MDW Overrun - SWA

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

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.
|

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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Rick" wrote in message
...

Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.



Does that one count against SWA? He wasn't on the airplane.

The NTSB counts accidents as fatal if ground personnel are killed, even
if no one on the aircraft was injured. I'm guessing it's the same in
this case. Not sure if that means anything for SWA.

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/l...33660.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

In article et, 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.

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 et, 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.

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
et, 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.
|
|

"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 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...
|
|