SWA 737 in the mud @KMDW
 

Any giggle maps :E

Silverhawk, I do agree with you on the interpretation of the word "god" here - however I can not take it that "things will happen now and then".
That's not the way I conduct my flying buisness.
Everything I touch in that aircraft has been proven to work with a probability of failure 10to the -83rd power or something, the takeoff is calculated to a preciscion of single meters os stopmargin, I deal with single kilogramms on my loadsheet (that bag of mail), but landing is still a grey area, and noone is willing to do anything about it.
Every week, just read that aviation herald, at least one overrun is reported. Most of them end like this one, some tires got muddy, everyone disembarks shaken but unharmed. God give it, when it is my time to fall into the trap of the great unknown (of landing performance), that it will have a similar outcome.
But there is still no standard friction testing, no meaningful and mandatory figure to be reported by the airport authorities! And many pilots will refuse to take off into a TS, but I haven't heard many object to a landing in heavy rain. Depending on who you work for, there might not be that many options left ("What, you diverted because it was raining?").
To me, the runway excursion is the biggest safetyconcern to lineoperations today; I would trade my bulletproof door for a precise estimate on brake performance any day.

I am glad the guys of Southwest made it ok. But obviously it was pure luck (or fate, but that would put us back to the top of my post...)

Check "Chicago", "Midway" and "Cicero Avenue".

Judging by the photos, he should have motored on another hundred yards, turned onto the avenue, and taxied to the terminal.

Looking at the photos thank goodness the chap didn't wind up hitting the EMAS.


Plane stuck in mud after sliding off runway at Midway Airport - PhotoGallery - Chicago Sun-Times

AVheralds have a GiggleMap and their proposal for the approximate position on their site Incident: Southwest B737 at Chicago on Apr 26th 2011, runway excursion on landing

Judging by the photo, they missed the EMAS- precisely the place you'd want to steer the jet.

Perhaps they could not keep the jet straight. Perhaps they thought it would be better to put it in the mud. Maybe they thought they'd roll the dice and see if they could get it through the wall. I wonder what they were thinking. Perhaps Halfnut was driving. :rolleyes:

Before it starts, there is nothing wrong with MDW, I used to fly 727s there and had no problems.

One just needs to bring his/her A-game.

FIRESYSOK - I guess you don't know humor.

con-pilot - I used to fly DC-9 into MDW too. That said any airline that operates thousands of flights each year into an airport like MDW with short runways and no overruns is only asking for a runway excursion every so often.

There is a reason the City of Chicago decided to build an all new airport years ago out at peach orchard on the edge of town when the jets started coming on line. Now LUV makes it part of their business model to go back into airports that were abandoned years ago.

What was he doing on 13C? Why wasn't he on 22L?

@Master CP: The boss and various associates in the back have informed me several times over the years they notice the difference when we land at MDW due mainly to firmer than usual plants - particularly when it's wet.

on the bright side, they didn't blindly evacuate down the slides. they waited for the stairs and had the time to do so.

I've landed (and taken off too) DC9's and 737's at midway. You have to bring your A game is right. Well said CON PILOT.

I'm more worried about a rejected takeoff at midway than an over run on landing...

But, if anyone has the wx at the time of the accident/incident, please post. I heard an early report that said it was runway three one center...later on one three center...anyone know for sure?

The last over run, the guys didn't get reversers out for 18 seconds after landing...remember that one? There was also the use of auto brakes when it wasn't really authorized yet.

We had a saying, always on glideslope...except maybe for midway! you guys will know what I mean.

@FlightSafety

I don't know what your experience is with KMDW but the reason they were on 13C probably had everything to do with the flow at KORD. I've routinely landed at KMDW with 25k x-winds because KORD dictates the runways.

I think you are missing the visual element here.
There is a giant red and white checkered blast fence at the end of the EMAS. One must consider that the instinct would be to steer away from the huge checkered blast fence taking over your field of vision, EMAS or no EMAS between the end of the runway and blast fence.
That is of course considering that he was in control and not hydroplaning.
VFD

ORD vs. Midway
 

AS a pilot, you can request the runway you want at midway...ATC will tell you there will be a DELAY...this is their tactic to make you move things along THEIR WAY.

But put your foot down and instead of a 30 minute delay like they tell you, it will only be a couple of minutes...trust me, give it a try! but don't waver and have some fuel!!!

you might end up shooting an ILS 31 center and break off to make a VFR pattern to another runway...you might actually have to fly a traffic pattern!!!

Weather below mins for circle to 22L. Went in there 40 minutes or so before that airplane and wx something like vis. 2 -RA, ceiling 1000 BKN and winds 200/ 12 G 22.

It is a conundrum. Do pilots brief this? Do they have it in the back of their minds- if this goes long, I'm gonna keep it straight

Airlines don't teach anything regarding EMAS since it's not available everywhere, but you'd think more seasoned MDW users most likely know it's there, available, and will stop the airplane.

I agree, it was either not under control, or the instinct was to steer away from the wall/blast fence. I can see it now, mandated EMAS overrun training in my next sim. "Guys, just go straight ahead while I fail your brakes"

it should be noted that the Wills (formerly Sears) Tower is pretty much exactly on the centerline of 22L at MDW, sticking up 1500' AGL 10 miles out, right where one would want to be to intercept an ILS. So there is currently no ILS (and likely never will be) for 22L/R.

There are RNAV/GPS and/or circling approaches for 22L - but as mentioned, since they are non-precision, they have higher minimums. The RNAV is offset 15 degrees south to avoid the Loop highrise area, further reducing the precision.

Absolute nonsense! The risk of losing the tail section during an Atlantic crossing is near 10E-9 (in a well-maintained a/c). Aviation is all about calculated risks, and the more there fly, the greater the chance that something happens...

Not quite yesterday, either. ;)

That's a photo from the 2005 accident, I think.

Not could be, it is. The Daily Mail article you linked from even said so under the picture. The snow should have been a clue also.

The first post of the thread linked to a video of the incident. That should perhaps have been first port of call?

Right runway, wrong end. :=

I see it in the simulator a hundred times a year -excess speed well beyond Vref all the way down on final and to touch down. Call it lazy flying if you like. If simulator instructors could allow practice on minimum legal length runways, I am sure pilots would strive for more accurate speeds and touch down points. In turn this would enourage good habits to be used on longer runways.

Boeing advise Vref plus five knots as minimum approach speed. The FCTM also recommends bleeding off excess headwind component additives (except for gust factor) before touch down. But rarely does this occur during recurrent training in the simulator. Too many pilots consider Vref as a dangerously low airspeed and therefore prefer to carry excess speed than dare to cross the threshold at Vref. On a slippery runway any excess airspeed coupled with unwanted float, is bound to extend the landing roll with sometimes disasterous consequences.

- Gulp! You do it your way if you insist! I'll stick to mine:hmm:

ILC 13C only when I went in about 12:30p. Chicago approach not giving RNAV (RNP) 13C to anyone who dared to ask. Too busy.

Looking at that photo , the pilots nearly missed those yellow vehicles , ambulances and some people as well.
The pilot did a good job avoiding all those obstacles !

Is is by chance where the google maps Icon is :rolleyes:
Midway Airport, Chicago, IL, United States - Google Maps

Halfnut

Very true that, I remember when MDW was mostly a corporate/private operations airport. Very nice.

Then the airlines moved back in. More than just one.

Oh well, that's life.

Bolli

Right airfield, wrong corner. Go to extreme SE corner - the blast fence is visible in the aerial view.

More Video
 

So now the "non-pilot" lampaeso is ridiculing Google?

Having flown in and out of Midway, as well as Burbank in a B-727, if I want to know what and or the airport is, I don't need "giggle"...I have charts and approach plates (lampaeso--they are not really "plates" but pieces of paper we PILOTS use)...

And yes they are demanding airports, but as has been previously posted, one needs to be on their "A" game....

BTW...when is the last time you Captained a Commercial Transport Jet???

Didn't think so...

"...and approach plates (lampaeso--they are not really "plates" but pieces of paper we PILOTS use)..."

We always called them approach plates, back in the olden days.

Step...That was my point....many hrs updating the Jepps...Cheers...

:mad:

the rnav rnp would have set the final at 140kts for the 37...

you could manually fly a 300 on that procedure with that straight in and manage your energy...
you mean to tell me the crew could not manage Vref+5 approach?

A3757 is quite right. Whatever happened to the ability to land within 200' of a designated spot on the runway? that was minimum commercial standard...good guys got it within six inches.

Touchdown at Vref to Vref minus 5 is acceptable...in jets anyway.

There is a reluctance to FLY THE FRIKIN PLANE...an ATP should be able to handle it...but there is so much SLOP and it is considered ok.

FlightPathOBN:

Why would that be?

Stepwilk,

Your reference to approach plates... I'm sure you meant the GOOD old days... remember... when we actually flew the planes... as pilots!

3.5

the AT would do that...or be very near that...

Wow, 6". That's impressive! Of course the fakers from our subcontinent and other corners of the world certainly cannot do it.:uhoh: