Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
12/15/2005 Ntsb Update On SWA At MDW  
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7471 times:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2005/051215.htm

80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13116 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7433 times:

Good, now we are getting some answers. The weather, the choice of landing with a tailwind due to better visability from that direction the surfaces, the preliminary data are beginning to shed some light with this accident. There were also questions raised for further investigation as to a computer used to calculate weather and other conditions for landing.

User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7393 times:

that's really interesting about the thrust reversers...

they weren't activated until 18 seconds after touchdown! that is an extremely long time, and I believe Southwest procedures are to initiate TR as soon after touchdown as practically possible (almost immediately in my own WN experiences).

It's a bit easier to see how this airplane wasn't able to stop near the end of the runway. I'd also be interested to find out why the aircraft wasn't able to land in the first 2000 feet of runway.

I'm not casting any doubt on the skill of the pilots or anything, I'm just saying that those seem to be the most glaring observations about why this airplane went long.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineLando From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

Interesting information. Thanks for the link.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4816 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Very interesting. Thanks OPNLguy.

Has this been the first step in shutting up all the BS speculation? Judging from the activity in this thread (or lack thereof) my hopes are high!

[Edited 2005-12-15 23:46:33]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4):
Has this been the first step in shutting up all the BS speculation? Judging from the activity in this thread (or lack thereof) my hopes are high!

Precisely why I posted it...

If I can't discuss it, providing a link to the source of the official info is the next best thing...  Wink


User currently offlineStuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7126 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4):



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):

Y'all don't sweat it, those of us who have common sense understand the situation and we'll still fly the Canyon Blue birds! We're sorry for your loss and that of the family on the ground, but we're behind you 110%!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7118 times:

This is almost a carbon copy of the Air France accident.

Marginal weather, bad RWY condition, pretty short RWY, tailwind, touch down much too far down the RWY, and most important - failure to decide upon a go around.

Much attention will probably be put on the TR's. But it's a fact that RWY length calculations must not take TR into account.

They touched down with 4500 feet to spare and needed 5300 feet to stop. If the flight crew had known what was going on, then they knew that they had to make a go around. Even if they might (barely) have made an (illegal!!!) landing in case of proper and perfect operation of both wheel brakes and TR.

It's the job of the PNF (in this case the FO) to command a go around. It seems to me that he failed. If he couldn't read the RWY markers due to visibility and/or snow cover, then that alone should have made him command a go around.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineGift4tbone From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7092 times:

Runway length seems to be the factor here. And by that I mean what was left of it. According to Airnav 31C/13C is 6522' long, and according to that report the 73G landed with 4500' left, thats 2022' long. I'm no expert, but IMO it seems it was the weather that caused this. In the report the vertical visibility 20 minutes after the flight landed was only 200'. If they were high on the GS, then wouldn't the instruments let them know? Audibly I mean. If not, then maybe they were too busy trying to spot the Airport. Visibility was somewhere between 3000-4000'. So if they ran 2000' long, they only saw the airport about 1000-2000' out. Again it all depends on how high they were. I'm gunna try and figure out the math with what information I have. BUT IMHO of what I know so far, I would venture to say this was a strictly weather related incident.

-Tony@PVD

Edited for proper wording

[Edited 2005-12-16 00:40:37]


Top 3 airports: PVD 26.0%(115 flights), PHL 15.6%(69 flights), PHX 12.0%(53 flights)
User currently offlineUAL744 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7033 times:

Runway 31C is indeed 6522' long, but that by itself doesn't tell us much at all. Runway 31C has a displaced threshold due to obstacles on short final. The displaced threshold is the first part of the usable runway. This in effect makes the runway 5826' long. Furthermore, the glide slope on an ILS approach never brings you to the ground in the first foot of the runway - it usually "aims" you at a point about 700 feet down the runway. Officially, Runway 31C is 4925' long from the point of glide slope intercept to the end. So as far as the pilots touching down with 4500' remaining, I would say that is probably perfectly average for that runway. Probably the most contributing factors to this accident were 1)the tailwind, and 2)the fair to poor braking action conditions. What was the wind anyway? Furthermore, if Southwest Airlines has the autobrakes not installed on their airplanes (it is an option), then that may have been a factor as well.

