Chicago runway too slick at Crash

[GuppyWN]

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.

Hook, line, and sinker bro. Do you follow FARs and company rules to the tee, or don't you? You said you did not waiver.... ever. I think you answered differently.

Now that we got that clear - STFU!

Gup

 

[Palomino]

Chicago runway too slick at Crash

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

truly a profound statement. i think the pictures told us a lot more than Mr. Levin does.

 

[regionaltard]

Hook, line, and sinker bro. Do you follow FARs and company rules to the tee, or don't you? You said you did not waiver.... ever. I think you answered differently.

Now that we got that clear - STFU!

Gup

"Reported" is the operative word here. Knowing what we all know about how the wheels of the system are greased from time to time, just because it's "legal" doesn't always make it smart. The distinction between LA and Midway in the context of an iffy tailwind report is a valid one. The accident crew put themselves in a situation where everything had to go their way, and it didn't.

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???

Reran? How about briefing the limit before you get there so when you hear ** at ** it sounds just like "go around?"

 

[SWA/FO]

a Perfect Storm

 

[SWA/FO]

Slug for SWAPA President!

 

[regionaltard]

a Perfect Storm

Another term I've heard used in the industry is "a causal chain."

 

[GuppyWN]

Just for clarification..... I don't consider anything past the reverse highspeed on 24L to be usable runway.

Gup

 

[Mach 80]

------------------------
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.
------------------------

One airplane might weight thousands of pounds more or less than another resulting in much different calcualtions and therefore decisions.

 

[furloughed dude]

I guess this explains why they decided to use autobrakes when they weren't approved by the company. Lucy, you gots lots of splainin to do....

 

[BVT94]

------------------------
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.
------------------------

One airplane might weight thousands of pounds more or less than another resulting in much different calcualtions and therefore decisions.

or BILLIONS...............

 

[SWA/FO]

Hey F U R L O U G H E D DUDE,

Your just jealous you don't have autobrakes at your guard bum desk job. I guess, desks don't have any brakes thesedays.

 

[SoCentralRain]

Hey F U R L O U G H E D DUDE,

Your just jealous you don't have autobrakes at your guard bum desk job. I guess, desks don't have any brakes thesedays.

Hey SWA/FO,

Pretty weak comeback.

Now, back to the 'splainin.

Cheers,

SCR

 

[LarryinTN]

I guess this explains why they decided to use autobrakes when they weren't approved by the company.

From what I understand, all of the pilots were trained in the use of autobrakes and all that they were waiting for was the pages in the next ops manual revision for the use of autobrakes to become standard procedure. There had also been a group of Captains who had been using the autobrakes in a test program.

 

[Andy]

Hook, line, and sinker bro. Do you follow FARs and company rules to the tee, or don't you? You said you did not waiver.... ever. I think you answered differently.

Now that we got that clear - STFU!

Gup

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Here's the quote:

I don't have a huge ego and I will never bend to company pressures to fly as scheduled.

No mention of the FARs. I'm no company man (working for Yonited kinda beats the company man out of you), but I'm no boy scout either.

Just for clarification..... I don't consider anything past the reverse highspeed on 24L to be usable runway.

Gup

I consider runway behind me to be unusable.

 

[Andy]

Sluggo, good to hear from ya again. Yes, I'm opinionated; that hasn't changed. Thanks for saying that I'm levelheaded, although more than a couple people would disagree with you on that one.

I don't know what the mishap crew did to come up with their numbers and neither do you. We do know that they had a conversation with dispatch over the numbers; twice while enroute.

The final report will take two years to be released. If you guys want to keep this accident below the radar screen, then don't make posts like the first two in this thread. It's pretty machochistic to post flame bait against your own company and then try to defend it. Almost all pertinent information has been released on the accident; by this time, it is highly unlikely that some new 'revelation' will be uncovered. Any ATP pilot can read the NTSB initial reprot (link below) and come to reasonable conclusions on the level of risk involved with this flight.
I notice that you edited out your little 13C/31C comment; you must've read the NTSB initial and discovered the little problem with your statement.
Glad to hear that you got $6K; it's deserved for your time & effort that UAL
wasted. You should get another chunk of stock; about $3K.
As for Southwest's cowboy image, let me hit on just a few points. SWA has a reputation for taxiing excessively fast, which I've personally witnessed. SWA is not certified for autoland, in spite of this being an older and very reliable technology. SWA did not permit autobrakes to be used, as per FOM. Does SWA have the autothrottles working now? SWA has adopted an attitude that they will fly the 737 'old school.' This brings increased risk. When there is zero margin for error, your crews are being set up for failure.
Like it or not, Southwest has the cowboy image. JBLU has the koolaid drinking image; cleaning the cabin and trying to change the FARs doesn't help thier image.

