http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html



--
M. Lattoni
Calgary, Canada

Skype: marc_lattoni
Phone: 403.238.3731
eMail:

Not much room for errors if you look at Midway's layout. You can see
buildings lined up in every corners. One mistake, or failure and you gonna
hurt someone on the ground. I am not saying that it is a challenging airport
to fly in or out, but I am concerned about its safety though. I was
concerned about it for a couple of years. One time, I was on the commercial
flight to Midway. On approach, everything looked good, and when we are
coming down to final, I sensed a problem when the nose dropped aggressively.
The plane then flared aggressively, and made an extremely hard landing at no
landing zone( barely missed the wind breaker). I immediately knew that the
pilot must have let the airspeed drop below the recommended approach speed.
Obviously, it was too late to go around on final because of the time delay
on jet engines. So, pushing nose down was the only option. That was my
assessment. I had the window seat and I could see buildings that were a lot
closer than on typical approaches. I could see that the plane barely missed
the wind breakers. Since I am a pilot, I easily recognized the no landing
zone. I looked around in the cabin after the landing and unfortunately, all
passengers didn't notice anything. I think I was only person on that flight
that got into a brief panic.

Toks Desalu

"Marc CYBW" > wrote in message
news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
>
>
>
> --
> M. Lattoni
> Calgary, Canada
>
> Skype: marc_lattoni
> Phone: 403.238.3731
> eMail:
>
>

Toks:
>Not much room for errors if you look at Midway's layout.

I hear Hong Kong is the most dificult airport to land in, and the most
breathtaking scenery wise.

Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago

Associated Press
Sunday, December 11, 2005; A12



CHICAGO, Dec. 10 -- The reverse thrusters that should have
slowed a Southwest Airlines jetliner before it slid off a
runway at Midway International Airport and into the street
did not immediately kick in when the pilots tried to deploy
them, federal investigators said Saturday after interviewing
the crew.

How much of a role that braking equipment played in
Thursday's deadly accident was not immediately clear,
though, and the investigation is continuing.

The plane's flight attendants told investigators that the
Boeing 737 did not appear to slow after it touched down at
Midway in a snowstorm Thursday, said Robert Benzon, the
National Transportation Safety Board's investigator in
charge.

"They all said it was a smooth landing, but they could sense
a lack of deceleration," Benzon said.

He said the pilots told investigators they began applying
the brakes manually as soon as they noticed that the plane
was not slowing properly. The plane, with 98 passengers
aboard, slid through a fence and into street traffic, where
it killed a 6-year-old boy in a car.

Because of the blowing snow, none of the air traffic
controllers actually saw the plane land, but more than 10
cameras could provide additional information.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers
depends on compression of the main gear struts and probably
also the nose wheel strut. The description of a "smooth
landing" indicates pilot error in the technique usewd for
the landing. If the aircraft was flown on the ILS to just
above the surface, a slight flare and a very firm landing to
compress the mains, followed by quickly lowering the nose
they might have been OK. But a smooth landing and lowering
the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the automatic
deployment of the systems.



"Marc CYBW" > wrote
in message news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
|
|
|
| --
| M. Lattoni
| Calgary, Canada
|
| Skype: marc_lattoni
| Phone: 403.238.3731
| eMail:
|
|

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Toks:
>
>>Not much room for errors if you look at Midway's layout.
>
>
> I hear Hong Kong is the most dificult airport to land in, and the most
> breathtaking scenery wise.
>

Used to be.

Have they opened the new one where they blasted mountains/islands?

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Have they opened the new one where they blasted mountains/islands?

The new Chep Lak Kok Airport opened July 1998, the same time the
legendary and exciting Kai Tak in the city closed. It was a sudden, not
a gradual, transfer of operations.

--
Nick

> But a smooth landing and lowering
> the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the automatic
> deployment of the systems.


My goodness. How sensitive are those gear load sensing switches?

Marc


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:lSYmf.22834$QW2.3354@dukeread08...
> Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago
>
> Associated Press
> Sunday, December 11, 2005; A12
>
>
>
> CHICAGO, Dec. 10 -- The reverse thrusters that should have
> slowed a Southwest Airlines jetliner before it slid off a
> runway at Midway International Airport and into the street
> did not immediately kick in when the pilots tried to deploy
> them, federal investigators said Saturday after interviewing
> the crew.
>
> How much of a role that braking equipment played in
> Thursday's deadly accident was not immediately clear,
> though, and the investigation is continuing.
>
> The plane's flight attendants told investigators that the
> Boeing 737 did not appear to slow after it touched down at
> Midway in a snowstorm Thursday, said Robert Benzon, the
> National Transportation Safety Board's investigator in
> charge.
>
> "They all said it was a smooth landing, but they could sense
> a lack of deceleration," Benzon said.
>
> He said the pilots told investigators they began applying
> the brakes manually as soon as they noticed that the plane
> was not slowing properly. The plane, with 98 passengers
> aboard, slid through a fence and into street traffic, where
> it killed a 6-year-old boy in a car.
>
> Because of the blowing snow, none of the air traffic
> controllers actually saw the plane land, but more than 10
> cameras could provide additional information.
>
> © 2005 The Washington Post Company
>
>
> Automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers
> depends on compression of the main gear struts and probably
> also the nose wheel strut. The description of a "smooth
> landing" indicates pilot error in the technique usewd for
> the landing. If the aircraft was flown on the ILS to just
> above the surface, a slight flare and a very firm landing to
> compress the mains, followed by quickly lowering the nose
> they might have been OK. But a smooth landing and lowering
> the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the automatic
> deployment of the systems.
>
>
>
> "Marc CYBW" > wrote
> in message news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
> |
> |
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
> |
> |
> |
> | --
> | M. Lattoni
> | Calgary, Canada
> |
> | Skype: marc_lattoni
> | Phone: 403.238.3731
> | eMail:
> |
> |
>
>

> Have they opened the new one where they blasted mountains/islands?

I believed that they build new airport on man-made land.

On 11 Dec 2005 09:21:53 -0800, Flyingmonk wrote:

>Have they opened the new one where they blasted mountains/islands?

well, yes. in 1998.

http://www.info.gov.hk/info/sar2/infrast.htm
---snip
The new Hong Kong International Airport opened to air traffic on July 6,
1998, after an overnight move from the old airport at Kai Tak in one of the
world's biggest peace-time logistical operations.
---snap

#m
--
.................................................. .. War Is Peace
.............................................. Freedom Is Slavery
........................................... Ignorance Is Strength
............................................. George Orwell, 1984

>well, yes. in 1998.

Boy! Am I behind the times? LOL.

Thank you all for the updates guys. I was always awestruck as I
lookout over the wings for that last turn to final for the old airport.
It's been awhile since I flew(as a passenger) that route.

On 11 Dec 2005 09:59:49 -0800, Flyingmonk wrote:

>>well, yes. in 1998.
>
>Boy! Am I behind the times? LOL.

*hehe*

>Thank you all for the updates guys. I was always awestruck as I
>lookout over the wings for that last turn to final for the old airport.
> It's been awhile since I flew(as a passenger) that route.

the ran a good report some time back on TV about the construction of the
island, the highway, bridge, the undersea-highway tunnel, etc.

they were not in time (they wanted to be done when Hong Kong fell back to
China) because they feared that the Chinese will stop further construction.
It took them one year longer than planned, but IIRC the whole thing took
them 5 or 6 years.

#m
--
.................................................. .. War Is Peace
.............................................. Freedom Is Slavery
........................................... Ignorance Is Strength
............................................. George Orwell, 1984

Thailand is building the biggest airport in the world, SUVARNABHUMI
AIRPORT, BANGKOK, THAILAND to replace Dorn Muang as the new
international airport, Dorn Muang will service domestic flights
floowing SBIA's opening. Suvarnabhumi eventually will be able to cope
with 100 million passengers per year and will have four runways with
which to do this.


http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/bangkok/bangkok5.html
http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/bangkok/bangkok2.html
http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/bangkok/bangkok2.html
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarn?full=1
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarn12
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarn25
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarn29
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarn32
http://www.thaivisa.com/gallery/suvarnabhumi/suvarnabhumi

I hear that IAD (Dulles International Airport, in Northern Virginia)
will be replaced by a bigger international airport also. I live ten
minutes away from IAD.

Marc CYBW wrote:

>>But a smooth landing and lowering
>>the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the automatic
>>deployment of the systems.
>
>
>
> My goodness. How sensitive are those gear load sensing switches?

The source was the Washington Post.


Matt

Toks Desalu wrote:
snip............... I could see that the plane barely missed
> the wind breakers. Since I am a pilot, I easily recognized the no landing
> zone.

I'm a pilot too. What's a wind breaker?

Frank


> Toks Desalu
>
> "Marc CYBW" > wrote in message
> news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
> >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > M. Lattoni
> > Calgary, Canada
> >
> > Skype: marc_lattoni
> > Phone: 403.238.3731
> > eMail:
> >
> >

>... but IIRC the whole thing took them 5 or 6 years.

That's still incredibly 'fast'. I hope it isn't sinking like the
Japanese one.

Well, The Washington Post being the source explains a lot. I was
wondering how they get the spoilers deployed with that nose wheel still
in the air. Seen it done dozens of times as I'm sure most on the
newsgroup have also.

Regards,

James A. (Jim) Carter


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Whiting ]
Posted At: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:50 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
Conversation: Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago - Washington
Post
Subject: Re: Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago - Washington
Post

Marc CYBW wrote:

>>But a smooth landing and lowering
>>the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the automatic
>>deployment of the systems.
>
>
>
> My goodness. How sensitive are those gear load sensing switches?

The source was the Washington Post.


Matt

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message >
>
> Automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers
> depends on compression of the main gear struts and probably
> also the nose wheel strut.

I've never flown the 737, but have the 727 and 747. Boeing used to be
pretty consistent in running systems through the models. On both the 727
and 747, main gear compression *and* main wheel spin-up are both necessary
for operation of certain ground systems like reverse thrust, autospoilers,
autobraking, etc. IIRC, on the 727, nose gear compression is also required
for autospoiler deployment. Without a trip to the basement for research, I
can't recall the details. I *could* believe that after a landing in several
inches of snow, certain main wheels may not have spun up enough to release
the reverse actuators.

In article <puXmf.798$Y2.561@trndny04>, Toks Desalu
> wrote:

> One time, I was on the commercial
> flight to Midway. On approach, everything looked good, and when we are
> coming down to final, I sensed a problem when the nose dropped aggressively.

Or perhaps the pilots knew the runway was short, had the runway
visually in sight, and elected to land below the normal glideslope
because the pilot believed it necessary for a safer landing. That's
specifically permitted by the regulations.

> The plane then flared aggressively, and made an extremely hard landing at no
> landing zone( barely missed the wind breaker).

What's "no landing zone"? What's a "wind breaker"? What was the wind,
and what was the gust factor that day?


> I immediately knew that the
> pilot must have let the airspeed drop below the recommended approach speed.

With all due respect, you know nothing of the sort. What was the
"recommended approach speed" for the airplane's landing weight that
day. For that matter, what *was* the airplane's landing weight? You
don't know, and therefore don't even know the target speed, let alone
whether they dropped below it.

From the back, you have *no* idea what the indicated airspeed is.
None. You may have a rough estimate of the *ground* speed based on
your observations out the window. Assuming no wind, I seriously doubt
you'd be able to tell the difference between 140 knots and 120.

> I think I was only person on that flight that got into a brief panic.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

> What's "no landing zone"?

Displaced threshold?

> What's a "wind breaker"?

Blast fence?

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I hear that IAD (Dulles International Airport, in Northern Virginia)
> will be replaced by a bigger international airport also. I live ten
> minutes away from IAD.
>

Dulles is going to be replaced? Or just expanded?

They are on-off mircroswitches, the switch completes the
circuit when the strut is compressed to the static ground
position.


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

"Marc CYBW" > wrote
in message news:fAZmf.251433$ir4.208268@edtnps90...
|> But a smooth landing and lowering
| > the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the
automatic
| > deployment of the systems.
|
|
| My goodness. How sensitive are those gear load sensing
switches?
|
| Marc
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:lSYmf.22834$QW2.3354@dukeread08...
| > Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago
| >
| > Associated Press
| > Sunday, December 11, 2005; A12
| >
| >
| >
| > CHICAGO, Dec. 10 -- The reverse thrusters that should
have
| > slowed a Southwest Airlines jetliner before it slid off
a
| > runway at Midway International Airport and into the
street
| > did not immediately kick in when the pilots tried to
deploy
| > them, federal investigators said Saturday after
interviewing
| > the crew.
| >
| > How much of a role that braking equipment played in
| > Thursday's deadly accident was not immediately clear,
| > though, and the investigation is continuing.
| >
| > The plane's flight attendants told investigators that
the
| > Boeing 737 did not appear to slow after it touched down
at
| > Midway in a snowstorm Thursday, said Robert Benzon, the
| > National Transportation Safety Board's investigator in
| > charge.
| >
| > "They all said it was a smooth landing, but they could
sense
| > a lack of deceleration," Benzon said.
| >
| > He said the pilots told investigators they began
applying
| > the brakes manually as soon as they noticed that the
plane
| > was not slowing properly. The plane, with 98 passengers
| > aboard, slid through a fence and into street traffic,
where
| > it killed a 6-year-old boy in a car.
| >
| > Because of the blowing snow, none of the air traffic
| > controllers actually saw the plane land, but more than
10
| > cameras could provide additional information.
| >
| > © 2005 The Washington Post Company
| >
| >
| > Automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers
| > depends on compression of the main gear struts and
probably
| > also the nose wheel strut. The description of a "smooth
| > landing" indicates pilot error in the technique usewd
for
| > the landing. If the aircraft was flown on the ILS to
just
| > above the surface, a slight flare and a very firm
landing to
| > compress the mains, followed by quickly lowering the
nose
| > they might have been OK. But a smooth landing and
lowering
| > the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the
automatic
| > deployment of the systems.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Marc CYBW" >
wrote
| > in message news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
| > |
| > |
| >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | --
| > | M. Lattoni
| > | Calgary, Canada
| > |
| > | Skype: marc_lattoni
| > | Phone: 403.238.3731
| > | eMail:
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

A greaser landing would not necessarily compress the main
gear struts, which is what controls the auto-spoilers and
unlocks the gate on the power levers for reverse.
Lowering the nose gear will put the weight on three points
and not just the two main gear, which could allow the struts
to stay extended a little longer time.

In a light aircraft, maximum braking comes with the aircraft
on all three wheel and the elevator full back because the
tail down force is pushing the main tires into the ground.
It a transport with lift dump spoilers, the elevator
position is not as critical.


