More fallout from SWA crash - pax and rw length

[FatesPawn]

LegacyDriver:

>>>Transport cat cert for landing distance is done without reversers IIRC, so length is really noy the issue.<<<

FedEx1:

>>>Legacy's right. Landing data does not include reversers. (Anyway, even if the plane had had autobrakes, and reversers were deployed, the autobrake system lets up on the brakes as more and more reverse thrust is attained. Take out the reversers, you get more brakes.)<<<

Attention Attention Attention Armchair Quarterbacks of Aviation:

The 737-700 flown by Southwest Airlines absolutely positively DOES include thrust reverse in the stopping distance computations in the scenario that happened that night.

This is a perfect example of people who don't fly our equipement and people who don't use our procedures making assumptions over what information the Captain had at his fingertips.

Please, Please, Please stop your speculating.

Fate
-SWA pilot

 

[Mugs]

LegacyDriver:

>>>Transport cat cert for landing distance is done without reversers IIRC, so length is really noy the issue.<<<

FedEx1:

>>>Legacy's right. Landing data does not include reversers. (Anyway, even if the plane had had autobrakes, and reversers were deployed, the autobrake system lets up on the brakes as more and more reverse thrust is attained. Take out the reversers, you get more brakes.)<<<

Attention Attention Attention Armchair Quarterbacks of Aviation:

The 737-700 flown by Southwest Airlines absolutely positively DOES include thrust reverse in the stopping distance computations in the scenario that happened that night.

This is a perfect example of people who don't fly our equipement and people who don't use our procedures making assumptions over what information the Captain had at his fingertips.

Please, Please, Please stop your speculating.

Fate
-SWA pilot

Are you telling us that SWA is allowed to use reverse thrust as part of data for determining stopping distance? I think you would be a solo act in that regard. I have never heard of such a thing.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Are you telling us that SWA is allowed to use reverse thrust as part of data for determining stopping distance? I think you would be a solo act in that regard. I have never heard of such a thing.

1. Airlines dispatch based on FACTORED landing distance. Your max landing weight for a particular runway is based on DRY condition, with NO THRUST REVERSE. Wet data is usually published, but mostly for jet approach minima regulation.

2. When a runway is CONTAMINTATED, you must use ACTUAL landing distance numbers for an equivalent contaiminate. That data DOES consider the use of THRUST REVERSE.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I will stick with my assertion (based on memory--always suspect) that stopping distances for transport category airplanes are calculated without reversers. The ERJ has reversers as an option not standard equipment so I do know all its #s are based on brakes only.


Can someone look in the FARs for us?

Edit in: does Aircraft Performance Group Data encorporate reversers?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I will stick with my assertion (based on memory--always suspect) that stopping distances for transport category airplanes are calculated without reversers. The ERJ has reversers as an option not standard equipment so I do know all its #s are based on brakes only.


Can someone look in the FARs for us?

Depends on the equipment. If you don't have it, you can't use it.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Well the only manufacturer numbers I have for my plane are brakes-only. Can't find reverser #s in the aom and don't recall if APG data was with TRs (my guess is it was also without). That with certification criteria led me to believe that KMDW's ALD was sufficient for a 737 w/o TRs.

Sorry.

 

[FNG320]

I am pretty certain that aircraft certification as well as normal operations must be calculated without thrust reversers. That is why no one can find tables for landing with thrust reversers. Landing calculations must take into account all parameters and actual weather, including runway conditions. Thrust reversers are just "extra" for safety, they help decrease wear/heat to the braking system. It should not have mattered that the thrust reversers didn't work or that the Capt had trouble with the levers. The only thing this could have affected is the Capt may have spent so much time dicking with the reversers instead of pushing on the brakes.

Has anone who is familiar with this version of the 737 done the calculations for this type of aircraft, with the posted load and with published weather. Were they legal to land? I don't want to badmouth the crew, I just want to now the facts.

Just my opinion......

FNG

 

[sf260pilot]

So I was reading in the paper that there was a 13 MPH tail wind... I don't know what that converts to in knots. Am I to understand that some of the most experienced pilots in the world not some rookies out of riddle but pilots with thousands of hours... Landed with a ten knot tailwind, in a blizzard, on a short runway, with braking fair in the touchdown zone and poor in the rollout area?

You do not know this simple conversion? Do you really need to be posting questions then?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I am pretty certain that aircraft certification as well as normal operations must be calculated without thrust reversers. That is why no one can find tables for landing with thrust reversers. Landing calculations must take into account all parameters and actual weather, including runway conditions. Thrust reversers are just "extra" for safety, they help decrease wear/heat to the braking system. It should not have mattered that the thrust reversers didn't work or that the Capt had trouble with the levers. The only thing this could have affected is the Capt may have spent so much time dicking with the reversers instead of pushing on the brakes.

Has anone who is familiar with this version of the 737 done the calculations for this type of aircraft, with the posted load and with published weather. Were they legal to land? I don't want to badmouth the crew, I just want to now the facts.

Just my opinion......

FNG

What makes you think that Part 25 aircraft have to be certifed to land on a snow-covered runway? The AFM will contain actual landing distance numbers for contaminated runways. These numbers are engineered numbers. Numbers that have been derived from testing on dry runways. They don't go out and land on ice-covered runways to see how far they slide off. Plus, you must know that thrust reversers are THE key to stopping on a contaminated runway. Decreasing wear/heat? Puhlease! Methinks you are not as experinced as your profile would purport.

Dry factored, actual landing distance= no thrust reverse

Wet factored, actual / Contaminated actual= thrust reverser(s) servicable

It is amazing the lack of understanding. No better than CNN I must say!

 

[LJDRVR]

Let's see here:

FN FAL-You fancy yourself an expert on all matters small arms and law enforcement, even though there are those on this board with far more real-world experience than you in both areas. Anybody that profers up an opinion on either matter is a target for your worldly-wise scorn, derision and sufferage as you sarcastically tutor us hayseeds on the reality of the situation, with the added bonus of us basking in the glorious warmth of your contrived (And entirely unjustified) air of superiority. YAWN.... You're just another one of us morons posting on the stupid internet. Get over yourself Deputy Fife.

Crash Pad (And other brain-addled armchair quarterback pilots) If you think you're not capable of finding yourself in the same situation as our two brothers at SWA, you are so totally full of excrement it's not even funny.

"Am I to understand that some of the most experienced pilots in the world..."
-you write.

No, you do not understand. Most likely you never will. Hundreds of pilots who are far better aviators than you or I could ever hope to be, have gotten to meet Elvis for one reason ore another. Our job is keep it from happening to us, not point fingers when we (read that YOU goober) don't even understand what happened.

Rant off, back to more constructive activities.

My heartfelt thoughts and prayers to my brothers at WN and the family of the 6 year old. I couldn't even begin to imagine...

 

[spacecadet1]

We have a chart which gives estimated landing distances for the MD-80 on a contaminated runway. It shows distance with and without reverse. The difference is about 1,000 ft. But for a typical landing weight, the distance with the use of reversers was about 6,500 to 6,800 ft. The available landing distance at MDW beyond threshold was around 5,800. These estimated distances do not include the FAR fudge factor; they are the bare minimum. I wouldn't land an 80 there under these conditions (I don't have the actual 737 numbers so can't really comment about it).
To be fair to the crew I would say that the subjective statements about poor or fair braking action are just that: subjective. Maybe it is time to have Mu readings reported, and to make landing field friction requirements just like we have visibility requirements.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Has anone who is familiar with this version of the 737 done the calculations for this type of aircraft, with the posted load and with published weather. Were they legal to land? I don't want to badmouth the crew, I just want to now the facts.

FNG

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=838891#post838891

 

[LegacyDriver]

Still wanting to know about ALD tables from the manufacturer for certification. Why is it sticking in my head that these are w/o TRs?

 

[capt. megadeth]

Isn't it grand?

fly freight, only stupid questions from crew-sched. if the boxes start asking you've been on duty to long.

 

[TexaSWA]

When there isn't a bomb on the plane, the government is required to find a retard and murder them, it's the law.

So how in gods name are you still alive?

