Hare and Midway, Atlanta and St. Louis
> in all weather conditions.

And I'll stand by mine, over 9,000 hours, with time in King Airs, and
time and type ratings in the 1900, and the 737. I have 6,000 hours and
8 years as an airline pilots, flying more hours than I care to recall
through some of the nastiest snowstorms I've seen.

I'll stand by my point: You have no idea what CAUSED the crash. Yes,
there was snow. Yes, the runway was short. Yes, there was a tailwind.
But was any of these the overriding cause? YOU DON'T KNOW. And
neither do I. That was my point.

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 07:54 PM

No, nobody knows for sire, 100% what the cause was, not even
the two pilots in the cockpit. Even after the NTSB releases
their report and conclusions, there will be some room for
"what if and whys" since they will not have complete data,
since the runway was covered with fresh snow and it is not
likely that they can determine the exact point of touchdown.

But what is known right now, the runway is marginal under
the best of conditions, ask the ALPA if Midway is anywhere
close to the design of a modern jet airport.
The ILS and displaced threshold are published and fixed. If
the pilot hand flew the approach, the could have flown one
or two dots low [needle above center] but a coupled approach
would put the aircraft in the center of the touchdown zone,
with about 4300 feet available, on a snow packed runway with
fair to good braking action on the first half and poor on
the part that the stop would be made on.

What is also absolutely true, if the pilot had diverted to
another airport they would not have had an accident at
Midway. They could have crashed somewhere else, but I
always thought that trying to make the most safe choice was
the goal of an airline pilot.

I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
what ever reason.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
| In article <KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08>, Jim Macklin
| > wrote:
|
| > I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
| > single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type
rated in
| > the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet. I have
flown
| > single pilot into O'Hare and Midway, Atlanta and St.
Louis
| > in all weather conditions.
|
| And I'll stand by mine, over 9,000 hours, with time in
King Airs, and
| time and type ratings in the 1900, and the 737. I have
6,000 hours and
| 8 years as an airline pilots, flying more hours than I
care to recall
| through some of the nastiest snowstorms I've seen.
|
| I'll stand by my point: You have no idea what CAUSED the
crash. Yes,
| there was snow. Yes, the runway was short. Yes, there
was a tailwind.
| But was any of these the overriding cause? YOU DON'T
KNOW. And
| neither do I. That was my point.

[email protected]

December 10th 05, 08:49 PM

Rachel wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> <snip>
> > I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
> > some other airport.
>
> Well, my personal theory on not diverting is that no Southwest captain
> would be caught dead landing at ORD.

SWA is starting at DIA, been at LAX, SEA, etc. for years. Their last
incident of this
type was at BUR, into the Chevron station. RUNL gas was $1.59, the good
ole days!

JG

[email protected]

December 10th 05, 08:53 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
> some other airport. Seems pretty simple , the plane stopped
> right where a calculation indicates it would stop.

The seasoned flier will spare the extra $$ for assigned seats at the
BIG
airport during the winter. Longer runways and top shelf Daley relatives
driving
the plows. The under-acheivers get dumped plowing at MDW :)

JG

>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> | yep
> |

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 09:59 PM

Someday, the Daley gang will all be in jail, but still, the
diversion decision should be based on the weather, not local
crooked politicians. When I was faced with a diversion
choice, I always went to SPI because I could drop in on my
mother.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

> wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to
O'Hare or
| > some other airport. Seems pretty simple , the plane
stopped
| > right where a calculation indicates it would stop.
|
| The seasoned flier will spare the extra $$ for assigned
seats at the
| BIG
| airport during the winter. Longer runways and top shelf
Daley relatives
| driving
| the plows. The under-acheivers get dumped plowing at MDW
:)
|
| JG
|
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
| >
ups.com...
| > | yep
| > |
|

.Blueskies.

December 10th 05, 10:31 PM

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be OK due to longer runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind
> in a blizard with fair to poor braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously not a good idea.
>
> Mike Schumann
>

What did the performance numbers indicate for the conditions the pilot landed in? What was the final approach speed
calculated to? What distance was required to stop? Don't know the numbers? You cannot take the stance that this was
obviously not a good idea...

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 10:38 PM

The numbers said the required runway was longer than the
available based on pilot skill, technique, weather
conditions and runway conditions, the proof came to rest 600
feet past the end of the runway.

The answers to your valid questions will be researched and
discovered in the next few weeks and months. I'd be very
interested in the cockpit voice recorder, did the crew
discuss and accurately state the available runway landing
length or did they look at the over-all length of concrete?

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
et...
|
| "Mike Schumann" > wrote
in message
| k.net...
| > Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may
be OK due to longer runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind
| > in a blizard with fair to poor braking on a 6,500'
runway was obviously not a good idea.
| >
| > Mike Schumann
| >
|
| What did the performance numbers indicate for the
conditions the pilot landed in? What was the final approach
speed
| calculated to? What distance was required to stop? Don't
know the numbers? You cannot take the stance that this was
| obviously not a good idea...
|
|

Ron Lee

December 10th 05, 11:28 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
>what ever reason.

Odds are that you are correct. People may say "What until the
official report is in" but common sense suggests pilot error. It
happens and you don't have to be a NTSB official to make an educated
guess.

Ron Lee

Jim Macklin

December 10th 05, 11:35 PM

We do need to learn from other's mistakes, because we all
make enough of our own.

Thanks for the support.
Jim

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| >
| >I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision,
for
| >what ever reason.
|
| Odds are that you are correct. People may say "What until
the
| official report is in" but common sense suggests pilot
error. It
| happens and you don't have to be a NTSB official to make
an educated
| guess.
|
| Ron Lee

Ron Lee

December 11th 05, 12:48 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
>> what ever reason.
>
>I'll bet a contributing factor will be the incorrectly reported braking
>conditions.
>--
>Jim in NC

Assuming that it was incorrect. You are flying into an airport with
significant snowfall. Wouldn't most people assume that the runway is
snow covered and hence degraded traction?

Ron Lee

Rachel

December 11th 05, 12:55 AM

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>>>I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
>>>what ever reason.
>>
>>I'll bet a contributing factor will be the incorrectly reported braking
>>conditions.
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>
>
> Assuming that it was incorrect. You are flying into an airport with
> significant snowfall. Wouldn't most people assume that the runway is
> snow covered and hence degraded traction?

Nope. I used to land in snow all the time and the runway was usually
clear and braking action good.

Morgans

December 11th 05, 01:02 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote

> I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
> what ever reason.

I'll bet a contributing factor will be the incorrectly reported braking
conditions.
--
Jim in NC

.Blueskies.

December 11th 05, 01:31 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:tNImf.18788$QW2.10032@dukeread08...
> The numbers said the required runway was longer than the
> available based on pilot skill, technique, weather
> conditions and runway conditions, the proof came to rest 600
> feet past the end of the runway.
>
> The answers to your valid questions will be researched and
> discovered in the next few weeks and months. I'd be very
> interested in the cockpit voice recorder, did the crew
> discuss and accurately state the available runway landing
> length or did they look at the over-all length of concrete?
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>

I'm sure dispatch did their job assisting the PIC and flight crew about the conditions. From what I read they were
holding for a period of time before the approach, and the planes before them made it in without incident. I'm willing to
do the $10 bet the crew has been in and out of Midway many, many times, so they surely knew the available runway
distances. SWA is a pretty good airline, not a fly by night 135 charter operation looking to get someone to their resort
vacation....

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

December 11th 05, 02:03 AM

Ron Lee wrote:
>> I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
>> what ever reason.
>
> Odds are that you are correct. People may say "What until the
> official report is in" but common sense suggests pilot error. It
> happens and you don't have to be a NTSB official to make an educated
> guess.

You can be absolutely certain that the NTSB will find "pilot error". They
always do. It's the contributing factors which will be interesting.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

RST Engineering

December 11th 05, 02:22 AM

Nope. In my case, they found the root cause to be "improper maintenance",
and all this without a copy of the maintenance logbooks or any other
maintenance records.

Jim

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...

>
> You can be absolutely certain that the NTSB will find "pilot error". They
> always do. It's the contributing factors which will be interesting.
>

Dave

December 11th 05, 02:27 AM

I look down the piano hinge line on the left side of the cowl..

Places the nose wheel on the centerline every time..

Well.... every time I have the hinge lined up anyway... :)

Dave

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:45:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> This is not just a problem with SE trainers,
>> look at the tires on a Lear or King Air next time you have
>> the chance, it isn't uncommon to see all the tire wear on
>> the co-pilot's side because the Captain does all the
>> landings.
>
>Interesting observation, Jim -- thanks.
>
>As a new pilot I used to occasionally have trouble landing in a slight crab,
>even when there was no crosswind. (In fact, it was sometimes worse with NO
>wind at all.) I cured that problem by consciously aligning the nose and
>tail of the plane with the runway, not just aligning *me* with the runway.
>
>Now, it's second nature, but it took some analysis to figure out what I was
>doing wrong. It never dawned on me that this was common, and would result
>in uneven nose-tire wear!

Montblack

December 11th 05, 02:55 AM

>> You can be absolutely certain that the NTSB will find "pilot error".
>> They always do. It's the contributing factors which will be interesting.

("RST Engineering" wrote)
> Nope. In my case, they found the root cause to be "improper maintenance",
> and all this without a copy of the maintenance logbooks or any other
> maintenance records.

Ok, but did they have the twisty ties, chewing gum, duct tape and baling
wire from the scene? <g>

No-no, wait. That would have been "improper repair". Yeah, you got jobbed.

Montblack

Matt Whiting

December 11th 05, 03:07 AM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Someday, the Daley gang will all be in jail, but still, the

Not likely. Chicago has a long history of celebrating crooked
politicians, not prosecuting them. I see no indication this will change
any time soon.

Matt

Matt Whiting

December 11th 05, 03:08 AM

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be OK due to longer runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind
>>in a blizard with fair to poor braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously not a good idea.
>>
>>Mike Schumann
>>
>
>
> What did the performance numbers indicate for the conditions the pilot landed in? What was the final approach speed
> calculated to? What distance was required to stop? Don't know the numbers? You cannot take the stance that this was
> obviously not a good idea...

The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
more evidence does one need?

Matt

Matt Whiting

December 11th 05, 03:10 AM

RST Engineering wrote:

> Nope. In my case, they found the root cause to be "improper maintenance",
> and all this without a copy of the maintenance logbooks or any other
> maintenance records.

But, Jim, your reputation preceeds you. :-)

Matt

George Patterson

December 11th 05, 03:28 AM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Pilots tend to sit on the left side and not look truly
> straight ahead, but look a few degrees toward the center of
> the airplane.

A few hours with a taildragger will do wonders to fix this.

> The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
> directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set from
> the centerline;

This is exactly correct. In my Maule, this point was the upper left mounting
screw for the AI.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Mike Schumann

December 11th 05, 03:46 AM

Braking conditions were apparently reported as fair to poor. I would think
that that would be sufficient to question the wisdom of landing with a tail
wind on a relatively short (for commercial jets) runway.

Mike Schumann

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote
>
>> I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision, for
>> what ever reason.
>
> I'll bet a contributing factor will be the incorrectly reported braking
> conditions.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Rick

December 11th 05, 04:16 AM

Matt Whiting wrote in message >...
>.Blueskies. wrote:
>
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>>>Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be OK due to
longer runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind
>>>in a blizard with fair to poor braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously
not a good idea.
>>>
>>>Mike Schumann
>>>
>>
>>
>> What did the performance numbers indicate for the conditions the pilot
landed in? What was the final approach speed
>> calculated to? What distance was required to stop? Don't know the
numbers? You cannot take the stance that this was
>> obviously not a good idea...
>
>The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea.

That would certainly be true in a case like Burbank, where it was initially
known to have descended twice as steep as normal and crossed the threshold
at 200 knots. In this case it sounds good at first glance, but I think it
needs to be qualified by "absent other factors such as mechanical failure -
brake or thrust reverser problems, etc." Also, the fact that flights had
been landing safely shortly before would make your statement a little less
certain.

In fact, it has now been reported by the pilots that the reversers didn't
take effect right away - there was a delay of several seconds. Even the
flight attendants noticed it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-midway-accident,1,463663.sto
ry?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

>How much more evidence does one need?

I can't answer that, but it sure doesn't take much evidence to cast doubt on
the weather as the major factor.

- Rick

rotor&wing

December 11th 05, 04:21 AM

your amature analysis is shining through. you obviously have no facts, no knowledge of the aircraft involved, nor any knowledge of SWA procedures.

Low IFR weather, 31C is the ILS runway. The wind was NE at
13 knots, I think that is what I heard.

