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.

The FAA accident reports lists the wind as 110 @ 7 knots. With 31C at 315
degress, it works out to a, surprise, 7 knot tailwind component.

The METAR taken 20 minutes prior lists 100 @ 11 knots, or about a 6 knot
tailwind component.

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

Unfortunetely, 13C has a 1-mile visibility requirement, whereas 31C can go
down to 4000 RVR. This is because 31C has a lead-in lighting system.

The visibility that night was anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4 of mile with the
stated RVR of 4500, variable.

31C was the only runway that could be used.

Charles Oppermann
Blog articles on SWA 1248:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/