MrNuke
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:37 am

SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:46 pm

There has been a bit of freezing rain this afternoon.

Per the OMA airport authority

A Southwest Airlines aircraft is off the end of Runway 14R after landing at Eppley Airfield. There are no injuries and airport fire crews are working with Southwest to deplane the passengers and take them to the terminal.


https://twitter.com/mrittershaus/status ... 4296195073
https://twitter.com/MasonMauroWOWT6/sta ... 6658771968
https://twitter.com/alischwanke/status/ ... 2575982592
https://twitter.com/OWHCrime/status/1086364122751614976

The airport is currently closed.
Last edited by MrNuke on Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
kiowa
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:01 pm

At least it was not at BUR or MDW.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:09 pm

Appears to either be a slow speed excursion, or they slid off turning off at the end.

Weather there apparently is far north of "nasty"
 
gon2fly
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:16 pm

Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:27 pm

gon2fly wrote:
Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.


There have been no arrivals since that WN flight. I see diversions to CID (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW ... /KORD/KCID) and back to ORD (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ENY ... /KORD/KORD) and MDW (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA ... /KMDW/KMDW).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
MrNuke
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:37 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:35 pm

gon2fly wrote:
Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.

The airport authority directly has reported the airport is closed. https://twitter.com/OMAairport/status/1 ... 4536822784
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:37 pm

Southwest has a bit of a problem....
SFO
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:39 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
gon2fly wrote:
Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.

That page doesn’t usually list every airport that is closed. Usually only during major events. The airport is indeed closed by NOTAM.
SFO
 
citationjet
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:40 pm

Looks like DL 6008 from LAX to OMA is diverting to DEN.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPZ6008
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
gon2fly
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:47 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
gon2fly wrote:
Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.

That page doesn’t usually list every airport that is closed. Usually only during major events. The airport is indeed closed by NOTAM.


I clicked on the North Central states region tab.....and it gives a more detailed list of airports....including Omaha. I see now on the airport website that the airport is closed, but strangely, the FAA site is still not showing it correctly and stating it open with delays of 15 minutes or less.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:50 pm

gon2fly wrote:
I see now on the airport website that the airport is closed, but strangely, the FAA site is still not showing it correctly and stating it open with delays of 15 minutes or less.


The partial government shutdown may have something to do with the lack of website update. I know the controllers are still working, but they are not the ones working IT website issues.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:57 pm

citationjet wrote:
Looks like DL 6008 from LAX to OMA is diverting to DEN.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPZ6008

That's AA 6008... :D
 
citationjet
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:00 pm

Live ATC OMA Tower is saying the airport is still closed as of 4:00 pm Central.
https://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=oma
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:01 pm

FA9295 wrote:
citationjet wrote:
Looks like DL 6008 from LAX to OMA is diverting to DEN.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPZ6008

That's AA 6008... :D

OK.
The photo on Flightaware for this flight shows a DL paint scheme.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:02 pm

So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:09 pm

citationjet wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
citationjet wrote:
Looks like DL 6008 from LAX to OMA is diverting to DEN.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPZ6008

That's AA 6008... :D

OK.
The photo on Flightaware for this flight shows a DL paint scheme.

Yeah, that's a well-known flightaware bug. All Compass flights show up as Delta for some reason...
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:09 pm

gon2fly wrote:
flyguy84 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
gon2fly wrote:
Do we know that the airport is indeed closed? Referencing the live update on the FAA flight delay page....there is no reference to OMA being closed, and it shows delays of 15 minutes or less.

That page doesn’t usually list every airport that is closed. Usually only during major events. The airport is indeed closed by NOTAM.


I clicked on the North Central states region tab.....and it gives a more detailed list of airports....including Omaha. I see now on the airport website that the airport is closed, but strangely, the FAA site is still not showing it correctly and stating it open with delays of 15 minutes or less.

As I’ve stated, the OIS page doesn’t always update with airport closures. Usually only during major events such as hurricanes and blizzards. A NOTAM is sufficient as operators will see it.
SFO
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:11 pm

KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...

I think Southwest is just getting unlucky...
 
KBUF
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:12 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:11 pm

"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup."-Terry Pegula, February 22, 2011
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3493
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:15 pm

I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
kiowa
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:24 pm

FA9295 wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...