Airports that they could have gone to within a 30 minute
diversion, Springfield, IL has ILS 04 on a long runway,
Peoria, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Milwaukee. WI and of course
O'Hare.
It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew, IMO, and
they are lucky this is not Europe, in the EU they could be
facing criminal charges for the death of the kid.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mike Schumann" wrote in
message
nk.net...
| News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail
wind. Anyone know how
| much of a tailwind it was? Why were they landing with a
tailwind?
|
| Mike Schumann
|
| "Rick" wrote in message
| ...
|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-051208midway,1,5533660.story?co
| ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
|
| Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.
I've driven past
| that intersection many times, and it's partly
exhilarating and partly
| terrifying to have the jets take off so close above you.
And it's almost
| always a little disconcerting landing there with the
usual lake effect
| turbulence on final, especially when you seem to float
over the runway
| forever before actually touching down. I've never
piloted anything beyond
| my
| simulator, but isn't it really pushing the envelope to
land (on 31C) in
| fairly heavy snow with winds from the east at 13 mph?
|
| - Rick
|
|
|
|

Newps

December 11th 05, 04:28 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
> more evidence does one need?

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet
wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html

Jay Beckman

December 11th 05, 04:35 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
>> evidence does one need?
>
> How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
> that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
> verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet wouldn't
> have been enough runway in that weather.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html

Interesting...

Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet to
see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power" just
before the plane came through the fence.

Jay B

Dave Stadt

December 11th 05, 05:26 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> .Blueskies. wrote:
>
> > "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>Landing in BOS in crummy conditions with a tailwind may be OK due to
longer runways. Landing with a 9 knot tailwind
> >>in a blizard with fair to poor braking on a 6,500' runway was obviously
not a good idea.
> >>
> >>Mike Schumann
> >>
> >
> >
> > What did the performance numbers indicate for the conditions the pilot
landed in? What was the final approach speed
> > calculated to? What distance was required to stop? Don't know the
numbers? You cannot take the stance that this was
> > obviously not a good idea...
>
> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
> more evidence does one need?
>
> Matt

I need more evidence than some Monday night wannabe quarterback making a
WAG. Could be a multitude of mechanical, electrical, electronic or other
problems that caused the accident. Time will tell.

Jack

December 11th 05, 06:24 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> The NTSB will find pilot error. That's a given. I'm not suggesting the pilot
> made a mistake; only that the NTSB will make that a finding. It's their way:
> "PIC failed to maintain clearance from ground obstacles".

It might help to look at it as an observation, rather than a verdict.

Some day, I'd like to see them come right out and say, "We have no clue
why that happened, 'cause we have too little information to gain a clear
picture of the cause, but as a committee this is the best we can come up
with."

Think that could happen?

Of course, it's always possible that the decision to continue in a
moderate to heavy snowfall, at night, to a very limited length slippery
runway with a displaced threshold and an ILS touchdown point leaving
~4500' remaining after flare, with a tailwind, and published minimums
of 300' & 3/4 mile (or 4000 RVR, according to my out of date approach
book), in reported conditions of 1/4 to 1/2 mile (I have no reported RVR
info), requiring very precise airspeed management, perfect functioning
of crew and equipment, AND accurate information from Airport Operations
as to the true condition of the runway, is at least a very questionable
choice by the cockpit crew. A recent history of three other incidents
when Southwest airliners ran off the runway after landing, one almost
identical to this MDW accident except that it happened in sunny Southern
California after the airplane touched down at 182 kts, on a runway of
the same usable length as MDW. Hmmm.

Speculation is inevitable. Those who preach against it publicly are
nonetheless quietly doing exactly that in their own heads. It is
impossible not to do so if one has any interest at all in the subject.
Many of us will learn something from the process. Let's hear all sides
of the issues, re "speculation", airline operations, the FAA/NTSB,
airline bankruptcies, etc.

A final consideration: the job of an Airline crew is to avoid those
situations where every single thing has to go your way in order to make
it all come out right -- the old "superior judgment trumps superior
airmanship" thing. So far, the information available is that just about
everything was against this crew, and yet they continued into MDW. Yes,
there is much that we don't yet know, and the rest could be even worse.
Were the thrust reversers slow in deploying? Apparently, but it is also
reported that the touchdown was smooth -- the last thing I'd want when I
need spoilers and reversers NOW on a slippery, rain or snow-covered
runway. "Thirty-two seconds from touchdown to initial impact", over a
distance of a mile or less? If those numbers are correct, that's a very
high average speed. Hmmm.

I hope that no airline pilot will ever again accept a landing at MDW
under the conditions which prevailed when SWA Flight 1248 arrived on Dec
8, 2005. And if they do so, I hope that no member of my family is
aboard, or in the vicinity.

Jack

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 06:44 AM

I always assume that braking is worse than reported, that
tailwinds in cruise are less than forecast, that tailwinds
on landing are stronger than reported, that headwinds on
landing will become calm, that fuel will be burned a little
faster and I will never really match the performance given
in the book.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| > I stand by my opinion, the pilot made a stupid decision,
for
| > what ever reason.
|
| I'll bet a contributing factor will be the incorrectly
reported braking
| conditions.
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 06:50 AM

A hinge or painted line is always nice. But some airplanes
don't have such, sometimes you can't see any part of the
nose past the window frame. But what ever you fly you have
to find something to use as references.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
|I look down the piano hinge line on the left side of the
cowl..
|
| Places the nose wheel on the centerline every time..
|
| Well.... every time I have the hinge lined up anyway...
:)
|
| Dave
|
|
|
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:45:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
| > wrote:
|
| >> This is not just a problem with SE trainers,
| >> look at the tires on a Lear or King Air next time you
have
| >> the chance, it isn't uncommon to see all the tire wear
on
| >> the co-pilot's side because the Captain does all the
| >> landings.
| >
| >Interesting observation, Jim -- thanks.
| >
| >As a new pilot I used to occasionally have trouble
landing in a slight crab,
| >even when there was no crosswind. (In fact, it was
sometimes worse with NO
| >wind at all.) I cured that problem by consciously
aligning the nose and
| >tail of the plane with the runway, not just aligning *me*
with the runway.
| >
| >Now, it's second nature, but it took some analysis to
figure out what I was
| >doing wrong. It never dawned on me that this was common,
and would result
| >in uneven nose-tire wear!
|

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 06:50 AM

Not until the next great Chicago fire and political
relocation.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Someday, the Daley gang will all be in jail, but still,
the
|
| Not likely. Chicago has a long history of celebrating
crooked
| politicians, not prosecuting them. I see no indication
this will change
| any time soon.
|
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 06:54 AM

Tailwheel airplanes are wonderful teachers, maybe the new
Legacy Cubs will spark a renewal of landing skills.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:l1Nmf.9752$Wo2.5041@trnddc04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Pilots tend to sit on the left side and not look truly
| > straight ahead, but look a few degrees toward the center
of
| > the airplane.
|
| A few hours with a taildragger will do wonders to fix
this.
|
| > The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
| > directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set
from
| > the centerline;
|
| This is exactly correct. In my Maule, this point was the
upper left mounting
| screw for the AI.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

Morgans

December 11th 05, 07:11 AM

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> Nope. In my case, they found the root cause to be "improper maintenance",
> and all this without a copy of the maintenance logbooks or any other
> maintenance records.

Of course! Surely you know that as an A&P, you are supposed to know when a
piston is about to throw itself out of the case, and replace/repair the
engine before it does so.

Haven't your customers told you this already? ;-))
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

December 11th 05, 07:14 AM

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> Assuming that it was incorrect. You are flying into an airport with
> significant snowfall. Wouldn't most people assume that the runway is
> snow covered and hence degraded traction?

True, but I seem to remember that the report was for "fair" conditions. You
would then think that plowing was keeping it pretty clear. Not true, I
guess.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

December 11th 05, 07:16 AM

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Braking conditions were apparently reported as fair to poor. I would
think
> that that would be sufficient to question the wisdom of landing with a
tail
> wind on a relatively short (for commercial jets) runway.

I recall reading that it was reported as fair, and if it had been poor,
another runway would have automatically been put into use, and the first one
closed. I could be wrong, but that is what I remembered.
--
Jim in NC

Tom Conner

December 11th 05, 07:42 AM

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> >> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
> >> more evidence does one need?
> >
> > How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
> > reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
> > easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
> > feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
> >
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html
>
> Interesting...
>
> Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
> to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
> just before the plane came through the fence.

That's interesting. Do you have any examples?

Jay Beckman

December 11th 05, 08:05 AM

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>> >> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
>> >> more evidence does one need?
>> >
>> > How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
>> > reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
>> > easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
>> > feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html
>>
>> Interesting...
>>
>> Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
>> to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
>> just before the plane came through the fence.
>
> That's interesting. Do you have any examples?

CNN spoke with a couple of folks in the area who said this. I'm thinking
though that to the average lay person, any jet engine "up close" will sound
like it's making power when it's actually at idle.

Jay B

[email protected]

December 11th 05, 02:26 PM

>
> How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
> that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
> verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet
> wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.

The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.

The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.

The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
availability when the runway is other than dry.

I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot runway covered
with black ice after receiving a field condition report that the runway
was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line personel just
looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report. After
deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to landing with
5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust reversers
installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had been given
the correct field condition of clear ice and braking action of nil, I
would have diverted to another airport.

G. Lee

.Blueskies.

December 11th 05, 03:08 PM

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
>
> The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
> on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
> icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.
>
> The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
> runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
> inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.
>
> The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
> availability when the runway is other than dry.
>
....snip...
> G. Lee
>

;-)

Yes, the distances calculated supposedly do not include thrust reversers deployed. I would like to see the 737 tables
for this plane...

Rachel

December 11th 05, 03:18 PM

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Tom Conner" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
>>news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...
>>
>>>"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>>>>>sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much
>>>>>more evidence does one need?
>>>>
>>>>How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
>>>>reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
>>>>easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
>>>>feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html
>>>
>>>Interesting...
>>>
>>>Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
>>>to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
>>>just before the plane came through the fence.
>>
>>That's interesting. Do you have any examples?
>
>
> CNN spoke with a couple of folks in the area who said this. I'm thinking
> though that to the average lay person, any jet engine "up close" will sound
> like it's making power when it's actually at idle.
>
> Jay B

Especially if the thrust reversers are deployed.

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 04:55 PM

Amateur is the correct spelling.

<rotor&amp>; "wing"
> wrote in
message .. .
|
| your amature analysis is shining through. you obviously
have no facts,
| no knowledge of the aircraft involved, nor any knowledge
of SWA
| procedures.
|
|
|
| Jim Macklin Wrote:
| > Low IFR weather, 31C is the ILS runway. The wind was NE
at
| > 13 knots, I think that is what I heard.
| >
| > Airports that they could have gone to within a 30 minute
| > diversion, Springfield, IL has ILS 04 on a long runway,
| > Peoria, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Milwaukee. WI and of
course
| > O'Hare.
| > It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew, IMO,
and
| > they are lucky this is not Europe, in the EU they could
be
| > facing criminal charges for the death of the kid.
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| >
| > "Mike Schumann" wrote
in
| > message
| >
nk.net...
| > | News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail
| > wind. Anyone know how
| > | much of a tailwind it was? Why were they landing with
a
| > tailwind?
| > |
| > | Mike Schumann
| > |
| > | "Rick" wrote in message
| > | ...
| > |
| > http://tinyurl.com/7fs7k
| > | ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
| > |
| > | Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's
history.
| > I've driven past
| > | that intersection many times, and it's partly
| > exhilarating and partly
| > | terrifying to have the jets take off so close above
you.
| > And it's almost
| > | always a little disconcerting landing there with the
| > usual lake effect
| > | turbulence on final, especially when you seem to
float
| > over the runway
| > | forever before actually touching down. I've never
| > piloted anything beyond
| > | my
| > | simulator, but isn't it really pushing the envelope
to
| > land (on 31C) in
| > | fairly heavy snow with winds from the east at 13 mph?
| > |
| > | - Rick
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
|
|
| --
| rotor&wing

Jim Macklin

December 11th 05, 05:32 PM

Many years ago I had agreed to fly a friend to Lambert at
St. Louis so he could get back to the Marines at Camp
Pendelton. In those days you could land and taxi to the
main airline terminal [Gate 28 if I remember correctly].
The door was open and you just walked into the concourse,
handed your ticket to the gate agent and departed on the
airline.
On the flight from Springfield to St. Louis my friend wanted
to stop at Litchfield to see his grandmother. It had snowed
the night before about 10 inches of fresh powder. The winds
was strong directly down the grass strip and 90 degrees to
the paved surface which was covered with black ice [it
always seems to have a little freezing rain before the snow
begins in Illinois.] I told my friend that we would not
land if the grass strip was not "safe to land on" and I
tried to raise the Unicom, but they were not answering.
I did a low pass at about 25 feet just to the right of the
center of the wide grass strip. The wind had blown the
surface smooth and the tips of the grass were sticking out
of the snow. As a 100 hour private pilot I knew that meant
the snow was blown off the grass and it would be safe to
land. So I setup a soft field landing, which became a very
interesting show, it seems the airport had not be mowed in
recent memory and the grass was at least a foot long. Full
power in the Beech Musketeer Super, full back elevator and a
lot of rudder kept use moving and we cleared the runway
after making a turn that was like a plow turn in a seaplane.
A good inspection showed no damage to the airplane and it
was placed in the heated hanger while my friend went to see
his granny. Obviously, the grass runway was not useable
for take-off.
I walked the paved runway which was 90 degree crosswind at
about 10 mph. There was some evaporation of the ice and I
decided to make a take-off on the dry portion of the runway,
that worked out just fine.

