Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Chicago runway too slick at Crash

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

canyonblue

Everyone loves Southwest
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,314
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.

Runway 31C was so slippery that it would have been difficult for people to walk on, providing minimal traction for the jet's tires as pilots tried to slow down from a speed of about 150 mph, the analysis of investigative records found.

The accident on Dec. 8 raises national safety implications because it shows that the system of testing slick runways has potentially fatal flaws. Without accurate information about runway conditions, pilots can stumble into danger without warning.

Officials at Midway have said conditions on the runway were "good" when Flight 1248 skidded into a roadway and struck a car, killing Joshua Woods.

Other pilots who landed shortly before the accident reported that conditions on the runway ranged from "good" to "poor" in spots.

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. The computation uses the plane's speed and the distance it traveled on the ground. (Related: Pure runway physics)

The official investigation has reached similar conclusions about how slick the runways were, said two aviation sources familiar with those results.

The physics formula used in the newspaper's analysis was validated by two prominent researchers: Vijay Gupta, a professor of aerospace and mechanical engineering at UCLA, and Mark Drela, an aeronautics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"Holy cow, that's a scary ride," said Patrick Veillette, a corporate pilot with a doctorate who has written extensively on aviation-safety issues. "That had to have been a horrible feeling, touching down and having essentially no braking effectiveness at all."

The Federal Aviation Administration says it wants a better way for checking slick runways, but argues it has not found a system that is reliable for all aircraft.

On Dec. 8, the pilots on Flight 1248 from Baltimore to Chicago touched down at 7:14 p.m. in heavy snow.

They assumed the runway was in "fair" condition, based on reports from other pilots radioed to them by air traffic controllers. For reasons that have not been explained, the Boeing 737-700's thrust reversers — which help jets slow down — did not begin operating for 18 seconds. NTSB's investigation is months away from determining a cause for the accident.

Midway used two federally approved machines to measure conditions that night, airport spokeswoman Wendy Abrams said. She declined to offer additional details or to comment on USA TODAY's analysis because of the investigation.
 
But...wait...this doesn't support the "Southwest Pilots Are All A Bunch Of Reckless Cowboys" template...AT ALL??

...guess that's why the usual suspects haven't piled-on to this thread yet? :rolleyes:
 
StopNTSing said:
But...wait...this doesn't support the "Southwest Pilots Are All A Bunch Of Reckless Cowboys" template...AT ALL??

...guess that's why the usual suspects haven't piled-on to this thread yet? :rolleyes:

Which airline has the most landings at Midway? I'm going to guess that it's Southwest. Weren't reported runway conditions based on previous pilot reports?
Why didn't previous Southwest aircraft report poor conditions? Perhaps to ensure that the airport stayed open?

This is even more reason to question the LONG (18 second) delay in deploying the reversers.

As to your assertion that this does not support the reckless cowboy accusation, the lack of previous Southwest crews reporting poor braking conditions merely reinforces that this is a company wide problem.
 
As to your assertion that this does not support the reckless cowboy accusation, the lack of previous Southwest crews reporting poor braking conditions merely reinforces that this is a company wide problem.

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.
 
73-Driver said:
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.

I fully agree; I used to stationed at KOFF; saw more than a couple snow/ice storms. (Well, in the RC-135, KOFF was just a TDY with the family; home was in tents in Saudi or Mildenhall billeting).

I certainly wouldn't be pointing to this article as a refutation of the stereotype; which was my point.
 
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.
 
Andy said:
Which airline has the most landings at Midway? I'm going to guess that it's Southwest. Weren't reported runway conditions based on previous pilot reports?
Why didn't previous Southwest aircraft report poor conditions? Perhaps to ensure that the airport stayed open?

This is even more reason to question the LONG (18 second) delay in deploying the reversers.

As to your assertion that this does not support the reckless cowboy accusation, the lack of previous Southwest crews reporting poor braking conditions merely reinforces that this is a company wide problem.

Moron.:puke:
 
Sorry Kernel Moron.:crying: :puke:
 
Andy said:
Which airline has the most landings at Midway? I'm going to guess that it's Southwest. Weren't reported runway conditions based on previous pilot reports?
Why didn't previous Southwest aircraft report poor conditions? Perhaps to ensure that the airport stayed open?

This is even more reason to question the LONG (18 second) delay in deploying the reversers.

As to your assertion that this does not support the reckless cowboy accusation, the lack of previous Southwest crews reporting poor braking conditions merely reinforces that this is a company wide problem.

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.
 
Well what may be good braking for one pilot may be poor for the next guy 1 minute behind him. The other day ATC asks us for a braking action report, well we didn't really know what to tell him as it was my leg and as usual I make a stellar landing at as slow a speed I can safely accomplish, get on the reversers to the max allowed as soon as possible, and in addition, our best turnoff was near the end of the runway and therefore used hardly any braking. Well the captain says tell him it was good, I disagreed but didn't argue and told ATC it was good which I think could have been very misleading to the next guy who may have landed faster and had trouble getting into reverse and had to get on the brakes hard. This is why I think the pilot report method has it's fatal flaws so to speak.
 
Draginass said:
All the more reason to shut Midway down.
Just because pay for training brought the industry down, it's no reason to take it out on an airport.
 
FN, What happened to the Clinton pay for training quote? Since is not there anymore then I take it back. Andy now that was stupid. You got FN beat by a mile. Is not even close. UBA757
 
Unfortunately, the Captain is probably still in hot water.

Certainly the use of autobrakes was smart, but it was against SOP and still questions as to the delay in using reverse.

I hope it turns out well for both!
 
StopNTSing said:
But...wait...this doesn't support the "Southwest Pilots Are All A Bunch Of Reckless Cowboys" template...AT ALL??

...guess that's why the usual suspects haven't piled-on to this thread yet? :rolleyes:


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.
 
Hvy said:
Enlighten me about the decision process involved here.

Great, another Kernel.:rolleyes:
 
It'll hit the fan when it comes out that tower reported 9 knots of tailwind when there was in fact a bit more. My speculation, but I'm guessing that when they run the landing distance numbers with the braking action observed by the mishap team and with the winds from the meter, they will find out that the calculated distance is longer than the runway available.

I'm very interested in the missing 18 seconds from the reversers, but think that the delay is due to a mechanical/icing/interlock problem, not that the captain was 'really slow.'

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.
 
Hvy said:
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
 
FNG_that's me said:
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.
 
Red Baron said:
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.
 
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.
 
???????????????????

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.
 
73-Driver said:
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 ???
 
I think what happened was that SWA's planes are soooooo fugly, the runway rejected it!

Just a joke, folks.
 
73-Driver said:
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."
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom