Trial by newspaper

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

I've been blogging about the incident with all the factual data I can find.
The ceiling was holding steady at 300 feet, the visibility was ranging
between 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile. FAA minimum for 31C was 250 feet and a RVR of
4000, which apparently was met. It's been mentioned in this newsgroup that
the heads up display would have enabled an approach down to 3000 RVR, but
that's not confirmed.

In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
Burbank accident.

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

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