User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7030 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):

Much attention will probably be put on the TR's. But it's a fact that RWY length calculations must not take TR into account.

It's also a fact that at 90% of other airports where 737's operate, they'd have the 5300' they would have needed to stop that plane after landing a little long. Even GYY would have cut it. It's a case of wrong place to land a little long, at the wrong time.

Quoting Gift4tbone (Reply 8):
According to Airnav 31C/13C is 6522' long, and according to that report the 73G landed with 4500' left, thats 2022' long. I'm no expert, but IMO it seems it was the weather that caused this

You missed a step there hoss. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0512/00081ILD31C.PDF
The landing length of 31C is actually 5826' If they landed with 4500' left, they were 1326' long not 2022' long.

It also says they would have needed 5300' to stop with the already accounted for conditions. Does that take into account the safety margins? If that's actually ground roll without any safety factor... I don't know if I trust only having a 526' margin of error, especially landing with a tailwind when she's gonna float.

Looking at the visbilities and whatnot, with snow coming down at that hard of a rate, unless that plane was literally following the brooms down the runway, the markings would have been covered over when he landed. I'm beginning to think this was a matter of time at an MDW that should have been closed that night, and 1248 was just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. And while not to take anything away from that poor family who were the victims, this could have been much, much worse if a fire had broken out, or if instead of hitting a car that plane hits a truck with hazmats in it.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7017 times:

I wonder why the captain wasn't able to get the thrust reversers out of the stowed position but the FO was as soon as he realized they weren't engaged.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the data in the on-board laptop computer tool reconciles with aircraft performance.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 6):
Y'all don't sweat it, those of us who have common sense understand the situation and we'll still fly the Canyon Blue birds! We're sorry for your loss and that of the family on the ground, but we're behind you 110%!

I agree totally. I love WN and will continue to fly them whenever I have domestic destinations to get to.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6973 times:

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 6):

Y'all don't sweat it, those of us who have common sense understand the situation and we'll still fly the Canyon Blue birds! We're sorry for your loss and that of the family on the ground, but we're behind you 110%!

Thanks...

My tongue is getting sore from biting it so much...  Wink


User currently offlineGift4tbone From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6958 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 10):
It also says they would have needed 5300' to stop with the already accounted for conditions. Does that take into account the safety margins? If that's actually ground roll without any safety factor... I don't know if I trust only having a 526' margin of error, especially landing with a tailwind when she's gonna float.

I believe the 5300' included the TR not deploying until 18 seconds after landing.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 10):
You missed a step there hoss. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0512/00081ILD31C.PDF
The landing length of 31C is actually 5826' If they landed with 4500' left, they were 1326' long not 2022' long.

Well that changes all the hard math I just did. Also according to that PDF, 13C would've given them a few hundred extra feet. So what is it exactly that made 31C better over 13C?

Landing right on the GS at 3 degrees with the RVR of 3000' would put them at an altitude of 157'. Well within the 200' vertical visibility.

OF course I wasn't there so who knows what they saw.

Assuming they were high on the GS of 3 degrees, (hence the long landing); They would've dropped below 200' about 3817' from the actual TD point. Or about 2009' from the proper TD point. Again well within the 3000' RVR.

I'm starting to change my mind about the weather causing it. I believe it had a factor, but maybe it seems, a Go-Around would've been called for.

Any pilots on here that can shed some light as to much space is needed to correct the GS? I would imagine speed has a factor with this.

-Tony@PVD



Top 3 airports: PVD 26.0%(115 flights), PHL 15.6%(69 flights), PHX 12.0%(53 flights)
User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11):
I wonder why the captain wasn't able to get the thrust reversers out of the stowed position but the FO was as soon as he realized they weren't engaged.

