MDW Overrun - SWA

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Matt Whiting wrote:


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?

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html

Interesting...

Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
just before the plane came through the fence.

That's interesting. Do you have any examples?

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Matt Whiting wrote:


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?

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html

Interesting...

Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
just before the plane came through the fence.

That's interesting. Do you have any examples?

CNN spoke with a couple of folks in the area who said this. I'm thinking
though that to the average lay person, any jet engine "up close" will sound
like it's making power when it's actually at idle.

Jay B

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet
wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.


The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.

The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.

The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
availability when the runway is other than dry.

I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot runway covered
with black ice after receiving a field condition report that the runway
was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line personel just
looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report. After
deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to landing with
5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust reversers
installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had been given
the correct field condition of clear ice and braking action of nil, I
would have diverted to another airport.

G. Lee

wrote in message ups.com...


The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.

The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.

The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
availability when the runway is other than dry.

....snip...
G. Lee


;-)

Yes, the distances calculated supposedly do not include thrust reversers deployed. I would like to see the 737 tables
for this plane...

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:v%Nmf.8499$SG5.1361@fed1read01...

"Newps" wrote in message
om...


Matt Whiting wrote:



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?

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have
reported that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be
easily verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000
feet wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178349,00.html

Interesting...

Guess it proves you shouldn't trust non-flying eyewitnesses. I've yet
to see/hear one that didn't say "I heard the jet engines at full power"
just before the plane came through the fence.

That's interesting. Do you have any examples?


CNN spoke with a couple of folks in the area who said this. I'm thinking
though that to the average lay person, any jet engine "up close" will sound
like it's making power when it's actually at idle.

Jay B

Especially if the thrust reversers are deployed.

Amateur is the correct spelling.



rotor& "wing"
wrote in
message .. .
|
| your amature analysis is shining through. you obviously
have no facts,
| no knowledge of the aircraft involved, nor any knowledge
of SWA
| procedures.
|
|
|
| Jim Macklin Wrote:
| Low IFR weather, 31C is the ILS runway. The wind was NE
at
| 13 knots, I think that is what I heard.
|
| Airports that they could have gone to within a 30 minute
| diversion, Springfield, IL has ILS 04 on a long runway,
| Peoria, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Milwaukee. WI and of
course
| O'Hare.
| It was a stupid error on the part of flight crew, IMO,
and
| they are lucky this is not Europe, in the EU they could
be
| facing criminal charges for the death of the kid.
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
| "Mike Schumann" wrote
in
| message
|
news | | News reports say that the jet was landing with a tail
| wind. Anyone know how
| | much of a tailwind it was? Why were they landing with
a
| tailwind?
| |
| | Mike Schumann
| |
| | "Rick" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| http://tinyurl.com/7fs7k
| | ll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
| |
| | Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's
history.
| I've driven past
| | that intersection many times, and it's partly
| exhilarating and partly
| | terrifying to have the jets take off so close above
you.
| And it's almost
| | always a little disconcerting landing there with the
| usual lake effect
| | turbulence on final, especially when you seem to
float
| over the runway
| | forever before actually touching down. I've never
| piloted anything beyond
| | my
| | simulator, but isn't it really pushing the envelope
to
| land (on 31C) in
| | fairly heavy snow with winds from the east at 13 mph?
| |
| | - Rick
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| --
| rotor&wing

Many years ago I had agreed to fly a friend to Lambert at
St. Louis so he could get back to the Marines at Camp
Pendelton. In those days you could land and taxi to the
main airline terminal [Gate 28 if I remember correctly].
The door was open and you just walked into the concourse,
handed your ticket to the gate agent and departed on the
airline.
On the flight from Springfield to St. Louis my friend wanted
to stop at Litchfield to see his grandmother. It had snowed
the night before about 10 inches of fresh powder. The winds
was strong directly down the grass strip and 90 degrees to
the paved surface which was covered with black ice [it
always seems to have a little freezing rain before the snow
begins in Illinois.] I told my friend that we would not
land if the grass strip was not "safe to land on" and I
tried to raise the Unicom, but they were not answering.
I did a low pass at about 25 feet just to the right of the
center of the wide grass strip. The wind had blown the
surface smooth and the tips of the grass were sticking out
of the snow. As a 100 hour private pilot I knew that meant
the snow was blown off the grass and it would be safe to
land. So I setup a soft field landing, which became a very
interesting show, it seems the airport had not be mowed in
recent memory and the grass was at least a foot long. Full
power in the Beech Musketeer Super, full back elevator and a
lot of rudder kept use moving and we cleared the runway
after making a turn that was like a plow turn in a seaplane.
A good inspection showed no damage to the airplane and it
was placed in the heated hanger while my friend went to see
his granny. Obviously, the grass runway was not useable
for take-off.
I walked the paved runway which was 90 degree crosswind at
about 10 mph. There was some evaporation of the ice and I
decided to make a take-off on the dry portion of the runway,
that worked out just fine.

