wrote:

The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that controllers and pilots
were concerned about the choice of runway 31C and the unavailability
of runway 13C, which would have been preferable given the wind.

Aren't 31C and 13C physically the same? Just landing into the southeast
on 13C
as opposed to landing on 31C, into the northwest and with a tail wind.

Yes, it's the same pavement. The Tribune points out that using 13C would have
given the pilots a headwind instead of a tailwind. Someone earlier said there
was a 7 knot tailwind? In that case, using 13C would have meant that the plane
would have been traveling over 16 statute miles per hour slower when it touched
down. Due to the differences in displaced thresholds, runway 13C is also 223'
longer than 31C.

IOW, if runway 13C had been in use, there would have been no overrun and no
accident.

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