I do not know about the 737 thrust reverse system, but on a lot of other jet airplanes, the power levers must be pulled back into idle before the thrust reverse levers can be pulled up to deploy the thrust reversers. The captain stated that he could not deploy the thrust reversers but the FO was able to reach over and deploy them. I wonder if the captain just did not bring the power levers back to idle where the thrust reversers can be deployed thus extending the landing distance. Thrust reversers are most effective when deployed and lose their efficiency as the airspeed bleeds off.

Any 737 experts out there who can verify if the power levers must be in idle for thrust reverser deployment.


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6887 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):

It's the job of the PNF (in this case the FO) to command a go around. It seems to me that he failed. If he couldn't read the RWY markers due to visibility and/or snow cover, then that alone should have made him command a go around.

I would not yet be laying blame toward anyone. It is likely that if the thrust reversers worked properly, the airplane would have stopped and we wouldn't have all of this message board fodder that we've had for the past week.

The factors in this accident are starting to become apparent, (i.e. the holes in the swiss cheese that the aircraft and crew had to "fly through" to get to the eventual accident)

1. It was a wintery evening, with lots of snow, low clgs, poor visibility and a slippery runway with "fair" breaking over a majority of the surface

2. The ILS for 13C wasn't operational? (i am inferring this based on the NTSB report) The NTSB says the ldg mins for 13C were higher than the mins for 31C, and therefore 31C was the only runway they could initiate an approach to under the CFR FAR 121 rules that the flight was operating under.

3. They were landing at Midway Airport, which yes, does have some of the most often used-shortest runways in the United States.

4. For some reason, the flight crew had a problem initiating the reverse thrust upon touchdown and weren't able to until quite a ways down the runway.


I am sure there are a few more here that haven't been touched or released yet.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6830 times:

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 2):

they weren't activated until 18 seconds after touchdown! that is an extremely long time, and I believe Southwest procedures are to initiate TR as soon after touchdown as practically possible

Did you read the full part of the report or just the parts where you could fully extract blame on the pilots?

Quoting UAL744 (Reply 9):
Furthermore, if Southwest Airlines has the autobrakes not installed on their airplanes (it is an option), then that may have been a factor as well.

WN has had autobrakes installed on their newer aircraft and are retrofitting the older ones with them. This particular aircraft had autobrakes and as per what the report said, they were set at full at touchdown.

Quoting Gift4tbone (Reply 13):
So what is it exactly that made 31C better over 13C?

Lack of usable ILS and bad minimums.


User currently offlineQwerty From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6798 times:

Too bad they landed long. I was hoping for otherwise.

User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6775 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 16):

Did you read the full part of the report or just the parts where you could fully extract blame on the pilots?

what? are you saying i am doing nothing but blaming the pilots? Thats ridiculous, i said nothing in either of my posts that puts blame on the pilots.

I was saying that the thrust reversal didn't operate as it normally should, nowhere did i say "i find it interesting that the pilots failed to initiate the thrust reversal until xx after the touchdown"

Obviously, these pilots are Southwest veterans, who KNOW how to operate the reverse thrust on the aircraft, and who normally do so at the proper time. I was saying that there must have been something odd or not-normal about the Thrust Reverser switch at the time of the landing that prevented them from operating it as they normally would.


try not to infer things from my statement that are not there.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5165 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

Oh, boy.

Well, despite the excellent discussion in the NTSB update about the performance calculations that were made by dispatch and discussed TWICE with the crew enroute, and the calculations made using the performance computer on route, all of which indicated that the aircraft should have been able to land safely...

CBS News reports (based of course upon the idiots at AP): "NTSB: Plane Had No Chance To Stop".

SunTimes: "FEDS: Plane Needed More Runway", stating: "Jim Hall, a former NTSB chairman not involved in the investigation, said the pilots landed the plane too late. 'You can come to the conclusion that the plane landed long; it touched down too far down the runway,' Hall said."

Tribune: "NTSB: Plane Touched Down Too Late" (at least writing their own article which referenced the careful calculations made before landing).

Somehow, these folks seem to have confused the *preliminary* calculations made now by the NTSB, which assume late reverser deployment and crappy runway conditions, with calculations assuming proper deployment.

Time for Southwest's vaunted PR staff to get out there on background and explain some of this to the runaway media. Despite taking body blow after body blow over my concern over how this would be handled by the media in my post the morning after the accident, I still think that there's a lot that WN needs to be doing to keep this runaway story from scaring flyers away from MDW in this and future seasons.

Best,

Bill


User currently offlineGift4tbone From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 19):
I still think that there's a lot that WN needs to be doing to keep this runaway story from scaring flyers away from MDW in this and future seasons.

You may be right for the uneducated in this matter. BUT for those of us who know the whole story, or at least what we can get our hands on. (We dont listen to the media, especially when it comes to aviation, they know squat). We will keep flying to MDW. Not that I have ever been to MDW but once on a flt from PVD-PHX, but if the need every arises in the future, I will have no second thoughts.

-Tony@PVD



Top 3 airports: PVD 26.0%(115 flights), PHL 15.6%(69 flights), PHX 12.0%(53 flights)
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5165 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6716 times:

Here's a question that should have been answered in the NTSB update, but was not: At or about the time at which the Captain attempted to pull the reverser levers, were there any flight conditions or control positions that would have caused them to resist being pulled? In carefully reading the words of the update, it appears to assert that the levers resisted being raised into the position that would lock the throttles at idle and deploy the reverser, not that they resisted applying reverse thrust after initial deployment. It would seem that the most probable source of a problem is different as to those two different possibilities, but I don't think that it's fair to speculate any further than that. It is also interesting that -- contrary to the initial media reports -- it's not that the FO "leaned over", as one report said, and helped the Captain yank the things into position. It appears that the FO activated the reversers "without a problem".

That's why it's going to take a while to reach conclusions about this incident. It would also have been helpful if the NTSB had reported its calculations as to how much runway would be required had the captain been able to deploy the reversers in a manner that he would have normally expected. Based upon previous reports, it appears that the plane had some room to land past the touchdown zone under those conditions.

Best,

Bill


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3203 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6651 times:

Quoting Gift4tbone (Reply 13):
Assuming they were high on the GS of 3 degrees, (hence the long landing);



Quoting Qwerty (Reply 17):
Too bad they landed long. I was hoping for otherwise

They did not land "long"! As UAL744 explained, and as most of us know, airplanes don't land on the first foot of the runway. So what is landing "long"? That would be a landing outside of the touchdown zone. By definition, the touchdown zone in the first 3000', or first 1/3 of the runway, whichever is less. If they touched down 1300' past the displaced threshold, they were well within the touchdown zone. They did not land "long".



FLYi
User currently offlineDerik737 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but looking at the information for 31C as UAL744 pointed out, the displaced threshold along with being on the glideslope for landing reveals that the crew only floated beyond where they should have touched down by probably a second and a half. So, saying they landed long is a bit misconstrued.

We ran the numbers and verified we could have landed a 737-800 on that runway with those conditions and had no problem if MAX braking and MAX reverse thrust was used at the proper times.

The key here is why did the Captain have trouble actuating the thurst reversers. I still find it hard to believe a mechanical problem existed. Yes, the throttles have to be at idle. I played with the throttles today on one of our 737-800's and you have just a little tolerance where the throttles can be a hair forward of idle to engage the reversers. When the throttles are at idle, it requires hardly any effort to pull the reverse levers out of the stowed position. They are also independent of one another.

Another thing that puzzles me is the statement that when the First Officer noticed the reversers were not deployed, he deployed them with no issues. Did the Captain give up right away? Why wouldn't he keep trying to deploy them all the way down the runway? Why didn't he say anything to the First Officer about the reversers not deploying?


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6621 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



People still seem to be confusing autobrakes with antiskid...




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
25 Qwerty : Whatever, but you're wrong. On the 6,000+ 31C, I'd call anything not near 1,000 or under when the wheels spin up as long. Especially if my arse was i
26 Tornado82 : I have to refer you back to this... These guys were almost within 1000' of the TDZ, the only problem is: They only had about 526' of play-room here.
27 PITrules : Guess Again. Better yet, look up the definition of "touchdown zone" in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM).
28 Qwerty : You guys are sitting up front right?
29 PITrules : What's that suppossed to mean? I wasn't up front, that's exactly why I am NOT second guessing these guys (unlike certain other individuals on this boa
30 Silver1SWA : He, along with UAL744's breakdown/explanation, is wrong because of what you personally "feel" to be considered landing long?
31 Post contains links and images OPNLguy : Sure must have been crowded up there, there are so many here posting... Someone posted this earlier--maybe someone can tell us what appropriate minim
32 Qwerty : Ask the crew, I bet they considered themselves long for where they would have wanted to be that night for that WX. They would have been after the firs
33 Tornado82 : I posted it, twice actually. The mins were 300 - 3/4, but then you told us in a prior thread about the HUD credit given which takes it down to 1/2. T
34 OPNLguy : Then why post or refer to the above chart, since it wasn't in use? The amount of misinformation and conjecture based upon assumed information on these
35 Post contains images PITrules : I am an ALPA type The NTSB report said nothing of landing long. I think more significant factors are the tailwind, contamination level and type, and
36 CasInterest : That has to be the most damning NTSB report I have ever seen. Also one to make a lawyer jump for joy. He can sue the Airport/City for lack of proper f
37 Post contains images 2H4 : It's the United States. He can sue the maker of his toothbrush for the accident, and probably walk away with a settlement. Litigation will be the dea
38 Ckfred : Here's my question. If 13C was below minimums, and the wind direction put 31C into a tailwind, then why was MDW accepting arrivals? It's one thing to
39 Post contains images Lightsaber : I'm remembering a quote from the bard... I would *love* to have a look at this flight's blackbox engine and cockpit command log... Lightsaber
40 Tornado82 : My sentiments exactly. It's not like we had a 10,000 ft runway to deal with the contamination and tailwind. If we're talking a place like IND, it's a
41 Birdbrainz : Very simple: tailwind, poor weather, and slippery, short runway don't mix. Enough said. It's ultimately up to the pilots to decide if they want the a
42 S12PPL : I would hope that is everyone's practice! lol.
43 Darrenthe747 : very interesting article. a lot of good points made by a lot of folks here. the two issues that are striking here is, one: the fact that the captain w
44 Post contains images Ikramerica : Well, since the pilot is the ultimate one responsible for the aircraft, I guess "most importantly" is valid, but I don't know that it is as much thei
45 Post contains links ORD14R : To those who mentioned possible litigation... Chicago Tribune Article One quote in particular stands out: Wow.
46 TheGreatChecko : Putting myself in the captains shoes (and please correct me if I'm wrong): I'm already late, so screw the idea of rushing to be ontime. I probably wa
47 Wjcandee : Someone needs to be stomping all over this lawyer crap as soon as possible. This shows the difference in terms of media focus, etc. when there is "col
48 Tornado82 : Did they have to stop at that point? He was probably still at 100kt+ when the T/R's "stuck," assuming there was some kind of error, because he's obvi
49 Chief727 : Just some thoughts and questions: How HEAVY was this aircraft? What was the load of the accident 737? I'll bet that the "load" of this particular airp
50 Post contains images Meister808 : Thats a really good analysis, and I think it pretty much lays out exactly what would be going through my mind. A couple of things are still bothering
51 San2snow76 : What was the snow depth on the runway at the time of landing and what type of snow was it (wet or dry)?
52 Derik737 : I made a mistake on stating we could have landed on the runway with a -800 with MAX autobraking and MAX reverse thrust. It would be MAX autobraking an