Looking back, I should have connected the dots, no answer on
the radio, unknown date for the mowing, I should have
by-passed the landing and gone to Lambert.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| >
| > How about some facts, because now you look stupid.
Pilots have reported
| > that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will
be easily
| > verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out
10,000 feet
| > wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
|
|
| The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have
flown are based
| on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust
reversers are just
| icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.
|
| The landing distance charts sometimes have notes
indicating additional
| runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are
not all
| inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.
|
| The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for
longer runway
| availability when the runway is other than dry.
|
| I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot
runway covered
| with black ice after receiving a field condition report
that the runway
| was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line
personel just
| looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report.
After
| deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to
landing with
| 5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust
reversers
| installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had
been given
| the correct field condition of clear ice and braking
action of nil, I
| would have diverted to another airport.
|
| G. Lee
|

Charles Oppermann

December 11th 05, 05:32 PM

> Yes, the distances calculated supposedly do not include thrust reversers
> deployed.
> I would like to see the 737 tables for this plane...

I was able to get detailed charted from Boeing at this site:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/737.htm

There are a number of PDF files. Under "Aircraft Performance." There is
take off and landing data for all models of the 737.

Under the 737-700 at sea level and flaps 40, the minimum runway length
listed is 3,550 feet. The maximum is 4,700 feet. The range is based on
weight. Other conditions listed are:

Standard Day, Auto Spoliers [sic], Anti-skid operational, zero wind.

For the same configuration, but for a wet surface, the numbers are 4,100
feet to 5,400 feet.

I assume, but it's not explicitly stated in the Boeing tables, that the
numbers are ground roll of the aircraft, not the runway length.

The NACO chart for Midway lists the landing length for 31C as 5,826 feet
(6,522 feet of pavement minus 696 feet of displaced threshold). The ILS GS
antenna is located 1,597 from the runway edge, or 901 feet from the
displaced threshold.

The METAR data at 0053Z included the note "R31C/4500FT".

I've been bloging about this accident at:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Charles Oppermann
www.coppersoftware.com

Mike Schumann

December 11th 05, 05:37 PM

Newsreports claim that the report was fair for the first half of the runway,
with poor breaking on the 2nd half.

Mike Schumann

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Braking conditions were apparently reported as fair to poor. I would
> think
>> that that would be sufficient to question the wisdom of landing with a
> tail
>> wind on a relatively short (for commercial jets) runway.
>
> I recall reading that it was reported as fair, and if it had been poor,
> another runway would have automatically been put into use, and the first
> one
> closed. I could be wrong, but that is what I remembered.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Matt Whiting

December 11th 05, 06:53 PM

wrote:

>>How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
>>that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
>>verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet
>>wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
>
>
>
> The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
> on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
> icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.
>
> The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
> runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
> inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.
>
> The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
> availability when the runway is other than dry.
>
> I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot runway covered
> with black ice after receiving a field condition report that the runway
> was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line personel just
> looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report. After
> deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to landing with
> 5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust reversers
> installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had been given
> the correct field condition of clear ice and braking action of nil, I
> would have diverted to another airport.

Don't confuse Newps with facts. If this landing was only successful
with reverser deployment, then I still think it was a bad idea to
attempt it with with basically no margin for error.

I'll make landings like that from time to time when alone, but I'll
never carry passengers into a situation where there is no margin for error.

Matt

Skywise

December 11th 05, 08:44 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:ZA_mf.4154$lb.326571
@news1.epix.net:

<Snipola>
> I'll make landings like that from time to time when alone, but I'll
> never carry passengers into a situation where there is no margin for error.

Which is scary, considering in this accident the only fatality
wasn't even in the plane.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

Matt Whiting

December 11th 05, 09:06 PM

Skywise wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:ZA_mf.4154$lb.326571
> @news1.epix.net:
>
> <Snipola>
>
>>I'll make landings like that from time to time when alone, but I'll
>>never carry passengers into a situation where there is no margin for error.
>
>
> Which is scary, considering in this accident the only fatality
> wasn't even in the plane.

Yes, they were truly fortunate that this wasn't much worse. Had they
hit a large truck, or something more solid, the damage to the airplane,
crew and pax could have been substantial. Fortunately, that didn't happen.

Matt

Morgans

December 12th 05, 03:26 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:mSYmf.22835$QW2.21920@dukeread08...
> Amateur is the correct spelling.

You can't really expect to get away with this. ALL critics of spelling or
typo's MUST have a spelling or typo containded in the post.

It *is* a rule. Please remember this, in the future. <bfg>
--
Jim in NC

Jim Macklin

December 12th 05, 04:25 AM

I make mistakes, usually because my fingers are bigger than
the keys, I'm always getting the Y when I want the T and I
sometimes get the 3 and e together. But I went to school
years ago and learned how to write, read and do basic math
before computers. My wife has a Masters' in English and
that makes me aware of those words that get people in
trouble, such as...
site, cite, sight;
they're there, their;
prostate and prostrate;

I do use the spell-check in Outlook Express, it catches
typos mostly, sometimes I just can't remember how to spell
some words.

But I just could not resist the correction for the fellow
who was chastising me for stating my opinion, based on my
experience and what I would teach a student, about being
cautious.

But mistakes happen, see the picture at
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html for Friday the 9th, check
the archive.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:mSYmf.22835$QW2.21920@dukeread08...
| > Amateur is the correct spelling.
|
| You can't really expect to get away with this. ALL
critics of spelling or
| typo's MUST have a spelling or typo containded in the
post.
|
| It *is* a rule. Please remember this, in the future.
<bfg>
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Jack

December 12th 05, 04:48 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Yes, they were truly fortunate that this wasn't much worse. Had they
> hit a large truck*, or something more solid, the damage to the airplane,
> crew and pax could have been substantial.

*...e.g., a gasoline tanker.

Could have been extremely ugly.

Touchdown at 152 (reported in local newspapers as "mph"), off the end at
46 (mph?), touchdown to impact with blast barrier: 32 seconds.

Jack

Charles Oppermann

December 12th 05, 06:32 AM

> I need more evidence than some Monday night wannabe quarterback making a
> WAG. Could be a multitude of mechanical, electrical, electronic or other
> problems that caused the accident. Time will tell.

This is all speculation, that is all true. Something that bugs me is that
the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The METAR
from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems to me
that the approach shouldn't have even started.

Charles Oppermann
www.coppersoftware.com

Hilton

December 12th 05, 06:56 AM

Charles wrote:
>> I need more evidence than some Monday night wannabe quarterback making a
>> WAG. Could be a multitude of mechanical, electrical, electronic or other
>> problems that caused the accident. Time will tell.
>
> This is all speculation, that is all true. Something that bugs me is that
> the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The METAR
> from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems to me
> that the approach shouldn't have even started.

On the face of it yes, but you're ignoring all the other potential sources
of *updated* weather info.

Hilton

Jack

December 12th 05, 07:14 AM

Charles Oppermann wrote:

> Something that bugs me is that
> the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The METAR
> from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems to me
> that the approach shouldn't have even started.

Possibly.

However, the RVR report is not the same as prevailing visibility
reported in the METAR. It's not unusual for the two to be quite
different when there is a reduced visibility condition on or near the
airport.

Jack

Happy Dog

December 12th 05, 09:10 AM

"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
> Charles Oppermann wrote:
>
> > Something that bugs me is that
>> the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The
>> METAR from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems
>> to me that the approach shouldn't have even started.
>
> Possibly.
>
> However, the RVR report is not the same as prevailing visibility reported
> in the METAR. It's not unusual for the two to be quite different when
> there is a reduced visibility condition on or near the airport.

And, particularly with snow ands fog, the view from the cockpit doesn't
match either. They're a very good wakeup call. But the are often
irrelevant on final.

moo

beavis

December 12th 05, 01:14 PM

In article >, Charles Oppermann
> wrote:

> This is all speculation, that is all true. Something that bugs me is that
> the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The METAR
> from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems to me
> that the approach shouldn't have even started.

Well, for starters, prevailing visibility and a specific runway's RVR
can often differ by quite a bit. That's why RVR is controlling for an
airliner. It also changes minute by minute, and the hourly ATIS isn't
at all a good indicator of what the RVR was when that airplane landed.

Second, Southwest's 737-700 airplanes have a heads-up display that lets
them use 3000 RVR on that runway at MDW.

Darrel Toepfer

December 12th 05, 02:19 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> But mistakes happen, see the picture at
> http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html for Friday the 9th, check
> the archive.

http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck_pics_carjack.html

Jim Macklin

December 12th 05, 02:21 PM

That is a real jack, did you check the optical illusion link
on the homepage?

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > But mistakes happen, see the picture at
| > http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html for Friday the 9th,
check
| > the archive.
|
| http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck_pics_carjack.html

Darrel Toepfer

December 12th 05, 04:07 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> That is a real jack, did you check the optical illusion link
> on the homepage?

You mean the one about "FairTax" or "Boortzapalooza"...

Charles Oppermann

December 12th 05, 06:11 PM

>> This is all speculation, that is all true. Something that bugs me is
>> that
>> the ILS for 31C requires RVR of 4000 or 3/4 of mile visibility. The
>> METAR
>> from just before the accident pegged visibility at 1/2 mile. Seems to me
>> that the approach shouldn't have even started.
>
> Well, for starters, prevailing visibility and a specific runway's RVR
> can often differ by quite a bit. That's why RVR is controlling for an
> airliner. It also changes minute by minute, and the hourly ATIS isn't
> at all a good indicator of what the RVR was when that airplane landed.

Yep, thanks for that. The hourly METAR was:

KMDW 090053Z 10011KT 1/2SM SN FZFG BKN004 OVC014 M03/M05 A3006 RMK AO2
SLP196 R31C/4500FT SNINCR 1/10 P0000 T10331050 $

Showing the field visibilty as 1/2-mile and 31C's RVR as 4,500 feet -
greater than minimum.

The FAA accident report has the following for the weather:

0115 11007KT 1/2SM SN FZFG VV003 M04/M05 A3006 R31C/4500V500

This doesn't appear properly formatted, as with a V separator, it's supposed
to be minimum and maximum. It's possible that it's supposed to be a minimum
of 4,500 and a maximum of 5,000 feet, and the extra zero was dropped off.
Or it could be that visibility ranged from 500 feet to 4,500 feet. That I
find less likely.

It'll be interesting to get the CVR and ATC transcripts and find out what
the pilots were told.

> Second, Southwest's 737-700 airplanes have a heads-up display that lets
> them use 3000 RVR on that runway at MDW.

Interesting! Do you any additional info on that?

beavis

December 12th 05, 07:11 PM

In article >, Charles Oppermann
> wrote:

> The FAA accident report has the following for the weather:
>
> 0115 11007KT 1/2SM SN FZFG VV003 M04/M05 A3006 R31C/4500V500
>
> This doesn't appear properly formatted, as with a V separator, it's supposed
> to be minimum and maximum. It's possible that it's supposed to be a minimum
> of 4,500 and a maximum of 5,000 feet, and the extra zero was dropped off.

That's incorrect -- it's not minimum to maximum. It's 4500, variable
to 500. In the ops specs for every airline operation with which I'm
familiar, including my current 121 airline, the "variable" portion is
advisory only. So as far as weather for starting the approach, it was
4500.

> It'll be interesting to get the CVR and ATC transcripts and find out what
> the pilots were told.

Yep. If the tower gave them a more up-to-date RVR (which is pretty
likely), that's controlling over the sequence weather you posted above.

> > Second, Southwest's 737-700 airplanes have a heads-up display that lets
> > them use 3000 RVR on that runway at MDW.
>
> Interesting! Do you any additional info on that?

I don't have much info beyond that, specific to SWA. The HUD is an
option on the next-generation 737s, and many of SWA's are so-equipped.
It's a real safety enhancement in low visibility. (That should also
discredit the notion that the airline skimps on safety equipment -- it
doesn't.)

Here's a picture of it in one of their cockpits:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/868375/L/

[email protected]

December 12th 05, 09:19 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Skywise wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote in news:ZA_mf.4154$lb.326571
> > @news1.epix.net:
> >
> > <Snipola>
> >
> >>I'll make landings like that from time to time when alone, but I'll
> >>never carry passengers into a situation where there is no margin for error.
> >
> >
> > Which is scary, considering in this accident the only fatality
> > wasn't even in the plane.
>
> Yes, they were truly fortunate that this wasn't much worse. Had they
> hit a large truck, or something more solid, the damage to the airplane,
> crew and pax could have been substantial. Fortunately, that didn't happen.

