NTSB Rec - SWA 1248 at MDW

[satpak77]

"reverse thrust credit" recommended to be not allowed for dispatch

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/a06_16.pdf

 

[urflyingme?!]

I'm wondering what the "single event" was that caused the pilot(s) to neglect thrust reverses, which must have been high on the riority list while lanfing on a runwau with a ESTIMATED 560 foot remaining landing distance... (crazy)

 

[737tanker]

I'm wondering what the "single event" was that caused the pilot(s) to neglect thrust reverses, which must have been high on the riority list while lanfing on a runwau with a ESTIMATED 560 foot remaining landing distance... (crazy)

If you read the other statements from the NTSB you will see that the crew didn't delay the activation of the thrust reversers. They in fact tried to use them as soon as they landed. For some reason (which is still being investigated) the crew couldn't get the thrust reversers to deploy for 18 seconds

 

[FR8mastr]

If you read the other statements from the NTSB you will see that the crew didn't delay the activation of the thrust reversers. They in fact tried to use them as soon as they landed. For some reason (which is still being investigated) the crew couldn't get the thrust reversers to deploy for 18 seconds

What do you make of the FO's statement in the above article? I am not being smart, I dont know the reverser system in the 73

 

[urflyingme?!]

I must have read it wrong, either way. WHY NO TR!(for 18 sec)

 

[Donsa320]

I must have read it wrong, either way. WHY NO TR!(for 18 sec)

That, Gentlemen and Ladies, is why we have not been using any credit for reverse in computing landing distance since I've been flying reversible airplanes. That being since 1953.

I have no sympathy for Boeing, SWA or the FAA in deciding otherwise in the later 737's. It was bound to happen. I'd guess they will now pay.

DC

 

[ReportCanoa]

What do you make of the FO's statement in the above article?

I'm surprised the monitoring pilot does not have a "reverse green" call or something like that.

 

[urflyingme?!]

That, Gentlemen and Ladies, is why we have not been using any credit for reverse in computing landing distance since I've been flying reversible airplanes. That being since 1953.

I have no sympathy for Boeing, SWA or the FAA in deciding otherwise in the later 737's. It was bound to happen. I'd guess they will now pay.

DC

So I guess that's why they don't include thrust reversers in landing distance...


Would you guys land at an airport when the computer said you have 536 or whatever it was (less than 1k) extra runway? I wouldn't in an aircraft that takes a few (+5k) thousand feet to stop...

 

[urflyingme?!]

I'm surprised the monitoring pilot does not have a "reverse green" call or something like that.

What does that even mean?

 

[Crosstalk]

It would depend on your aircraft as to how it's annunciated, but it just means that the reversers are actually out and doing their job, just not in travel.

 

[Donsa320]

So I guess that's why they don't include thrust reversers in landing distance...


Would you guys land at an airport when the computer said you have 536 or whatever it was (less than 1k) extra runway? I wouldn't in an aircraft that takes a few (+5k) thousand feet to stop...

I guess that question was for me...In all the types I've flown, we did not have to compute the actual stopping distance, just whether or not we were legal on any particular runway with the prevailing conditions at the time. The Landing Weight pages had the answer. Whether they would allow a landing with less than 1,000 ft remaining, I do not know. BUT, if they did, we probably could do better than that since we had reverse thrust as an added bonus. That is the point. By the way, I have selected reverse thrust perhaps 50,000 times in my career and I'm here to tell you, it doesn't always come in smoothly or promptly! To make a landing where reverse MUST work is nuts! The most reliable reverse is on turbo-props, the least controllable is on pistons, the most complicated is on turbo-jets with interlocks and so forth.

I just heard on WBBM news that SWA is going to "study" the NTSB recommendation. I don't know what they need to have dropped on their collective heads to get the point, jeez. And where is their union, if they have any kind of Air Safety committee.

DC

 

[LarryinTN]

To make a landing where reverse MUST work is nuts!

Really? How are you on landings where the brakes MUST work? Or the spoilers MUST work? Are those landings nuts, too?

SWAPA put out a paper discussing the landing distance issue which was recently posted to one of these threads.

 

[kevdog]

Sounds a little bit like the Captain could have forgotten the reversers, and the FO caught the error a little too late. At least after reading this NTSB report.

 

[Donsa320]

Really? How are you on landings where the brakes MUST work? Or the spoilers MUST work? Are those landings nuts, too?

SWAPA put out a paper discussing the landing distance issue which was recently posted to one of these threads.

Let's see, brakes on every thing I've flown have had back-up systems either hydraulic or air except for the DC-3 and in some 15,000 landings I've made in the DC-3 I never had a brake failure or heard of one.

Auto-spoilers, yes, they don't always deploy but manually they always did when I moved the lever. And at least some panels will come out with a hydraulic failure on one system.

In both cases I have the ace in the hole...reverse. Get it now buddy? When you have to get reverse, and don't...no aces left.

Best, DC

 

[[email protected]]

I don't fly 737s, but it is my understanding that for the thrust reversers to deploy on that aircraft two conditions must be met to prevent inflight deployment:
-You must have Weight On Wheels &
-The wheel speed must be atleast 60kts
When the aircraft landed, the tires may not have spun up to 60kts because of the icy runway conditions. If that was the case, then they wouldn't have been able to deploy the TRs. Maybe that's what happened???