Chicago runway too slick at Crash

[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?

 

[1BigRodeo]

First, someone did call conditions what they were that night...heard it with my own two ears. At least twice. Nil on a couple of occasions. Tower did a nice job of getting new "acceptable" reports out there to get traffic flowing. Nil reports made their way miraculously to "good" when the news crews got to the tower management. Tapes dont lie.

Second, repositioning ones seat might have been the only way to get true "maximum" braking. If youve never tried it, the only two things touching the airplane from your body should be the balls of your feet, and the middle of your back.

Anyone with the holier than though critic attitude on this thread needs to remember two things. First, one life was lost, a family without a son, two careers scarred and possibly ruined, not to mention the nightmares being suffered by the two pilots for the could have- should haves we all face as professionals. Second, it could have happened to any of you on any given day. Go back and review some of the tapes that we all get to see in training. Any of those guys appear incopetent when they showed up for work? Any of them say "Im going to have an accident today?" Didnt think so. How about you, you going flying today?

SWA haters can spew all they want about a culture issue, but the facts stand, the computer said it worked, tower kept the "fair" conditions rolling, and the HUD and ILS Z made it all come together. Were they led down a path? We will find out soon enough. The only difference between us and others is the HUD and the ILS Z to 31c.

By the way, when was the last time any of you reran numbers inside the marker for winds when your supposed to be monitoring an approach???

Monday morning quarterbacking this kind of event is a disgusting byproduct of too many self important, arrogant pinheads standing on the third floor of a glass condo chucking cinderblocks at one another. Coming to this board is like listening to Stern, morbid curiosity in what stupidity will present itself next.

We all want to know exactly what happened, so we dont press on and learn nothing from the lesson Joshua Woods taught us. Use some discretion and class in how you learn it. It would be a much needed boost to our profession if there wasnt such a low class discussion such as this on a public access board.

 

[RP 04]

What did I do?

 

[GuppyWN]

Andy, with your arrogance I can only assume you fly for United. No matter how much you dislike us, it won't make us go away. If that were the case UAL would have been out of business years ago.

Gup

 

[El-Rushbo]

Chicago runway too slick at Crash

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

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.

But the USA TODAY analysis, based on a physics formula using information released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), shows the conditions were "poor" at best.

How about we all wait for the REAL analysis before we start pointing fingers at SWA, ATC, pilots, etc?

One question that I do have regarding the preliminary NTSB report linked above is

Interviews were conducted with a number of other Southwest Airlines flight crews, including the crew of the last Southwest flight to land at Midway and a subsequent crew that diverted to St. Louis.

Why did the mishap crew choose to land immediately after a company aircraft made a divert decision? No face shot, this is new information to me and it does raise a valid question.

 

[LarryinTN]

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

They touched down with a ground speed of 133kts. To maintain a G/S at 133kts would require a 665fpm descent which is above certification limits for landing (600fpm) so a flare was required.

The glide slope intersects the runway with 4,922' remaining. That's only 422' of flare distance--less than two seconds.

 

[canyonblue]

Andy, with your arrogance I can only assume you fly for United.
Gup

Fresh out of BK and back to their old selves.uke:

 

[CatfishVT9]

LJ-ABX, some good info. Personally, it seems that if you break out soon enough, "dropping in on the 1 wire" would be a good idea.

Big Rodeo, you need to lighten up. Asking questions and learning from other's mistakes is how military and civilian aviation has gotten so safe. Now I'm only talking about those who ask legitimate questions, not those who just throw stones at a particular company. And we all know who they are.......

 

[1BigRodeo]

LJ-ABX, some good info. Personally, it seems that if you break out soon enough, "dropping in on the 1 wire" would be a good idea.

Big Rodeo, you need to lighten up. Asking questions and learning from other's mistakes is how military and civilian aviation has gotten so safe. Now I'm only talking about those who ask legitimate questions, not those who just throw stones at a particular company. And we all know who they are.......

I am lightening up, I just got back from a run. Might have lost a pound. Thanks for your concern. I have no issues with asking questions. That keeps us from misunderstanding the lesson that is being taught here. My problem is with the venom spewing knowitall ilk that would post a slam in relation to a fatal accident. Thats all. I was there that night, I landed there and have some perspective. Theres more to it than what you can read in any current report. There are good men depending on the truth to come out.

 

[FDJ2]

First, let me state that SWA does have an outstanding safety record. This is not a slam of an airline. None of us are perfect, and I know for a fact that I make mistakes everytime I fly.

I don't know the feasibility of changing RWYs at MDW, I've never even landed there and I am unfamiliar with the approaches, but here is a question for those who are familiar with airport operations at MDW. The preliminary NTSB report states that had the aircraft landed with a headwind as opposed to a tailwind, stopping distance would have been 1,000' shorter. Why land on a less favorable runway under these terrible conditions? Why not ask to change runways?

This is from the Preliminary report:

Preliminary calculations show that the airplane touched down with about 4,500 feet of remaining runway and was on the runway for about 29 seconds. Preliminary calculations also show that, for the runway conditions and use of brakes and thrust reverser that occurred, the stopping distance without hitting obstructions would have been about 5,300 feet (the actual stopping distance was about 5,000 feet). In addition, had the airplane landing into the wind, rather than with a tail wind, the stopping distance for a landing would have been about 1,000 feet less.

