SWA overrun NTSB preliminary facts.

Doug Taylor said:
"Airplane experts say that jet involved in deadly crash needed more runway to land".
Click to expand...
Must be the Madden School of Journalism -- "Today's game will be decided by which team scores more points." Thank you, Einstein.
 
Kingairer said:
7-12 inches is how much snow feel that nite. Not whats on the runway. Thats also like saying, why didnt he just stop on the runway and turn off on a taxiway.
Click to expand...
No it's not. At what point does he take responsibility for his actions? As a side note, how was braking action reported? By a truck or a saab, or by PIREPS?
At some point you gotta say "I'm not doing that" and I'm afraid for this dude it was about 5 minutes before landing.
 
---------off into the dirt -----------

Phil....There is no dirt, there is not pavement, there are no taxiway lines...ITs all snow brotha.
 
4,925 available for rollout if you follow the glideslope to the runway. I have this memorized after probably 200 briefs of 31C... :whatever:
 
Kingairer said:
---------off into the dirt -----------

Phil....There is no dirt, there is not pavement, there are no taxiway lines...ITs all snow brotha.
Click to expand...
Did you notice where I asked what the edges at MDW looked like? :p
if there's a ditch or berm aside the runway with snow that isn't tamped down I think I'd take that over the expressway..
 
I can bet the guys wanted to give themselves every chance to make it safe to the end of the runway. Pull it over in the "ditch" (even if they had the directional control to actually make it over there) wouldnt have been on the high end of the list.
 
Kingairer said:
I can bet the guys wanted to give themselves every chance to make it safe to the end of the runway. Pull it over in the "ditch" (even if they had the directional control to actually make it over there) wouldnt have been on the high end of the list.
Click to expand...
perhaps, perhaps not.
shouldn't have been put in the position to make that decision, but you've got to do SOMETHING haven't you? Can't just sit there skidding down the runway.
 
I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.
 
"I...I....I flew the same profile on MSFS with a tailwind and I was able to get it stopped..."
 
Doug Taylor said:
I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.
Click to expand...
mine either, it's an idea I stole from a retired eastern captain that I "work" with after about a 20 minute lecture on all the places this guy went wrong. You never know, if traction was really that bad they might have still had some rudder authority, tough to say how it would go differently.

don't get him started on check captains, sheesh.
 
So ???

So why does the glideslope intersect 1000 feet down the runway anyway? I mean I knwo that is normal and all but why was it set up that way. When you guys fly normal landings (non IFR) do you still try to land 1000 feet down the runway? Is it so that if you are below glideslope you would still land on the runway????
 
Something really doesn't add up roght for these guys. They were flying the ILS which as Matt said has 4925 feet if you follow it down. Based on the NTSB report they needed 5300 feet to stop. So even if they followed the ILS down they would have over run by 400 feet.

Somthing is a little fishy here as to why they landed.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Thank you channel 12... I'm sure your reporters were up late fact-checking THAT one. Bonuses all around.
Click to expand...

(hijack)
I was driving a car full of 3 males who mooned Lin Sue Cooney while she was in the Channel 12 Action Van™ or whatever it's called.

/hijack
 
OldTownPilot said:
Something really doesn't add up roght for these guys. They were flying the ILS which as Matt said has 4925 feet if you follow it down. Based on the NTSB report they needed 5300 feet to stop. So even if they followed the ILS down they would have over run by 400 feet.

Somthing is a little fishy here as to why they landed.
Click to expand...

We were looking at tailwind restrictions in class today. 10 kts max is an industry and Boeing standard. But some airlines in the last few years started reducing crosswind and tailwind limits based on braking reports. So, for example, our tables showed a max allowable tailwind of 10 knots for good braking action, 5 kts for fair and 0 kts for anything less. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that SWA has not adopted that yet. If they had, they wouldn't have made that approach. So even if the tailwind wasn't the primary reason they departed the end, a more conservative tailwind limit might have saved their day.

As for taking it in the dirt. One, it wouldn't have turned, and secondly I'm still thinking in the back of my mind that I'm going to stop (and save my career) right up until the time I leave the end.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think that is the last thing you should do. I can't imagine going off the paved runway would help you stop and be any safer, in any way.
 
shooter13 said:
So why does the glideslope intersect 1000 feet down the runway anyway? I mean I knwo that is normal and all but why was it set up that way. When you guys fly normal landings (non IFR) do you still try to land 1000 feet down the runway? Is it so that if you are below glideslope you would still land on the runway????
Click to expand...

We have to according to our SOP (land in the touchdown zone that is).

I think if you were to go back to the thinking behind the terps you would see that the came up with the 3 degree glide slope for various reasons, obstacle clearance, speed, sight picture, etc. But they figured that a lot of landings don't go as planned and the needed to come up with a way of making sure that people weren't clipping fences or coming up short in anyway. Then combine that with the idea that all runways need to accomodate takeoffs (which typically need more length) and the placed the GS 1000ft down the runway.
 
Ophir said:
Honestly, I think that is the last thing you should do. I can't imagine going off the paved runway would help you stop and be any safer, in any way.
Click to expand...
then what do you do? Sit with your hands in your lap skidding along?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top