Chicago runway too slick at Crash

[Hvy]

Great, another Kernel.

What? Can't answer the question?

 

[Red Baron]

You tell us: Short runway....low vis....9 knot tailwind....7 inches of fresh snow....very late deployment of thrust reversers.

There...I'm asking. Enlighten me about the decision process involved here.

I am so glad that you are not part of the NTSB. It seems you have already assessed the blame. Good thing they look at ALL the facts before a FINAL report. It is easy to be a monday morning quarterback. Lets let the NTSB answer the question.

Happy flying,

RB

 

[FedEx1]

I also think the captain can argue that he used hit authority to arm the auto-brakes, since using them, coupled with max manual after touchdown, would lead to the shortest rollout.

I doubt it. He put the auto brakes on when they briefed the approach, or sometime earlier- not as they rolled down the runway. If there was an emergency, like low fuel with no other landing choices, THAT might be a justification. But there wasn't, it was business as usual- otherwise, he should have diverted or declared and emergency beforehand.

 

[Hvy]

I am so glad that you are not part of the NTSB. It seems you have already assessed the blame. Good thing they look at ALL the facts before a FINAL report. It is easy to be a monday morning quarterback. Lets let the NTSB answer the question.

Happy flying,

RB

I stated what I have heard to be the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. If they are not the facts, please correct them.

Would you have landed under those conditions? Would I? I would hope not... but like you said it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

What I was asking for was SWAs criteria for determining whether or not a landing should have been attempted in the first place. Is there SOP? Landing performance criteria? (Boeing does publish landing weight performance data).

Contrary to what you believe, I can look at things objectively if I am in a position to render a decision with all the facts before me (which I don't have). But unlike the medical profession, I can also critisize those that endanger others by perhaps doing things that they shouldn't have. Since I don't have the responsibility of being on the NTSB I have that luxury.

 

[SWA/FO]

What I was asking for was SWAs criteria for determining whether or not a landing should have been attempted in the first place.

OPC baby...OPC. ONBOARD PERFORMANCE COMPUTER.

I can also critisize those that endanger others by perhaps doing things that they shouldn't have

perhaps you can Monday Morning Quarterback.

 

[Marko Ramius]

???????????????????

Who takes information from a McPaper special report as meaning anything? If people are looking for straws to grasp at, I've got some, otherwise we should just wait for the official hearing/report.

 

[SWA/FO]

Amen!

 

[MJG]

with 16" of snow falling in one hour, one could conclude that runway conditions could have detoriated rapidly.

WTF???

16 inches in one hour ???

Can I have some of what you're smoking ???

 

[Dinger]

I think what happened was that SWA's planes are soooooo fugly, the runway rejected it!

Just a joke, folks.

 

[Andy]

In all fairness Andy, Chicago experienced a record snow fall in a very short time period. When you take into account that time between landing aircraft could be in excess of 10 minutes with 16" of snow falling in one hour, one could conclude that runway conditions could have detoriated rapidly. Not sure how much flying you do in snow country but I've seen it go from good to ugly very quickly at other airports with other carriers.

The record for snowfall in Chicago in a single calendar day is 18.6" on 2 Jan 1999.
Here's a clip from one article on the crash:
"It had been snowing all day Thursday in Chicago. By early evening, about 8 inches of snow had fallen, and winds were between 13 mph and 18 mph. Visibility was three-quarters of a mile at the time of the landing."

 

[Andy]

With normal reverse thrust a pilot does not know what the braking action is until coming out of reverse. I have thought braking was normal until reversers were stowed then had to go back into reverse to stop the 737. After that episode in Reno on the first arrival one morning after a big snow storm I always hesitated on coming out of reverse until I knew I didn't need brakes any more. If one or both reversers hadn't deployed that morning there is no doubt where we would have ended up.

Since Southwest's FOM called for manual braking, the pilot should have felt the antiskid cycle in the pedals. Even in full reverse, I've heard the clicking of the antiskid cycling on slick runways.

 

[Andy]

Sometimes its better to keep your mouth closed than open it and let something stupid come out. This would have been a good opportunity to exercise that option.

LOL! You Southwest boys used to be proud to be called cowboys. Even after BUR, there were plenty of Southwest posters who didn't mind being called cowboys when they were taxiing at 40 knots.

 

[Andy]

You tell us: Short runway....low vis....9 knot tailwind....7 inches of fresh snow....very late deployment of thrust reversers.

