MDW Overrun - SWA

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

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, if runway 13C had been in use,

("Morgans" wrote)
IOW???


In other words


MB

"George Patterson" wrote

IOW, if runway 13C had been in use,

IOW???
--
Jim in NC

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/

IOW???

In Other Words,

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

On 2005-12-10, Jim Macklin p51mustang wrote:
The cure is to first get an accurate reference point
directly in front of the pilot, parallel and off-set from
the centerline;

The cure is also to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft. That will very
rapidly get you out the habit of landing slightly crooked, since doing
that tends to send you on a short sharp trip to groundloop city!

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

The cure is also to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft. That will very
rapidly get you out the habit of landing slightly crooked, since doing
that tends to send you on a short sharp trip to groundloop city!

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Or at least an up close visit with the nearest runway light.