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/

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.


And they deserve to know if it really was a freak accident or an error
in judgement. The NTSB is pretty good at sorting these out so I suspect
the parents will get an answer in due time.


Matt

I totally agree.....and my Outlook Express is reading this post normally
:-))
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve
an answer as to why this freak accident happened.

They will eventually get the best information the NTSB can give.
They will sue, because ultimately, and always, it comes down
to money. That's how we punish those who do not serve us well,
or at least those most accessible.

The injured families will get a small fraction, in recompense,
of the millions which have been saved by, for example: not adding
low minimums approaches to MDW's 13C which at least match those on
31C, in order to avoid compounding ORD traffic congestion; not using
the power of Eminent Domain, or at least the power of the Daley
machine to make of MDW what it should be, in the decades since DC-3's
and CV-580's; not spreading more of the air traffic burden to Gary,
or DuPage, or Rockford, or any of a number of other politically
inexpedient measures.

Those trapped by these rock-hard realities are not only the rare
crash victims and families, whose losses are immeasurable and not
truly compensable. The others, always in the middle from beginning
to end of every flight, are the airline cockpit crew members of whom
the business can require the wisdom of a Solomon, the deft touch of
a surgeon, and the clairvoyance of a Joan of Arc. To sort and select
from a menu of imperfect solutions and execute precisely in the midst
of a unique four-dimensional dynamic, also depends on the accuracy
and timeliness of information obtained from a mixture of human and
non-human sources outside of the airplane. An imperfection of focus
or judgment or accuracy on a snowy winter's night can sell a million
early editions the next morning.

Recent years have given Airline crews some fine new equipment with
which to work, and a fifty percent reduction in pay for doing that work;
a threat environment not seen here at home even during World War Two;
a massive loss of jobs, a loss of pay and benefits for active employees,
and a loss of pensions and benefits for our retirees who lack financial
alternatives. Stock holders have been left with little or nothing in
too many cases to list here. But, ignoring the effects of 9/11, that's
the way deregulation was supposed to work, and only the ultimate time
table was impossible to predict thirty years ago.

The next wave to wash over our industry will be that of Foreign
Ownership and Control. It's already gaining formal consideration in
our legislature. Will the Pound, Franc, Mark, Yen, or Riyal do more than
the dollar has done to create a safe and available and pleasant
air travel experience? Of course they will not, and the amount of
influence US citizens can exert to make needed improvements in Airline
safety and service can be expected to erode even further as the next
phase of change sweeps over our Airline industry.

If one wonders whether we are doing all we can do now, just wait until
the answers to questions such as those about the future of airports
like MDW lie not in the hands of politicians like Mayor Daley, but in
international agreements with governments bound to, and by, Saudi Kings,
Japanese Oligarchs, and the Communist Party of China.


Jack

I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.
I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

We all would. Given the circumstances (little boy killed, worst storm in
recent years, etc.), the scruitny is warranted, in my opinion.

What bothers me is the lack of accuracy in the reporting. Just today the
Chicago media discovered that there is a 696 feet displaced threshold on 31C
and that their previous reporting of a 6,522 feet runway was incorrect.

Ultimately though, it's only the kids lawyers and retired pilots who are
doing the talking to the media, thus the news coverage will slant that way
until the NTSB releases its report.

Charles Oppermann
http://www.coppersoftware.com/

Southwest Airlines flight 1248 accident articles:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Certainly an examination of the event is warranted. The accident did
happen. But newspapers and lawyers tend to assess blame long before
the real cause is known and seldom get facts correct.

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?


At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
99.999% of the media.)

Jay B

Jay Beckman wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
groups.com...

I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?



At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
99.999% of the media.)

True, but we still enjoy speculating just as the media folks do!

Matt