 

[vv100]

Fyi

Landings under Braking Advisories Less than GOOD
Braking action reports less than GOOD are classified according to the most critical term (FAIR, POOR, NIL, or combinations). Operations are prohibited on all surfaces classified as ‘NIL.’
Evaluate landing performance using the OPC. The -700 OPC landing module computes a deceleration rate as a combination of reversers and brakes. (-300/-500) The OPC computes landing performance based on ‘brakes only’ deceleration. Actual braking performance using brakes and thrust reversers will decrease computed landing distance.

 

[Thedude]

For the Boeings that I have flown. Auto-brakes does this fo ya
Min = 3 kts p/sec
Med = 6 kts p/sec
Max = 3000 psi

It doesnt matter whether t/r are used or not, you still get the same deceraltion value. As far as the new 737 go, I assume it works the same as other Boeing products

 

[oldxfr8dog]

When there isn't a bomb on the plane, the government is required to find a retard and murder them, it's the law.

Are you sure you're washing all the lead off your hands after you shoot that FAL?

 

[Crossky]

You do not know this simple conversion? Do you really need to be posting questions then?

Isn't it a factor 1.159 (knots to mph)? If so it was still an 11 knot TW to a 6.5K ft contaminated runway with snow and BA fair and poor, at night. Two ATA's refused 31C, wanted 13 and diverted. Does this make the SWA crew brave or gamblers? Dice rollers at the very least.

My standard comfort level BA poor max TW is 5 kt unless you have gobs of RWY length.

Honestly I do like SWA (except for the pay to play part), but three of their 737's have overrun runways in the last six years. The FAA should address this trend I believe. Their PR crew at Love will really have their hands busy with Wright plus this after it gets out.

Go ahead, I've got my fire suit on now.

 

[GuppyWN]

OK Cross..... here I go.

MDW - yet to be determined. So 2 ATA guys diverted? What are THEIR procedures under these circumstances. Unless you know individual carriers ops it's impossible to determine what is "safe" in their eyes. IF the data says it's safe and legal to land then it's safe and legal. Let's wait until the NTSB completes their investigation and releases data before we start crusifying the crew. I'm sure running off the runway was not in the agenda.

AA killed 256 people in 2001 because the pilot flying input enough rudder movement to pull the tail off the airplane. The AA pilots in Cali killed how many people because they flew into a mountain after improperly programming to FMC? How many people died in Little Rock when an AA chief pilot tried to land in a thunderstorm and ran off the end of the runway?

But for the grace of God...... let's try to learn something from this and ALL be better for it.

This isn't about the Wright Ammendment or bad press. This is about an aircraft ACCIDENT in which a six year old boy passed away.

Show a little dignity!

Gup

 

[Jim Smyth]

Isn't it a factor 1.159 (knots to mph)? If so it was still an 11 knot TW to a 6.5K ft contaminated runway with snow and BA fair and poor, at night. Two ATA's refused 31C, wanted 13 and diverted. Does this make the SWA crew brave or gamblers? Dice rollers at the very least.

My standard comfort level BA poor max TW is 5 kt unless you have gobs of RWY length.

Honestly I do like SWA (except for the pay to play part), but three of their 737's have overrun runways in the last six years. The FAA should address this trend I believe. Their PR crew at Love will really have their hands busy with Wright plus this after it gets out.

Go ahead, I've got my fire suit on now.

OK, I'll bite.

Lets see, all this comes from your vast experience in flying transport aircraft all over the US into all different types of airports in all types of weather! Your comfort level and our comfort level may be different due to our experience in equipment, airports, training (HUDS), 5-6 Takeoffs and Landing every day at work etc. I will still put our safety record up against anyone at 3000+ flights a day in the US. This last Midway incident was indeed tragic but I can think of a lot of worse scenarios that could have been.

We use a computer to do performance for every landing we do, rain or shine! If what you say is true then our computer would have red flagged the landing data since 10 kts is our limit and the crew couldn't have done the approach. I am sure it was OK to land that evening since a company aircraft landed right in front of him. Time will tell and the NTSB will make there ruling when all the data has been analyzed.

