MDW Overrun - SWA

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...33660.story?co
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

yep

I looked up the MDW airport diagram and the 31C ILS...
The threshold is displaced, so the available landing
distance is only 5800 instead of the 6300 feet of concrete
(numbers rounded). The ILS glide slope will intersect the
runway half way along the touchdown zone which is 1500 past
the beginning of the landing area. That means that if the
airplane landed without any float in the flare it would have
4300 feet of icy and snow packed runway to stop on before
departing the paved surface. If it floated to the end of
the touchdown zone, where a go-around is required by FAR, it
would have only 2800 feet on which to stop.
I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
some other airport. Seems pretty simple , the plane stopped
right where a calculation indicates it would stop.


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

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
ups.com...
| yep
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
snip
I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
some other airport.

Well, my personal theory on not diverting is that no Southwest captain
would be caught dead landing at ORD.

"Rick" wrote in message
...

Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.


Does that one count against SWA? He wasn't on the airplane.

On 12/9/2005 15:07, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
...

Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.


Does that one count against SWA? He wasn't on the airplane.



SWA thinks so. Here is a snip from the article on CNN.com:

In a news conference Friday, Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly
said that it was the first fatal accident involving a Southwest
flight in the discount carrier's 35-year history.

The entire article can be found he

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/09/chicago.airplane/index.html


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Rick" wrote in message
...

Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.



Does that one count against SWA? He wasn't on the airplane.



It does in my book. I think this is even worse than killing a
passenger. At least the passengers knowing accepted the risk of riding
the airplane.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Rick" wrote in message
...

Sadly there's one fatality, the first in SWA's history.



Does that one count against SWA? He wasn't on the airplane.

The NTSB counts accidents as fatal if ground personnel are killed, even
if no one on the aircraft was injured. I'm guessing it's the same in
this case. Not sure if that means anything for SWA.

Rachel wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
snip
I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
some other airport.

Well, my personal theory on not diverting is that no Southwest captain
would be caught dead landing at ORD.

So he kills someone at Midway instead? Poor judgement.

Ron Lee

In article ,
Rachel wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
snip
I would like to know why the PIC did not divert to O'Hare or
some other airport.

Well, my personal theory on not diverting is that no Southwest captain
would be caught dead landing at ORD.

Besides, it would spoil Southwest's fine tradition of studly landings on
short runways. http://avstop.com/news/swairlines.html

rg