Will the FAA react?
I hope so!
Indeed. If only it were that simple. Somebody had to advocate for this procedure of determining required landing distance while taking credit for the effect of thrust reversers. Boeing and Southwest would both have had to be involved in getting approval to take credit for reverser use. To end that advocacy now may be perceived as admitting a mistake. That is something that the companies involved may be advised by legal council to be wary of, considering the pending litigation. In that the FAA gave their approval to use this procedure, it will place them in a similar conflict of competing interests. Do the right thing or protect yourself against the repercussions of your past actions?
The landing distance calculation used appears to have been pretty accurate. Had the reversers deployed 10 seconds earlier, we would probably not be discussing it. Most of the time, nothing bad happens because things go nearly according to plan. Here, they did not. The question lies in whether or not it is an acceptable risk for an airliner to land when a single error or failure of any of the stopping system components is likely to result in exceeding the ALD. At the time of dispatch, under current rules, landing distances must be factored to provide an additional safety margin. While it may be reasonable to allow the elimination of landing distance factoring if conditions at the airport change while enroute, allowing unfactored landing distance to be used WITH credit for reverse thrust removes all remaining built in margin for error or failure. Regardless of what actions the FAA does or does not take, under current rules, PICs will still have to decide whether to land at the scheduled airport or divert. I would tend to believe that the diversion option will now be given greater consideration by airlines and their crews. At least for awhile. And if airport operators are unable to keep their runways free of contamination for any reason, the airlines may find it prudent to consider that before they dispatch.
Taking advantage of the built-in loopholes in the regulations may be seen as either an allowable business cost-control measure or an invitation to a mishap. Depends upon the outcome and which table you sit at in the courtroom. In reality, it is both. Obviously, unnecessary diversions are not desirable from a business standpoint. Nor are accidents. Even the bean counters should feel they have some safety responsibility in the performance of their duties just as all other employees have some fiscal resposibilities in the performance of their duties. Setting the priorities is a leadership function which requires an intimate knowledge of the factors involved in order to implement a reasonable and prudent policy.
In this particular case, at least one thing did not occur as planned for and the outcome is now history. The investigation of this accident will answer many of the questions about how it occured. But one question will still remain: How much safety margin is enough? In my personal opinion, the NTSB recommendation posted above is reasonable and prudent. Operators should consider adopting it immediately regardless of whatever actions the FAA does or does not take in this matter. Any worries about competitive disadvantage may be offset by considering the potential consequences of a similar accident in the future. The next one would be widely considered to have been even more "foreseeable" than this one. I hope all involved parties make the right decision.
Best regards,
Westhawk