MDW Overrun - SWA

Unless your tailwheel aircraft is a tandem cockpit, the need
to have an accurate reference point still is present. BUT
it is true that a tailwheel will immediately show the error
of your ways.

A little rephrasing, all aircraft pilots need an accurate
reference point for each axis, in a tandem cockpit, where
the pilot sits on the centerline, the selection of a point
is not as likely to wrong.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
| 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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08...

I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type rated in
the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet.


It appears you're standing on experience that does not include any with the
type aircraft involved in this accident.

Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot
decision making than the particular type of aircraft. A
Beechjet or King Air, with similar weather and a runway as
short, relative to aircraft performance, would have the
over-run accident.

My experience allows me to make an informed judgment, about
a new airplane or condition. I am not claiming to know
anything about more than the general systems on a Boeing
airliner, but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
type rated in high performance aircraft.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:KtFmf.18762$QW2.17385@dukeread08...
|
| I stand by my experience, over 8,000 hours. Have flown
| single pilot in all models of the King Air, am type
rated in
| the BE300 [350]/1900 and the BE400/MU300 jet.
|
|
| It appears you're standing on experience that does not
include any with the
| type aircraft involved in this accident.
|
|

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
evidence does one need?


So the decision to land has to be judged on information that was available
only because it was decided to land the airplane?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:X5Wof.29372$QW2.9542@dukeread08...

Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot
decision making than the particular type of aircraft. A
Beechjet or King Air, with similar weather and a runway as
short, relative to aircraft performance, would have the
over-run accident.

My experience allows me to make an informed judgment, about
a new airplane or condition. I am not claiming to know
anything about more than the general systems on a Boeing
airliner, but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
type rated in high performance aircraft.


Wrong. You have no experience with this type aircraft so your experience
allows you to make only an uninformed judgment.

Steve, Steve. Never mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig
likes it.

Jim


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:X5Wof.29372$QW2.9542@dukeread08...

Yes, but the accident in question has more to do with pilot

but I am an instrument flight instructor, ATP and
type rated in high performance aircraft.


Wrong. You have no experience with this type aircraft so your experience
allows you to make only an uninformed judgment.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
evidence does one need?



So the decision to land has to be judged on information that was available
only because it was decided to land the airplane?

No.

RST Engineering wrote:

Steve, Steve. Never mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig
likes it.

But Steve likes it also, so let him play.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news

No.


What then?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
No.



What then?

I wasn't saying the crew new it was a bad idea to attempt the landing
prior to making it, but the fact that it didn't succeed is clear
evidence that it in fact was a bad idea. Whether they should have known
it was a bad idea in advance will likely be determined by the NTSB.

Matt