MDW Overrun - SWA

wrote:

There are oil and gasoline terminals in the area of Central Ave. &
I-55, so it could have been one large fire-ball.

I-55 is a LONG way from the departure end of 31C -- a little over a
mile. Remember, this was a landing accident, and they didn't even make
it across S. Central Ave.


...pilot debriefing mentioned issues with the Captain have problems
engaging the thrust reversers, the co-pilot had to "force" them.

That happens when the struts aren't compressed and/or you have no wheel
spin-up.

That night at MDW was the place for a crew who had cut their aviation
teeth on Great Lakes winter ops. The name "SOUTH WEST" doesn't paint
that kind of a picture for me.

WRT: Charles Oppermann's Blog:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

"Chicago Tribune: Midway radios crackled warnings"

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.

[....]

I'm amazed that the Chicago Tribune authors would suggest that 13C
would be more preferable because it slopes upward by 5 feet from one
end to the other. I think it's a very minor benefit. That kind of
detail, while ignoring the actual length of the runway is curious to
me.


The five foot difference in elevation would not bother me much. The
tailwind incurred by operating on 31C rather than turning it into a
headwind on 13C, given all the other circumstances, would bother me a lot.

There comes a time when somebody in the airplane has to make a decision
unencumbered by concerns for schedule, cost, or convenience. When you
do, you can never know whether doing so made a difference, but you will
always know it was the right thing to do. Every Thanksgiving (and the
other 364 &1/4 days of the year) I give thanks that almost all of our
decisions are correct. But when we have to wait to know that until after
the fact, it's the same as rolling the dice.


Jack

Jack wrote:
wrote:

There are oil and gasoline terminals in the area of Central Ave. &
I-55, so it could have been one large fire-ball.

I-55 is a LONG way from the departure end of 31C -- a little over a
mile. Remember, this was a landing accident, and they didn't even make
it across S. Central Ave.

But tanker trucks in the intersection were a possibility, 55th st. is a
good alternative
when I-55 is gridlocked.


That night at MDW was the place for a crew who had cut their aviation
teeth on Great Lakes winter ops. The name "SOUTH WEST" doesn't paint
that kind of a picture for me.

They serve SLC, DTW, BUF, RNO and many cities in the Northeast, so
snow is nothing new. And the crew was based in BWI, plenty of snow and
freezing rain.


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.

JG

wrote:

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.

I assume you are asking how much of a difference there is between nine
knots of tailwind and nine knots of headwind.

A great deal, especially when all other factors are at best marginal.


Jack

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.

"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

"George Patterson" wrote

IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,

IOW???
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote


IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,


IOW???

In Other Words,

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

IOW???

In Other Words,

I must have known that at one time. I must need more coffee.... or maybe
less? g
--
Jim in NC

IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,

("Morgans" wrote)
IOW???


In other words


MB

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/