Chicago runway too slick at Crash

[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)