I think Southwest is just getting unlucky...



Did they close the airport because of Southwest or did Southwest try to get in before the airport was closed for weather?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 pm

kiowa wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...

I think Southwest is just getting unlucky...



Did they close the airport because of Southwest or did Southwest try to get in before the airport was closed for weather?



I’m pretty sure the airport told Southwest that they were going to close for safety reasons and Southwest said hold the door open we can make it.

Smh...
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:31 pm

KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...


A few years ago, I took a Southwest flight to ABQ (from LAS, as I recall, but I could be wrong). I was in the first boarding group and took the aisle seat in row 1, so I had a clear view of the goings-on in the front galley throughout the flight.

One flight attendant never sat down for landing. As we were taxiing to the gate, she told her colleague, "it's been a while since I've done that."

I've never seen that on any flight before, except once in the former Soviet Union. I poked around a bit, and there is indeed an FAR about this.

I have to say that this incident did not speak well of WN's safety culture in my mind.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:33 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...


A few years ago, I took a Southwest flight to ABQ (from LAS, as I recall, but I could be wrong). I was in the first boarding group and took the aisle seat in row 1, so I had a clear view of the goings-on in the front galley throughout the flight.

One flight attendant never sat down for landing. As we were taxiing to the gate, she told her colleague, "it's been a while since I've done that."

I've never seen that on any flight before, except once in the former Soviet Union. I poked around a bit, and there is indeed an FAR about this.

I have to say that this incident did not speak well of WN's safety culture in my mind.


You should report something like that to the airline. That’s the way to fix it and send a message.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:39 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
kiowa wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
I think Southwest is just getting unlucky...



Did they close the airport because of Southwest or did Southwest try to get in before the airport was closed for weather?



I’m pretty sure the airport told Southwest that they were going to close for safety reasons and Southwest said hold the door open we can make it.

Smh...


In the event that y'all aren't trolling, there's simply no evidence of that. AS landed 10 minutes before WN and OO landed 7 minutes before AS Meanwhile, another WN flight departed two minutes before WN landed and EV departed 10 minutes before that (after a lengthy sit on the tarmac). It looks like they may have stopped ops for a while between 1300 and 1330, presumably for runway clearing.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
bgm
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:40 pm

Another day, another 737 runway excursion...
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:47 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
kiowa wrote:


Did they close the airport because of Southwest or did Southwest try to get in before the airport was closed for weather?



I’m pretty sure the airport told Southwest that they were going to close for safety reasons and Southwest said hold the door open we can make it.

Smh...


In the event that y'all aren't trolling, there's simply no evidence of that. AS landed 10 minutes before WN and OO landed 7 minutes before AS Meanwhile, another WN flight departed two minutes before WN landed and EV departed 10 minutes before that (after a lengthy sit on the tarmac). It looks like they may have stopped ops for a while between 1300 and 1330, presumably for runway clearing.


I was trolling the poster I replied to.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:48 pm

The airport has reopened.
SFO
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:48 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:


I’m pretty sure the airport told Southwest that they were going to close for safety reasons and Southwest said hold the door open we can make it.

Smh...


In the event that y'all aren't trolling, there's simply no evidence of that. AS landed 10 minutes before WN and OO landed 7 minutes before AS Meanwhile, another WN flight departed two minutes before WN landed and EV departed 10 minutes before that (after a lengthy sit on the tarmac). It looks like they may have stopped ops for a while between 1300 and 1330, presumably for runway clearing.


I was trolling the poster I replied to.


I know. I was trying to subtly refer to a certain person ;-)
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
GatorClark
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:34 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:52 pm

KCaviator wrote:
So when is the FAA going to take notice and look into the safety culture, or lack thereof, at Southwest? This is getting ridiculous...


So the Lufthansa A330 that slid of the runway in DFW 5 years ago also means they have a lack of safety culture? Not really sticking up for WN, but this doesn't really indicated a lack of focus on safety. Yes they've had some incidents recently, but some of them can just be chalked up to bad luck.. And with as many segments as they offer a day, something is bound to happen.
 
Bradin
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:56 pm

Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:07 pm

Bradin wrote:
Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.


No one else seems to have the problem of staying on the runway except WN. Good luck with your ETOPS application.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:15 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.


