Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SWA Fatal Landing May Be Indicative Of Carrier  
User currently offlineTercer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8940 times:

The following is an excerpt from the linked story

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051209/nyf103.html?.v=19

Quote:
Mr. Rose indicated that, as a cost-savings method, SWA had also decided to disconnect an automatic braking system, which would have stopped the aircraft on the runway in Burbank. As at Midway, the Burbank aircraft ran off the runway, broke through the airport barriers, 20 feet tall steel blast fences, and ran onto Hollywood Way, a busy multi-lane road, crashing into a car and injuring its occupants. Kreindler was the lead attorney in the case on behalf of the 20 families involved in the Burbank crash.

"No less important is the fact that an especially high level of caution is required whenever severe weather that could compromise a safe landing is obvious and when runway conditions deteriorate," said Marc S. Moller, an aviation attorney and partner at Kreindler & Kreindler. "Weather doesn't cause accidents; people do. The fact that other aircraft safely landed last night before Flight 1248 and that the runway condition was reported as 'fair' would seem to suggest that there was something different about this plane's approach and landing. The 737-700 involved in the Midway crash should have had the auto brake system installed and, if used, that should have stopped the aircraft, given a normal and stable approach by the flight crew. Yesterday's crash is not the first in bad weather that should never have happened."

I have been reading this forum for some time but decided to finally chime in when I saw this news story. Mr Moller seems to believe that weather does not cause accidents, well he might want to go back and check the NTSB database of official causes! The question I have is for the SWA folks here, do you have auto-brakes installed on your new gens and/or was this just a case of an MEL? The reason I ask is that the article starts out by saying that the airline disconnected the ABS for cost savings and then later stated it is not installed. If the system is on placard and the requirements of the MEL are met then the flight is safe to operate. These law firms like to solve the puzzle before it is taken out of the box and me, well I like the facts.

Regards
Tercer


It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen.
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

see:

Sharks Are Circling (WN/MDW) (by Foxecho Dec 9 2005 in Civil Aviation)

Darren


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8790 times:

I would read a press release written by plaintiff's attorneys with the highest degree of skepticism possible. If interested in facts, wait until the NTSB speaks.

User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

I don't know the all the facts here. I don't know if SW 737s have autobrakes or not. If they do have them I don't know if that crew was using them. None of us know yet and we need to find out.

I do know if I am flying an aircraft that has autobrakes, I will not ever be explaining to the NTSB why I went off a snow covered runway with the autobrakes turned off.

[Edited 2005-12-10 17:11:14]

User currently offlineJeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 598 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8697 times:

Autobrakes are not the same as anti-skid on an airliner. Autobrakes apply the brakes automatically, that's all. It doesn't prevent skids anymore than having the pilot pressing on the pedals himself. Think of autobrakes more as another part of the autopilot and less as a skid preventor. ABS on an airplane stands for Auto Brake System. ABS on a car stands for Anti-lock Brake System. See the difference?

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

I'm not going to comment on the accident, but be careful when discussing autobrakes as there seems to be confusion between autobrakes and the anti-skid system.

The original poster used "ABS" as an abbreviation for autobrakes (we just call them autobrakes), and "ABS" is also another abbreviation for "anti-lock braking system" (for cars), which is pretty much what an anti-skid system does on an aircraft.

In a nutshell, the anti-skid is something that is used all the time, and if it's inop, there are big weight penalties to the max takeoff and max landing weights to maintain safe margins.


User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8554 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
In a nutshell, the anti-skid is something that is used all the time, and if it's inop, there are big weight penalties to the max takeoff and max landing weights to maintain safe margins.

absolutely correct. Unless the anti-skid failed during landing, I would highly doubt the anti-skid was inop. The penalty for anti-skid inop would have been so severe that there is no way a crew would consider a landing at MDW on a snowy day.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2240 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8501 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 2):
I would read a press release written by plaintiff's attorneys with the highest degree of skepticism possible. If interested in facts, wait until the NTSB speaks

Good advice. Especially the NTSB part.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8414 times:

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 6):
The penalty for anti-skid inop would have been so severe that there is no way a crew would consider a landing at MDW on a snowy day.

Nor would a dispatcher have released it....

My point was that the media and others are confusing autobraking systems with anti-skid systems, and that they're two separate things, the latter of which is always used.

I wish I could say more, but can't, and won't....  Sad


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8336 times:

Mr. Moller, I'm sure, has a law degree from an esteemed University. He probably drives a real nice car and has a real nice house. But he'll be at the bottom of the ocean with all the other lawyers after saying that weather doesn't cause accidents. Of course it doesn't, Mr. Moller. It's not possible to SUE weather, Mr. Moller, and THAT is why you're going after people. Mother Nature doesn't have a pile of cash sitting around, Mister.

Thanks for playing, Mr. Moller. Someone, somewhere, will have some nice parting gifts for you.


User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8207 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 2):
I would read a press release written by plaintiff's attorneys with the highest degree of skepticism possible. If interested in facts, wait until the NTSB speaks.

EXACTLY

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 9):
Mr. Moller, I'm sure, has a law degree from an esteemed University. He probably drives a real nice car and has a real nice house. But he'll be at the bottom of the ocean with all the other lawyers after saying that weather doesn't cause accidents. Of course it doesn't, Mr. Moller. It's not possible to SUE weather, Mr. Moller, and THAT is why you're going after people. Mother Nature doesn't have a pile of cash sitting around, Mister.

Thanks for playing, Mr. Moller. Someone, somewhere, will have some nice parting gifts for you

You can count on the fact he has all those things, having gained them walking across the backs of others. Attorneys by and large have done nothing and continue to do nothing BUT ruin this country and cost us all a lot more money for everything we do and buy. They truly are the bottom feeders and what's worse, they're in control of almost everything, including the parasites of the world waiting for any opportunity of financial gain by suing anybody for anything possible. Watch how many totally unaffected neighbors come out of the woodwork on this one, you can bet there's attorneys canvassing the neighborhood as we speak.


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8171 times:

We call them 'ambulance-chasers.' In South Chicago they're '737-chasers.'

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8047 times:

Standing on thin ice here........

We don't know the facts.

But weather doesn't cause accidents. Part of the job of a pilot (in fact one of the biggest parts) is to make decisions. The crew made the decision to land on a shortish, snow-covered runway. That much we know. Don't read anything into that. We don't know if the anti-skid failed (I am sure it was working, or, as the others mentioned, the airplane would never have left for Midway. Anti-skid is probably not deferrable on a revenue flight anyway). We don't know if they were on speed over the threshold. We don't know if they "floated". I have heard that they landed with a slight tailwind, but "heard" is not a fact.

All that in mind, I am sure that they had the required performance data or they would not have attempted to land. That includes landing distance required for their weight, wind conditions and reported braking-action.

I do know that it was a tragedy. Someone died. Let's not forget that.

As far as the crew goes, part of their job is the make decisions based on the current conditions. I was not in their seat and so for me to second-guess their judgement would be bad.

But the fact is that while weather is a factor in many accidents, the decision to proceed in that weather belongs to the crew.

By saying that I am not blaming them at all. Like I say, I don't know the facts.

But to imply that it is just "weather" that can cause accidents is to not see the whole picture of flying.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7991 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 12):
Anti-skid is probably not deferrable on a revenue flight anyway

As an aside, an anti-skid can be deferred, and there are landing weight and takeoff weight penalties involved. If the resultant lower weights don't permit operation to a certain airport (due to weather/conditions) you fix it (if MX and parts available) or send the aircraft someplace where conditions are not a problem. If you can't do that, you send MX/parts and fix it where it is.


User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7638 times:

My info is that SWA does not use the autobrakes system at all.

Amazing what 8 kts of tailwind on BRAF-BRAP will do. The boeing narrowbodies I have dispatched over 25 years all have a 5 kt tailwind limit for these braking conditions.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineSkymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7489 times:

I wouldn't listen to anything the NTSB says, either. Their main goal is to blame the pilots. I would bet good money they will say this one is the pilot's fault, just like every other. They're pilot haters.

User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3546 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7436 times:

I find it incredibly arrogant that Mr. Moeller is absolutely certain this accident was the result of SWA not utilizing auto brakes. There's no information out there about this incident other than what was released in the media, and yet's he confident he knows why it happened.

Freaking lawyers. Sigh.



PHX based
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7336 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Skymileman (Reply 15):
I would bet good money they will say this one is the pilot's fault



I suspect the only way it won't be ruled pilot error is if the accident is found to be the direct result of a de facto mechanical failure. I could be wrong, but the pilots are effectively guilty until proven innocent.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7182 times:

Quoting Skymileman (Reply 15):
I wouldn't listen to anything the NTSB says, either. Their main goal is to blame the pilots. I would bet good money they will say this one is the pilot's fault, just like every other. They're pilot haters.

Who will you trust then?

AAndrew


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Quoting Tercer (Thread starter):
Quote:
Mr. Rose indicated that, as a cost-savings method, SWA had also decided to disconnect an automatic braking system, which would have stopped the aircraft on the runway in Burbank. As at Midway, the Burbank aircraft ran off the runway, broke through the airport barriers, 20 feet tall steel blast fences, and ran onto Hollywood Way, a busy multi-lane road, crashing into a car and injuring its occupants. Kreindler was the lead attorney in the case on behalf of the 20 families involved in the Burbank crash.

I don't know about that. All I read said, they were high and fast all the way down due to a gooned up app. and auto brakes wouldn't have changed a thing. I've flown into Burbank in a 727-200 and stopping on a good day was work.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6811 times:

Also remember that autobrakes do nothing but maintain a preset deceleration rate. More reverse, less brakes. Less reverse, more brakes. The flight crew can produce a higher deceleration rate by standing on the brakes and applying full reverse. Autobrakes are designed as a workload reducing system. Disabling the system should not compromise safety, in fact, it may improve the the flight crews skill level by not having the autobrake crutch to lean on.