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

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
| Well, The Washington Post being the source explains a lot.
I was
| wondering how they get the spoilers deployed with that
nose wheel still
| in the air. Seen it done dozens of times as I'm sure most
on the
| newsgroup have also.
|
| Regards,
|
| James A. (Jim) Carter
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Matt Whiting ]
| Posted At: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:50 PM
| Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
| Conversation: Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in
Chicago - Washington
| Post
| Subject: Re: Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in
Chicago - Washington
| Post
|
| Marc CYBW wrote:
|
| >>But a smooth landing and lowering
| >>the nose may have been to delicate to trigger the
automatic
| >>deployment of the systems.
| >
| >
| >
| > My goodness. How sensitive are those gear load sensing
switches?
|
| The source was the Washington Post.
|
|
| Matt
|

Jet blast deflectors, news media calls them sound barriers
(stupid news media). If a jet was a break-away or take-off
thrust it would be blowing cars off the road, those curved
steel plates deflect the jet blast upward.


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

> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Toks Desalu wrote:
| snip............... I could see that the plane barely
missed
| > the wind breakers. Since I am a pilot, I easily
recognized the no landing
| > zone.
|
| I'm a pilot too. What's a wind breaker?
|
| Frank
|
|
| > Toks Desalu
| >
| > "Marc CYBW" >
wrote in message
| > news:cCWmf.145990$S4.8066@edtnps84...
| > >
| > >
| >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > --
| > > M. Lattoni
| > > Calgary, Canada
| > >
| > > Skype: marc_lattoni
| > > Phone: 403.238.3731
| > > eMail:
| > >
| > >
|

Sounds plausible to me, I've never flown anything bigger
than the BE1900 and the Beechjet BE400, so the exact
operational sequence is only generally known to me. I do
know that a "carrier landing" is the way to get the struts
compressed ASAP.

You raise a question about technique...If the pilot applied
brakes manually before the wheels spun up to what ever rpm
was required, wouldn't that block any further automatic
spoiler deployment?


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

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message >
| >
| > Automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers
| > depends on compression of the main gear struts and
probably
| > also the nose wheel strut.
|
| I've never flown the 737, but have the 727 and 747.
Boeing used to be
| pretty consistent in running systems through the models.
On both the 727
| and 747, main gear compression *and* main wheel spin-up
are both necessary
| for operation of certain ground systems like reverse
thrust, autospoilers,
| autobraking, etc. IIRC, on the 727, nose gear
compression is also required
| for autospoiler deployment. Without a trip to the basement
for research, I
| can't recall the details. I *could* believe that after a
landing in several
| inches of snow, certain main wheels may not have spun up
enough to release
| the reverse actuators.
|
|

"Flight spoilers (2 -1/2/3/4/500; 4 -NG's) augment the ailerons and are
powered by hydraulic system A (inboard) & B (outboard). Spoilers will
continue to operate with speedbrake deployed.

Ground spoilers are also from hydraulic system A.

Only the outboard flight spoilers are powered by hydraulic sys B

On landing, if armed, all spoilers will deploy when the thrust levers
are at idle and any two wheels have spun up or right gear is
compressed. If not armed, the speedbrakes will deploy when reverse
thrust is selected."

While airborne you will only see flight spoiler. On landing flight
spoilers and ground spoilers deploy.

On an 737 NG -With the Speed Brake handle in the up position and on the
ground...
Gnd Spoilers #1,6,7, & 12 between 52 & 60 degrees
Flt. Spoilers # 2,3,4,5,8,9,10 &11 between 33 & 38 degrees

The photos show the spoilers not deployeed-SOP when configuring the
aircraft for emergency evacuation. Deployed spoilers would inhibit
overwing emergency evacuation.

Not a "windbreaker". They are called "blast fences". "Windbreakers" a
males full of gas!!!!!!

As a passenger in the back, it is impossible to evaluate whether a
pilot barely missed the blast fence or not. With two decades of part
121 flying, I do not second guess professional pilots when I am a
passenger nor do I second guess the NTSB.

Not much room for errors at LGA, Reagan, or Orange County. Of course
with AA, CAL, DAL, LCC using LGA, and not SWA, you won't hear how
dangerous LGA is.

Above 10 feet radar altimeter, you can manually deploy the flight
spoilers (8 panels).

Below 10 feet radar altimeter and engines idle, flight (8 panels) and
GROUND spoilers (4 panels) are armed and can be manually deployed prior
to touchdown, wheels spin-up, or Rt. strut compression.

Sounds like something that should have been done.


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

"lynn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Above 10 feet radar altimeter, you can manually deploy the
flight
| spoilers (8 panels).
|
| Below 10 feet radar altimeter and engines idle, flight (8
panels) and
| GROUND spoilers (4 panels) are armed and can be manually
deployed prior
| to touchdown, wheels spin-up, or Rt. strut compression.
|

I thought I heard it was gonna be replaced. I don't remember where I
heard it from.

Macklin, with all due respects, since the largest thing you've flown would
fit into a 737 intake duct, why don't you just shut the f*** up and listen
to the people who have flown them.

I've wrenched on them for a few thousand hours and can explain how the
landing gear squat switch works, but I'm not about to do that since my last
honest tweak on them was some forty years ago.

If you don't have direct experience, bug OFF.

Jim



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Dc5nf.25869$QW2.7007@dukeread08...
> Sounds like something that should have been done.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> "lynn" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> | Above 10 feet radar altimeter, you can manually deploy the
> flight
> | spoilers (8 panels).
> |
> | Below 10 feet radar altimeter and engines idle, flight (8
> panels) and
> | GROUND spoilers (4 panels) are armed and can be manually
> deployed prior
> | to touchdown, wheels spin-up, or Rt. strut compression.
> |
>
>

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>
> You raise a question about technique...If the pilot applied
> brakes manually before the wheels spun up to what ever rpm
> was required, wouldn't that block any further automatic
> spoiler deployment?

No, and (if I understand your wording correctly) you wouldn't want to. If
you are applying brakes, you want to stop, and thus the spoilers would be
helpful. The wheels spin up to the required point (usually 60 or 80kt) very
quickly, probably quicker than you could get on the brakes anyway. Also
incorporated into the antiskid system there is usually what they call locked
wheel protection - disallows braking to any wheel that senses as locked
prior to touchdown, thus peventing landing with brakes applied, which
usually results in blown tires.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message

> Sounds plausible to me, I've never flown anything bigger
> than the BE1900 and the Beechjet BE400,

What did you think of the 1900? I had a chance to fly A & B models very
briefly. I thought it kind of a squirrelly airplane.


>I do
> know that a "carrier landing" is the way to get the struts
> compressed ASAP.

The problem with thinking of the technique in those terms is that if you
make the touchdown too firm, you're likely to bounce a bit, thus
uncompressing the struts until the second touchdown, with a net increase in
time to brake or spoiler actuation.

Thank you for your opinion, but I still think my opinion is
valid and you are free to ignore anything you want.

My flying was 95% single pilot, in all weather and in a wide
range of airplanes. I learned to read and interpret on my
own, didn't have a dispatcher or co-pilot. When I did fly
with a crew as captain, my rule was simple, I'm not perfect,
I expect you (the co-pilot) to tell me what you think, I
will NEVER get mad at you unless you don't speak up and we
kill somebody. My co-pilots always seemed happy. I shared
legs but never deferred my authority. I also never made a
crewmember feel useless or ignorant.

The people who have flown the "big iron" seem to agree with
me, except for a few knee-jerk, "don't speak ill about
pilots" and "wait a year" for the NTSB folks. I know the
basic principles on the operation of a Boeing. I've even
taught a few Boeing engineers, USAF KC135 drivers, and
picked their brains to increase my general level of
experience.

BTW, the 737 intake is not quite that big. I would like to
have the ops manual for the SWA and the model Boeing 737 in
question, but I do not. I do not have the MDW weather for
the period before and after and I don't need it to have an
opinion. The NTSB will get all that and more. They will
have the cockpit tapes and the a multi-channel FDR. They
will know whether the crew was properly briefed on the
approach and landing and whether each switch was properly
set. There will be details landing data calculations. In
the end, some causes and factors will be reported.

But until then, somebody might gather a little info and not
have an accident if they hear about a POSSIBLE reason for
this accident.

BTW, wrenching on an airplane and knowing the mechanical
systems does not qualify you to fly that airplane in LIFR
conditions or to even understand the dynamic of a landing
from a pilot's point of view, what are your pilot
credentials and experience? Gee, this can be fun.

--
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



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
.. .
| Macklin, with all due respects, since the largest thing
you've flown would
| fit into a 737 intake duct, why don't you just shut the
f*** up and listen
| to the people who have flown them.
|
| I've wrenched on them for a few thousand hours and can
explain how the
| landing gear squat switch works, but I'm not about to do
that since my last
| honest tweak on them was some forty years ago.
|
| If you don't have direct experience, bug OFF.
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Dc5nf.25869$QW2.7007@dukeread08...
| > Sounds like something that should have been done.
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > "lynn" > wrote in message
| >
oups.com...
| > | Above 10 feet radar altimeter, you can manually deploy
the
| > flight
| > | spoilers (8 panels).
| > |
| > | Below 10 feet radar altimeter and engines idle, flight
(8
| > panels) and
| > | GROUND spoilers (4 panels) are armed and can be
manually
| > deployed prior
| > | to touchdown, wheels spin-up, or Rt. strut
compression.
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

On a layer of loose powder snow, would the snow pack into
the dual wheel before friction started the wheel rotation?
I know that on the 200/F90 and 300 King Air we flew, we had
bleed air brake deice to unfreeze the disk brakes and allow
taxi and to be sure the wheels were not frozen in-flight.
With touchdown at 120-150 knots, the tires could hydroplane
and not being to rotate as quickly as expected, is that not
a possibility?

I will check to see what Boeing has in the way of
white-papers and check a few other sources, but it isn't a
high priority for me at the moment.


--
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



"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| >
| > You raise a question about technique...If the pilot
applied
| > brakes manually before the wheels spun up to what ever
rpm
| > was required, wouldn't that block any further automatic
| > spoiler deployment?
|
| No, and (if I understand your wording correctly) you
wouldn't want to. If
| you are applying brakes, you want to stop, and thus the
spoilers would be
| helpful. The wheels spin up to the required point
(usually 60 or 80kt) very
| quickly, probably quicker than you could get on the brakes
anyway. Also
| incorporated into the antiskid system there is usually
what they call locked
| wheel protection - disallows braking to any wheel that
senses as locked
| prior to touchdown, thus peventing landing with brakes
applied, which
| usually results in blown tires.
|
|

It was not as nice handling as the 200/300 King Air. Some
of the planes I flew had the power nose wheel steering and
that was nice. Most of the time I had in the 1900 was with
an empty cabin/cargo bay because I was doing flight tests on
airplanes coming out of the shop. Most were single pilot
operations, sometimes I took a mechanic or avionic tech
along to do some certification or to check some particular
system they could not fully diagnose on the ground. Yes, it
was in need of a better yaw dampener and most had the cheap
gyros and flight instruments.

Yes, if you bounce, but if the approach speed is at 1.2-1.3
and the wing is unloaded just before touchdown it isn't
likely to bounce. Of course except for an emergency, the
best option is to land on a runway that doesn't require such
heroic technique. I have done the "carrier" landing in the
F90 and 300 King Air on dry runways in VFR conditions. You
can make some very short landings, nice to know, but not
something I'd do except in an emergency if I had passengers
on the plane. The bounce will probably be caused by a nose
wheel first touchdown and rebound raising the angle of
attack. If you touch at 1.1-1.2 Vs with the nose just off
the ground, considering the strut extension, and are moving
the control wheel forward slightly at touch down, I've not
had a bounce. You do not want to move the control wheel
fully forward on a light aircraft, including the T-tailed
King Airs, because without lift dump spoilers, you will lift
weight off the main wheel tires and probably skid the tires.
The transport category jets don't have that problem because
they are designed to work differently from the typical GA
airplane..

--
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




"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
|
| > Sounds plausible to me, I've never flown anything bigger
| > than the BE1900 and the Beechjet BE400,
|
| What did you think of the 1900? I had a chance to fly A &
B models very
| briefly. I thought it kind of a squirrelly airplane.
|
|
| >I do
| > know that a "carrier landing" is the way to get the
struts
| > compressed ASAP.
|
| The problem with thinking of the technique in those terms
is that if you
| make the touchdown too firm, you're likely to bounce a
bit, thus
| uncompressing the struts until the second touchdown, with
a net increase in
| time to brake or spoiler actuation.
|
|
|

RST Engineering wrote:

> Macklin, with all due respects, since the largest thing you've flown would
> fit into a 737 intake duct, why don't you just shut the f*** up and listen
> to the people who have flown them.

One does not need to operate a piece of machinery in order to comment on it,
any more than one needs to be a politician to discuss politics. You will be
surprised that many of the NTSB investigators who will officially investigate
this accident haven't flown anything larger than an intake duct too.

>
>
> I've wrenched on them for a few thousand hours and can explain how the
> landing gear squat switch works, but I'm not about to do that since my last
> honest tweak on them was some forty years ago.

Good for you.

> If you don't have direct experience, bug OFF.

Sorry Jim, you don't have any authority to tell anyone to bug OFF. This is a
public newsgroup. If you don't like someone's opinion feel free to post your
own, but you're not going to stop others from posting here.

--Brian
727 Captain (retired).

lynn wrote:
> On landing, if armed, all spoilers will deploy when the thrust levers
> are at idle and any two wheels have spun up or right gear is
> compressed.

How come only when right gear is compressed? As opposed to either left
or right gear?

I really like the Bill of Rights and it is nice to see
people stand up for it. There is a new movement that says
if you haven't done something, you are not qualified to
comment on or about the subject. I have not committed
murder or rape, done any recreational drugs or flown
anything faster, bigger than the Beechjet 400. But I can
still comment on any of those subjects.

Just to make one of those statements, Tookie killed four
people 25 years ago. If he has really reformed in prison,
that's nice, that means he'll go to Heaven instead of Hell.
But it doesn't mean he still should not be executed. If he
really was reformed, he might even talk about the CRIPS. If
he is executed, all those books he wrote will have a new
dust jacket that will say, "See, you really should behave
yourself."


--
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



"Brian Wilson" > wrote in message
...
| RST Engineering wrote:
|
| > Macklin, with all due respects, since the largest thing
you've flown would
| > fit into a 737 intake duct, why don't you just shut the
f*** up and listen
| > to the people who have flown them.
|
| One does not need to operate a piece of machinery in order
to comment on it,
| any more than one needs to be a politician to discuss
politics. You will be
| surprised that many of the NTSB investigators who will
officially investigate
| this accident haven't flown anything larger than an intake
duct too.
|
| >
| >
| > I've wrenched on them for a few thousand hours and can
explain how the
| > landing gear squat switch works, but I'm not about to do
that since my last
| > honest tweak on them was some forty years ago.
|
| Good for you.
|
| > If you don't have direct experience, bug OFF.
|
| Sorry Jim, you don't have any authority to tell anyone to
bug OFF. This is a
| public newsgroup. If you don't like someone's opinion
feel free to post your
| own, but you're not going to stop others from posting
here.
|
| --Brian
| 727 Captain (retired).
|

"Bucky" > wrote:

>lynn wrote:
>> On landing, if armed, all spoilers will deploy when the thrust levers
>> are at idle and any two wheels have spun up or right gear is
>> compressed.
>
>How come only when right gear is compressed? As opposed to either left
>or right gear?
>
I was on a flight where the approach conditions were challenging. I
then critiqued the co-pilot who landed the plane (after discussing it
with the pilot beforehand). My overall evaluation was similar to the
pilots (good landing) but if I recall correctly he landed one side
first on purpose to hasten or delay some function. Pilots of this
plane will know the complete answer. Those were two pleasant guys.

Ron Lee

"lynn" > wrote
> Not much room for errors at LGA, Reagan, or Orange County. Of course
> with AA, CAL, DAL, LCC using LGA, and not SWA, you won't hear how
> dangerous LGA is.

Hmmmm...I flew PanAm's shuttle B-727's into LGA and DCA a couple of
times a day for quite some time...never had a problem. Then again...
we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in controlling
approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot. :-)

Bob Moore

Was that before they restricted the landing flap setting?
How much difference did that make in distance? I was just a
very low time pilot when that was done, understand it was
because the 727 would get way behind the power curve, is
that true?


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

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
| "lynn" > wrote
| > Not much room for errors at LGA, Reagan, or Orange
County. Of course
| > with AA, CAL, DAL, LCC using LGA, and not SWA, you won't
hear how
| > dangerous LGA is.
|
| Hmmmm...I flew PanAm's shuttle B-727's into LGA and DCA a
couple of
| times a day for quite some time...never had a problem.
Then again...
| we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in
controlling
| approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot.
:-)
|
| Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
> Hmmmm...I flew PanAm's shuttle B-727's into LGA and DCA a couple of
> times a day for quite some time...never had a problem. Then again...
> we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in controlling
> approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot. :-)



Ah, you guys are pussies. The fellows at Midway didn't have a tailhook or net
to contain them. <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Flyingmonk wrote:
>
> I thought I heard it was gonna be replaced. I don't remember where I
> heard it from.

Probably an Internet rumor. :)

I haven't heard anything other than it's to be expanded with additional
runways.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>
> Yes, if you bounce, but if the approach speed is at 1.2-1.3
><snip>
> The transport category jets don't have that problem because
> they are designed to work differently from the typical GA
> airplane..

yes, yes, yes......

anyone here [with appropriate experience] who's never had a 727 bounce on
them, please raise your hand. Sometimes you find that the airplane never
read the book.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
> Was that before they restricted the landing flap setting?
> How much difference did that make in distance? I was just a
> very low time pilot when that was done, understand it was
> because the 727 would get way behind the power curve, is
> that true?

Any restriction in landing flap setting would have been due to
noise limitations, not performance.

Bob Moore

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Was that before they restricted the landing flap setting?


The "quiet wing"?

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>
>> Yes, if you bounce, but if the approach speed is at 1.2-1.3
>><snip>
>> The transport category jets don't have that problem because
>> they are designed to work differently from the typical GA
>> airplane..
>
> yes, yes, yes......
>
> anyone here [with appropriate experience] who's never had a 727 bounce on
> them, please raise your hand. Sometimes you find that the airplane never
> read the book.

There was a mechanic at my local flight school, he used to fly for the
airlines but lost his medical, he said the 727 was a bitch to land well.

----------------------------------
DW

If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?


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

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
| > Was that before they restricted the landing flap
setting?
| > How much difference did that make in distance? I was
just a
| > very low time pilot when that was done, understand it
was
| > because the 727 would get way behind the power curve, is
| > that true?
|
| Any restriction in landing flap setting would have been
due to
| noise limitations, not performance.
|
| Bob Moore

"Jim Macklin" > wrote

> If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
> accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
> degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
> recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
> Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
> couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
> early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
> and any changes in certification re flaps?

Go back to your little airplanes Jim. The following article is
from the May-June 1965 issue of the Boeing Airliner. Is that
far enough back for you?

"Flap Angle
One of the factors having the greatest effects
on stall and initial buffet speeds is the angle the
flaps are set at during flight. The 727 flap angles
are given in trailing edge deflections of 0, 2, 5,
15, 25, 30 and 40 degrees. An increase in flap
angle increases the camber of the wing so that
it will produce the same lift at a lower speed than
a smaller flap angle setting would produce. The
effect of flap angle on initial buffet and stall can
be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for flap angles 0,
15, and 40 degrees. The graphs also present the
points where the stick shaker operates and shows
the 7 percent margin required by Civil Air Regulations
for adequate stall warning. In all cases, except at 30
and 40 degree flaps, initial buffet will occur at a
speed higher than the 107 percent stall speed
requirement. However, initial buffet is never less
than 4 percent above stall speed even at 40° flaps.
Since the reference landing speed (Vref) is 130
percent of the stall speed, there is adequate speed
margin for landing."

Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.

Yes, there were a couple of early landing accidents
attributed to excessive sink rates and the fix was to
change the technique that the pilots were using.

Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
and the sink rates that it causes?

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another in Lake
Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The high T tail
exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines revised the landing
configurations .

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
> If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
> accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
> degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
> recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
> Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
> couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
> early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
> and any changes in certification re flaps?
>

Because the left gear is used for wheel spinup.

I have about 20K hours in Boeings and made 9000+ landing in the 737.
The 737 NG engineering is awesome. Nothing wrong with the spoiler
system. Every SWA pliot expects spoiler deployment on touchdown. If it
does not occur, they immediately deploy manually.

If you make a good wet runway landing, spoiler deployment is never a
problem. "Plant" the aircrat on the 1000 ft. maker..

OBTW James, they are NOT "on-off mircroswitches" but proximity
switches. A lot more reliable than mechanical switches.

Brian Wilson > wrote:

> Sorry Jim, you don't have any authority to tell anyone to bug OFF. This is a
> public newsgroup. If you don't like someone's opinion feel free to post your
> own, but you're not going to stop others from posting here.

Brian, thanks for that. There are some incredibly over-inflated egos in
this group, and it's refreshing to see that not all of you high-timers
share that personality defect.

--
Peter

This should create a lot of comments.

"The -700 was certified using reverse thrust for landing. SWA uses an
on board performance computer (opc) to calculate T.O. and landing data.
>From the F.O.M.;

"The opc on the 700 takes into account the thrust reverser's for
landing,certificated that way, unlike most other aircraft."

It's true the classic fleet (and every other a/c I'm aware of)
considers reverse thrust for landing simply a bonus. Not the -700.

Jim,

The B-737-700 engine, the CFM56-7, is 61 inches in diameter at the fan
blades.

Bob Moore > wrote:
Then again.we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in
controlling approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot.
:-)
>
>Bob Moore

As passengers we usually know when a Naval Aviator lands.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
> Bob Moore > wrote:
> Then again.we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in
> controlling approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot.
> :-)
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> As passengers we usually know when a Naval Aviator lands.



The 'roids never lie!



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Do a Google for "Boeing 727 landing flaps" and you will find
several NTSB reports about flap settings and crashes do to
autopilot problems. I do remember there was an article
about the FAA/Boeing restricting flap extension after a
series of landing accidents. Maybe some one remembers, I
think 40 was the reduced setting.

I just have a clear memory of the article in FLYING or Air
Progress.


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

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| > If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
| > accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
| > degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
| > recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
| > Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
for
| > couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
| > early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
727
| > and any changes in certification re flaps?
|
| Go back to your little airplanes Jim. The following
article is
| from the May-June 1965 issue of the Boeing Airliner. Is
that
| far enough back for you?
|
| "Flap Angle
| One of the factors having the greatest effects
| on stall and initial buffet speeds is the angle the
| flaps are set at during flight. The 727 flap angles
| are given in trailing edge deflections of 0, 2, 5,
| 15, 25, 30 and 40 degrees. An increase in flap
| angle increases the camber of the wing so that
| it will produce the same lift at a lower speed than
| a smaller flap angle setting would produce. The
| effect of flap angle on initial buffet and stall can
| be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for flap angles 0,
| 15, and 40 degrees. The graphs also present the
| points where the stick shaker operates and shows
| the 7 percent margin required by Civil Air Regulations
| for adequate stall warning. In all cases, except at 30
| and 40 degree flaps, initial buffet will occur at a
| speed higher than the 107 percent stall speed
| requirement. However, initial buffet is never less
| than 4 percent above stall speed even at 40° flaps.
| Since the reference landing speed (Vref) is 130
| percent of the stall speed, there is adequate speed
| margin for landing."
|
| Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
| 1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.
|
| Yes, there were a couple of early landing accidents
| attributed to excessive sink rates and the fix was to
| change the technique that the pilots were using.
|
| Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
| and the sink rates that it causes?
|
| Bob Moore
| ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
| PanAm (retired)

Do you know if part of that was to limit landing flaps to 40
degrees?


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


"sfb" > wrote in message
news:KZknf.21270$qF6.2269@trnddc01...
| Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another
in Lake
| Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The
high T tail
| exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines
revised the landing
| configurations .
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
| > If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
| > accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
| > degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
| > recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
| > Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
for
| > couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
| > early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
727
| > and any changes in certification re flaps?
| >
|
|

They are magnetic and not mechanical, but still they are
either ON or OFF... correct and thank you.


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

"lynn" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Because the left gear is used for wheel spinup.
|
| I have about 20K hours in Boeings and made 9000+ landing
in the 737.
| The 737 NG engineering is awesome. Nothing wrong with the
spoiler
| system. Every SWA pliot expects spoiler deployment on
touchdown. If it
| does not occur, they immediately deploy manually.
|
| If you make a good wet runway landing, spoiler deployment
is never a
| problem. "Plant" the aircrat on the 1000 ft. maker..
|
| OBTW James, they are NOT "on-off mircroswitches" but
proximity
| switches. A lot more reliable than mechanical switches.
|

As Marty Johnson would say, "Verryy interewsting."


"lynn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| This should create a lot of comments.
|
| "The -700 was certified using reverse thrust for landing.
SWA uses an
| on board performance computer (opc) to calculate T.O. and
landing data.
| >From the F.O.M.;
|
| "The opc on the 700 takes into account the thrust
reverser's for
| landing,certificated that way, unlike most other
aircraft."
|
| It's true the classic fleet (and every other a/c I'm aware
of)
| considers reverse thrust for landing simply a bonus. Not
the -700.
|

The BE400
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/hawker/400xp/hawker_400xp.shtml
External Dimensions

Length
.................................................. ............................................
48 ft. 5 in. (14.76 m)

Height
.................................................. ...........................................
13 ft. 11 in. (4.24 m)

Span.............................................. .................................................. .
43 ft. 6 in. (13.26 m)



Internal

Cabin Dimensions

Length
.................................................. ............................................
15 ft. 6 in. (4.72 m)

Height
.................................................. ..............................................
4 ft. 9 in. (1.45 m)

Width............................................. ..................................................
4 ft. 11 in. (1.50 m)



So the cabin might fix the 737 intake but the rest would be
outside. BTW, what is the relevance of this, is this a my
Johnson is bigger than your Johnson?




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


"lynn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Jim,
|
| The B-737-700 engine, the CFM56-7, is 61 inches in
diameter at the fan
| blades.
|

lynn wrote:
> Because the left gear is used for wheel spinup.

So they can't have both a spin up sensor and strut compression sensor
on the same gear?

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
>
>> Ah, you guys are pussies. The fellows at Midway didn't have a tailhook
>> or
> net
>> to contain them. <G>
>
> Although, it could be said that they might have benefited from one.
>
> I wonder why someone never got wise to using that "crushable concrete"
> stuff
> in the over-run area to catch the overly long landing? cost, I suppose.
> I'll bet the family of the dead 6-year-old would like a chance to buy some
> of that stuff for them.
> --
> Jim in NC

IIRC, the FAA wants 1000' of it at each end ... what's that leave for runway
length at Midway?

Jay B

It would make Mayor Daley happy, a reason to close another
airport.


--
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 Beckman" > wrote in message
news:fTnnf.8716$SG5.770@fed1read01...
| "Morgans" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote
| >
| >> Ah, you guys are pussies. The fellows at Midway didn't
have a tailhook
| >> or
| > net
| >> to contain them. <G>
| >
| > Although, it could be said that they might have
benefited from one.
| >
| > I wonder why someone never got wise to using that
"crushable concrete"
| > stuff
| > in the over-run area to catch the overly long landing?
cost, I suppose.
| > I'll bet the family of the dead 6-year-old would like a
chance to buy some
| > of that stuff for them.
| > --
| > Jim in NC
|
| IIRC, the FAA wants 1000' of it at each end ... what's
that leave for runway
| length at Midway?
|
| Jay B
|
|

On 12/12/2005 15:21, Jim Macklin wrote:

> As Marty Johnson would say, "Verryy interewsting."

Oops, that would be Artie:

<http://www.laugh.com/main_pages/comicpage.asp?cid=302>

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> Then again...
> we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in controlling
> approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot. :-)

Touchdown point? I thought that was called the "initial crash point." <g>
--
Jim in NC

No, I don't know the details, but will always remember the accidents as
my boss was on the Cincinnati flight and my parents lost friends in
the Lake Michigan accident.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:nJnnf.28515$QW2.12069@dukeread08...
> Do you know if part of that was to limit landing flaps to 40
> degrees?
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:KZknf.21270$qF6.2269@trnddc01...
> | Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another
> in Lake
> | Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The
> high T tail
> | exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines
> revised the landing
> | configurations .
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
> | > If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
> | > accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
> | > degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
> | > recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
> | > Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
> for
> | > couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
> | > early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
> 727
> | > and any changes in certification re flaps?
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

That's right, I'll have to slap myself with a wet noodle or
stick the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate where the sun don't
shine or whatever.


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

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 12/12/2005 15:21, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > As Marty Johnson would say, "Verryy interewsting."
|
| Oops, that would be Artie:
|
| <http://www.laugh.com/main_pages/comicpage.asp?cid=302>
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Sacramento, CA

Bob Moore wrote:
> "lynn" > wrote
>
>>Not much room for errors at LGA, Reagan, or Orange County. Of course
>>with AA, CAL, DAL, LCC using LGA, and not SWA, you won't hear how
>>dangerous LGA is.
>
>
> Hmmmm...I flew PanAm's shuttle B-727's into LGA and DCA a couple of
> times a day for quite some time...never had a problem. Then again...
> we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in controlling
> approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot. :-)

True, and a Naval Aviator will never have a problem engaging the squat
switches. :-)


Matt

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote

> Ah, you guys are pussies. The fellows at Midway didn't have a tailhook or
net
> to contain them. <G>

Although, it could be said that they might have benefited from one.

I wonder why someone never got wise to using that "crushable concrete" stuff
in the over-run area to catch the overly long landing? cost, I suppose.
I'll bet the family of the dead 6-year-old would like a chance to buy some
of that stuff for them.
--
Jim in NC

macklin comes off as a "heavy iron" wannabe that never made it.

back to your tinker toys "capt"..........LOL

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> Bob Moore > wrote:
> Then again.we former Naval Aviators received a bit better training in
> controlling approach speed and touchdown point than the average pilot.
> :-)
>>
>>Bob Moore
>
> As passengers we usually know when a Naval Aviator lands.
>
> Ron Lee

Not land...arrive!

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message

> If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
> accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
> degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
> recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
> Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
> couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
> early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
> and any changes in certification re flaps?