There are oil and gasoline terminals in the area of Central Ave. &
I-55, so
it could have been one large fire-ball. And news reports of the SWA
pilot
debriefing mentioned issues with the Captain have problems engaging the

thrust reversers, the co-pilot had to "force" them.

JG
>
>
> Matt

Jack

December 13th 05, 12:09 AM

wrote:

> There are oil and gasoline terminals in the area of Central Ave. &
> I-55, so it could have been one large fire-ball.

I-55 is a LONG way from the departure end of 31C -- a little over a
mile. Remember, this was a landing accident, and they didn't even make
it across S. Central Ave.

> ...pilot debriefing mentioned issues with the Captain have problems
> engaging the thrust reversers, the co-pilot had to "force" them.

That happens when the struts aren't compressed and/or you have no wheel
spin-up.

That night at MDW was the place for a crew who had cut their aviation
teeth on Great Lakes winter ops. The name "SOUTH WEST" doesn't paint
that kind of a picture for me.

WRT: Charles Oppermann's Blog:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

"Chicago Tribune: Midway radios crackled warnings"

The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that controllers and pilots
were concerned about the choice of runway 31C and the unavailability
of runway 13C, which would have been preferable given the wind.

[....]

I'm amazed that the Chicago Tribune authors would suggest that 13C
would be more preferable because it slopes upward by 5 feet from one
end to the other. I think it's a very minor benefit. That kind of
detail, while ignoring the actual length of the runway is curious to
me.

The five foot difference in elevation would not bother me much. The
tailwind incurred by operating on 31C rather than turning it into a
headwind on 13C, given all the other circumstances, would bother me a lot.

There comes a time when somebody in the airplane has to make a decision
unencumbered by concerns for schedule, cost, or convenience. When you
do, you can never know whether doing so made a difference, but you will
always know it was the right thing to do. Every Thanksgiving (and the
other 364 &1/4 days of the year) I give thanks that almost all of our
decisions are correct. But when we have to wait to know that until after
the fact, it's the same as rolling the dice.

Jack

Charles Oppermann

December 13th 05, 03:05 AM

> That's incorrect -- it's not minimum to maximum. It's 4500, variable
> to 500. In the ops specs for every airline operation with which I'm
> familiar, including my current 121 airline, the "variable" portion is
> advisory only. So as far as weather for starting the approach, it was
> 4500.

Hmmm, I was going by the various METAR decoders I have and a look at the
FAA's Aviation Weather Services publication (AC 00-45E). A detailed
breakdown at the following link:
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/METAR/metar-pg8-RVR.html

This is academic parsing, and may not reflect actual practice.

> I don't have much info beyond that, specific to SWA. The HUD is an
> option on the next-generation 737s, and many of SWA's are so-equipped.
> It's a real safety enhancement in low visibility. (That should also
> discredit the notion that the airline skimps on safety equipment -- it
> doesn't.)
> Here's a picture of it in one of their cockpits:
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/868375/L/

Very cool, thanks. Since it only exists on the captain's side, I wonder
what the CRM procedure is to shift roles if the first officer is the Pilot
Flying.

Thanks for the link.

Peter Clark

December 13th 05, 09:26 PM

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:05:33 -0800, "Charles Oppermann"
> wrote:

>> I don't have much info beyond that, specific to SWA. The HUD is an
>> option on the next-generation 737s, and many of SWA's are so-equipped.
>> It's a real safety enhancement in low visibility. (That should also
>> discredit the notion that the airline skimps on safety equipment -- it
>> doesn't.)
>> Here's a picture of it in one of their cockpits:
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/868375/L/
>
>Very cool, thanks. Since it only exists on the captain's side, I wonder
>what the CRM procedure is to shift roles if the first officer is the Pilot
>Flying.

I think the OPSPEC generally requires the captain to handle landing if
the weather is that bad.

[email protected]

December 13th 05, 10:52 PM

Jack wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > There are oil and gasoline terminals in the area of Central Ave. &
> > I-55, so it could have been one large fire-ball.
>
> I-55 is a LONG way from the departure end of 31C -- a little over a
> mile. Remember, this was a landing accident, and they didn't even make
> it across S. Central Ave.

But tanker trucks in the intersection were a possibility, 55th st. is a
good alternative
when I-55 is gridlocked.

>
> That night at MDW was the place for a crew who had cut their aviation
> teeth on Great Lakes winter ops. The name "SOUTH WEST" doesn't paint
> that kind of a picture for me.

They serve SLC, DTW, BUF, RNO and many cities in the Northeast, so
snow is nothing new. And the crew was based in BWI, plenty of snow and
freezing rain.

>
> The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that controllers and pilots
> were concerned about the choice of runway 31C and the unavailability
> of runway 13C, which would have been preferable given the wind.

Aren't 31C and 13C physically the same? Just landing into the southeast
on 13C
as opposed to landing on 31C, into the northwest and with a tail wind.

JG

Jack

December 14th 05, 03:02 AM

wrote:

> Aren't 31C and 13C physically the same? Just landing into the southeast
> on 13C as opposed to landing on 31C, into the northwest and with a tail wind.

I assume you are asking how much of a difference there is between nine
knots of tailwind and nine knots of headwind.

A great deal, especially when all other factors are at best marginal.

Jack

George Patterson

December 14th 05, 03:43 AM

wrote:

>> The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that controllers and pilots
>> were concerned about the choice of runway 31C and the unavailability
>> of runway 13C, which would have been preferable given the wind.
>
> Aren't 31C and 13C physically the same? Just landing into the southeast
> on 13C
> as opposed to landing on 31C, into the northwest and with a tail wind.

Yes, it's the same pavement. The Tribune points out that using 13C would have
given the pilots a headwind instead of a tailwind. Someone earlier said there
was a 7 knot tailwind? In that case, using 13C would have meant that the plane
would have been traveling over 16 statute miles per hour slower when it touched
down. Due to the differences in displaced thresholds, runway 13C is also 223'
longer than 31C.

IOW, if runway 13C had been in use, there would have been no overrun and no
accident.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jay Beckman

December 14th 05, 04:06 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:hxMnf.13784$Ea6.7921@trnddc08...
> wrote:
>
>>> The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that controllers and pilots
>>> were concerned about the choice of runway 31C and the unavailability
>>> of runway 13C, which would have been preferable given the wind.
>>
>> Aren't 31C and 13C physically the same? Just landing into the southeast
>> on 13C
>> as opposed to landing on 31C, into the northwest and with a tail wind.
>
> Yes, it's the same pavement. The Tribune points out that using 13C would
> have given the pilots a headwind instead of a tailwind. Someone earlier
> said there was a 7 knot tailwind? In that case, using 13C would have meant
> that the plane would have been traveling over 16 statute miles per hour
> slower when it touched down. Due to the differences in displaced
> thresholds, runway 13C is also 223' longer than 31C.
>
> IOW, if runway 13C had been in use, there would have been no overrun and
> no accident.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

Possible conflicts with O'Hare (and the possible resultant holds...)
wouldn't have any bearing on a decision by Midway to turn or not turn the
airport around...would they?

Just wondering out loud...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

George Patterson

December 14th 05, 04:46 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
>
>>IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,
>
>
> IOW???

In Other Words,

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Montblack

December 14th 05, 04:56 AM

>> IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,

("Morgans" wrote)
> IOW???

In other words

MB

Morgans

December 14th 05, 05:22 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote

> IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,

IOW???
--
Jim in NC

Charles Oppermann

December 14th 05, 08:27 AM

> Yes, it's the same pavement. The Tribune points out that using 13C would
> have given the pilots a headwind instead of a tailwind. Someone earlier
> said there was a 7 knot tailwind? In that case, using 13C would have meant
> that the plane would have been traveling over 16 statute miles per hour
> slower when it touched down. Due to the differences in displaced
> thresholds, runway 13C is also 223' longer than 31C.

The FAA accident reports lists the wind as 110 @ 7 knots. With 31C at 315
degress, it works out to a, surprise, 7 knot tailwind component.

The METAR taken 20 minutes prior lists 100 @ 11 knots, or about a 6 knot
tailwind component.

> IOW, if runway 13C had been in use, there would have been no overrun and
> no accident.

Unfortunetely, 13C has a 1-mile visibility requirement, whereas 31C can go
down to 4000 RVR. This is because 31C has a lead-in lighting system.

The visibility that night was anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4 of mile with the
stated RVR of 4500, variable.

31C was the only runway that could be used.

Charles Oppermann
Blog articles on SWA 1248:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Morgans

December 14th 05, 08:36 AM

> > IOW???
>
> In Other Words,

I must have known that at one time. I must need more coffee.... or maybe
less? <g>
--
Jim in NC

Dylan Smith

December 14th 05, 02:03 PM

On 2005-12-10, Jim Macklin <p51mustang> wrote:
> The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
> directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set from
> the centerline;

The cure is also to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft. That will very
rapidly get you out the habit of landing slightly crooked, since doing
that tends to send you on a short sharp trip to groundloop city!

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Dave Stadt

December 14th 05, 04:15 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The cure is also to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft. That will very
> rapidly get you out the habit of landing slightly crooked, since doing
> that tends to send you on a short sharp trip to groundloop city!
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Or at least an up close visit with the nearest runway light.

Jim Macklin

December 14th 05, 05:58 PM

Unless your tailwheel aircraft is a tandem cockpit, the need
to have an accurate reference point still is present. BUT
it is true that a tailwheel will immediately show the error
of your ways.

A little rephrasing, all aircraft pilots need an accurate
reference point for each axis, in a tandem cockpit, where
the pilot sits on the centerline, the selection of a point
is not as likely to wrong.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
| On 2005-12-10, Jim Macklin <p51mustang> wrote:
| > The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
| > directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set
from
| > the centerline;
|
| The cure is also to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft.
That will very
| rapidly get you out the habit of landing slightly crooked,
since doing
| that tends to send you on a short sharp trip to groundloop
city!
|
| --
| Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
| Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
| Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:
http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
| Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Steven P. McNicoll

December 17th 05, 01:56 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08...
>
>I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
> single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type rated in
> the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet.
>

It appears you're standing on experience that does not include any with the
type aircraft involved in this accident.

Jim Macklin

December 17th 05, 03:25 PM

Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot
decision making than the particular type of aircraft. A
Beechjet or King Air, with similar weather and a runway as
short, relative to aircraft performance, would have the
over-run accident.

My experience allows me to make an informed judgment, about
a new airplane or condition. I am not claiming to know
anything about more than the general systems on a Boeing
airliner, but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
type rated in high performance aircraft.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08...
| >
| >I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
| > single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type
rated in
| > the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet.
| >
|
| It appears you're standing on experience that does not
include any with the
| type aircraft involved in this accident.
|
|

Steven P. McNicoll

December 17th 05, 04:41 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
> evidence does one need?
>

So the decision to land has to be judged on information that was available
only because it was decided to land the airplane?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 17th 05, 04:50 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:X5Wof.29372$QW2.9542@dukeread08...
>
>Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot
> decision making than the particular type of aircraft. A
> Beechjet or King Air, with similar weather and a runway as
> short, relative to aircraft performance, would have the
> over-run accident.
>
> My experience allows me to make an informed judgment, about
> a new airplane or condition. I am not claiming to know
> anything about more than the general systems on a Boeing
> airliner, but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
> type rated in high performance aircraft.
>

Wrong. You have no experience with this type aircraft so your experience
allows you to make only an uninformed judgment.

RST Engineering

December 17th 05, 06:00 PM

Steve, Steve. Never mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig
likes it.

Jim

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:X5Wof.29372$QW2.9542@dukeread08...
>>
>>Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot

but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
>> type rated in high performance aircraft.
>>
>
> Wrong. You have no experience with this type aircraft so your experience
> allows you to make only an uninformed judgment.
>

Matt Whiting

December 17th 05, 07:27 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>>sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
>>evidence does one need?
>>
>
>
> So the decision to land has to be judged on information that was available
> only because it was decided to land the airplane?

No.

Matt Whiting

December 17th 05, 07:27 PM

RST Engineering wrote:

> Steve, Steve. Never mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig
> likes it.

But Steve likes it also, so let him play.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

December 17th 05, 08:06 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> No.
>

What then?

Matt Whiting

December 17th 05, 08:19 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No.
>>
>
>
> What then?

I wasn't saying the crew new it was a bad idea to attempt the landing
prior to making it, but the fact that it didn't succeed is clear
evidence that it in fact was a bad idea. Whether they should have known
it was a bad idea in advance will likely be determined by the NTSB.

Matt

Jose

December 17th 05, 08:57 PM

> the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that it in fact was a bad idea.

I do not agree with this reasoning at all. One must distinguish between
a good/bad decision and a fortunate/unfortunate outcome. Good decisions
can lead to unfortunate outcomes, and bad decisions can lead to
fortunate outcomes.

The odds are stacked, but not 100% so.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting

December 17th 05, 09:21 PM

Jose wrote:
>> the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that it in fact was
>> a bad idea.
>
>
> I do not agree with this reasoning at all. One must distinguish between
> a good/bad decision and a fortunate/unfortunate outcome. Good decisions
> can lead to unfortunate outcomes, and bad decisions can lead to
> fortunate outcomes.

You don't have to agree. :-)

Bad decisions lead to a lot more unfortunate outcomes than do good
decisions. I'm curious to see what the NTSB comes up with for this
accident, but I'll bet that it involves one or more bad decisions by the
crew.

It may well involve a mechanical failure of the spoilers or reversers,
but even so I still maintain it is a bad decision to make a landing
where a successful outcome relies on EVERY system working perfectly with
no margin for error.

Matt

Jim Macklin

December 17th 05, 10:04 PM

§ 121.195 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing
limitations: Destination airports.
(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane
may take off that airplane at such a weight that (allowing
for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the
destination or alternate airport) the weight of the airplane
on arrival would exceed the landing weight set forth in the
Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination
or alternate airport and the ambient temperature anticipated
at the time of landing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this
section, no person operating a turbine engine powered
airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on
arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in
flight (in accordance with the landing distance set forth in
the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated
there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop
landing at the intended destination airport within 60
percent of the effective length of each runway described
below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the
obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose
of determining the allowable landing weight at the
destination airport the following is assumed:

(1) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and
in the most favorable direction, in still air.

(2) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway
considering the probable wind velocity and direction and the
ground handling characteristics of the airplane, and
considering other conditions such as landing aids and
terrain.

(c) A turbopropeller powered airplane that would be
prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet
the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, may be
taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets
all the requirements of this section except that the
airplane can accomplish a full stop landing within 70
percent of the effective length of the runway.

(d) Unless, based on a showing of actual operating landing
techniques on wet runways, a shorter landing distance (but
never less than that required by paragraph (b) of this
section) has been approved for a specific type and model
airplane and included in the Airplane Flight Manual, no
person may takeoff a turbojet powered airplane when the
appropriate weather reports and forecasts, or a combination
thereof, indicate that the runways at the destination
airport may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of
arrival unless the effective runway length at the
destination airport is at least 115 percent of the runway
length required under paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) A turbojet powered airplane that would be prohibited
from being taken off because it could not meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be
taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets
all the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19198, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by
Amdt. 121-9, 30 FR 8572, July 7,

§ 121.627 Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.
(a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue
toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or
released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or
dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight
cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the
pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that
event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency
situation as set forth in §121.557.

(b) If any instrument or item of equipment required under
this chapter for the particular operation becomes
inoperative en route, the pilot in command shall comply with
the approved procedures for such an occurrence as specified
in the certificate holder's manual.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 1922, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by
Amdt. 121-222, 56 FR 12310, Mar. 22, 1991; Amdt. 121-253, 61
FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996]

The runway usable landing length is to be multiplied by
1.667 for dispatch release based on AFM required length, not
sure if this is based on the clear or contaminated required
length. Note paragraph (a) just above about "no safer
procedure."
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| >> the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that
it in fact was
| >> a bad idea.
| >
| >
| > I do not agree with this reasoning at all. One must
distinguish between
| > a good/bad decision and a fortunate/unfortunate outcome.
Good decisions
| > can lead to unfortunate outcomes, and bad decisions can
lead to
| > fortunate outcomes.
|
| You don't have to agree. :-)
|
| Bad decisions lead to a lot more unfortunate outcomes than
do good
| decisions. I'm curious to see what the NTSB comes up with
for this
| accident, but I'll bet that it involves one or more bad
decisions by the
| crew.
|
| It may well involve a mechanical failure of the spoilers
or reversers,
| but even so I still maintain it is a bad decision to make
a landing
| where a successful outcome relies on EVERY system working
perfectly with
| no margin for error.
|
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin

December 17th 05, 10:15 PM

|
| The runway usable landing length is to be multiplied by
| 1.667 for dispatch release based on AFM required length,
not
| sure if this is based on the clear or contaminated
required
| length. Note paragraph (a) just above about "no safer
| procedure
thereof, indicate that the runways at the destination
| airport may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of
| arrival unless the effective runway length at the
| destination airport is at least 115 percent of the runway
| length required under paragraph (b) of this section.

Just for giggles, assume that the manual distance for
landing was 3500, that becomes 6721.75 feet, some rated
Boeing pilots with a NWA manual can figure whether the
pilots and dispatchers really used good judgment.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:nW%of.29415$QW2.3091@dukeread08...
|§ 121.195 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing
| limitations: Destination airports.
| (a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane
| may take off that airplane at such a weight that (allowing
| for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the
| destination or alternate airport) the weight of the
airplane
| on arrival would exceed the landing weight set forth in
the
| Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
destination
| or alternate airport and the ambient temperature
anticipated
| at the time of landing.
|
| (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of
this
| section, no person operating a turbine engine powered
| airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on
| arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil
in
| flight (in accordance with the landing distance set forth
in
| the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
| destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated
| there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop
| landing at the intended destination airport within 60
| percent of the effective length of each runway described
| below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the
| obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the
purpose
| of determining the allowable landing weight at the
| destination airport the following is assumed:
|
| (1) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway
and
| in the most favorable direction, in still air.
|
| (2) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway
| considering the probable wind velocity and direction and
the
| ground handling characteristics of the airplane, and
| considering other conditions such as landing aids and
| terrain.
|
| (c) A turbopropeller powered airplane that would be
| prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet
| the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, may
be
| taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets
| all the requirements of this section except that the
| airplane can accomplish a full stop landing within 70
| percent of the effective length of the runway.
|
| (d) Unless, based on a showing of actual operating landing
| techniques on wet runways, a shorter landing distance (but
| never less than that required by paragraph (b) of this
| section) has been approved for a specific type and model
| airplane and included in the Airplane Flight Manual, no
| person may takeoff a turbojet powered airplane when the
| appropriate weather reports and forecasts, or a
combination
| thereof, indicate that the runways at the destination
| airport may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of
| arrival unless the effective runway length at the
| destination airport is at least 115 percent of the runway
| length required under paragraph (b) of this section.
|
| (e) A turbojet powered airplane that would be prohibited
| from being taken off because it could not meet the
| requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be
| taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets
| all the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
|
| [Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19198, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by
| Amdt. 121-9, 30 FR 8572, July 7,
|
|
|
| § 121.627 Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.
| (a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue
| toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or
| released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or
| dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight
| cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the
| pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that
| event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency
| situation as set forth in §121.557.
|
| (b) If any instrument or item of equipment required under
| this chapter for the particular operation becomes
| inoperative en route, the pilot in command shall comply
with
| the approved procedures for such an occurrence as
specified
| in the certificate holder's manual.
|
| [Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 1922, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by
| Amdt. 121-222, 56 FR 12310, Mar. 22, 1991; Amdt. 121-253,
61
| FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996]
|
|
|
| The runway usable landing length is to be multiplied by
| 1.667 for dispatch release based on AFM required length,
not
| sure if this is based on the clear or contaminated
required
| length. Note paragraph (a) just above about "no safer
| procedure."
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| ...
|| Jose wrote:
|| >> the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that
| it in fact was
|| >> a bad idea.
|| >
|| >
|| > I do not agree with this reasoning at all. One must
| distinguish between
|| > a good/bad decision and a fortunate/unfortunate
outcome.
| Good decisions
|| > can lead to unfortunate outcomes, and bad decisions can
| lead to
|| > fortunate outcomes.
||
|| You don't have to agree. :-)
||
|| Bad decisions lead to a lot more unfortunate outcomes
than
| do good
|| decisions. I'm curious to see what the NTSB comes up
with
| for this
|| accident, but I'll bet that it involves one or more bad
| decisions by the
|| crew.
||
|| It may well involve a mechanical failure of the spoilers
| or reversers,
|| but even so I still maintain it is a bad decision to make
| a landing
|| where a successful outcome relies on EVERY system working
| perfectly with
|| no margin for error.
||
||
|| Matt
|
|

John Gaquin

December 18th 05, 12:06 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:0LMmf.4135
>
> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
> evidence does one need?

No, you're not quite right in the analysis of your own ideas. You write
"The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea." This is not
accurate. You could say "The fact that the airplane ended up past the end
of the runway is sufficient evidence that something went wrong."

What you're trying to invoke is the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
regarding pilot error and negligence. Often used by plaintiff in negligence
claims, it requires, in one aspect, that the plaintiff prove that other
possible agents of responsibility, such as mechanical failure, weather
factors, etc., did *not* play a role in the accident.

John Gaquin

December 18th 05, 12:28 AM

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message

>...you don't have to be a NTSB official to make an educated
> guess.

No, you just have to guess.

John Gaquin

December 18th 05, 12:34 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message

>I always assume....

Yes,yes, yes. But what you assume is not relevent to the real world, since,
as we've all had amply demonstrated, you are perfect and know everything.
One can only hope that other professional airline crews everywhere aspire to
your level.

Happy Dog

December 18th 05, 01:45 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What then?
>
> I wasn't saying the crew new it was a bad idea to attempt the landing
> prior to making it, but the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence
> that it in fact was a bad idea. Whether they should have known it was a
> bad idea in advance will likely be determined by the NTSB.

It was a great idea until something happened that made it a bad idea and you
don't have a clue what that might or might not have been. That what you
meant to say?

moo

Happy Dog

December 18th 05, 01:48 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>> the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that it in fact was a
>>> bad idea.
>>
>>
>> I do not agree with this reasoning at all. One must distinguish between
>> a good/bad decision and a fortunate/unfortunate outcome. Good decisions
>> can lead to unfortunate outcomes, and bad decisions can lead to fortunate
>> outcomes.
>
> You don't have to agree. :-)
>
> Bad decisions lead to a lot more unfortunate outcomes than do good
> decisions. I'm curious to see what the NTSB comes up with for this
> accident, but I'll bet that it involves one or more bad decisions by the
> crew.

Since they almost always do, that's a safe bet. And it doesn't help your
second-guessing stance seem any more credible.

> It may well involve a mechanical failure of the spoilers or reversers, but
> even so I still maintain it is a bad decision to make a landing where a
> successful outcome relies on EVERY system working perfectly with no margin
> for error.

And you don't know if this one was.

moo

Michael Ware

December 18th 05, 01:52 AM

> > the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that it in fact was a
bad idea.

It may have been a fine idea, with a perfectly well laid out plan to execute
the landing, and something beyond everyone's control took away what little
room for error was left.

Or, it may have been a horrible idea, with a so-so plan for landing, that
ALMOST worked out.

If you wreck your car on the way to the grocery store, does that mean that
driving to the grocery store is a bad idea? Stuff happens, we just don't
know exactly what stuff yet.

Happy Dog

December 18th 05, 01:53 AM

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:0LMmf.4135
>>
>> The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
>> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
>> evidence does one need?
>
> No, you're not quite right in the analysis of your own ideas. You write
> "The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
> sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea." This is not
> accurate. You could say "The fact that the airplane ended up past the
> end of the runway is sufficient evidence that something went wrong."
>
> What you're trying to invoke is the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
> regarding pilot error and negligence. Often used by plaintiff in
> negligence claims, it requires, in one aspect, that the plaintiff prove
> that other possible agents of responsibility, such as mechanical failure,
> weather factors, etc., did *not* play a role in the accident.

Correct. Trying to dig oneself out of a hole created by a banally stupid
statement requires this sort of logical sodomy. By the same reasoning,
*every* bad landing is evidence that it shouldn't have been attempted.
Circular reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum.

moo

Otis Winslow

December 23rd 05, 07:05 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>
> Wrong. You have no experience with this type aircraft so your experience
> allows you to make only an uninformed judgment.
>
>

Well there Mr Superpilot McNicoll, how do your ratings and hours compare
to his? What ratings do you have? What aircraft have you flown? How
many hours ya got?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 24th 05, 02:43 AM

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well there Mr Superpilot McNicoll, how do your ratings and hours compare
> to his? What ratings do you have? What aircraft have you flown? How
> many hours ya got?
>

Mr Superpilot McNicoll?

My ratings and experience do not make me any more qualified on this issue
than Jim Macklin's ratings and experience make him. The difference with us
is I'm not pretending they do.

Jim Macklin

December 24th 05, 03:36 AM

Whether you are flying a J3 or a 747, certain procedures are
the same. Those that are different are different in degree.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Well there Mr Superpilot McNicoll, how do your ratings
and hours compare
| > to his? What ratings do you have? What aircraft have you
flown? How
| > many hours ya got?
| >
|
| Mr Superpilot McNicoll?
|
| My ratings and experience do not make me any more
qualified on this issue
| than Jim Macklin's ratings and experience make him. The
difference with us
| is I'm not pretending they do.
|
|

Steven P. McNicoll

December 24th 05, 04:38 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:sq3rf.30487$QW2.28425@dukeread08...
>
> Whether you are flying a J3 or a 747, certain procedures are
> the same. Those that are different are different in degree.
>

Based on your experience with them, what are the certain procedures that are
the same in those aircraft and how do they relate to the SWA overrun at MDW?

Jim Macklin

December 24th 05, 02:52 PM

An ILS is flown to the same point in space, you fly the loc
and gs antennas. Touchdown will always happen at some
distance past that point in space. If the speed is too
fast, the distance will be longer.

Good judgment about weather and runway conditions concern
the runway and the weather. Just as people buy 4x4 SUVs
and then drive too fast on slick roads because they fail to
understand that a 4x4 has no better stopping power than any
car with 4 wheel brakes and probably worse.

BTW, why are you so critical and what are your certificates
and experiences?

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:sq3rf.30487$QW2.28425@dukeread08...
| >
| > Whether you are flying a J3 or a 747, certain procedures
are
| > the same. Those that are different are different in
degree.
| >
|
| Based on your experience with them, what are the certain
procedures that are
| the same in those aircraft and how do they relate to the
SWA overrun at MDW?
|
|

Jim Macklin

December 24th 05, 04:02 PM

Morgans

December 24th 05, 04:04 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
>
> BTW, why are you so critical

He likes to argue about almost anything.

> and what are your certificates and experiences?

Since he won't tell you (it seems), he is with ATC. Learn to say
"whatever," and move on.
--
Jim in NC

December 24th 05, 04:33 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Nice thing about ATC, controllers never die in a ATC related
> event.

yes they do. IIRC, The Swiss controller who worked the sector
where there was a mid-air ~FL380 (one was a Russian plane
and the other a cargo I think) was murdered by a family
member of one of the deceased. Does that count?

Gerald

Jack

December 24th 05, 05:22 PM

GS wrote:

>> Nice thing about ATC, controllers never die in a ATC related event.
>
>
> yes they do. IIRC, The Swiss controller who worked the sector
> where there was a mid-air ~FL380 (one was a Russian plane
> and the other a cargo I think) was murdered by a family
> member of one of the deceased. Does that count?

It definitely counts.

There is the law, and here is justice.

Jack

Bob Noel

December 24th 05, 05:31 PM

In article >,
Jack > wrote:

> >> Nice thing about ATC, controllers never die in a ATC related event.
> >
> > yes they do. IIRC, The Swiss controller who worked the sector
> > where there was a mid-air ~FL380 (one was a Russian plane
> > and the other a cargo I think) was murdered by a family
> > member of one of the deceased. Does that count?
>
> It definitely counts.
>
> There is the law, and here is justice.

justice in killing someone? Not even close. That wasn't justice,
that was a revenge murder.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Jack

December 24th 05, 06:52 PM

Bob Noel wrote:

> justice in killing someone? Not even close. That wasn't justice,
> that was a revenge murder.

Which separates it how from what the "Justice" system accomplishes?

Oh, that neither revenge nor "Justice" should ever be carried out before
all the facts are in.

Merry Christmas.

Jack

Jim Macklin

December 24th 05, 07:08 PM

Matt Whiting

December 24th 05, 07:29 PM

Jack wrote:
> GS wrote:
>
>>> Nice thing about ATC, controllers never die in a ATC related event.
>>
>>
>>
>> yes they do. IIRC, The Swiss controller who worked the sector
>> where there was a mid-air ~FL380 (one was a Russian plane
>> and the other a cargo I think) was murdered by a family
>> member of one of the deceased. Does that count?
>
>
> It definitely counts.
>
> There is the law, and here is justice.

How is that justice? If the controller intentionally placed the
airplanes on paths to cause a collision, I could feel a little better
about it being closer to justice, even so, justice should come at the
hands of the legal system, not a vigilante.

Matt

Jack

December 24th 05, 09:48 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> How is that justice? If the controller intentionally placed the
> airplanes on paths to cause a collision, I could feel a little better
> about it being closer to justice, even so, justice should come at the
> hands of the legal system, not a vigilante.

But of course, my boy. Justice _should_ "come at the hands of the legal
system." But do you think it had the desired effect? I mean, of course,
punishment -- and deterrence? Probably less than government-sanctioned
murder would, because it was, in the grand scheme of things, almost
random, but still....

The tragedy is that the relative wasted his own life in the process. But
if you can't admit that you see it his way, even though you know better
_and_ don't have the balls to pull it off yourself, the truth is not in
you. Time to take a little broader more honest view of the world, and
yourself, and leave the prissy sound-bites to the girls.

Jack

Newps

December 24th 05, 11:48 PM

Jack wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> How is that justice? If the controller intentionally placed the
>> airplanes on paths to cause a collision, I could feel a little better
>> about it being closer to justice, even so, justice should come at the
>> hands of the legal system, not a vigilante.
>
>
> But of course, my boy. Justice _should_ "come at the hands of the legal
> system." But do you think it had the desired effect? I mean, of course,
> punishment -- and deterrence? Probably less than government-sanctioned
> murder would, because it was, in the grand scheme of things, almost
> random, but still....
>
> The tragedy is that the relative wasted his own life in the process. But
> if you can't admit that you see it his way, even though you know better
> _and_ don't have the balls to pull it off yourself, the truth is not in
> you. Time to take a little broader more honest view of the world, and
> yourself, and leave the prissy sound-bites to the girls.

In order for there to be punishment there has to have been a crime.
There was no crime.

Matt Whiting

December 25th 05, 02:44 AM

Jack

December 25th 05, 08:14 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> What a twerp.

Yes, but not so rare in this PC age. Better to be real than "nice".

Jack

Matt Whiting

December 25th 05, 01:44 PM

Jack wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> What a twerp.
>
>
> Yes, but not so rare in this PC age. Better to be real than "nice".

I don't see the PC connection, but better to be nice for real than to be
an idiot for real.

Matt

Jack

December 25th 05, 01:48 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> ...better to be nice for real than to be
> an idiot for real.

I totally agree, Matt. Thankfully there is you and I. That's a start.

Merry Christmas.

Jack

Happy Dog

December 25th 05, 02:06 PM

"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> What a twerp.
>
> Yes, but not so rare in this PC age. Better to be real than "nice".

Rare in this PC age. Idiot for a start. What was the crime committed?
Keepin' it real is a brilliant Chappelle show. You pooched it before you
started.

moo

Jack

December 25th 05, 09:06 PM

Happy Dog wrote:

> What was the crime committed?

I have yet to hear anyone describe it in legal terms. Who did you say
claimed there was one?

Jack

Larry Dighera

December 28th 05, 12:35 AM

Two passengers on a SOUTHWEST AIRLINES plane that skidded off a
runway earlier this month, killing one person, have sued the
airline, BOEING CO. and the city of Chicago, their lawyer said.
The passengers, Mariko Bennett and Stanley Penn, claim to have
sustained injuries when the Boeing 737-700 aircraft plunged
through a fence-like barrier and onto a busy street, killing a
child riding in a car. Southwest did not immediately return
phone calls seeking comment on the lawsuit, which accuses it of
negligence and conscious disregard for safety. Boeing could not
immediately be reached for comment.
(Reuters 04:32 PM ET 12/20/2005)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1164466&m=1006243a8967200022754a&s=rb051220

Grumman-581

December 28th 05, 06:33 PM

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...
> even so, justice should come at the hands of the
> legal system, not a vigilante.

http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/lawyer-problem-solution.htm

The "legal system" is not about justice, it's just about money... To be more
precise, it's about transfering money from our pockets to the lawyers'
pockets...

Grumman-581

December 28th 05, 06:37 PM

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
> justice in killing someone? Not even close. That wasn't justice,
> that was a revenge murder.

But that doesn't make it a *bad* thing...

Matt Whiting

December 29th 05, 01:52 AM

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Bob Noel" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>justice in killing someone? Not even close. That wasn't justice,
>>that was a revenge murder.
>
>
> But that doesn't make it a *bad* thing...

Yes, it does. Murder is a bad thing period.

Matt

Grumman-581

December 29th 05, 09:08 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, it does. Murder is a bad thing period.

Then apparently you've never heard of the "somabitch *deserved* to die"
defence... It's a Texas thing -- ya' probably wouldn't understand...

There are certain people whose best contribution to the human gene pool
would be their being removed from it... Yeah, I know it's not a politically
correct thing to say, but I'm a Texan, we're not supposed to be politically
correct... Hell, if a person starts getting politically correct, we deport
'em to Oklahoma...

Bob Noel

December 29th 05, 11:23 AM

In article >,
"Grumman-581" > wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes, it does. Murder is a bad thing period.
>
> Then apparently you've never heard of the "somabitch *deserved* to die"
> defence... It's a Texas thing -- ya' probably wouldn't understand...

The family of people who died in an aircraft accident/crash/mid-air are
not usually able to logically and rationally determine that someone involved
in the accident/crash/mid-air deserved to die.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Jim Macklin

December 29th 05, 11:27 AM

Urban legend...| " "somabitch *deserved* to die"
| defence... It's a Texas thing -- ya' probably wouldn't
understand..."

Justifiable homicide is not murder, but you can't justify
killing a doctor, air traffic controller, or even an
aircraft designer who build a dangerous airplane. You can
justify killing the guy with an axe who is trying to kill
you or another, the rapist BEFORE he completes the attempted
rape [this is one place where a Texas jury and most Texas
DAs will be reasonable].

The death penalty is clearly constitutional because the
Constitution says that capital crimes can only be punished
by death after due process, the Constitution plainly allows
the death penalty, but on after a proper trial on crimes
properly defined in law.

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Yes, it does. Murder is a bad thing period.
|
| Then apparently you've never heard of the "somabitch
*deserved* to die"
| defence... It's a Texas thing -- ya' probably wouldn't
understand...
|
| There are certain people whose best contribution to the
human gene pool
| would be their being removed from it... Yeah, I know it's
not a politically
| correct thing to say, but I'm a Texan, we're not supposed
to be politically
| correct... Hell, if a person starts getting politically
correct, we deport
| 'em to Oklahoma...
|
|

Matt Whiting

December 29th 05, 01:28 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, it does. Murder is a bad thing period.
>
>
> Then apparently you've never heard of the "somabitch *deserved* to die"
> defence... It's a Texas thing -- ya' probably wouldn't understand...

You are right. I don't understand stupid very well.

> There are certain people whose best contribution to the human gene pool
> would be their being removed from it... Yeah, I know it's not a politically
> correct thing to say, but I'm a Texan, we're not supposed to be politically
> correct... Hell, if a person starts getting politically correct, we deport
> 'em to Oklahoma...

Saying it is fine and I agree with it. Acting on it isn't fine.
Outside of Philly and Pitt, PA isn't much different than Texas. At one
time, if you put all of the PA hunters together, we'd have constituted
the world's 4 or 5th largest army. However, being rural and being not
PC, doesn't mean that murder is right.

Matt

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 06:38 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Saying it is fine and I agree with it. Acting on it isn't fine.
> Outside of Philly and Pitt, PA isn't much different than Texas. At one
> time, if you put all of the PA hunters together, we'd have constituted
> the world's 4 or 5th largest army. However, being rural and being not
> PC, doesn't mean that murder is right.

Let's say that you live in a state without capital punishment... Let's say
that some punk kills your wife / girlfriend / someone close to you in a
robbery... Let's say that you saw it, but couldn't do anything about it at
the time, but you definitely know who did it... Let's say that you hunt this
punk down and kill him... Legally, it's murder, but you are morally right in
doing so... Of course, you can't just leave dead bodies laying around, you
have to dispose of 'em... It's the ecological thing to do, ya' know... Hell,
gators gotta eat too...

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 06:38 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:6ZPsf.38160$QW2.35626@dukeread08...
> Urban legend

Nawh, it's a way of thinking... It may or may not fly with a jury, but there
is a chance that you'll get someone like me on the jury who would vote to
aquit...

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 11:30 AM

Jury nullification, a great American tradition, that you
won't be told about in court. A jury is allowed to judge
the defendant and the law. The Judge will tell you to decide
if the defendant violated the LAW as written, the jury has
the right, duty and power to also judge the LAW and its
application in order to render Justice. If the jury is only
allowed to decide that the law was violated, the jury will
become part of the tyranny and not the shield that the
Founders wanted.

American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association:
Home
A non-profit educational association whose mission is to
inform all Americans
about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving
as trial jurors.
www.fija.org/ - 11k - Dec 29, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Fully Informed Jury Association Home Page
The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit (501c3)
educational organization
dedicated to informing jurors of their rights, particularly
their right ...
www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijahome.htm - 2k - Cached - Similar
pages

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:6ZPsf.38160$QW2.35626@dukeread08...
| > Urban legend
|
| Nawh, it's a way of thinking... It may or may not fly with
a jury, but there
| is a chance that you'll get someone like me on the jury
who would vote to
| aquit...
|
|

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 11:42 AM

Let's say that you live in one of the states (only four now)
that do not have some provision for legally carrying a
weapon for self-defense. You are carrying your Colt Cobra
(just like Sgt. Friday) and you save your wife from that you
saved your wife and all the other victims in that robbery
attempt. The local District Attorney is a personal friend of
Sarah Brady and insists on charging you with illegally
carrying a weapon. You hire the best attorney you can,
mortgage the your house and go to court. The judge won't
allow your attorney to present the Constitution or Bill of
Rights into evidence, nor the long criminal record of the
robber you stopped [you didn't know his record before so
your actions were legally based only on what you knew at the
time]. The jury is not told about their powers or your
rights and you're found guilty [very common in Chicago, NYC,
DC and other urban areas, not so common in the West (except
CA)].
Criminals should live in fear of ordinary citizens, not the
other way around. But, the vigilante justice, as seen in
the Charles Bronson movies, is wrong. But that is not
self-defense, self-defense is always the right thing to do
and is legal in every state, even those that do not allow
you to carry the weapon you need to exercise the right to
self-defense. But that is the fault of the people who elect
those legislators who violate the principles of the
Constitution with such laws.

American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association:
Home
A non-profit educational association whose mission is to
inform all Americans
about their rights, powers and responsibilties when serving
as trial jurors.
www.fija.org/ - 11k - Dec 29, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
Fully Informed Jury Association Home Page
The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit (501c3)
educational organization
dedicated to informing jurors of their rights, particularly
their right ...
www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijahome.htm - 2k - Cached - Similar
pages

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Saying it is fine and I agree with it. Acting on it
isn't fine.
| > Outside of Philly and Pitt, PA isn't much different than
Texas. At one
| > time, if you put all of the PA hunters together, we'd
have constituted
| > the world's 4 or 5th largest army. However, being rural
and being not
| > PC, doesn't mean that murder is right.
|
| Let's say that you live in a state without capital
punishment... Let's say
| that some punk kills your wife / girlfriend / someone
close to you in a
| robbery... Let's say that you saw it, but couldn't do
anything about it at
| the time, but you definitely know who did it... Let's say
that you hunt this
| punk down and kill him... Legally, it's murder, but you
are morally right in
| doing so... Of course, you can't just leave dead bodies
laying around, you
| have to dispose of 'em... It's the ecological thing to do,
ya' know... Hell,
| gators gotta eat too...
|
|

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 01:33 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Saying it is fine and I agree with it. Acting on it isn't fine.
>>Outside of Philly and Pitt, PA isn't much different than Texas. At one
>>time, if you put all of the PA hunters together, we'd have constituted
>>the world's 4 or 5th largest army. However, being rural and being not
>>PC, doesn't mean that murder is right.
>
>
> Let's say that you live in a state without capital punishment... Let's say
> that some punk kills your wife / girlfriend / someone close to you in a
> robbery... Let's say that you saw it, but couldn't do anything about it at
> the time, but you definitely know who did it... Let's say that you hunt this
> punk down and kill him... Legally, it's murder, but you are morally right in
> doing so... Of course, you can't just leave dead bodies laying around, you
> have to dispose of 'em... It's the ecological thing to do, ya' know... Hell,
> gators gotta eat too...

Except that it isn't morally right.

Matt

.Blueskies.

December 31st 05, 03:45 PM

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message ...

>... Let's say that you hunt this
> punk down and kill him... Legally, it's murder, but you are morally right in
> doing so...
>

Your morals are all screwed up...

George Patterson

December 31st 05, 05:26 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Jury nullification, a great American tradition, that you
> won't be told about in court.

In New Jersey, you will be told that it's illegal. At least, I was told that
when I was called for jury selection.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

George Patterson

December 31st 05, 05:27 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Except that it isn't morally right.

Yes, it is.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 05:30 PM

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Except that it isn't morally right.
>
>
> Yes, it is.

If you have no morals.

Matt

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:00 PM

It isn't illegal anywhere in the USA, but since it gives
power to the jury and the political bosses, want their "fair
trials" to have the desired result, any juror who knows of
or speaks about the term, let alone knows about jury
nullification will be excluded. If a lawyer brings it
during the trial the judge will probably declare a mistrial
and the attorney in contempt. I've even heard of people
handing out literature near the court house being arrested
for jury tampering [which it is not.].

New Jersey state laws violate many traditional American
values, that's why it is known as the "people's Republic of
New Jersey."

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:%aztf.1697$713.1241@trnddc01...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Jury nullification, a great American tradition, that you
| > won't be told about in court.
|
| In New Jersey, you will be told that it's illegal. At
least, I was told that
| when I was called for jury selection.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:09 PM

An eye for an eye ends with Judgment is mine with the Lord
speaking.

Murder is killing without legal justification and as is also
said, one wrong does not make a right. Hollywood loves to
make stupid movies about people who murder for sport,
revenge or other reasons. There was the movie about the
person who had been convicted of murder for killing someone
who turned up alive after a few years. In Hollywood that
means they could be murdered without further penalty. Or
recently the four "brothers" who set out to avenge the death
of their mom.

Time is a convenience so everything doesn't happen at
once...Einstein

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vcztf.1699$713.921@trnddc01...
| Matt Whiting wrote:
|
| > Except that it isn't morally right.
|
| Yes, it is.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

Montblack

December 31st 05, 06:10 PM

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
> Criminals should live in fear of ordinary citizens, not the
> other way around. But, the vigilante justice, as seen in
> the Charles Bronson movies, is wrong.

The first Death Wish (1974) was a pretty good little movie.

The rest --- 2, 3, 4 and 5 were just ..."wrong".

Montblack

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:14 PM

To a cannibal, eating people is moral, not eating people is
twisted. Morals and truth are relative to your experience
and expectations.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| George Patterson wrote:
| > Matt Whiting wrote:
| >
| >> Except that it isn't morally right.
| >
| >
| > Yes, it is.
|
| If you have no morals.
|
| Matt

Jack

December 31st 05, 06:29 PM

That's the best post you've ever put here, Jim, even if it is off-topic,
off-thread, and probably fattening.

Jack

-----------------

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Jury nullification, a great American tradition, that you
> won't be told about in court. A jury is allowed to judge
> the defendant and the law. The Judge will tell you to decide
> if the defendant violated the LAW as written, the jury has
> the right, duty and power to also judge the LAW and its
> application in order to render Justice. If the jury is only
> allowed to decide that the law was violated, the jury will
> become part of the tyranny and not the shield that the
> Founders wanted.
>
> American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association:
> Home
> A non-profit educational association whose mission is to
> inform all Americans
> about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving
> as trial jurors.
> www.fija.org/ - 11k - Dec 29, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
>
> Fully Informed Jury Association Home Page
> The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit (501c3)
> educational organization
> dedicated to informing jurors of their rights, particularly
> their right ...
> www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijahome.htm - 2k - Cached - Similar
> pages

Jack

December 31st 05, 06:31 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Except that it isn't morally right.

Puke, gag, whine, and whimper.

You'll be OK, sonny, just relax.

Jack

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 06:34 PM

Jack wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Except that it isn't morally right.
>
>
> Puke, gag, whine, and whimper.
>
> You'll be OK, sonny, just relax.

I'm very relaxed, pappy.

Matt

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:49 PM

The first Death Wish movie was well done and a good study in
human and political behavior. But even saying that, going
"looking for trouble" just so you can kill a mugger is
wrong. If you're out doing something legal, such as
shopping, going to the car wash, church, fishing or just a
walk in the park and you are attacked, you should be able to
defend yourself [or another person] with deadly force if
needed. But Trolling for muggers is a stakeout that the
police do and then they arrest.

If I am in a place where I can legally be armed and I am
attacked, I will defend myself. But my purpose is not to
punish the attacker or kill the attacker, it is to keep them
from injuring or killing me. If you kill someone and you
have justification you may still have a big legal bill to
pay and you may lose your home. If a burglar is in your
home and he wants your TV let him take it...if he wants your
wife or daughter, stop him. When he stops you quit and call
the police [if you haven't already- tip-get your gun and
flashlight, call 911 if you have time and leave the phone
line open so what happens and what is said is recorded] and
give medical attention. Call your lawyer too, you'll
probably be arrested in your own home unless the burglar was
bearded and about 30 years of age and you're female and 80.
Shoot a teenager or someone about your same age, and you'll
have to prove your innocence. That's why some states have
now passed "make my day" laws.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("Jim Macklin" wrote)
| > Criminals should live in fear of ordinary citizens, not
the
| > other way around. But, the vigilante justice, as seen
in
| > the Charles Bronson movies, is wrong.
|
|
| The first Death Wish (1974) was a pretty good little
movie.
|
| The rest --- 2, 3, 4 and 5 were just ..."wrong".
|
|
| Montblack

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:51 PM

Thanks, just don't tell a court if you want to serve on a
jury.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
| That's the best post you've ever put here, Jim, even if it
is off-topic,
| off-thread, and probably fattening.
|
|
| Jack
|
| -----------------
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Jury nullification, a great American tradition, that you
| > won't be told about in court. A jury is allowed to
judge
| > the defendant and the law. The Judge will tell you to
decide
| > if the defendant violated the LAW as written, the jury
has
| > the right, duty and power to also judge the LAW and its
| > application in order to render Justice. If the jury is
only
| > allowed to decide that the law was violated, the jury
will
| > become part of the tyranny and not the shield that the
| > Founders wanted.
| >
| > American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association:
| > Home
| > A non-profit educational association whose mission is to
| > inform all Americans
| > about their rights, powers and responsibilities when
serving
| > as trial jurors.
| > www.fija.org/ - 11k - Dec 29, 2005 - Cached - Similar
pages
| >
| > Fully Informed Jury Association Home Page
| > The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit
(501c3)
| > educational organization
| > dedicated to informing jurors of their rights,
particularly
| > their right ...
| > www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijahome.htm - 2k - Cached -
Similar
| > pages

Jack

December 31st 05, 06:57 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Thanks, just don't tell a court if you want to serve on a
> jury.
>

Mum's the word.

Jack

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 07:33 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The first Death Wish movie was well done and a good study in
> human and political behavior. But even saying that, going
> "looking for trouble" just so you can kill a mugger is
> wrong. If you're out doing something legal, such as
> shopping, going to the car wash, church, fishing or just a
> walk in the park and you are attacked, you should be able to
> defend yourself [or another person] with deadly force if
> needed. But Trolling for muggers is a stakeout that the
> police do and then they arrest.
>
> If I am in a place where I can legally be armed and I am
> attacked, I will defend myself. But my purpose is not to
> punish the attacker or kill the attacker, it is to keep them
> from injuring or killing me. If you kill someone and you
> have justification you may still have a big legal bill to
> pay and you may lose your home. If a burglar is in your
> home and he wants your TV let him take it...if he wants your
> wife or daughter, stop him. When he stops you quit and call
> the police [if you haven't already- tip-get your gun and
> flashlight, call 911 if you have time and leave the phone
> line open so what happens and what is said is recorded] and
> give medical attention. Call your lawyer too, you'll
> probably be arrested in your own home unless the burglar was
> bearded and about 30 years of age and you're female and 80.
> Shoot a teenager or someone about your same age, and you'll
> have to prove your innocence. That's why some states have
> now passed "make my day" laws.

I generally agree with your recommendations here, but they do run
counter to what the County Sheriff told me when I got my first
protection permit (this was long before the co-called concealed carry
permits - I can carry mine openly if I choose). The Sheriff told me not
to go looking for trouble as you say, which is just plain old common
sense, but if I needed to defend myself and my family, he said to shoot
to kill. I asked him why and he said two reasons:
1. Killing the attacker is the most assured means of ending the attack
2. Dead men don't testify.

Matt

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 08:10 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:fbutf.38376$QW2.30438@dukeread08...
> Criminals should live in fear of ordinary citizens, not the
> other way around.

Correct... Texas has a CHL, but even when they didn't, I tended to usually
be armed... Sometimes within the scope of the law, sometimes outside of
it... I sincerely believe that there is only ONE gun law and it says, SHALL
NOT BE INFRINGED... All the ones that came after it are unconstitutional...

> But, the vigilante justice, as seen in
> the Charles Bronson movies, is wrong.

I'm afraid that we must disagree on that then... The cops don't like the
people getting involved because it shows that they are pretty useless other
than for keeping donut shops in business...

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 08:11 PM

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...
> Except that it isn't morally right.

How is disposing of the bodies in an ecologically sound mannner (i.e.
gators) not morally right?

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 08:11 PM

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. net...
> Your morals are all screwed up...

Oh gee, I"m not politically correct and think that we should coddle to the
criminals... Criminals should live in fear of us, not the other way
around...

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 08:38 PM

In the Death Wish movie, Bronson had a 32 S&W revolver,
perhaps the worst choice for a self-protection possible.
Low powered and at the time the movie was made, no special
ammo was available to improve the performance. But with a
proper firearm, a shot to stop, with a 200-230 grain 45
hollow point, to center mass will stop the action and may
not kill (50-50). But the purpose is to stop the action and
save your life. The sheriff was not wrong, a shot to kill
is also a shot to stop...the Hollywood myth of "shooting the
gun out of their hand or in the arm, shoulder" is not
justifiable. If you could shoot that well under pressure
you probably were not threatened enough to really need to
shoot at all.
I recommend Massod Ayoob's books, particularly IN THE
GRAVEST EXTREME.

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The first Death Wish movie was well done and a good
study in
| > human and political behavior. But even saying that,
going
| > "looking for trouble" just so you can kill a mugger is
| > wrong. If you're out doing something legal, such as
| > shopping, going to the car wash, church, fishing or just
a
| > walk in the park and you are attacked, you should be
able to
| > defend yourself [or another person] with deadly force if
| > needed. But Trolling for muggers is a stakeout that the
| > police do and then they arrest.
| >
| > If I am in a place where I can legally be armed and I am
| > attacked, I will defend myself. But my purpose is not
to
| > punish the attacker or kill the attacker, it is to keep
them
| > from injuring or killing me. If you kill someone and
you
| > have justification you may still have a big legal bill
to
| > pay and you may lose your home. If a burglar is in your
| > home and he wants your TV let him take it...if he wants
your
| > wife or daughter, stop him. When he stops you quit and
call
| > the police [if you haven't already- tip-get your gun and
| > flashlight, call 911 if you have time and leave the
phone
| > line open so what happens and what is said is recorded]
and
| > give medical attention. Call your lawyer too, you'll
| > probably be arrested in your own home unless the burglar
was
| > bearded and about 30 years of age and you're female and
80.
| > Shoot a teenager or someone about your same age, and
you'll
| > have to prove your innocence. That's why some states
have
| > now passed "make my day" laws.
|
| I generally agree with your recommendations here, but they
do run
| counter to what the County Sheriff told me when I got my
first
| protection permit (this was long before the co-called
concealed carry
| permits - I can carry mine openly if I choose). The
Sheriff told me not
| to go looking for trouble as you say, which is just plain
old common
| sense, but if I needed to defend myself and my family, he
said to shoot
| to kill. I asked him why and he said two reasons:
| 1. Killing the attacker is the most assured means of
ending the attack
| 2. Dead men don't testify.
|
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 09:00 PM

Texas law is getting to be pretty reasonable, GWB signed the
first concealed carry law for the state and it has been
improved over the years. In the past, a trip out of your
home county did allow being armed while traveling, but now
you don't have to be on a long trip.
A vigilante looks for criminals and acts as judge, jury and
executioner. As long as the criminal justice system is
working, vigilantism is wrong, plain and simple. But there
are times when it is required and then the informed jury may
be needed to save your butt.

If I remember my history, in Montana about 120 years ago,
the sheriff [Plummer?] was also the leader of a gang of gold
robbers. The people organized a lynch party for the sheriff
and his deputies. Same sort of thing with the original
vigilance committees in San Francisco during the 1850's
before the courts were organized.

Alaska now has the best gun laws, a permit is available but
not required. Vermont has never required a permit to carry
concealed, but also, no permit is available so the Federal
Gun Free School Zone law exception is not available.
[Federal Gun Free School Zone is a free fire zone for the
insane and criminal, because the victims are expected to be
unarmed.]

Colorado and Florida have "make my day" laws now, which
protect the citizen.

Big thing to keep in mind, what we say here, will be found
out and brought into court if we ever have a trial about our
using a weapon for self-defense. "Cowboy" statements will
be used against you.
Never alter a crime scene, don't move any evidence, don't
drag the body inside, such actions make it appear that you
did something wrong or at least were not sure about what
happened and are trying to make yourself look better.

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:fbutf.38376$QW2.30438@dukeread08...
| > Criminals should live in fear of ordinary citizens, not
the
| > other way around.
|
| Correct... Texas has a CHL, but even when they didn't, I
tended to usually
| be armed... Sometimes within the scope of the law,
sometimes outside of
| it... I sincerely believe that there is only ONE gun law
and it says, SHALL
| NOT BE INFRINGED... All the ones that came after it are
unconstitutional...
|
| > But, the vigilante justice, as seen in
| > the Charles Bronson movies, is wrong.
|
| I'm afraid that we must disagree on that then... The cops
don't like the
| people getting involved because it shows that they are
pretty useless other
| than for keeping donut shops in business...
|
|

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 09:01 PM

A proper burial?

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| "Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| > Except that it isn't morally right.
|
| How is disposing of the bodies in an ecologically sound
mannner (i.e.
| gators) not morally right?
|
|

Montblack

December 31st 05, 09:12 PM

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
>A proper burial?

What's the proper way to bury a well fed gator?

Montblack

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 09:23 PM

.Blueskies.

December 31st 05, 10:52 PM

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Your morals are all screwed up...
>
> Oh gee, I"m not politically correct and think that we should coddle to the
> criminals... Criminals should live in fear of us, not the other way
> around...
>
>

No, I say throw them in a dark hole and forget about them, but to hunt down and kill them is living like the animal they
are. If we are truly civilized then we will not take an eye for an eye, etc. Thou shalt not kill, remember?

Matt Whiting

January 1st 06, 01:15 AM

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>>>Your morals are all screwed up...
>>
>>Oh gee, I"m not politically correct and think that we should coddle to the
>>criminals... Criminals should live in fear of us, not the other way
>>around...
>>
>>
>
>
> No, I say throw them in a dark hole and forget about them, but to hunt down and kill them is living like the animal they
> are. If we are truly civilized then we will not take an eye for an eye, etc. Thou shalt not kill, remember?

Actually, it is thou shalt not murder. Some killing is justified, but
murder never is.

Matt

Grumman-581

January 1st 06, 05:23 AM

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:0mCtf.38573$QW2.6919@dukeread08...
> A proper burial?

From an ecological standpoint, totally wasteful... Recycling via gators is
preferable... If his friends and relatives don't know what happens to the
body, it's even better from a deterrence standpoint...

Grumman-581

January 1st 06, 05:23 AM

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:OFCtf.38575$QW2.20198@dukeread08...
> Cowboy boots and luggage

That's recycling... Of course, you gotta BBQ and eat the tail first...

Grumman-581

January 1st 06, 05:23 AM

".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com...
> No, I say throw them in a dark hole and forget about them,
> but to hunt down and kill them is living like the animal they
> are. If we are truly civilized then we will not take an eye for
> an eye, etc. Thou shalt not kill, remember?

Hell, I never claimed to be civilized... At least I never think I did... If
I did, I must have been drunk at the time...

Actually, I would prefer to have them drawn and quartered... But then again,
it's just so messy to clean up afterwards... Best to save that for just the
spammers...

Grumman-581

January 1st 06, 07:31 AM

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:%lCtf.38572$QW2.24002@dukeread08...
> Texas law is getting to be pretty reasonable, GWB signed the
> first concealed carry law for the state and it has been
> improved over the years.

Yeah, we're slowly throwing off the yoke of Yankee oppression left over from
the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression...

> In the past, a trip out of your home county did allow
> being armed while traveling, but now you don't have
> to be on a long trip.

Actually, the law was too ****in' vague and it allowed the liberal ass
prosecutors and cops to harass you... There was nothing about counties in
the law, it just said that you could use "travelling" as a defense... You
still could end up being arrested and having to hire a lawyer... The new law
doesn't make it that much better...

> A vigilante looks for criminals and acts as judge, jury and
> executioner.

So? If the criminal doesn't do a crime, they have nothing to worry about...

> [Federal Gun Free School Zone is a free fire zone for the
> insane and criminal, because the victims are expected to be
> unarmed.]

Totally unconstitutional... Same as anything else that violates SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED...

> Never alter a crime scene, don't move any evidence, don't
> drag the body inside, such actions make it appear that you
> did something wrong or at least were not sure about what
> happened and are trying to make yourself look better.

Awh, 'ell, Jim... Gators gotta eat too, ya' know?

Jim Macklin

January 1st 06, 08:10 AM

I think the issue is whether the crime is in progress or you
are out doing S&D on known, supposed or possible criminals.

If you're out doing a vigilantly sweep of the streets and
see a crime in progress, say, two men and two women using
clubs, knives and guns, which people are the attackers and
which are the victims? What if they are each vigilantes who
assumed the other was a criminal and they are each getting
ready to feed the alligators?

If I am the target of an attack by a criminal, my actions
are clear and I know who started the attack. But unless I
see the entire crime, from beginning to the time I arrive on
the scene, how do I tell whether the people that appear to
be the attackers isn't the victim who has "turned the
tables" and is still defending their life? It should known
that even an attacker has the legal right to withdraw and
cease and at that point if you continue to attack them, you
may legally become the "attacker" and face criminal charges.
You have a right to make a citizens arrest and use such
force as is needed to do so safely, but you cannot use
deadly force unless necessary to protect yourself or
another. Best action, defend your self and others, and let
the criminal flee if they will do so. Give the cops a good
description and let the police do their job.

Laws vary from State to State and states amend the laws too.
But if you don't know the actual law in the area where you
live or travel, you are taking a big chance with your rights
and your life.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:%lCtf.38572$QW2.24002@dukeread08...
| > Texas law is getting to be pretty reasonable, GWB signed
the
| > first concealed carry law for the state and it has been
| > improved over the years.
|
| Yeah, we're slowly throwing off the yoke of Yankee
oppression left over from
| the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression...
|
| > In the past, a trip out of your home county did allow
| > being armed while traveling, but now you don't have
| > to be on a long trip.
|
| Actually, the law was too ****in' vague and it allowed the
liberal ass
| prosecutors and cops to harass you... There was nothing
about counties in
| the law, it just said that you could use "travelling" as a
defense... You
| still could end up being arrested and having to hire a
lawyer... The new law
| doesn't make it that much better...
|
| > A vigilante looks for criminals and acts as judge, jury
and
| > executioner.
|
| So? If the criminal doesn't do a crime, they have nothing
to worry about...
|
| > [Federal Gun Free School Zone is a free fire zone for
the
| > insane and criminal, because the victims are expected to
be
| > unarmed.]
|
| Totally unconstitutional... Same as anything else that
violates SHALL NOT BE
| INFRINGED...
|
| > Never alter a crime scene, don't move any evidence,
don't
| > drag the body inside, such actions make it appear that
you
| > did something wrong or at least were not sure about what
| > happened and are trying to make yourself look better.
|
| Awh, 'ell, Jim... Gators gotta eat too, ya' know?
|
|

George Patterson

January 1st 06, 05:31 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It isn't illegal anywhere in the USA, but since it gives
> power to the jury and the political bosses, want their "fair
> trials" to have the desired result, any juror who knows of
> or speaks about the term, let alone knows about jury
> nullification will be excluded.

No, it is illegal in New Jersey. The Jersey law stems from a particularly
viscious murder case in the late 80s. The State asked for the death penalty and
one juror made up his mind ahead of time that he was not going to vote to
convict because he had strong feelings about the death penalty. That resulted in
a hung jury and a retrial. The State could not ask for the death penalty at the
second trial (that would be double jeopardy).

The legislature passed a law shortly thereafter. Try it again in New Jersey, and
you will spend a few years in prison. You will be warned about this during jury
selection.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

George Patterson

January 1st 06, 05:37 PM

Montblack wrote:

> What's the proper way to bury a well fed gator?

In a handbag factory.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jose

January 1st 06, 09:13 PM

> The legislature passed a law shortly thereafter. Try it again in New Jersey, and you will spend a few years in prison. You will be warned about this during jury selection.

Try =what= in New Jersey?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Macklin

January 1st 06, 09:35 PM

That law is probably unconstitutional. If a juror makes up
their mind before a trial, then that is a violation of the
duty of a juror. But if during a trial, the evidence
presented leads a juror to decide that the law or its
application in the case is wrong, a juror can vote any way
they want.

Seems that the case you cited was poorly tried and the jury
not screened well enough by the state.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:JlUtf.3$Rb1.1@trnddc01...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > It isn't illegal anywhere in the USA, but since it gives
| > power to the jury and the political bosses, want their
"fair
| > trials" to have the desired result, any juror who knows
of
| > or speaks about the term, let alone knows about jury
| > nullification will be excluded.
|
| No, it is illegal in New Jersey. The Jersey law stems from
a particularly
| viscious murder case in the late 80s. The State asked for
the death penalty and
| one juror made up his mind ahead of time that he was not
going to vote to
| convict because he had strong feelings about the death
penalty. That resulted in
| a hung jury and a retrial. The State could not ask for the
death penalty at the
| second trial (that would be double jeopardy).
|
| The legislature passed a law shortly thereafter. Try it
again in New Jersey, and
| you will spend a few years in prison. You will be warned
about this during jury
| selection.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.