Approximately 20 minutes prior to the accident, the winds were from 100 degrees at 11 knots, visibility was 1/2 mile in moderate snow and freezing fog, the ceiling was broken at 400 feet, and overcast at 1400 feet, temperature -3C, dew point -5C, altimeter setting 30.06 in. Hg. Remarks - runway 31C rvr (runway visual range) 4500 feet, snow increment - 1 inch of new show in the last hour, 10 inches on the ground.

 

[Andy]

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.

Look, I don't hate Southwest; it's not on my airline hate list. The list is very small, and Southwest ain't one of them.

I will not, however, allow some of you foaming at the mouth Southwest fanatics tell me that a USA Today 'analysis' clears your airline of any perceived cowboy ops. Like it or not, Southwest has clearly earned that reputation in the aviation community.

I'm just a lousy Yonited pilot, on furlough at that. We at Yonited have our own reputation in the industry; I don't deny that there is more than a grain of truth to our reputation.
And if it makes you feel any better, yes, the least competent of Southwest's pilots can fly rings around me. As for something like this happening to me, it's possible, but not likely. I've diverted before and I'll divert again. I know my limitations, and I am NOT the best pilot in the industry. I don't have a huge ego and I will never bend to company pressures to fly as scheduled.
There ya go, I admit that I'm just a subpar dirtbag pilot who could only get hired at Yonited because no real airline would hire me. Giddyup, Tex.

 

[GuppyWN]

And if it makes you feel any better, yes, the least competent of Southwest's pilots can fly rings around me.

There ya go, I admit that I'm just a subpar dirtbag pilot who could only get hired at Yonited because no real airline would hire me. Giddyup, Tex.

Well, I'm glad we got that lined out. Feels good to get that off your chest doesn't it?

I'll remember your "I never bend the rules or to company pressure" next time I hear the wind REPORTED to be less than a 10 knot tail wind in LAX. Those of you who know what I'm talking about will agree.

Gup

 

[Andy]

I'll remember your "I never bend the rules or to company pressure" next time I hear the wind REPORTED to be less than a 10 knot tail wind in LAX. Those of you who know what I'm talking about will agree.

ROTFLMAO! You are equating a tailwind at LAX (2 mile long runway) with a tailwind on a snow covered runway at MDW?
Buy some common sense, pal. I guess that I need to remember my audience ... a few people who hold up a USA Today 'analysis' as gospel, yet decry the initial NTSB report (with more than enough information) as unfounded rumors. You guys continue to crack me up.

 

[Andy]

I don't know the feasibility of changing RWYs at MDW, I've never even landed there and I am unfamiliar with the approaches, but here is a question for those who are familiar with airport operations at MDW. The preliminary NTSB report states that had the aircraft landed with a headwind as opposed to a tailwind, stopping distance would have been 1,000' shorter. Why land on a less favorable runway under these terrible conditions? Why not ask to change runways?

The reason that they did not land on 13C is that the visibility was below minimums for 13C. It was above minimums for 31C.

 

[FDJ2]

The reason that they did not land on 13C is that the visibility was below minimums for 13C. It was above minimums for 31C.

Thanks.

 

[SWA/FO]

You know the article was posted because it was a different take on the events of that night. Anything published to date, seemed to go the other way, the way your talking Andy. This is the first article that has a different tone to it.

 

[canyonblue]

It's the usual suspects on here that could care less about that information. It had to be Southwest's fault, along with those pilots. The braking action report had to be accurate, they always are. There was no snow that night, and the winds were just as accurate at the approach end, as they were from the tower. Karma will get these guys too, it always does. Or, maybe it already has.

 

[FedEx1]

The reason that they did not land on 13C is that the visibility was below minimums for 13C. It was above minimums for 31C.

This is true.

But keep in mind, ATC probably wouldn't have given it to them anyway, if the vis was good, since using 13C makes ORD have to switch directions and go down to only 2 runways.

Ask any ATA guy- you ask for 13C and the reply is, "unable" and "indefinate delay"....

 

[Slug]

Andy

Andy and I were classmates at UAL. He is currently a furloughed, finishing out his AF career kinda guy. He was a fairly level headed guy, although opinionated, when I knew him back then.


Pinkie, you can think what you want, but I'll tell you, those guys did not fudge numbers so their cowboy image could go untarnished. They ran the numbers they had and came up with a permissable option. Believe it or not we are trained at SWA, as well as if not better, than UAL. I consider myself far more proficient here than I ever did at UAL. We get more landings and flight hours in any given week than I did ever at UAL. There is no day spent during ground school teaching how to cheat to get ahead of another carrier, or how to push it up so you can keep your on-time, or anything else that your furloughed brain has dreamed up. You need to wait for the final report before you go out on a limb and try to speculate that our cultural mentality is "cowboy-up" and we don't care about safety, as long as we get where we are going. If you don't understand the relationship between O'Hare and MDW, 31C vs. 13C and Chicago App's control over the landing runway, then shut your trap.

I hope your 777/-400 comes sooner than later so you can doze for dollars and quit speculating over this little LCC's mentality.


Slug, aka "the Brain"


I luved the stock options I got as a former employee. That $6000 will come in handy somewhere

 

[Benhuntn]

Andy remind me to slap your momma the next time I see her. She raised a Bafoon!

 

[canyonblue]

He is currently a furloughed, finishing out his AF career kinda guy.

Odd, since the "Tanker Guys" are usually the best guys to fly with at SWA*.
(*Plus a couple F16 guys that I know lurk here)