Nbseer From United States, joined Apr 2004, 49 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9628 times:
Cockpit recording transcript released today on Southwest Midway crash that killed a young boy in a car. Plane ran off end of runway after ATC warned that runway conditions in snow were only fair to poor.
NTSB also noted this:
" ...the pilots of the Boeing 737 relied on a flawed landing technique that should be banned..."
What is this "flawed landing technique" and is it something that's SOP for WN pilots?
Cadet57 From United States, joined Jul 2005, 8017 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9307 times:
Quoting Nbseer (Thread starter): Cockpit recording transcript released today on Southwest Midway crash that killed a young boy in a car. Plane ran off end of runway after ATC warned that runway conditions in snow were only fair to poor.
Wheres the transcript?
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
Litz From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1553 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8751 times:
Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 5): IIRC, the crew on that flight had used autobrakes at the MAX setting, so its doubtful that was the 'flawed landing technique.'
(warning: engaging hearsay mode)
I seem to remember, shortly after the accident, that calculations were made that the plane would have stopped 20 feet short of the wall (mind you, STILL having overrun the end of the runway) if they had managed to hit the deck and almost instantly have full reverse thrust, full autobrakes, and every piece of metal that's movable on the wings sticking straight up in the air.
That's an almost impossible scenario.
As it was, the calculations proved that the way they landed, with full autobrakes, full speedbrakes, but delayed reverse thrust, pretty much guaranteed they would not stop in time.
And - mind you - from what I understand, the full autobrakes setting was actually against company policy.
(end of hearsay mode)
It will be interesting to see the transcript, when a link is posted, and see what the current determination of the investigation board is ...
Isitsafenow From United States, joined Feb 2004, 4115 posts, RR: 32 Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8579 times:
Hey, did anybody catch the date here?
December 8th....the same day a UA 737-200, N9031U, crashed while landing at MDW short of the runway in 1972?
Odd isn't it?
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Gunsontheroof From United States, joined Jan 2006, 2969 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8553 times:
Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 5): IIRC, the crew on that flight had used autobrakes at the MAX setting, so its doubtful that was the 'flawed landing technique.'
I've read before on this site that autobrakes on WN aircraft are disconnected, so I'm not sure about that one...
LUVRSW From United States, joined Aug 2005, 498 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8530 times:
I reemember when this happened, we all bashed WN pretty hard, but the WN fanatics all said "wait until the report is out"...well it's out now...
From USA Today:
The pilot's eagerness to land, though, may have affected their decision making, according to the transcript.
"If it's poor, we don't want to hear it," said co-pilot Steven Oliver.
During the hearing, safety officials were told that there is no single, reliable way to measure a runway's slickness in bad weather, making it hard for pilots to figure out how much room they need to land.
The transcript of the cockpit voice recorder revealed the unfolding drama in the cockpit as the plane skidded toward a fence.
"Son of a (expletive)," captain Bruce Sutherland said.
"Jump on the brakes, are ya?" Oliver said.
Pilots then struggled to slow the airplane, then told each other to "hang on" just seconds before the airplane crashed through a fence.
During the flight, the pilots wrestled with the question of how they would land in bad weather at Midway, even considering other airports, according to the recording.
The Midway runway, like about 300 others at commercial airports in the United States, did not have a 1,000-foot buffer zone at the end for airplanes that overshoot their landings.
And the pilots of the Boeing 737 relied on a flawed landing technique that should be banned, according to the NTSB.
Seanp11 From United States, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8462 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 9): I've read before on this site that autobrakes on WN aircraft are disconnected, so I'm not sure about that one...
I've read from the WN pilots on these forums that they already used RTO for takeoffs, and they were in the process of getting ready to use the autobrakes for landing as SOP at the time of the accident, and I'm pretty sure the preliminary report from the NTSB said that they used the autobrakes at MAX.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8449 times:
Quoting LUVRSW (Reply 10): I reemember when this happened, we all bashed WN pretty hard, but the WN fanatics all said "wait until the report is out"...well it's out now...