Again, here's the NTSB link: http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2005/051215.htm

 

[canyonblue]

Like it or not, Southwest has the cowboy image.

Like it or not, United has the a$$hole image. You, and the other idiots on this board sure keep that alive.

 

[SWAdude]

As for Southwest's cowboy image, let me hit on just a few points. SWA has a reputation for taxiing excessively fast, which I've personally witnessed. SWA is not certified for autoland, in spite of this being an older and very reliable technology. SWA did not permit autobrakes to be used, as per FOM. Does SWA have the autothrottles working now? SWA has adopted an attitude that they will fly the 737 'old school.' This brings increased risk. When there is zero margin for error, your crews are being set up for failure.
Like it or not, Southwest has the cowboy image.

I would rather have a cowboy image anyday verses an image of self- rightous I can do better than the next guy image.

You are throwing stones in your own glass house and your emotions have made you totally blind to yourself.

We all work in an industry that is going to have accidents. It is more likely than not that all our airlines will have accidents and incidents in our careers. To try and prove incompetence or neglect in any of these events is just plain ignorant. It tells me that you think it can't happen to you. Which is unsafe in itself.

Andy,

You know your airline much better than I do. As well as I know my airline much better than you do. There is an unfortunate difference these days. I have flown with several of your former colleagues and they have all said that our operation is outstanding. Not perfect but well designed.

And remember, if your 747-400 would have been 200 feet lower, well, need I say more.

 

[Slug]

Andy,

I don't know what you are talking about me editing out the 13vs31 comment. It is still in there. My edit was to say you were my classmate, not my sim partner (which I originally typed).

 

[Andy]

Andy,

I don't know what you are talking about me editing out the 13vs31 comment. It is still in there. My edit was to say you were my classmate, not my sim partner (which I originally typed).

Missed that; saw the edit. You may want to actually read the NTSB initial report. It mentions the runway change.

 

[Andy]

I would rather have a cowboy image anyday verses an image of self- rightous I can do better than the next guy image.

I clearly stated in an earlier post that my skills are subpar in comparision to any and all SWA pilots. How does that make me better than the next guy?

You are throwing stones in your own glass house and your emotions have made you totally blind to yourself.

I am dumbfounded how your compadres can start a thread where it is clear that your company is going to receive incoming flak, and then when that inevitable incoming occurs, you boys circle the wagons and declare WWIII on those that voice criticism. If you don't want to talk about your dirty laundry, don't flaunt it in public. I don't write posts about reverse discrimination hiring practices or San Mateo (the incident you referred to) and I don't see other Yonited pilots writing those posts either.

We all work in an industry that is going to have accidents. It is more likely than not that all our airlines will have accidents and incidents in our careers. To try and prove incompetence or neglect in any of these events is just plain ignorant. It tells me that you think it can't happen to you. Which is unsafe in itself.

To ask you to read the initial NTSB report is also plain ignorant on my part. So I won't.
Can an accident happen to me? Easily. I could be another San Mateo with less favorable results. But it won't be from accepting multiple high risk factors and allowing near zero margin for error in order to have my flight land at it's intended destination.
I try to learn from accidents and incidents so that I won't be the next statistic. I thought that was a widespread technique in the industry. It appears that I've been proven wrong once again. Did you learn anything from the MDW accident?

And remember, if your 747-400 would have been 200 feet lower, well, need I say more.

If you are looking for me to defend the crew's actions WRT the San Mateo incident, you're barking up the wrong tree. Multiple errors were made on the crew's part. It is only due to miraculous luck that there was not a hull loss. It was not only 200 feet lower, but also several hundred feet right or left that would have met with disastrous results. The aircraft threaded the eye of a small needle in which no part was due to crew actions.