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
More fallout from SWA crash - pax and rw length
- Thread starter GogglesPisano
- Start date
- Watchers 28
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
-------------
Ok, so what info would a SWA crew consult when faced with a landing on a short cluttered rwy? I don't know SWA procedures.
------------
Oakum boy,
As was stated earlier, they consult an Onboard Performance Computer.
It is distrubing to see so many incorrect statements on various pilot internet sites.
Such as...."probably no strut compression so that's why he didn't get reverser action" - (All you need is less than 10' radar altitude)
"He landed below minimums". Not sure if the the wx was below the usual minimums, but at many airports, SWA gets lower than standard minimums unique to them due to use of the Heads Up Display. SWA pilot friend of mine says he's actually heard pilots who were holding for an approach due to below mins weather (for them) claim his flight was "busting minimums" but they aren't aware of the lower mins SWA sometimes gets with the Heads Up Guidance System.
"He landed with a tailwind!!!!" If you've been around the block enough, you would know that often the runway with the tailwind is the only none with minimums low enough to make an approach. Happens all the time and I think it was the case at MDW that night. Would one rather have a headwind? Of course...but it again, it occurs quite often.
Ok, so what info would a SWA crew consult when faced with a landing on a short cluttered rwy? I don't know SWA procedures.
------------
Oakum boy,
As was stated earlier, they consult an Onboard Performance Computer.
It is distrubing to see so many incorrect statements on various pilot internet sites.
Such as...."probably no strut compression so that's why he didn't get reverser action" - (All you need is less than 10' radar altitude)
"He landed below minimums". Not sure if the the wx was below the usual minimums, but at many airports, SWA gets lower than standard minimums unique to them due to use of the Heads Up Display. SWA pilot friend of mine says he's actually heard pilots who were holding for an approach due to below mins weather (for them) claim his flight was "busting minimums" but they aren't aware of the lower mins SWA sometimes gets with the Heads Up Guidance System.
"He landed with a tailwind!!!!" If you've been around the block enough, you would know that often the runway with the tailwind is the only none with minimums low enough to make an approach. Happens all the time and I think it was the case at MDW that night. Would one rather have a headwind? Of course...but it again, it occurs quite often.
FatesPawn
HVAC Commander
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Posts
- 237
Oakum_Boy said:
I know you don't know SWA procedures. This is what is irritating to those of us who do. People start espousing the "truth" and it turns out the "truth" is something totally different. My angst isn't directly squarely at you oakum. It's aimed at every pilot who thinks they can come up with probable-cause in the hours after an accident.
What SWA pilots use is a touch screen laptop to do all their performance calculations. You enter the airport, runway, atis, flap setting, Braking action, NOTAMS and various other performance items like bleeds, engine/wing anti-ice, and MEL's. It chews on the data for a second and spits back your stopping margin with Min Med and Max braking.
You don't have to know the rules and regs to operate it. It just spits data back at you. For example if you enter an MEL like TR's inop and enter poor braking action, the 'OK' button gets grayed out and you can't continue.
If everyone is going to make assumptions lets make these assumptions:
The pilots did everything right
They entered the data on the computer exactly as it was presented
They landed the aircraft in accordance with the FOM
They followed all the regulations and policies
They subsequently ran into an unforseeable condition that invalidated the above data.
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with an ax.
Speculation complete.
Fate
Bookingsareup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Posts
- 61
" "He landed with a tailwind!!!!" If you've been around the block enough, you would know that often the runway with the tailwind is the only none with minimums low enough to make an approach. Happens all the time and I think it was the case at MDW that night. Would one rather have a headwind? Of course...but it again, it occurs quite often."
If they landed with a tailwind it will show to be a contributing factor. It doesn't matter if it happens all of the time. Cpt. has ultimate authority. If that was the only runway available, there is still the choice to divert.
If they landed with a tailwind it will show to be a contributing factor. It doesn't matter if it happens all of the time. Cpt. has ultimate authority. If that was the only runway available, there is still the choice to divert.
FatesPawn said:
Are you done lecturing now? I think some expressed surprise that the approach and landing in question did allow for everything to go right. Spoilers, brakes, and thrust reverse. All of this on a very low vis approach to a short runway with questionable breaking, a taliwind, and rapidly changing conditions that should be expected in a snow event. If in fact it comes out that the T/R problem was the ultimate reason for the over run, I think the Feds will be modifying your performance data. I'm not trying to point fingers at the crew at all. We have all been in situations where our back was against the wall in a marginal situation. It is unfortunate that they were placed in a situation where it may have been "legal" to do even though the deck was stacked so heavily against them. I flew out of Midway a bunch years ago, so I am quite familiar with what you guys are up against. Quite frankly, I think that SWA's safety record there given all the flights over the years speaks very well for the SWA pilot group. In any case, as always, there will be good lessons for all that come out of this unfortunate event.
Tailwind and Braking Conditions
Armchair QBs, I agree with the above statements that we should give the crew the benefit of the doubt and assume they did everything right based on the information that they had. The Capt was very experienced and would not have "rolled the dice" if the data didn't support it was safe and legal.
