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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FN FAL
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 11

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
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.
 
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? :)
 
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.
 
flydog said:
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.
 
rfresh said:
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!
Thanks for the very interesting summary. Silly question: Let's say the reverser doors have slid all the way aft, but the interlock pin did not release. Can the main thrust levers be advanced at this point and accomplish the same increase in power, or are they locked at the idle position? (I'm guessing that's a NO)
 
jknight8907 said:
Let's say the reverser doors have slid all the way aft, but the interlock pin did not release. Can the main thrust levers be advanced at this point and accomplish the same increase in power, or are they locked at the idle position? (I'm guessing that's a NO)

No. There is another interlocking pin on the main thrust levers. You can use only one or the other (either the reverser levers or the main thrust levers) but you cannot use both at the same time. Once the reverser levers are pulled up into that initial detent position, the main thrust levers are now locked out and cannot be moved at all.

If you 'stow' the reversers by pushing the reverser levers back down past that initial detent position, the reverser system folds back up and when the reverser doors are fully stowed only then is the main throttle pin released and you can once again move the main throttles forward for forward thrust.
 
there is no amount of money that can replace a child. The only people that should be allowed to sue are those that can no longer support themselves and family.
 
frqtflyer said:
there is no amount of money that can replace a child. The only people that should be allowed to sue are those that can no longer support themselves and family.
Ahhhh, those good old timey Christian values, where the individual has no rights, no voice, no power.
 
Frqtflyer,
Lawsuits are not just for the people harmed but also to protect the rest of us from corporate negligences.The penalty should be large enough as to make company think twice about making the same mistake again.Needs to effect the bottom line.
 
All I was implying by the statement "no money can replace a child" is what good is it doing when a jury decides that a family deserves millions of dollars for an accident. Sure it might have been negligence on several peoples parts, but awarding someone millions of dollars for the death of someone isnt the only answer.
 
Ahhhh, those good old timey Christian values, where the individual has no rights, no

FN FAL--I think you were looking for liberal...i am conservative and I fully support individual rights, but look at the amount of money being wasted because everyone in america is looking for the quick dollar and they feel the are entitled to collect because of an accident, someone elses negligence or even their own. All I meant was, what gives the right of the family to collect millions of dollars for something they cant replace...the money shouldnt be a comfort. Lawsuits can get way out of hand. I guess this is a "sue happy society" so what the hell!
 
frqtflyer said:
FN FAL--I think you were looking for liberal...i am conservative and I fully support individual rights, but look at the amount of money being wasted because everyone in america is looking for the quick dollar and they feel the are entitled to collect because of an accident, someone elses negligence or even their own. All I meant was, what gives the right of the family to collect millions of dollars for something they cant replace...the money shouldnt be a comfort. Lawsuits can get way out of hand. I guess this is a "sue happy society" so what the hell!

If my next door neighbor spray paints his garage and the overspray lands on my new truck, I'm supposed to go over there with a shotgun in an attempt to make things right?

After all, you said...

frqtflyer said:
...The only people that should be allowed to sue are those that can no longer support themselves and family.
 
If the sheriff decides he's not going to sign the required C.L.E.O. portion of ATF forms and says, "No machineguns in my county!"

You'd just take out a machete and lop off his head, right? After all, you said...

frqtflyer said:
The only people that should be allowed to sue are those that can no longer support themselves and family.

No, you'd file a lawsuit requesting that the courts grant a "writ of mandamus" and you get the courts to make that sumbiscuit do his job and sign those papers. The sheriff is executive branch, not legislative branch...the sheriff cannot legislate from his office. The only way to get government officials to do their jobs sometimes, is to get the courts involved. Since it's not a criminal matter, but a civil matter, you'd use the civil courts to accomplish this, by suing.
 
What does this remind me of?

FN FAL said:
The sheriff is executive branch, not legislative branch...the sheriff cannot legislate from his office. The only way to get government officials to do their jobs sometimes, is to get the courts involved. Since it's not a criminal matter, but a civil matter, you'd use the civil courts to accomplish this, by suing.

Right. No disagreement here.

But this just really struck a chord with me....sort of reminds me of someone else...but I just can't (G) put my (W) finger on it (B).....

Strange.

Oh well.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom