MDW Overrun - SWA

"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

"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.

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

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
|

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!
|

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

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.

"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

"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

"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