Pardon me, but the report still isn't out yet, and won't be for some months. What's going on now are the Hearings, and you've quoted USAToday's citation of them, and what printed material that may have been issued at the Hearings.
IAHFLYR From United States, joined Jun 2005, 3405 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8413 times:
Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 5): IIRC, the crew on that flight had used autobrakes at the MAX setting, so its doubtful that was the 'flawed landing technique.'
Sure would be a "flawed landing technique" if WN's ops specs don't allow for it. Also, flawed landing technique could be the fact that they don't use auto-brakes, so why not get the term "flawed landing technique" defined first and then we can all speculate.
Quoting DeC (Reply 8): For what reasons is the max autobrake against their (or any other airline's) policy?
Probably for the same reason that WN has VNAV & auto-throttle disconnected! Are these options on the airplane when they order them? If not then you save no initial cost, just training and maintenance. correct, anyone help me understand this?
PolymerPlane From United States, joined May 2006, 810 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8398 times:
Quoting Litz (Reply 6): I seem to remember, shortly after the accident, that calculations were made that the plane would have stopped 20 feet short of the wall (mind you, STILL having overrun the end of the runway) if they had managed to hit the deck and almost instantly have full reverse thrust, full autobrakes, and every piece of metal that's movable on the wings sticking straight up in the air.
Not true, according to the NTSB press release PhilSquares showed,
Quote: The OPC then calculated the stopping margin. Depending on whether WET-FAIR or WET-POOR conditions were input, the computer calculated remaining runway after stopping at either 560 feet or 30 feet.
Goingboeing From United States, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8367 times:
The "flawed landing technique" is that the use of reverse thrust was included in the calculation for stopping distance - apparently that could be used for a 700 but not a 300.
Quote: The FAA does not allow the use of the reverse thrust credit when determining dispatch landing distances; in fact, historically decreases in stopping distances due to thrust reverser deployment were used to offset other variables that could significantly degrade stopping performance. However, the FAA does permit thrust reverser credit for calculating en-route operational landing distances for some transport category aircraft, like the 737-700 series, but not for others, like the 737-300.
If the thrust reverser credit had not been allowed in calculating the stopping distance for flight 1248, the OPC would have indicated that a safe landing on runway 31C was not possible. "As a result," the Board said in its recommendation letter, "a single event, the delayed deployment of the thrust reversers, can lead to an unsafe condition, as it did in this accident."
Although the recommendation would prohibit the thrust reverser credit on all runways, its practical effect would be felt on planned landings only on contaminated runways, which is when the credit is included in stopping distance calculations.
Therefore, the Board is recommending that the FAA:
Immediately prohibit all 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 operators from using the reverse thrust credit in landing performance calculations. (A-06-16) (Urgent)
IAHFLYR From United States, joined Jun 2005, 3405 posts, RR: 38 Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8249 times:
Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 16): The "flawed landing technique" is that the use of reverse thrust was included in the calculation for stopping distance - apparently that could be used for a 700 but not a 300.
I'm confused but what's new!! How is that flawed since it was a 700 involved? And how do most airlines calculate their landing date in NG's, doesn't the company upload it to the crew where as WN does their calculations on the flight deck?
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3751 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8127 times:
Well, I just read the whole thing. My personal opinion is that, sad to say, these two nice guys are going to take a lot of flack, based on some of what is in there.
Stoney From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 198 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8038 times:
How come the even censor these Cockpit transcripts. It's not like innocent little kids are looking at a transcript of an accident to learn how to use bad 4-letter words like # or # or # (using the language of the NTSB).
Anyways, is it normal for pilots to be so casual to each other (I'd say a rather positive thing, or not?)?
