Aircraft has slid off runway at MDW

[737tanker]

Using the HGS the minimums for an ILS to 31C is an RVR of 3000, it also has a DH of 817. The approach is ILS Z RWY 31C page 11-7 of the Jepps. So an RVR of 3000 is legal as all of SWA's aircraft have HGS

 

[ultrarunner]

Am I correct in assuming that is the one reported on the METAR? or would it be the lowest?

Sorry for the dumbass questions......its been a slow night here.

-mini

The METAR is obsolete recorded data.

The tower will issue the real-time RVR reports when the aircraft checks in on the tower freq.

Heck, the metar could be an hour old. It's essentially meaningless.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Am I correct in assuming that is the one reported on the METAR? or would it be the lowest?

Sorry for the dumbass questions......its been a slow night here.

-mini

I am just going off the METAR that someone posted here. I thought that the METAR coincided with the exact time it happened. Not sure though.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Using the HGS the minimums for an ILS to 31C is an RVR of 3000, it also has a DH of 817. The approach is ILS Z RWY 31C page 11-7 of the Jepps. So an RVR of 3000 is legal as all of SWA's aircraft have HGS

Thanks. I thought that it was 4000.

 

[ultrarunner]

Anyone know know what the most recent arrival was before this SWA flight?

They are reporting SWA held for sometime. So I'm wondering if they were the "first" to "try it" for some time.

 

[SiuDude]

Fatal Accident?

After the crash, I listened to my scanner as a CFD ambulance make a patient "telemetry" call to a hospital. Apparently, a 6 year old child who was in a car was reported to have no vital signs.

 

[ultrarunner]

Coop is reporting the death now of an 8 yo male.

 

[FN FAL]

Coop is reporting the death now of an 8 yo male.

Now begins the homicide investigation.

 

[Jump Pilot]

Flightaware.com shows it holding southeast of MDW and landing at 19:16 cst.

SWA 321 arrived 1903
SWA 1830 arrived 1907

That looks like the last to come in.

 

[blueraider]

thoughts and prayers go to all involved...

 

[LarryinTN]

Would the captain have gotten in trouble in they used their alternate? From the looks of it, i'd say getthereistis?

111 total time and 20/20 hindsight. What a great combination.

There certainly wasn't much margin for error. Problem is, it was legal and it's a hard call to be the first one to say "No!". Without the benefit of hindsight, it's very difficult to find the line with okay and no go.

 

[Jump Pilot]

I don't know why it put smiley faces in my post above. Nothing is meant or implied by it on my part.

Nevermind. I fixed it.

 

[satpak77]

CNN reporting a child died as a result of injuries

 

[citabriapilot]

If it is determined that the pilots were right on as far as speed and altitude control go, will they be terminated? Seems like everyone else was getting in, perhaps they ended up with bad luck due to poor braking that developed in between previous arrivals?

If they were not stabalized like the guys in the Burbank overrun, I could understand kicking them to the curb, but what about a situation like this?

Any ideas?

 

[LarryinTN]

Ahh, but they had "in flight visibility".....

The METAR before the accident had more than enough RVR for the approach. The METAR after the accident was below minimums. Probably right about mins when they shot the approach.

Of course, nothing to indicate that visibility was a factor. They found the runway. Problem seems to have been stopping the airplane on the 5826' of available snow-covered runway. Probably only 4300-4800 feet from touchdown. That would be touch on a clear day if the runway condition was worse than had been reported to the crew.

 

[FN FAL]

If it is determined that the pilots were right on as far as speed and altitude control go, will they be terminated? Seems like everyone else was getting in, perhaps they ended up with bad luck due to poor braking that developed in between previous arrivals?

If they were not stabalized like the guys in the Burbank overrun, I could understand kicking them to the curb, but what about a situation like this?

Any ideas?

I would worry less about being terminated by SWA and more about getting prosecuted by the State of Illinois in the Cook County courthouse.

 

[LarryinTN]

So if midfield was 3000 but Touchdown was 4000 they were good to go?

No midfield RVR on a 6500' runway. Touchdown is controlling, rollout is advisory.

The 3000 RVR was 20 minutes after the accident. 15 minutes before the accident the RVR was above mins.

 

[minitour]

No midfield RVR on a 6500' runway. Touchdown is controlling, rollout is advisory.

Gotcha....sorry again for the stupid questions...the Jepp checklist is getting to me.

I owe ya a beer!

-mini

 

[ultrarunner]

I would worry less about being terminated by SWA and more about getting prosecuted by the State of Illinois in the Cook County courthouse.

Yep, no doubt about it. The flight crew will almost certaily be defending themselves in a Wrongful Death Civil trial as well as a possible criminal trial. Although the latter is less likely, the former will happen.

 

[FN FAL]

Yep, no doubt about it. The flight crew will almost certaily be defending themselves in a Wrongful Death Civil trial as well as a possible criminal trial. Although the latter is less likely, the former will happen.

Why is the LATTER less likely? The latter is usually the forerunner to a wrongful death suit.

 

[P-Dawg_QX]

Yep, no doubt about it. The flight crew will almost certaily be defending themselves in a Wrongful Death Civil trial as well as a possible criminal trial. Although the latter is less likely, the former will happen.

In a civil suit, it won't be the pilots...it'll be the company. Gotta go after the deep pockets, remember?

 

[FN FAL]

In a civil suit, it won't be the pilots...it'll be the company. Gotta go after the deep pockets, remember?

When those corp pilots pounded that three holer with 19 on board into the side of the mountain on that ski trip a few years ago, the captain's estate was part of the setlement.

 

[smails]

Any 737 drivers out there know the factored landing distance for the conditions?

 

[ultrarunner]

Why is the LATTER less likely? The latter is usually the forerunner to a wrongful death suit.

In a criminal case a prosecuter would have to show "intent". In a civil case, the burden of proof shits.

I'll have to do some research, but I can't recall a recent case where non-intoxicated, living pilots have been criminally prosecuted, post-accident.

Can anyone site a case off hand?

Interesting to say the least.

 

[ultrarunner]

Any 737 drivers out there know the factored landing distance for the conditions?

Can't wait to see the Mu value. Anyone got it?

Then run the factored landing distance. It's gonna be scary, I'm telling ya.

 

[FN FAL]

The intent is formed in the "ignore a 'substantial and unjustifiable risk'"..."and whose acts constitute a 'gross deviation' from the reasonble person's standard of care..."

Section 1105 defines the offense of negligent homicide.

Although the criminal law generally considers recklessness the minimum​

culpability level for which liability is appropriate, Section 1105 departs
from that usual standard in recognition that the harm involved — the death

of a human being — is much graver than those punished by other offenses.33

Section 1105 imposes liability on those who ignore a "substantial and
unjustifiable risk" of causing death and whose acts, constituting a "gross
deviation" from the reasonable person’s standard of care, kill another person.
See proposed Section 206(4) (defining negligence).


​

​

Relation to current Illinois law.​

Section 1105(1) has no corresponding
provision in current Chapter 720, which does not include a negligent
homicide offense. The proposed Code joins the overwhelming majority of
jurisdictions that have enacted modern criminal codes by imposing liability
for negligent homicide. See MODEL PENAL CODE § 210.4

(defining negligent
homicide offense); id. cmt. n.30 (noting that of 34 states with revised codes
as of 1980, all but 5 codes include negligent homicide offense).
Section 1105(2) grades the offense as a Class 4 felony
​

​

 

[ultrarunner]

The intent is formed in the "a 'substantial and unjustifiable risk'"..."and whose acts constitute a 'gross deviation' from the reasonble person's standard of care..."

However, while the snow hasn't settled yet, it will be interesting to see if the jury will view this landing attempt as an unjustifiable risking, when evidence will show that two others landed in the preceeding 13 minutes.

 

[FN FAL]

However, while the snow hasn't settled yet, it will be interesting to see if the jury will view this landing attempt as an unjustifiable risking, when evidence will show that two others landed in the preceeding 13 minutes.

So if millions of people get away with drunk driving every weekend, I can convince a jury that I should be let go for DUI because if it?

Hmmmm, interesting comment, but here's what I think.

Somwhere along the line in Illinois, some poor schmuck got charged with negligent homicide and was convicted, simply because he changed lanes without looking over his shoulder and caused a death in a car "accident".

He wound up with a 1 year suspended sentence and a felony conviction in his record. Also, let's just say for hypotheticals, that this guy was a colored person. And don't forget, this IS Illinois.

So this guy sees some important news story where someone else was killed in a "negligent homicide" type "accident", but the prosecutors said, "you boys go on now, you got white shirts and epaulets!"

Do you think that the colored person's attorney is going to let this "discrimination" go unoticed because nice boys were flying a plane and planes are pretty?

 

[millhouse21]

Really, what happens when an airfield that meets FAA mins, but the PIC decides that he wants to takes his 100 or so passengers some where else? Does some burley hitman get dispatched from management to off your ass? Do you get labeled a MILF, and get recurrent training?

Only at Trans States.

 

[ultrarunner]

So if millions of people get away with drunk driving every weekend, I can convince a jury that I should be let go for DUI because if it?

No, what I'm saying is that it's "likely" the previous two flight crews that landed immediately prior were given the same information the accident crew received.

Given that, would a reasonable person conclude the accident crew disregarded "substantial and unjustifiable risk" at the time they began the approach?

That could be the question. Or, it could be as simple as touching down halfway down the runway and they just ran out of room...in which case the 737 is exactly where it should be.

time will tell.