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

[satpak77]

the NTSB press conference said they had a slight bounce when they landed, would this delay the TR deployment?

 

[TurboS7]

Boeing certification is not based on use of reverse thrust, Part 25 allows it but Boeing does not use it in it's performance. With that said and done it is obvious that the runway conditons were not such that any aircraft should have been landing. What type of braking action was present, more than likely it was checked by an F-150 slamming on its brakes at 80 MPH. The last time I checked there was a heck of lot of diffrence between a 737-700 and a F-150. Was the runway treated with ice repellent, no, more than likely the runway was plowed just prior to the landing, new plowed runways are very icy and nasty. There will be more, it is just a matter of time. Everytime you land or a newly plowed runway you are a test pilot. MDW doesn't have the length required to be safe under those conditons. Dry snow and wet snow are two diffrent animals, with the proximity of the lake it was more than likely wet snow. They will blame the pilots and say they landed long, the reality is MDW should have been shut down by the airport operations. AA did something right, they cancelled all their operations, maybe they have learned something over the years.

 

[EagleRJ]

Anyone know what the reported Braking Action was at the time of the accident, and how old it was?

One thing we could do to improve the information available to pilots is require BA reports by PIREP or certified friction-testing device only, and update it at least every 10 minutes. Arbitrary BA reports from vehicles are fine for the ramp and taxiways, but pilots need to have a real-world PIREP or MU reading for the runway.
I've seen BA change radically from one arrival to the next, when the preceding aircraft blows away a layer of loose powder, or when the rate or type of precipitation changes. Hourly reports by an airport vehicle are not sufficient.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I too have never flown a jet that used thrust reversers as part of the landing data. Everything is based on brakes and lift killing devices (Spoilers etc.)

Dunno about the ERJ but nothing I ever flew in the corporate or airline world is based on thrust reversers for landing.

 

[GVFlyer]

I think you have it backwards. Including reverse thrust is allowable under Part 25 certification, except that single-engine operations must be accounted for. Aircraft manufacturers can and do use reverse along with normal braking to determine landing distance.





Accelerate/stop distances are determined without reverse thrust on a dry runway, and with reverse thrust on a wet runway.

(paragraph e is directional stability, exceptional skill, etc.)


I do agree that while the runway at Midway meets the letter of the law, it's dangerous to fly 121 carriers out of there without a sufficient overrun. We have too many airports operating under waivers these days, and the FAA needs to be more stingy in allowing them. MDW should only be allowed to have a waiver for reduced overrun if an EMAS system is installed on each runway approved for 121 operations.

Once again, hindsight is 20/20.

Nice post concerning required aircraft operating characteristics, but unless you're an experimental test pilot participating in an aircraft certification program, you're reading the wrong regulation. Note the the title: Part 25: AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES. You need to be reading Part 121: Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations.

I included the hyperlink so you can read Section 25.1 Applicability. Part 25 has nothing to do with operating the aircraft after it has earned it's Airworthiness Certificate unless you are working on an Supplemental Type Certificate.

GV

 

[A Squared]

Nice post concerning required aircraft operating characteristics, but unless you're an experimental test pilot participating in an aircraft certification program, you're reading the wrong regulation. Note the the title: Part 25: AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES. You need to be reading Part 121: Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations.

I included the hyperlink so you can read Section 25.1 Applicability. Part 25 has nothing to do with operating the aircraft after it has earned it's Airworthiness Certificate unless you are working on an Supplemental Type Certificate.

GV

Hmmm, I don't see a subpart to 121 titled "Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations."

You got a specific reference for that?

 

[satpak77]

Hmmm, I don't see a subpart to 121 titled "Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations."

You got a specific reference for that?

That is the name of the Part 121 section

 

[A Squared]

That is the name of the Part 121 section

Ahhh, OK I gocha, it's the title of all of Part 121, I was looking for a subpart with that title. OK, question still stands, where in Part 121 does it address reverse in landing perfomance?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I too have never flown a jet that used thrust reversers as part of the landing data. Everything is based on brakes and lift killing devices (Spoilers etc.)

Dunno about the ERJ but nothing I ever flew in the corporate or airline world is based on thrust reversers for landing.

Well, maybe. What y'all are talking about is DRY, FACTORED landing performance. The numbers that are in the airport analysis book, or whatever comes over your ACARS is for DRY runways. Those numbers do not "factor" the use of thrust reversers.

Everything changes, however, when you are approaching your destination, and low-and-behold, there is 1/4" of wet snow covering the runway. Now what? Well, you must consult the ACTUAL landing distance numbers for a CONTAMINATED runway. In the CRJ, you will find them in QRH vol. 1. Those numbers have accounted for use of the thrust reversers.

At my airline, we can dispatch to an airport with contaminated runways, based on FACTORED performance numbers for a DRY runway. Sounds dumb, right? Well, the fact is, that runway condition is variable, and may change during your time enroute such as: intensifying or diminishing snowfall, runway clearing, etc.

Personally, I'll take into account all available information, and push for cancellation, or diversion of the flight if it appears landing at the planned destination would not be prudent.

Comments?

 

[Flystr8]

Landing data two engines is based on no reverse, takeoff data the same. The only time reverse comes into play is landing with one engine, and stopping with a failure prior to V1. The bottom line is that MDW is way too short for Part 121 operations in any kind of severe or abnormal weather. The airport managers and airline officals are full of BS. The operate there because it is cheap, cheap, cheap and Chicago Airport Authority like the money. They push the airplanes and the pilots then fault the pilots because we are not perfect. This industry stinks, and the pilots are the ones that take the windfall......and we get paid too much....SURE>>.

This is an awesome statement and I could not agree with you more. Its so true. Pilots are pushed and then blamed when the outcome isn't perfect. Its total BS.......and yes, the pay sucks too. Its no doubt we dont do it for the money. If flying wasn't fun the aviation world would be screwed.