MDW Overrun - SWA

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!

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

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

..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

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

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.

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

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/l...t,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

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

Originally Posted by Jim Macklin

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
news | 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
|
|
|
|

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