3 overruns? Do you know something that I don't know?

 

[GuppyWN]

The other two he speaks of are BUR and PHX. Bur speaks for itself and PHX was due to improper runway lighting on a construction shortened runway back in 2001. The pilots were exonerated COMPLETELY on that one - a point he failed to mention.

Gup

 

[Jim Smyth]

OK, I thought he was talking about BNA.

 

[GuppyWN]

Jim, anybody ever tell you to quit while you're ahead ?

Gup

 

[FatesPawn]

Are you telling us that SWA is allowed to use reverse thrust as part of data for determining stopping distance? I think you would be a solo act in that regard. I have never heard of such a thing.

Mugs,

You're making my point for me. Many of the flightinfo gods of aviation have never heard of such a thing.

Perhaps I can teach a few old dogs new tricks.

I am absolutely positively saying that the 737-700 operated by Southwest Airlines uses reverse thrust to determine stopping margin.

You see, all these armchair quarterbacks talking about how reverse thrust doesn't matter are dead wrong. So we all need to step back, and let the NTSB do the investigating and stop our uneducated speculation.

Fate

 

[FatesPawn]

1. Airlines dispatch based on FACTORED landing distance. Your max landing weight for a particular runway is based on DRY condition, with NO THRUST REVERSE. Wet data is usually published, but mostly for jet approach minima regulation.

2. When a runway is CONTAMINTATED, you must use ACTUAL landing distance numbers for an equivalent contaiminate. That data DOES consider the use of THRUST REVERSE.

What airline do you fly for?
What airplane do you fly?

You are wrong for a SWA 737-700

Fate

 

[FatesPawn]

I am pretty certain that aircraft certification as well as normal operations must be calculated without thrust reversers. That is why no one can find tables for landing with thrust reversers. Landing calculations must take into account all parameters and actual weather, including runway conditions. Thrust reversers are just "extra" for safety, they help decrease wear/heat to the braking system. It should not have mattered that the thrust reversers didn't work or that the Capt had trouble with the levers. The only thing this could have affected is the Capt may have spent so much time dicking with the reversers instead of pushing on the brakes.

FNG

This is not true for a SWA 737-700.

Fate

 

[Mugs]

Mugs,

You're making my point for me. Many of the flightinfo gods of aviation have never heard of such a thing.

Perhaps I can teach a few old dogs new tricks.

I am absolutely positively saying that the 737-700 operated by Southwest Airlines uses reverse thrust to determine stopping margin.

You see, all these armchair quarterbacks talking about how reverse thrust doesn't matter are dead wrong. So we all need to step back, and let the NTSB do the investigating and stop our uneducated speculation.

Fate

Fine. Thanks for the information. Now we will just see if good judgement supported the use of that data or not. Most old dogs know a thing or two about that.

 

[DA50pilot]

SWA Post

Great Post

Bob
PIE

OK Cross..... here I go.

MDW - yet to be determined. So 2 ATA guys diverted? What are THEIR procedures under these circumstances. Unless you know individual carriers ops it's impossible to determine what is "safe" in their eyes. IF the data says it's safe and legal to land then it's safe and legal. Let's wait until the NTSB completes their investigation and releases data before we start crusifying the crew. I'm sure running off the runway was not in the agenda.

AA killed 256 people in 2001 because the pilot flying input enough rudder movement to pull the tail off the airplane. The AA pilots in Cali killed how many people because they flew into a mountain after improperly programming to FMC? How many people died in Little Rock when an AA chief pilot tried to land in a thunderstorm and ran off the end of the runway?

But for the grace of God...... let's try to learn something from this and ALL be better for it.

This isn't about the Wright Ammendment or bad press. This is about an aircraft ACCIDENT in which a six year old boy passed away.

Show a little dignity!

Gup

 

[Oakum_Boy]

What airline do you fly for?
What airplane do you fly?

You are wrong for a SWA 737-700

Fate

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. Every plane I've flown or typed in inculding the 737 has ALD published for levels of braking action or equivalent contaminate charts in others. Haven't been in those charts, I think ever. It isn't something one considers often.