"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:hxMnf.13784$Ea6.7921@trnddc08...
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.

Possible conflicts with O'Hare (and the possible resultant holds...)
wouldn't have any bearing on a decision by Midway to turn or not turn the
airport around...would they?

Just wondering out loud...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