There...I'm asking. Enlighten me about the decision process involved here.

Perfectly safe ops; there's no cowboy ops at Southwest. :nuts: :laugh:

 

[Andy]

OPC baby...OPC. ONBOARD PERFORMANCE COMPUTER.

Ah yes, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Change a number here or there and you can always get the 'ol computer to spit out the 'correct' answer.

You forgot to mention that the crew called a dispatcher who confirmed that it was 'safe' to land. If you've got to call a dispatcher to ask if it's safe to land, it's not safe to land. Doable, yes. Dicey, yes. Safe, no.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0512160279dec16,1,2183092.story

 

[Andy]

Who takes information from a McPaper special report as meaning anything? If people are looking for straws to grasp at, I've got some, otherwise we should just wait for the official hearing/report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2005/051215.htm

Are you trying to say that you are unable to see any problems in the above preliminary report? Whatever you say, John Wayne. Giddyup.

 

[Andy]

The runway at Chicago's Midway International Airport was much slicker than pilots were led to believe on the snowy December night that a Southwest Airlines jet skidded through a fence and killed a 6-year-old boy, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

The last 6 words in this paragraph just crack me up.

 

[ivauir]

I stated what I have heard to be the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. If they are not the facts, please correct them. What facts did you state? It seems you just asked a leadig question

Would you have landed under those conditions? As they were reported to the crew? Maybe. I still don't know what the information the crew had or when they had it. Would I? Of course you wouldn't, you are a 12 year old on mommy's computer, you are not allowed to fly yet.I would hope not... but like you said it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. And yet you peck away.

What I was asking for was SWAs criteria for determining whether or not a landing should have been attempted in the first place. Is there SOP? Landing performance criteria? (Boeing does publish landing weight performance data). Which we use - though the form of an on board performance computer. The NTSB has already come out with a memo questioning how some of this data is derived for the -700 and many "next generation" aicraft.

Contrary to what you believe, I can look at things objectively if I am in a position to render a decision with all the facts before me (which I don't have). And won't have until the NTSB is done. Which I am sure that you know - unless you are a complete idiot. Therefore your only motive by posting as you have is to slander my company, my pilot group and me. But unlike the medical profession, I can also critisize those that endanger others by perhaps doing things that they shouldn't have. Based on what criteria? What you read in USA today? Since I don't have the responsibility of being on the NTSB I have that luxury.

And I have the luxury of caling you out. You are a hater. You aren't gathering information, you aren't seeing if there is something you can learn here. You are taking a fatal accident and using it as an excuse to slam your least favorite airline. Screw you. Our safty record is OUTSTANDING. We are proud of it and we work to maintain and improve it every day. It is absolutly our top priority. To say otherwise is a slam on every pilot here. And that is really your intent here isn't it? You have some grudge against us and this is your chance to settle up. Well not today; to draw conculsions and assign blame before the NTSB does is the currency of fools and cowards.

Thank you for identifying yourselves:
- Hvy
- Andy
- RP04 (carried over from previous thread)

 

[SWA/FO]

Andy,

Lets face it, this would never happen to you. You are better then any of us, in your opinion.

I believe any Southwest Pilot (even the ones on my avoidence bid) could fly circles around you. Since we all fly 8 legs a day and 1000 hours a year - we are good at what we do. Why not wait until you hear all the facts.. do I think errors might have been made? sure. Do I think the Pilots plugged numbers in the OPC to "make things work", do I think they said "hey it (the opc) says we can't land safety, but lets do it anyway?" NO. NOT JUST NO BUT F#^k NO.

 

[CatfishVT9]

I've been wondering a few things about this after reading the preliminary report. I've got questions, not face shots.

My first trip to MDW about a year ago, the Captain flew the leg and had trouble deploying the thrust reversers because he was too aggressive trying to get them out. I saw that he coudn't get the levers to come back because the power levers weren't all the way at idle. By trying to get into reverse quickly, it made our rollout longer. After I pulled the throttles back, they popped right into reverse. Could this have happened to these guys?

The preliminary report says the FO moved his seat forward to apply brakes. Was this because he was out of position, or just trying to get more leverage?

They touched down with 4500 feet remaining. Was that on glideslope? Seems like a long landing given the conditions.

Jus' wonderin'

 

[F16TJ]

All the more reason to shut Midway down.

Mayor Daley, it that you?