I never heard of any 727 with 50-60 flaps. [caveat: Ihave no training or
experience in very early models] 40 is the max I've ever heard of, and at
many carriers 30 was the max in normal operations. 40 flaps when relatively
heavy required a fair chunk of power on the final approach. There were
early sink-rate accidents related, as Bob pointed out, to operating
procedures. Procedures were changed, leading into the era where the
stabilized approach is considered standard. As explained to me years ago,
the early 727s were flown by many pilots transitioning from large radial
powered propeller craft, who essentially tried to fly the 727 in similar
ways, trying to take advantage of the 727's clean wing and remarkable
ability to descend. It didn't work I don't really know if this explanation
is accurate, but it sounds plausible. But the approach accidents were
related to sink rate and engine spool-up time. Results would have been
similar at 30 flaps because it was the way the airplane was being flown that
was the problem, not the configuration. The 727 will come down like an
elevator if you ask it nicely.

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>
>.....I flew PanAm's shuttle B-727's into LGA and DCA a couple of
> times a day for quite some time...never had a problem.

I agree. LGA and DCA are 2 of just a few places left where you [sometimes]
actually have to fly the airplane. I looked forward to it.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It would make Mayor Daley happy, a reason to close another
> airport.

Daley is a classic machine politician. Anything that upsets the "little man" is
not something he would like. Midway is very popular with inner-city people going
on vacation. There's no way Daley could portray it as a playtoy of the rich.
Until all of that changes, Daley will work hard to keep Midway open.

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

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> There was a mechanic at my local flight school, he used to fly for the
> airlines but lost his medical, he said the 727 was a bitch to land well.

Some might say so, but I wouldn't speak of her that way. A sometimes
humbling airplane that often displayed some unexpected personality, she
would never let an ego get too big. Of course, the F/As always would
evaluate, and if the landing involved, shall we say, "noticeable Gs", the
cockpit door might open during rollout, and a roll of toilet paper come
flying in - the "Golden Roll Award". Message received! :-)

My mistake-Spinup and strut compressionon th RT. and spinup only on th
LT.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:P7onf.28527$QW2.24044@dukeread08...
> That's right, I'll have to slap myself with a wet noodle or
> stick the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate where the sun don't
> shine or whatever.
>
Or Ruth Buzzie will beat the **** out of you with her purse.

It was a fun TV show, too bad it is only on re-runs.



I know why I said Marty, Back To the Future was on the
other day. Marty McFly [spelling, who cares].


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:P7onf.28527$QW2.24044@dukeread08...
| > That's right, I'll have to slap myself with a wet noodle
or
| > stick the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate where the sun
don't
| > shine or whatever.
| >
| Or Ruth Buzzie will beat the **** out of you with her
purse.
|
|
|

Actually, I wanted to fly the Hekio Courier. I always
tried to learn from anybody who had an experience in any
field because I might be able to apply that to my actions
and save my butt.
Regimented flight ops hold no interest, military or airlines
have great equipment, but unless you are as rich as
Travolta, flying the Big Iron on a schedule sucks.
Shall whip them out and see whose is bigger?

Did the LOL boost your ego?


--
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





<rotor&amp>; "wing"
> wrote in
message .. .
|
| macklin comes off as a "heavy iron" wannabe that never
made it.
|
| back to your tinker toys "capt"..........LOL
|
|
| --
| rotor&amp;wing

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:j3vnf.28716$QW2.15909@dukeread08...
> It was a fun TV show, too bad it is only on re-runs.
>


Especially the episode with John Wayne


>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:P7onf.28527$QW2.24044@dukeread08...
> | > That's right, I'll have to slap myself with a wet noodle
> or
> | > stick the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate where the sun
> don't
> | > shine or whatever.
> | >
> | Or Ruth Buzzie will beat the **** out of you with her
> purse.

And Ronald Reagan.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:j3vnf.28716$QW2.15909@dukeread08...
| > It was a fun TV show, too bad it is only on re-runs.
| >
|
|
| Especially the episode with John Wayne
|
|
| >
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:P7onf.28527$QW2.24044@dukeread08...
| > | > That's right, I'll have to slap myself with a wet
noodle
| > or
| > | > stick the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate where the sun
| > don't
| > | > shine or whatever.
| > | >
| > | Or Ruth Buzzie will beat the **** out of you with her
| > purse.
|
|

Matt,

How do you know that the MDW pilot in question is not a former Naval
Aviator (who liked the four wire)?? And you say he landed long and
hot, therefore he could not be a Naval Aviator but he could now be an
airline pilot because he landed long and hot on the carrier.

Anyone ever land an airliner at Detroit City airport? 4999 ft. long
and a cemetery at each end of the runway? One of the Major's used to
fly into City back a few years ago. Guess which one.

lynn wrote:

> Anyone ever land an airliner at Detroit City airport?
> 4999 ft. long and a cemetery at each end of the runway?

Nope, just a Beech 18 -- no sweat there. I have been to the old Sault
Ste. Marie in CV-580's -- about the same length, but no sweat in the
Convair; DC-9's at MDW, LGA, and DCA; 757's at LGA and DCA -- always
enjoyed the extra fun.


> One of the Major's used to fly into City back a few years ago.
> Guess which one.

Let's see -- if you mean one of the majors that still exist (4) it must
have been NCA/REP/NWA (pick the appropriate era), or it could have been
US Air, back when they were trying to develop some DET-CLE business.


Jack

>"Bob Moore" wrote in message
> Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
> 1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.

After 1991, there was an FAA order to block out the 40 degree flap position
on 727s. It is because of balked landing performance with stuck flaps, not
because of noise limits. The quickest way to comply is to put a bolt behind
the 30 degree setting. Guess what happened to the bolt when we went into
4900' with 2% downslope and obstructed final approach?

> Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
> and the sink rates that it causes?

How about roll rates with half speedbrakes?

D.

>"Darkwing" wrote in message
> There was a mechanic at my local flight school, he used to fly for the
> airlines but lost his medical, he said the 727 was a bitch to land well.

Some pilots can't land their hand on their arse. The 727 lands sweet
consistently if you know what she wants.

D.

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"Darkwing" wrote in message
>>There was a mechanic at my local flight school, he used to fly for the
>>airlines but lost his medical, he said the 727 was a bitch to land well.
>
>
> Some pilots can't land their hand on their arse. The 727 lands sweet
> consistently if you know what she wants.

Isn't that true of most airplanes?

Matt

>"John Gaquin" wrote in message> IIRC, on the 727, nose gear compression is
also required
> for autospoiler deployment.

On the B-727, autospoilers deploy upon compression of the left main strut.

D.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote

> On the B-727, autospoilers deploy upon compression of the left main
> strut.

The rest of the story..........


AUTOSPEEDBRAKES
When on the ground, the autospeedbrake system will automatically
extend the spoilers whenever reverse thrust is used, regardless
of whether the speedbrake handle has been placed in the ARM detent.
This ensures that the spoilers will be extended for every landing
and rejected takeoff.
If the speedbrake lever is placed in the ARM detent before landing,
the autospeedbrake system will automatically extend the spoilers
when the airplane is firmly on the ground. If a go-around in
initiated after landing, the speedbrake lever automatically returns
to the DN position when the No. 1 or No. 3 throttle is advanced to
go-around thrust.

If the speedbrake lever is not in the ARM detent, the lever will
automatically be raised out of the DN detent to the ARM detent
whenever either the No. 1 or No. 2 reverse thrust lever is moved
into idle reverse.

The autospeedbrake system includes a motor that will, on signal,
drive the speedbrake lever to the uP or DN position. System
operation is confirmed by observing speedbrake lever movement.

