Good News for SWA Pilots!!!??? Breaking News?

[Dumbledore]

I see. So what you're telling me is that I can land at Ref +30 using takeoff flaps, and use only reverse to save the brakes, and I'll use exactly the amount of runway it states in the performance charts?

Where do you think your takeoff and landing data comes from?

You just don't get it, do you? What on earth are you talking about?

Look, Part 25 governs aircraft manufacturers. That's it. End of story. Part 121 governs scheduled air carriers and thus, to a certain extent, it governs pilots. That's that. End of story. The two have NOTHING to do with one another.

As for where the landing data comes from, that comes from the AFM as far as the pilot is concerned. Again, Part 25 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. The reason it's there in the AFM in the first place has EVERYTHING to do with Part 25. It's there because part 25 says the manufacturers have to gather the data and publish it for the pilots' use in the AFM.

 

[Dumbledore]

Not on a dry runway, I'm afraid. You're saying that two buckets are more effective than one? That isn't rocket science. My point is that on a dry runway, thrust reverse has relatively little importance when comared to a slippery runway. One bucket or four, it is all relative-

Agreed - sort of - but, you're ignoring my point. Reverse effectiveness is aircraft specific. You started out saying that reverse thrust is less effective on a dry runway and that reverse effectiveness is predicated on runway assumptions. That's not true. Reverse thrust effectiveness is based FIRST on how well it works in the installation concerned!

I've flown a number of jet types and each is unique in the way it reacts to the application of max reverese thrustfor stopping. Some reverser installations are indeed EXTREMELY effective. For example, landing a G-III on a 5000' runway with a Vref of 123 kts, I didn't need to even touch the brakes until I started coming out of reverse at 70 kts and I had about 1500' to spare. a G-IV doesn't perform nearly as well.

 

[Wankel7]

While I certainly don't want to offend anyone, I keep reading and hearing that the landing was "smooth". I just landed my Falcon 20 in blowing snow during the same storm when it hit the northeast on Friday. AND on a runway that's 4840'. Understand, my airplane only weighed 26,000 #'s (I have no idea 737 data), but by landing "firm", I was able to deploy the TR's without any hesitation and barely touch the brakes (didn't want to crank them up on a contaminated rwy), leaving about 1000' remaining. I can tell you when I give the customer a smooth landing, the squat switch doesn't always engage immediately. I don't want to speculate on another pilot's technique, however I am saying what my experience has shown me. During the winter in the northeast, sometimes an ugly "carrier" landing is all I can give 'em if the runway precludes the much sought after grease.

Your DA20 has TR....lucky Good call on just getting it down. Not a time to be screwing around.

 

[9GClub]

See below. =)

 

[9GClub]

Yes, absolutely! Thrust reversers have negligible effect on a dry runway!
Surprised? Well, hopefully you're not equally surprised that on a wet runway, the coefficient of friction (mu) is diminished. Brakes are effective, but not nearly so as thrust reversers. As friction decreases, so does the effectiveness of the brakes. Therefore, thrust reverse becomes more effective than brakes!

Wet and contaminated landing distances are calculated using thrust reverse as well as brakes. It may seem illogical, but you have to consider more complex issues on transport certified aircraft.

Lesson over.

It's only illogical in the sense that if your TRs aren't working, you're screwed. Of course TR is more critical (proportionally relative to braking) on a dry runway, but we're not dealing with a dry runway. We're dealing with a short, slick runway and a tailwind. My point is that there's not enough margin factored into the numbers to preclude a not-so-happy outcome in the event that something breaks. Of course it's not possible to plan for every contingency, but c'mon. Crappy weather, a tight field, and sucky runway condition/orientation? I don't care what kinda pilot you are.

Not trying to be arrogant guys, I prolly woulda smashed through the fence too. In my 150. Just sayin'.

My low time and apparent global ignorance aside, however, does anybody wanna humor me and agree that 31C that night was an accident waiting to happen?

 

[pilotpat]

Your DA20 has TR....lucky Good call on just getting it down. Not a time to be screwing around.

Yuppers! It's got TR's but we don't have the BR engines Oh, well, .80 is better than the .67 we struggle to get in the Diamondjet! As far as just getting it down - that's just the way it's gotta be sometimes. And if we HAD customers on board, we'd just tell them ahead of time so they understand.

 

[BLing]

My favorite theory the night of the accident was that there was a problem with the flaps. As a result the pilots had to use the secondary flaps!

 

[pilotpat]

I hate having to flip to the Abnormal Checklist for the "Primary Flap Inop" stuff...especially in the snow...so I usually will opt to slip the Falcon, but make the PNF cover the "Do Not Slip With Flaps" placard...

 

[LarryinTN]

My low time and apparent global ignorance aside, however, does anybody wanna humor me and agree that 31C that night was an accident waiting to happen?

20/20 hindsight is not particularly helpful.

Before each landing a SWA crew enters all of the applicable landing data into their onboard performance computer (OPC)--a tablet PC that is stowed behind the F/O's seat. Unless the crew disregarded their procedures, and there has been no indication that they did, then the landing was within all limitations based on the information available to the crew.

The next question is if the crew had the most current information and if that information was accurate.

 

[C40_Pilot]

TR's during landing

We ran numbers through the BBJ Boeing Laptop Tool. It provides landing data. When we select TR's inoperative, the landing distance is the same as before they are selcted inop. I would therefore venture to guess, that 737-700 landing distance, calculated by Boeing on their laptop tool does not include the use of TR's. That is also consistent with our performance inflight data of the checklist.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

C40,

Were you looking at fair or poor braking?s The SWA computer generate autobrake equivalent numbers. I dry conditions, those numbers can be achieved regardless of T/R usage. In fair or poor braking conditions, brakes alone may not achieve the autobrake deceleration rates. Under these conditions, the T/Rs have a significant effect.