Skymileman, the NTSB finds fault with whoever or whatever is at fault. I'm not judging this one by any means, but from what I've seen, read and heard, this one sure does look like a flight crew problem, with the weather as a contributing factor. But who knows what the NTSB will turn up. That's why they call these things 'investigations'.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5487 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

Hi, lawyer SCCutler here.

The "article" that started this whole thread is a pathetic and shameful display.

"Cost saving measure."

Ignorance is so ugly to watch in action.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineSfomb67 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6608 times:

I would be surprised if this was not ruled pilot error. Nothing against pilots, but, if he came in and put it down, too far down the runway to make a safe stop in the existing conditions, I think that's pilot error. It's also the pilot's discretion whether to land or not, in the existing conditions. However, if everyone else was landing at Midway, with no accidents, I'm sure he'll have some explaining to do if he diverts. A no win situation. Would autobrakes stop the plane 50' faster? I don't know, that's for the lawyers, Boeing and other experts to decide. I'm sure it will have an impact on a jury though, and I'm also sure SW knows that, and will try to avoid a court scene. So, if the weather was to blame, is this then called an Act of God? Only other scenario that I see is to blame the controllers for allowing the plane to land, but nobody else had problems, at least we haven't heard of any yet.


Not as easy as originally perceived
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6307 times:

Quoting Sfomb67 (Reply 22):
I'm sure he'll have some explaining to do if he diverts.

Maybe at your place, but I've never seen that in 20+ years here.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11200 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6217 times:

Quoting Sfomb67 (Reply 22):
I'm sure it will have an impact on a jury though

JURY?! No way this thing sees a courtroom.


BTW, Hi SCCutler. Guess who decided to go to law school.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
25 SCCutler : God, no! It's too late for me, but youcan save yourself!
26 Post contains links Luvrsw : http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...05-12-10-midway-crash_x.htm?csp=24 NTSB: Reverse thrusters not working properly when plane slid off runway CHIC
27 Dc10s4ever : It seems this is always the case. But generally it is the easy way out and it referres to the old saying "A pilot in command is ultimately responsibl
28 N229NW : Well, someone will be blamed. But before all the WN-bashing hits full stride, remind yourselves that they have the best safety record in the history o
29 777STL : Technically they still haven't had a pax die onboard one of their planes due to an aircraft related incident.
30 AviatorTJ : That could have a bit of an effect on things. I'm sure it was a result of the impact, but in the pictures of the plane the number two reverser was ha
31 Post contains links Ckfred : This is from the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,0,1788050.story?coll=chi-news-hed The article mentions that the switch for t
32 Cjpark : Oh no become a Doctor, Engineer, Nurse, Pilot, Teacher anything, anything anything but..... Here is a quiz for you. You fall in a deep pit and find y
33 DCrawley : Very much so agreed. Until all facts are published, we can only speculate while some assume.. but you what happens when we assume? It can make an ass
34 DC8FriendShip : I don't understand what all the trouble is with the autobrakes. The fact is whether the pilot applies brakes or the auto system does, the Anti- Skid i
35 C680 : The article in question was released via the "PR Newswire" - a source of publicity for anyone who wishes to pay a small fee. According to this "news"
36 Gorbskow : Personally I disagree. I think it is great to get the updates from the controllers of the most current wx, runway conditions, PIREPS, LLWS alerts, et
37 Birdbrainz : My father flew 737s and 727s with UA for 30 years, and he's dumbfounded that the pilot would accept an approach to a short, snowy/icy runway with a 13
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Added Scrutiny Of Prosthetics May Be Required posted Thu Sep 28 2006 12:38:54 by AerospaceFan
End Of Northwest Strike May Be At Hand posted Fri Dec 30 2005 15:08:05 by KarlB737
The End Of Eujet May Be Nigh. posted Mon Dec 6 2004 12:14:52 by 7LBAC111
QR To Be Only Official Carrier Of Qatar? posted Sun Nov 11 2001 03:53:21 by GulfAir
2nd Generation Of Concordes May Be Here Soon! posted Mon Sep 3 2001 11:26:47 by BA777
Be Careful Of What You Wish For: Consolidation posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:22:55 by Matt D
Consolidation: Be Careful Of Waht You Wish For posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:18:03 by Matt D
Airbus: A380F Program May Be Cancelled posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:44:08 by ShortSquat
ATW: A350 EIS May Be Delayed By A380 Problems posted Fri Sep 29 2006 08:07:29 by Leelaw
Air Luxor Planes Impounded, License May Be Revoked posted Fri Sep 8 2006 19:48:26 by BuyantUkhaa