The autospeedbrake motor always runs to the up or down limit of
the speedbrake lever and then shuts off. Thereafter, manual
operation will slip the motor clutch and the speedbrake lever will
remain in the manually selected position.

An electrical malfunction of the automatic speedbrake system is
indicated by illumination of the SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM light when
the speedbrake lever is set in the ARM detent.

The SPEED BRAKE DO NOT ARM light will also illuminate after landing
when the airplane's wheel speed is below 60 kt.

To automatically extend the spoilers, the following interlocks
and logic must be satisfied:
• The speedbrake lever must be in the ARM detent. This provision
is bypassed by either the No. 1 or No. 2 reverse lever being
in the idle reverse position.
• The airplane must be on the ground (as determined by the left
main gear) or one wheel on each main gear must have attained a
.. speed of over 60 kt.
• No. 1 and No. 3 throttle at idle position.
• No retract signal to the autospeedbrake motor re-tract relay.

The autospeedbrake system can be overridden manually at any time.

Southwest Airlines discontinued service to Detroit City Airport in 1993.

One lesson I think we can all learn from this accident is to strongly
consider NOT landing with a tailwind. I know that the prevailing runway
is used, winds shift and Tower doesn't want to turn everyone around
untill they are sure that the wind is stabilized. But....landing with
the wind means higher landing speeds and all the hazards associated
with that (not just length of runout, there are other issues). It takes
guts to decline the prevailing runway, and there is a LOT of pressure
to land like everyone else is.....it's your lives of
passengers/equipment/career depending on your decision. It is decisions
like these why airline captains get paid the salaried they get paid.
Not an easy choice, but look what happens when one makes the wrong
choice.

I heard, but only once, that the reason the runway in use wasn't changed was
the possibility of conflicts with O'Hare traffic...


"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One lesson I think we can all learn from this accident is to strongly
> consider NOT landing with a tailwind. I know that the prevailing runway
> is used, winds shift and Tower doesn't want to turn everyone around
> untill they are sure that the wind is stabilized. But....landing with
> the wind means higher landing speeds and all the hazards associated
> with that (not just length of runout, there are other issues). It takes
> guts to decline the prevailing runway, and there is a LOT of pressure
> to land like everyone else is.....it's your lives of
> passengers/equipment/career depending on your decision. It is decisions
> like these why airline captains get paid the salaried they get paid.
> Not an easy choice, but look what happens when one makes the wrong
> choice.
>

lynn wrote:
> Southwest Airlines discontinued service to Detroit City Airport in 1993.

Yes, I found that info after your earlier post.

Several airlines have tried, and soon dropped, service at DET in the
last three decades. Was there a relationship to the recent MDW accident
that you intended to suggest?


Jack

In article >, Lakeview
Bill > wrote:

> I heard, but only once, that the reason the runway in use wasn't changed was
> the possibility of conflicts with O'Hare traffic...

The opposite ILS also has a higher RVR minimum (5000), making it
unusable anyway, headwind or not.

>"Bob Moore" wrote in message > The rest of the story..........
> AUTOSPEEDBRAKES

Many thanks. I'm on a trip right now, but even I was in my office, our 727
manuals sucked pretty bad. On my oral exam with the Feds, I mentioned that
the CSDs on some of our ******* fleet were cooled by fan air instead of
ejectors. He asked me to find it in our manuals and of course it wasn't in
there.

D.

News this morning said the plane landed too far down the runway, would have needed another 800' if it didn't go off the
end...

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message news:CXsof.293843

> >"John Gaquin" wrote in message> IIRC, on the 727, nose gear compression
> >is
> also required
>> for autospoiler deployment.
>
> On the B-727, autospoilers deploy upon compression of the left main strut.

You're absolutely right. My apologies. Your response prompted the
aforementioned reference trip to the basement, where I was re-reminded that
it is the autobrakes that require the nose gear to be on the ground (in
certain models). Mea Culpa.

Nope!

Marc CYBW wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html
>

SWA and ATA had FAA waivers concerning minimum visibilities:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0512220276dec22,1,4692055.story

The pilots of Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 were permitted to attempt
a landing in extremely bad weather at Midway Airport because the
low-cost carrier holds a special FAA waiver to operate below regular
minimum-visibility safety regulations, federal officials said
Wednesday.
....
Among the 10 airlines serving Midway, Southwest and ATA Airlines have
been granted waivers from the Federal Aviation Administration allowing
planes to land when visibility is below three-fourths of a mile--the
established standard on Runway 31 Center, where the Southwest accident
occurred.

Pilots must be specially trained and log a required number of landings
with a certified pilot before receiving their own certification
allowing them to land at Midway with only one-half mile visibility,
called a "31Z approach."

> Marc CYBW wrote:
> The pilots of Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 were permitted to
> attempt a landing in extremely bad weather at Midway Airport
> because the low-cost carrier holds a special FAA waiver to
> operate below regular minimum-visibility safety regulations,
> federal officials said Wednesday.
> ...
> Among the 10 airlines serving Midway, Southwest and ATA Airlines
> have been granted waivers from the Federal Aviation
> Administration allowing planes to land when visibility is below
> three-fourths of a mile--the established standard on Runway 31
> Center, where the Southwest accident occurred.
>
> Pilots must be specially trained and log a required number of
> landings with a certified pilot before receiving their own
> certification allowing them to land at Midway with only one-half
> mile visibility, called a "31Z approach."

This is not a waiver, it is standard operating procedure for most
Part 121 aircarriers. OPSPECS for Part 121 carriers specify standard
CAT I minimums as 3/4 mile visibility. Any carrier may operate to
the lower minimum of 1/2 mile visibility by simulator training (and
checking) their pilots to hand fly ILSs to 100' DA. This was standard
at the aircarriers for which I both prepared the OPSPECS and flew.
The 1/2 mile OPSPEC authorization was not airport specific.

Bob Moore
ATP
PanAm (retired)

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>
> This is not a waiver, it is standard operating procedure for most

Bob, I don't know about the detail of the OPSpec, but I can concur with the
flying part. My training and sim ck always included a 100' ILS hand flown,
separate and apart from any other quals like CatIII, etc.

Heads up DFDR showed no TR malfunctions, NTSB insider which
sucks since we know these crewmembers.

Bush

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:22:00 GMT, "Marc CYBW"
> wrote:

>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001562.html

Bob Moore wrote:
>
>
> > Marc CYBW wrote:
> > The pilots of Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 were permitted to
> > attempt a landing in extremely bad weather at Midway Airport
> > because the low-cost carrier holds a special FAA waiver to
> > operate below regular minimum-visibility safety regulations,
> > federal officials said Wednesday.
>
> This is not a waiver, it is standard operating procedure for most
> Part 121 aircarriers. OPSPECS for Part 121 carriers specify standard
> CAT I minimums as 3/4 mile visibility. Any carrier may operate to
> the lower minimum of 1/2 mile visibility by simulator training (and
> checking) their pilots to hand fly ILSs to 100' DA. This was standard
> at the aircarriers for which I both prepared the OPSPECS and flew.
> The 1/2 mile OPSPEC authorization was not airport specific.

SWA briefly services ORD:

"December 29, 2005 - A Southwest Airlines jet was forced to make an
emergency landing at O'Hare Airport after colliding with a bird during
takeoff from Midway.

Flight 111 was on its way to Philadelphia when a bird was apparently
sucked into one of the 737's engines, causing it to shut down.
Southwest officials say they decided to send the plane to O'Hare
because it was a full flight and needed a longer runway.
The plane landed without incident. No one was hurt. A second Southwest
Airlines jet was sent to O'Hare to take the stranded passengers on to
Philadelphia."

JG