SWA Pax file suits; Swa, Boeing, Chicago and MDW Airport Named...

[Flightjock30]

a little off topic, but I watched two pilots use the UA sim the other day in Denver while on a layover and it was not a very pretty thing. They plugged in rwy 31C at midway and attempted to land the 737 on that runway. We gave it poor braking action on the runway and an 8 knot tailwind. We did not use autobrakes and we went off the end. Then we took out the 8 knot tailwind and we were able to stop no problem. What a difference 8 knots of tailwind will do. With the tailwind we went off the end at about 50 knots!

 

[User_Name]

Against Boeing:

• Boeing’s autobrake system and the reverse thrust system aboard the jet airplane were each defective in design and manufacture, and failed to safely or properly operate in the manner intended by defendants, and failed to safely or properly operate as reasonably expected by users, including the Southwest Flight 1248 pilots. Boeing represented and advertised that these systems would safely and properly operate as intended by Southwest and other operators.

This whole thing is really stupid, but this part really got me. They are claiming the design of the autobrakes and thrust reversers are faulty based on this one accident? What about all those thousands of other B737s that appear to land and stop just fine several times a day? Oh yeah, I forgot, Boeing actually had nothing to do with this accident but they have lots of money so we had to include them somehow... scumbag lawyers (the pax who immediately went out and hired them are not much better).:angryfire

 

[agpilot34]

D@mn, now all they need to do is include mother nature in the lawsuit, claiming that she intentionally provided weather conditions that were unsafe and detrimental to the operation of aircraft at that time, and this whole farce will be complete. What a bunch of BS.

 

[wheelsup]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]and have been caused physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, physical injury, pre-impact fear of injury and emotional distress by each plaintiff.[/FONT]

I'm not very up to speed on legalize. What is pre-impact fear of injury? Did the pax think they were going to go off the end of the runway or get hurt before touching down? If that's the case, I should have a lawyer on retainer for my landings...

~wheelsup

 

[azpilot]

D@mn, now all they need to do is include mother nature in the lawsuit, claiming that she intentionally provided weather conditions that were unsafe and detrimental to the operation of aircraft at that time, and this whole farce will be complete. What a bunch of BS.

That is exactly what I was thinking. What a bunch of F'ing morons. They are a dime a dozen and they will be successful in getting some type of compensation. Don't you know the government controls the weather? I think George Bush caused this to take focus off of Iraq. A fellow pilot told me a story of how their airplane was brushed by another during push back. There was no damage. Of course about six months later he was asked about the incident since the airline was being sued. The passengers claimed injuries and claimed it was like being hit by a freight train. Scumbags like this will try anything to get money out of anyone. Sadly for the most part it is socially acceptable these days.

 

[rfresh]

I read the initial NTSB report on this accident. They confirmed that there was an 18 second delay upon touch down from the time the pilot tried to activate the reversers until the engines actually went into reverse thrust!! Landing on a snow and ice covered runway, at night, in a snow storm, and having to wait 18 seconds for the reversers to work is a life time!!

I used to instruct on the B-727 and B-737 for a major airline. Normally, when the pilot raises up the reverser levers, they come up about an inch and then stop - there is a physical interlocking device that stops the levers from being lifted up any higher at that point.

This is called the 'detent' position. It's purpose to to send an 'unlock' and then 'deploy' signal to the cowling doors on the engines and cause the reverser doors to deploy by sliding aft on the outside of the engines. This will expose those reverser deflector vanes you can see when landing if your sitting in a pax seat next to an engine.

Once the reverser doors have slid fully aft and have locked into the reverse position, that interlocking pin in the clockpit is pulled out of the way and *now* the pilot can continue pulling the reverser levers up and aft to increase reverse thrust action. This normally takes about 1 to 2 seconds max. The pilot not flying (PNF) then calls 'two green lights' so the pilot flying (PF) knows he now has full reverse thrust capability. When the reverser doors unlock there are two amber 'unlock' lights that illuminate...when the doors slide fully aft and lock in reverse thrust position, two green lights illuminate indicating the doors have position properly and the pilot can now continue to pull up and aft for reverse thrust (the green lights also mean then interlocking pin is now out of the way of the levers).

The reverser levers once past the unlocking detent actually just work as thrust levers...pull up and aft and you'll increase engine thrust which pushes more air out the reverser vanes deflecting much of the thrust forward. My private pilot friends who have not piloted jets are surprised when I tell them the engine don't actually 'reverse' their rotation to generate reverse thrust on landing!

Anyway, an 18 second delay in getting reverse thrust on that SWA 737 tells me the reverser doors for some reason didn't slide fully aft to release that interlocking pin device up in the cockpit. The pilot can keep pulling up and aft on the reverser levers all they want but they will never break that steel interlocking pin. In that initial detent position, once the reverser doors have slid fully aft, the engine are in idle reverse thrust. So, unless you can continue to lift the levers up and aft, you won't get any reverse thrust to speak of.

In summary, from reading the initial NTSB report, it does sound to me like there was some mechanical problem with the reversers going into the reverse thrust mode for some reason.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Mariko L.A. Bennett and Stanley L. Penn were traveling together to celebrate Stanley’s birthday. Mariko suffered internal injuries and Stanley’s back was injured. They were kept on the plane with the other passengers for a very long time and felt trapped. When the paramedics arrived, they told them that they were directed to the wrong place, which contributed to the delay. They were forced to evacuate the airplane using the emergency slides, and thereafter were confined in a Shuttle Bus for nearly three hours.

Directed to the wrong place? Was there another 737 sitting in the street somewhere that they were directed to instead?

 

[flydog]

Interesting how some of you guys think the lawyers are at fault when 2 pilots run an airplane off the end of the runway and kill a child and endanger the lived of 90+ people. Maybe some of you need to consider what it would be like to lose a child for no reason other than the fact someone f*ed up. The bottom line is someone died because of someone's carelesness. Whether the fault lies 99% with a mechanical issue and 1% pilot error or vice versa is for the NTSB and a jury of 12 of your peers to decide. Lawyers did not kill this child, maintain the airplane, set company policies, or decide to shoot the approach onto a contaminated, short runway with a tailwind, and touch down late nor will they decide who is wrong or right and decide the punishment. Their job is to present facts and represent those who were killed and injured to the best of their ability.

 

[filejw]

All the lawyers are gonna need is the tailwind and poor braking part.

 

[Fury220]

Interesting how some of you guys think the lawyers are at fault when 2 pilots run an airplane off the end of the runway and kill a child and endanger the lived of 90+ people. Maybe some of you need to consider what it would be like to lose a child for no reason other than the fact someone f*ed up. The bottom line is someone died because of someone's carelesness.

I agree. There is a place for a lawsuit here, and the courts can decide who's at fault.

But a class-action-ish suit on the behalf of the passengers? YGBSM. If someone recieved a back injury, fine...pay the man his money. But 90+ pax getting money for "mental anguish" and "time delayed?" Are you SERIOUS? What about last week, when I bought some White Castle hamburgers? I spent a long time there because they messed up my order. Should I sue for the time I lost? They added too many onions and too much special sauce...so should I sue for the ensuing gut-rot that occured 6 hours later? I was briefly uncomfortable, but I didn't suffer any legnthy ill affects nor did I have to pay a doctor any money to fix my momentary discomfort...should I be owed money? Cm'on...you can't so much as *breathe* on someone else nowadays without considering the legal consequences.

The real crime is the loss of life. If I were those parents, I'd be filing in court. I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. They have a case.