Looking back, I should have connected the dots, no answer on
the radio, unknown date for the mowing, I should have
by-passed the landing and gone to Lambert.


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

wrote in message
ups.com...
|
|
| How about some facts, because now you look stupid.
Pilots have reported
| that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will
be easily
| verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out
10,000 feet
| wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.
|
|
| The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have
flown are based
| on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust
reversers are just
| icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.
|
| The landing distance charts sometimes have notes
indicating additional
| runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are
not all
| inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.
|
| The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for
longer runway
| availability when the runway is other than dry.
|
| I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot
runway covered
| with black ice after receiving a field condition report
that the runway
| was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line
personel just
| looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report.
After
| deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to
landing with
| 5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust
reversers
| installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had
been given
| the correct field condition of clear ice and braking
action of nil, I
| would have diverted to another airport.
|
| G. Lee
|

Yes, the distances calculated supposedly do not include thrust reversers
deployed.
I would like to see the 737 tables for this plane...

I was able to get detailed charted from Boeing at this site:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/737.htm

There are a number of PDF files. Under "Aircraft Performance." There is
take off and landing data for all models of the 737.

Under the 737-700 at sea level and flaps 40, the minimum runway length
listed is 3,550 feet. The maximum is 4,700 feet. The range is based on
weight. Other conditions listed a

Standard Day, Auto Spoliers [sic], Anti-skid operational, zero wind.

For the same configuration, but for a wet surface, the numbers are 4,100
feet to 5,400 feet.

I assume, but it's not explicitly stated in the Boeing tables, that the
numbers are ground roll of the aircraft, not the runway length.

The NACO chart for Midway lists the landing length for 31C as 5,826 feet
(6,522 feet of pavement minus 696 feet of displaced threshold). The ILS GS
antenna is located 1,597 from the runway edge, or 901 feet from the
displaced threshold.

The METAR data at 0053Z included the note "R31C/4500FT".

I've been bloging about this accident at:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Charles Oppermann
www.coppersoftware.com

Newsreports claim that the report was fair for the first half of the runway,
with poor breaking on the 2nd half.

Mike Schumann

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
Braking conditions were apparently reported as fair to poor. I would
think
that that would be sufficient to question the wisdom of landing with a
tail
wind on a relatively short (for commercial jets) runway.

I recall reading that it was reported as fair, and if it had been poor,
another runway would have automatically been put into use, and the first
one
closed. I could be wrong, but that is what I remembered.
--
Jim in NC

wrote:

How about some facts, because now you look stupid. Pilots have reported
that the thrust reversers failed to deploy. That will be easily
verifiable with the black box. If they don't pop out 10,000 feet
wouldn't have been enough runway in that weather.



The calculated landing distances in all the jets I have flown are based
on the thrust reversers not deploying. The thrust reversers are just
icing ..on...the....oooh, bad analogy.

The landing distance charts sometimes have notes indicating additional
runway requirements for other than dry runways, but are not all
inclusive to include worse than fair braking action.

The FAR's for 135 and 121 operators have requirements for longer runway
availability when the runway is other than dry.

I have had the pleasure(sic) of landing on a 5000 foot runway covered
with black ice after receiving a field condition report that the runway
was clear. It was an uncontrolled field and the line personel just
looked out the window and saw black-top, hence the report. After
deploying lift dump, which pretty much committed me to landing with
5000 feet, and maximum braking (Hawker with no thrust reversers
installed), I stopped in 4970 feet. I was lucky. If I had been given
the correct field condition of clear ice and braking action of nil, I
would have diverted to another airport.

Don't confuse Newps with facts. If this landing was only successful
with reverser deployment, then I still think it was a bad idea to
attempt it with with basically no margin for error.

I'll make landings like that from time to time when alone, but I'll
never carry passengers into a situation where there is no margin for error.

Matt