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."