53 Cloudy : I'm not an expert on this sort of thing by any means....but.... I here many in the press saying "the runway was to short" or "the weather was too bad"
54 Birdbrainz : I'm not saying he's never landed in a tailwind. He has many times. Rather, that he's rejected approaches to long runways in good weather with strong
55 KELPkid : This may be different for part 121, but in part 91 ops, the only visibility that matters is cockpit visibility. Reported visibility can be completely
56 SCXmechanic : The question I have is this. What was the corrected tail wind component? People keep saying that it was a 11 kt tail wind but was that a DIRECT tailwi
57 SCXmechanic : *bump* Does anyone have the answer to my question in the previous post?
58 OPNLguy : Sent you a PM...
59 Post contains links KarlB737 : Courtesy: WLS-TV NTSB Report Points To Human Factors In Crash http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3727618 Video Report: http://ww2.abc7c
60 SCXmechanic : OPNLguy, Check your PM's as well... Thanks!
61 Supa7E7 : Yup, I cannot imagine or recall the NTSB blaming a crash _primarily_ on weather. ATC and pilots are paid to deal with ANY weather, including terrible
62 Post contains images StuckinMAF : Wow, that's pretty damned rough, but I understand the point you are trying to make. Not that I agree with it, I understand it. Fortunately, this does
63 Atrude777 : Sorry, I can see what you are trying to say, and I am the one of the hugest Southwest Fan and Flyer you will ever meet but NO Aircraft of ANY Airline
64 Supa7E7 : Sure it is. I disagree with you. With $40 million I can go to Africa and save 1,000 children. That is the value of a new 737NG. It's a big piece of o
65 Atrude777 : Turn it around and look if you could decide ahead, you were told ahea,d this 6 yr old was going to die but the 737 would be saved, but you could save
66 Supa7E7 : Here's what I would do. I would pretend to do what you advocate - sacrifice the 737 for the boy. I would put a big curtain around the scene. Then, I
67 Post contains links OPNLguy : With all due respect, the last few messages in the thread are taking things off-course on to new tangents. Perhaps you could start a new thread on th
68 Post contains links OPNLguy : http://www.rapp.org/archives/2005/12/southwest
69 LUVRSW : Me thinks me am owed an apology. Pilots screwed up, end of story.
70 OPNLguy : Why? I don't see your ID in any of the previous 68 messages, so what has anyone done/said to you that warrants an apology? NTSB will make the appropr
71 2H4 : LUVRSW....perhaps you should take a look at the last line of the ABC News article OPNL posted: Every such contributing element has to be found and fi
72 Post contains links LUVRSW : from earlier thread RE: NTSB: Reverse Thrusters Not Working Properly MDW (by LUVRSW Dec 13 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2488723 This comment only delays
73 OPNLguy : That's OK; I'll wait for the official version....
74 Post contains images 2H4 : How in the world did you fit up there? Weren't there like 7 others already crammed into the cockpit? Perhaps the crowd will be ruled a contributing f
75 LUVRSW : Good one, I'll give you that.
76 APFPilot1985 : everyone seems to gloss over this
77 Derik737 : Did you gloss over my reply to that posting?
78 Derik737 : " target=_blank>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Flyin...12384 I wrote Mr Lance an email regarding the error is his article. Here's what I said (basical
79 LUVRSW : Excellent point.
80 StuckinMAF : Damn! I love it when people post with undisputable logic from reliable sources! Outstanding info and I appreciate you posting it! I understand that i
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...
Update On B6 At EWR? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 01:28:07 by Klwright69
Update On AA At DAL? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 23:13:35 by AA737-823
Lakefield On SWA At PIT posted Sat Jan 8 2005 15:27:36 by OPNLguy
News Article On SWA At DFW posted Fri Oct 1 2004 12:22:13 by OPNLguy
Help! Mysterious Aircraft On Final At MDW posted Thu Feb 12 2004 18:39:21 by Chi-town
Ntsb Report On Feb-2-2005 TEB Biz Jet Crash posted Wed Nov 1 2006 02:40:44 by LTBEWR
12 ASA Flights Now At MDW posted Mon Apr 10 2006 00:05:24 by Mycrj17
Update On MK Crash At Halifax posted Thu Dec 23 2004 02:39:25 by Okie
Update On Convair Crash At Cvg 8/13/04 posted Fri Nov 19 2004 17:31:27 by Hirisk
Do You Have A Pilot Application On File At SWA? posted Sat Jan 10 2004 00:10:42 by OPNLguy