Greetz
Stoney
BAZL - Bundesamt gegen Zivilluftfahrt - royally screwing around with swiss aviation
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7972 times:
Quoting Stoney (Reply 23): How come the even censor these Cockpit transcripts
You can figure out some of them by context:
"# and grins"
"oh #"
"we're #"
In the pilot interview, the F/O claimed that he said "we're screwed". But if he really said "screwed" they would not have needed to delete that word from the transcipt. So I assume he really said "we're f***ed". But the stupid NTSB won't put it in print. (Neither will I. )
26 PhilSquares: I was going to say something smart, but then I checked your profile.... Perhaps you don't want to sound so glib, but you better check WN's SOPs. As h
27 Goingboeing: Maybe so, but on another board, a United pilot who just LOVES to bash SWA was oddly quiet when the autobrakes issue was mentioned, since he had earli
29 AsstChiefMark: Try reading the transcripts of President Nixon's tapes that were part of the Watergate investigation. At times, they're so heavily censored for obsce
31 Ptharris: This is part extracted after the pilot made his announcement. Funny, I thought.. "hey, this seems to be a nice pilot". And this gent might just be tha
32 AlexPorter: Here's a question that I don't know if it's been brought up - could skidding wheels (i.e. wheels not spinning due to ice) have prevented the thrust re
33 NIKV69: What a concept. MDW should have been closed IMO. Snow removal couldn't keep the runways even somewhat plowed. The words "fair to poor" just stick wit
34 737tanker: At the time of the MDW accident all of WN's pilots had been trained on the use of autobrakes and the autobrakes had been turned on. Some documents th
35 PhilSquares: I think that's what I said. At the end of the day, using manual brakes with max pressure will result in a shorter stopping distance. If the surface i
36 Wjcandee: If I understand correctly, you probably need to add Boeing to the mix of folks getting the criticism, as I believe that it's Boeing's software for th
37 PhilSquares: I'm not sure the OPS is done by Boeing. Obviously, the data is from Boeing but I'm not sure if they actually produce the hardware. I haven't flown un
38 737tanker: Most airlines, to include WN, can't land with NIL braking. Poor braking is limited to a 5 kt tailwind. As for the the thrust reverser credit it is da
39 PhilSquares: Not true at the airlines I've been at. Each airline is different and their OPS Specs are different. The 5 kt tailwind might be a specific issue at yo
40 Goingboeing: What does your ops say about fair (or good) at the start and poor at the end?
41 PolymerPlane: Why did FAA grant 737-700 permission to include thrust reverser in its landing calculation? Cheers, PP
42 TheGreatChecko: This is the way I look at it. The tower just reported good/poor and then changed it to fair/poor as a result of another pilots opinion. Thanks to the
43 LUVRSW: The worst part is reading the end of the transcript, knowing that when it says "sounds similar to clunk" that a 6 year old boy just became pinned at t
44 BlueFlyer: Did a quick search and didn't find this anywhere else, so I thought I'd throw in this fairly well written article from the Dallas Morning News on the
45 PhilSquares: If touchdown and mid are better than poor we can land. However, the landing roll has to be completed by the end of the mid-zone. One of the biggest p
46 BlueFlyer: Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the FAA allowed this exemption for the -700 ?
47 Darrenthe747: hypothetically what kind of penalties might the crew be up against if indeed the hearings prove them to be negligent?
49 DAYflyer: I had the same thought. Sounds like they fudged he numbers to make the landing legal and screwed it up.
50 OPNLguy: The Hearings just adjourned, and the Chairman mention that they hoped to have the final report (which includes the probable cause and contributing fac
51 DfwRevolution: Off topic, but the aircraft N471WN can't begin repairs until the hearings and report are concluded, no?
52 OPNLguy: Not exactly; my understanding is that the "trigger" for being able to commence repairs isn't the conclusion of the hearings or issuance of the final
54 Goingboeing: So....guilty until proven innocent, right? What's wrong with waiting for a final report? Yep...the stopping calculation was made using reverse thrust
55 2H4: He's waiting for the final report to be released before drawing any conclusions. It's called logic, and it has nothing to do with kool-aid. 2H4
56 OPNLguy: And exactly how is my statement false or otherwise indicative of "kool-aid" drinking? If you understood the NTSB accident investigation process, you'
57 Cactus739: If you've got a minute, could you back up your idiotic comment? OPNL was just stating what the NTSB chairman said.... no Kool Aid involved..... (ps,
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 49 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2004, 140 posts, 
From Israel, joined Dec 2004, 417 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 198 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
