MDW Overrun - SWA

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

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

The odds are stacked, but not 100% so.

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

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


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

You don't have to agree. :-)

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

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


Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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








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

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


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


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


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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:0LMmf.4135

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

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

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

"Ron Lee" wrote in message

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


No, you just have to guess.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message

I always assume....

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
No.



What then?

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

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

moo

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
the fact that it didn't succeed is clear evidence that it in fact was a
bad idea.


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

You don't have to agree. :-)

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

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

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

And you don't know if this one was.

moo

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

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

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

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