NTSB Rec - SWA 1248 at MDW

[Donsa320]

That is something with Boeing products that I never understood. If the spoilers are out, and power is added while not in reverse, then they should retract (slam down) without user input IF they were deployed from an "armed" status, not manually deployed. If they WERE manually deployed, a certain N1/EPR or throttle position should stow them automatically. Cali, Columbia in an AA757 should have taught them that. Except in Reverse and icing, and I'd like to think idle power in any Boeing would be enough to keep the wings clean, there is not a condition that calls for power to be added or maintained with spoilers extended. Even Challengers and Lears (older ones at that) auto-stow the spoilers when power not at idle if they are armed (deployed automatically). I'm sure there are other A/C types that do that as well.

As for the Call Outs; that is nothing but good cockpit management. If 1 T/R comes out and the other one does not, the PF should want to know about it instead of finding out by asysmetrics. Especially in a Xwind on a short runway, haul back on the T/Rs and 1 stays in, you may or may not know you ever had a problem without the call outs until you are off the side of the runway. The systems are supposed to work correctly, yes, but as we bare witness to in Chicago, that is simply not always the case.

I think you may be confusing flight spoilers (speed brakes), and ground spoilers. All ground spoilers will be retracted with the application of Take-off power in the airplanes I flew but speed brakes...maybe not. On the AA B-757 at Cali the speed brakes stayed deployed with the full application of power. That would have been the case with DC-9 airplanes also but the Airbus would have retracted them. On the DC-9 we sometimes needed for the speed brakes to stay up with power when descending in icing conditions. We had to keep the acceleration bleed valves closed to keep the the anti-icing abnormal lights out. That took about 70% N1. Hard to get down, then, with out speed brakes.

DC

 

[Publishers]

I do not know the answers but the above question relating to wheel spin up on snow and ice--does the use of auto brake effect that? Was there not some conversation about SWA use of auto brake before they were actually approved to do so? 560 on snow and ice does not seem like much seeing there is also varience in actual touchdown, speed over ref, a possible bounce in night and snow, etc.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I've never flown a jet, but can't you do a go around after you touch down and find out R-thrust isn't working? Couldn't he have given her TO power and since they were already going at least 100 knots... they should have had more than enough runway to get up in the air again.

Not being a smartass or claim i know everything...just have a legitimate question.

There are some clowns where I work that have this "back up plan" stored in the back of thier minds....

 

[cezzna]

In some jets (smaller jets) it can be a backup plan to do a touch and go-around. It wouldn't be for the TR's though, it would be for hard pedal, or no braking. Braking action reports are so subjective. If the runway is long, I touch down and the braking action is nil, and the engines spool up quickly (small jets) then it may be the best course of action. None of it should ever be predicated on TR's though. If there is any significant cross-wind and you use the buckets, they aren't going to help stop the airplane they will pull you sideways and possibly off the runway. If the runway is slick and there is a crosswind you gotta leave those TR's in.

Do you heavy drivers have a x-wind limitation on contaminated runways?

 

[minitour]

It may be a naivety thing but...shouldn't your backup plan be to land?

I always was taught your plan should be "I am planning a go around/missed approach...but I may be able to land."

-mini