Southwest B737 Overrun @ Chcago MDW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELP Rwy 22 12020'x150' Landing distance available 12020'
rrAAmjet (American Airlines pilot) said
rrAAmjet there is a 10 kt tailwind maximum for landing in a B737. (15 kts for B737-200). Are accusing SWA of exceeding a AFM limit?
MDW's landing with a tailwind (31C) is dictated by ORD (O'Hare).
rrAAmjet (American Airlines pilot) said
No beef against SWA, If you're landing at ELP, 4000 ft asl in warm conditions with a 12kt tailwind component on 22, it just seems to me that that's just not as safe as it could be which has always been my mantra. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Ditto with tailwind onto short rwy at night in snow.
MDW's landing with a tailwind (31C) is dictated by ORD (O'Hare).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR4A,
We were #2 holding short of RW03 behind a CAL 737 at KSAT several days ago watching a certain airline (many, many good pilot friends work there and I regularly j/s on them with absolute confidence) depart with a tower reported wind 210 at 13.
CAL was offered take off clearance and declined, prefering to request a departure on 21. We did the same.
AA is limited to 10 knots tailwind. Don't know about CAL or SWA.
Now, to the point. There are folks at EVERY airline that push limits and most of the time get away with it.
MDW is not a place for amateurs. I don't believe SWA pilots are (look at the requirements to even get an interview). However, as professionals we are increasingly "coerced" into making the present system work, despite its shortcomings.
MDW is a tough place to operate on a good day. It's absolutely tragic that the death of this little boy, despite the high skill level and competency of the flight crew, will not be enough to prevent a repeat some time in the future.
My condolencies to the boy's family and sympathy to the flight crew, who must live with this tragedy for the rest of their lives.
dd
We were #2 holding short of RW03 behind a CAL 737 at KSAT several days ago watching a certain airline (many, many good pilot friends work there and I regularly j/s on them with absolute confidence) depart with a tower reported wind 210 at 13.
CAL was offered take off clearance and declined, prefering to request a departure on 21. We did the same.
AA is limited to 10 knots tailwind. Don't know about CAL or SWA.
Now, to the point. There are folks at EVERY airline that push limits and most of the time get away with it.
MDW is not a place for amateurs. I don't believe SWA pilots are (look at the requirements to even get an interview). However, as professionals we are increasingly "coerced" into making the present system work, despite its shortcomings.
MDW is a tough place to operate on a good day. It's absolutely tragic that the death of this little boy, despite the high skill level and competency of the flight crew, will not be enough to prevent a repeat some time in the future.
My condolencies to the boy's family and sympathy to the flight crew, who must live with this tragedy for the rest of their lives.
dd
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were #2 holding short of RW03 behind a CAL 737 at KSAT several days ago watching a certain airline (many, many good pilot friends work there and I regularly j/s on them with absolute confidence) depart with a tower reported wind 210 at 13.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THRUST REVERSERS
Shoudn't SW be able to land W/O using thrust reversers?
I thought landing performance for a Part 25 certified A/C was based on NO Thrust reverse.
I thought landing performance for a Part 25 certified A/C was based on NO Thrust reverse.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR4A - No, no, no!YOU are the pilot in command. "...dictated...by ORD..." Absolutely not. It's the pilot in command's decision to accept the conditions, never to have them 'dictated' to him/her. The sooner some of the aviators here in the US put their collective feet down and lay down the law occasionally to the FAA, the better off we'll all be and the less the chances of this sort of thing happening. Too often I listen in amazement as pilots here allow the FAA to effectively take over control of their a/c - it's ridiculous. Divert, if necessary, but safety first.
Yes, I'm well aware of rwy alignment policies in the Chicago area - it doesn't mean it's correct - and I'm sure it will come heavily under scrutiny in this case.
And yes, I'm certain of the wind component at ELP....
Smokey - I believe their on-time perf. tracking methods have changed in recent years...
ATPMBA - my point made above - you receive no credit for reversers operative/inoperative in landing distance calculations. I don't see that reversers failing to deploy would therefore become prime causal, more of a major distraction, if that's indeed the case.
Yes, I'm well aware of rwy alignment policies in the Chicago area - it doesn't mean it's correct - and I'm sure it will come heavily under scrutiny in this case.
And yes, I'm certain of the wind component at ELP....
Smokey - I believe their on-time perf. tracking methods have changed in recent years...
ATPMBA - my point made above - you receive no credit for reversers operative/inoperative in landing distance calculations. I don't see that reversers failing to deploy would therefore become prime causal, more of a major distraction, if that's indeed the case.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR4A,
It wasn't a -200 [CFM's] but that wasn't the point of my post.
We ALL do it from time to time to as a means to 'fix' the broken wheel, not just SWA.
The assumption from many non-SWA pilots is that "it's just a matter of time 'til SWA...".
Our [collective] inherent desire to assist in/ensure our individual airline's future needs to be balanced with the reality that we are all just one mistake away from the street-no pun intended.
There are likely some things we all see out on the line which, frankly, make most wonder what we're trying to achieve. Ultimately, the lawyers will leave the flight crews holding the can and that's a lesson we must carry on our shoulder straps each time we insert them in the buckle.
Cheers,dd.
It wasn't a -200 [CFM's] but that wasn't the point of my post.
We ALL do it from time to time to as a means to 'fix' the broken wheel, not just SWA.
The assumption from many non-SWA pilots is that "it's just a matter of time 'til SWA...".
Our [collective] inherent desire to assist in/ensure our individual airline's future needs to be balanced with the reality that we are all just one mistake away from the street-no pun intended.
There are likely some things we all see out on the line which, frankly, make most wonder what we're trying to achieve. Ultimately, the lawyers will leave the flight crews holding the can and that's a lesson we must carry on our shoulder straps each time we insert them in the buckle.
Cheers,dd.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the pilot in command's decision to accept the conditions, never to have them 'dictated' to him/her.
There are likely some things we all see out on the line which, frankly, make most wonder what we're trying to achieve. Ultimately, the lawyers will leave the flight crews holding the can and that's a lesson we must carry on our shoulder straps each time we insert them in the buckle.
We all need to let the NTSB do their job. Too many on the Internet are quick to jump on Southwest.
Southwest has an excellent safety record.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD, better-put than perhaps I could manage. Which brings me back to a point I made earlier: if you are already the undisputed top dog domestically, there is no need to push things. Protect your safety reputation at all costs.
FlyingPhil: Grusse, I could be mistaken about flight 587, but was it not the flight number for the A-300 which departed JFK behind a large widebody aircraft (within a week of the 9/11 nightmare), and then the vertical stabilizer and an engine broke off? Many people suspect that a rudder control unit had a sever malfunction. But the FO was blamed for the overstress, although other problems with rudders had already happened with other A-300/310s?
The AA flight at Cali, Columbia had a different flight number. By the way, Honeywell reportedly had two different fixes in the database for the same identifier, Tulua, but this was not the primary cause.
Gleichfalls, schonen Montag.
The AA flight at Cali, Columbia had a different flight number. By the way, Honeywell reportedly had two different fixes in the database for the same identifier, Tulua, but this was not the primary cause.
Gleichfalls, schonen Montag.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arewenearlythereyet?
Thanks for the advice.
But I'd say based on your comments, you're an idiot. You haven't the slightest idea about my qualifications OR experience!
A number of things fascinate me about this (and other) accidents that will undoubtedly follow the suggestion that we "learn from the mistakes of others for we won't have time to make them all ourselves". That's how it's done in this business in case you hadn't noticed. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by gloating or taking the "can't happen to me" high ground, for it surely can.
Perhaps you should go back to your 'beverage' and not bother speculating about who's got credibility with YOU and who doesn't. Try to take in the bigger picture and lighten up.
BOAC
I'd understand that under a normal reject where the aircraft remained on the pavement, spoilers and reversers would be stowed. Evacuation or NOT.
I haven't had an overrun experience but I do recommend to students under simulator training they keep the TRs deployed until a full stop. Now, depending upon the actual overrun, you may or may not get the TRs stowed.
(i.e. What if the engines ate up plenty of sod and shut themselves down? Not the case here, but...what if?).
Whatever. Not wishing to speculate, following questionable prose in the print media, I was merely sitting about on a pleasant Sunday afternoon wonder "if". The press are reporting a 'switch' in the reverse mechanism delayed TR deployment.
It could simply mean they were unable to get it quickly into reverse because of the reverse thrust interlock solenoids. We'll see.
I'm also confused about the SWA policy on the use of Auto Brake. (I have no idea what it is but some air carriers have a DO NOT USE policy. Are they one of those airlines?)
With auto brake selected for landing, why would the crew assist the auto braking by applying Manual brakes? The auto brakes I'm familiar with disengage when manual brakes are applied. So, I do find the sequence of events rather puzzling, don't you? One more point on auto brake. I've been lead to believe that auto braking is more effective and efficient than we humans. Have you heard that as well?
I also don't recall seeing in these photos slides deployed at 1R or the overwing exit doors removed over the RH wing even though we do know there was a PAX evac.
I guess these questions are somewhat premature, and since some find them annoying, I'll say no more.
dallas dude
very well said. Therefore, my curiosity about Threat and Error Management at Southwest.
Thanks for the advice.
But I'd say based on your comments, you're an idiot. You haven't the slightest idea about my qualifications OR experience!
A number of things fascinate me about this (and other) accidents that will undoubtedly follow the suggestion that we "learn from the mistakes of others for we won't have time to make them all ourselves". That's how it's done in this business in case you hadn't noticed. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by gloating or taking the "can't happen to me" high ground, for it surely can.
Perhaps you should go back to your 'beverage' and not bother speculating about who's got credibility with YOU and who doesn't. Try to take in the bigger picture and lighten up.
BOAC
I'd understand that under a normal reject where the aircraft remained on the pavement, spoilers and reversers would be stowed. Evacuation or NOT.
I haven't had an overrun experience but I do recommend to students under simulator training they keep the TRs deployed until a full stop. Now, depending upon the actual overrun, you may or may not get the TRs stowed.
(i.e. What if the engines ate up plenty of sod and shut themselves down? Not the case here, but...what if?).
Whatever. Not wishing to speculate, following questionable prose in the print media, I was merely sitting about on a pleasant Sunday afternoon wonder "if". The press are reporting a 'switch' in the reverse mechanism delayed TR deployment.
It could simply mean they were unable to get it quickly into reverse because of the reverse thrust interlock solenoids. We'll see.
I'm also confused about the SWA policy on the use of Auto Brake. (I have no idea what it is but some air carriers have a DO NOT USE policy. Are they one of those airlines?)
With auto brake selected for landing, why would the crew assist the auto braking by applying Manual brakes? The auto brakes I'm familiar with disengage when manual brakes are applied. So, I do find the sequence of events rather puzzling, don't you? One more point on auto brake. I've been lead to believe that auto braking is more effective and efficient than we humans. Have you heard that as well?
I also don't recall seeing in these photos slides deployed at 1R or the overwing exit doors removed over the RH wing even though we do know there was a PAX evac.
I guess these questions are somewhat premature, and since some find them annoying, I'll say no more.
dallas dude
very well said. Therefore, my curiosity about Threat and Error Management at Southwest.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Shoudn't SW be able to land W/O using thrust reversers?
I thought landing performance for a Part 25 certified A/C was based on NO Thrust reverse."
Ahh, yes! However, this was a contaminated runway! Factored landing distance does not account for runway clutter. You must use ACTUAL landing distance numbers for landing on a runway with equivalent contaminate. 1/4" wet snow, 1/2" dry, or whatever your runway of choice seems to be suffering from at the time!
Bye Bye!
I thought landing performance for a Part 25 certified A/C was based on NO Thrust reverse."
Ahh, yes! However, this was a contaminated runway! Factored landing distance does not account for runway clutter. You must use ACTUAL landing distance numbers for landing on a runway with equivalent contaminate. 1/4" wet snow, 1/2" dry, or whatever your runway of choice seems to be suffering from at the time!
Bye Bye!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With auto brake selected for landing, why would the crew assist the auto braking by applying Manual brakes? The auto brakes I'm familiar with disengage when manual brakes are applied. So, I do find the sequence of events rather puzzling, don't you? One more point on auto brake. I've been lead to believe that auto braking is more effective and efficient than we humans. Have you heard that as well?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.b737.org.uk/limitations.htm
"No tailwind component allowed on contaminated runways"
I think we may have some legal problems if this limitation applies to the 737-700
"No tailwind component allowed on contaminated runways"
I think we may have some legal problems if this limitation applies to the 737-700
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Some of these perfomance "limitations" get miraculously removed when you pay Boeing for the extra data. High altitude and increased tailwind are mentioned as options on web page cited above.