We won't know IF and how much of a player delayed thrust reversers contributed to the accident until the all parties conclude their investigation. Here are some other factors to consider as we speculate and try to learn some lessons to make us all better, and safer pilots.
ATIS was calling the winds 110 at 11 with BA Fair. RVR was 4000 V 6000 and they were only landing 31C (which does have mins down to 3000 RVR for SWA also). I don't know why some of the papers were calling the visibility 1/4 mile...no one would have been legal to attempt a landing.
Approximately 15 minutes before the time of the accident Tower was calling the winds 110 at 9 which gave a 7 Knot tailwind component.
It is considered safe and legal (if the OPC says it is for the given landing weight) to land with up to a 10 knot tailwind component if the BA was Fair--either of the wind reports above yeilded less than a 10 knot tailwind...again, some of the papers have stated that it was a stronger tailwind than this (11 knots)...hard to know where they're getting their information.
If however, the braking action was Poor...then it drops to a 5 knot tailwind and would not have been considered safe and legal to land.
Fates is exactly right on how the stopping distances are calculated in the
-700 vs the -300/500.
I think the biggest problem is the somewhat subjective call of what is Good, Fair, and Poor. It depends on the equipment (757, 737, RJ), where on the rwy you are breaking, and ultimately the crew's subjective call. Without current MU readings on each third of the rwy you don't really know what the BA is. If a plane lands, is slowed and exits at the high speed then gives a PIREP that the BA was Fair, do we really know what the BA was on the last part of the RWY--NIL maybe?
One paper said the aircraft hit the wall at 40 knots--I doubt the difference between a 7 and 5 knot tailwind would make that much difference. If however, the BA was really Poor and maybe Nil near the end of the runway...that may have been a major contributing factor. If that's the case, then it could have happened to any one of us on this forum...so let's not be hasty to cast the first stone.
With young ones of my own, it broke my heart to hear of the loss. My prayers are with his family and loved ones whose lives are forever changed...and I hope that resulting safety measures (whether it be more scientific BA reports, more conservative Tailwind constraints, breakable concrete slowing walls, whatever) make it so others will be safer and his life was not totally lost in vein.
Speed
Armchair QBs, I agree with the above statements that we should give the crew the benefit of the doubt and assume they did everything right based on the information that they had. The Capt was very experienced and would not have "rolled the dice" if the data didn't support it was safe and legal.
We won't know IF and how much of a player delayed thrust reversers contributed to the accident until the all parties conclude their investigation. Here are some other factors to consider as we speculate and try to learn some lessons to make us all better, and safer pilots.
ATIS was calling the winds 110 at 11 with BA Fair. RVR was 4000 V 6000 and they were only landing 31C (which does have mins down to 3000 RVR for SWA also). I don't know why some of the papers were calling the visibility 1/4 mile...no one would have been legal to attempt a landing.
Approximately 15 minutes before the time of the accident Tower was calling the winds 110 at 9 which gave a 7 Knot tailwind component.
It is considered safe and legal (if the OPC says it is for the given landing weight) to land with up to a 10 knot tailwind component if the BA was Fair--either of the wind reports above yeilded less than a 10 knot tailwind...again, some of the papers have stated that it was a stronger tailwind than this (11 knots)...hard to know where they're getting their information.
If however, the braking action was Poor...then it drops to a 5 knot tailwind and would not have been considered safe and legal to land.
Fates is exactly right on how the stopping distances are calculated in the
-700 vs the -300/500.
I think the biggest problem is the somewhat subjective call of what is Good, Fair, and Poor. It depends on the equipment (757, 737, RJ), where on the rwy you are breaking, and ultimately the crew's subjective call. Without current MU readings on each third of the rwy you don't really know what the BA is. If a plane lands, is slowed and exits at the high speed then gives a PIREP that the BA was Fair, do we really know what the BA was on the last part of the RWY--NIL maybe?
One paper said the aircraft hit the wall at 40 knots--I doubt the difference between a 7 and 5 knot tailwind would make that much difference. If however, the BA was really Poor and maybe Nil near the end of the runway...that may have been a major contributing factor. If that's the case, then it could have happened to any one of us on this forum...so let's not be hasty to cast the first stone.
With young ones of my own, it broke my heart to hear of the loss. My prayers are with his family and loved ones whose lives are forever changed...and I hope that resulting safety measures (whether it be more scientific BA reports, more conservative Tailwind constraints, breakable concrete slowing walls, whatever) make it so others will be safer and his life was not totally lost in vein.
Speed
Last edited:
Crossky
A Gentleman and a bother
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2004
- Posts
- 406
GuppyWN said:
I believe 19 human beings perished at Little Rock.
I suppose I could have left the WA and things not pertaining to this SWA MDW Accident out of my post. I was NOT comparing SWA's safety record to AA's, we all know who would lose that one. You brought up the subject of AA and their unfortunate most recent accidents, not I.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