No one else seems to have the problem of staying on the runway except WN. Good luck with your ETOPS application.


So the AA overruns at LIT (hull loss, significant loss of life), KIN (hull loss), and JAC don't count? I may well have missed a few.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:37 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.


No one else seems to have the problem of staying on the runway except WN. Good luck with your ETOPS application.


So the AA overruns at LIT (hull loss, significant loss of life), KIN (hull loss), and JAC don't count? I may well have missed a few.


DL at LGA almost went really ugly. Eastern (new guys)at LGA. CO at DEN. etc etc etc
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:38 pm

litz wrote:
Weather there apparently is far north of "nasty"


I'm 6 miles west of Eppley and ZERO snow here...just freezing rain.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1727
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:47 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.


No one else seems to have the problem of staying on the runway except WN. Good luck with your ETOPS application.


Delta and their subsidiaries don't seem to be much better... at least 3x in the last 7 months...

Delta last week.... https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-in ... 94421.html

Delta in December... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoo ... -1.4955749

Delta in May... https://www.wlky.com/article/plane-skid ... d/20760288

and then we have Alaska Airlines whom had an airliner stolen... what does that say of their safety/security culture?
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
shaneam12
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:00 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:52 pm

So I just want to be clear. The Southwest flight DID NOT overrun the runway. The aircraft slowed to taxi speed, got clearance to vacate at the end of the runway, and slid off the asphalt while vacating. In fact, the air traffic controller even gave the American flight behind him takeoff clearance as he was vacating, so it was clearly not an overrun.

Here is the official Southwest tweet on the matter also confirming that it was not an overrun, rather an excursion into the overrun area while taxiing: https://twitter.com/SouthwestAir/status ... 4102702081

Mods, please change the title of the topic to accurately reflect what occurred (runway excursion while vacating).
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:01 am

usflyguy wrote:
and then we have Alaska Airlines whom had an airliner stolen... what does that say of their safety/security culture?


I’m looking forward to the final report on that as well.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:01 am

LOL an excursion into the overrun. It's like they're on a friggin' cruise or something. WN has a hard time staying out of the news...that's all I'm saying.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:10 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
usflyguy wrote:
and then we have Alaska Airlines whom had an airliner stolen... what does that say of their safety/security culture?


I’m looking forward to the final report on that as well.


There won’t be an NTSB accident report on that—it’s a crime, not an accident.

GF
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:27 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
litz wrote:
Weather there apparently is far north of "nasty"


I'm 6 miles west of Eppley and ZERO snow here...just freezing rain.


This is a potentially significant datum. Omaha is far enough north that it really doesn’t get that much ice. I suspect OMA Ops does well with snow. They don’t have as much experience with ice, but it’s a much different beast.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:29 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
usflyguy wrote:
and then we have Alaska Airlines whom had an airliner stolen... what does that say of their safety/security culture?


I’m looking forward to the final report on that as well.


There won’t be an NTSB accident report on that—it’s a crime, not an accident.

GF


A hull loss is most certainly an accident.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:47 am

Cubsrule wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

I’m looking forward to the final report on that as well.


There won’t be an NTSB accident report on that—it’s a crime, not an accident.

GF


A hull loss is most certainly an accident.

Not being investigated by the NTSB, as noted above.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA
Captain Kevin
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:53 am

AirKevin wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There won’t be an NTSB accident report on that—it’s a crime, not an accident.

GF


A hull loss is most certainly an accident.

Not being investigated by the NTSB, as noted above.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA


I’m confused. I said nothing about NTSB investigation. A hull loss is definitionally an accident regardless of who investigates.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
n471wn
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:23 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:25 am

hiflyeras wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Also consider the sheer volume of flights WN operates daily in the US alone.


No one else seems to have the problem of staying on the runway except WN. Good luck with your ETOPS application.




You would think that people on this forum would take a minute to do some homework. “No one else........”

“No one else” would make such a stupid statement
 
bob75013
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:41 am

flyguy84 wrote:
Southwest has a bit of a problem....


Did you say the same when Delta and American flights both ended up off runways earlier this week?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:43 am

Cubsrule wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

A hull loss is most certainly an accident.

Not being investigated by the NTSB, as noted above.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA


I’m confused. I said nothing about NTSB investigation. A hull loss is definitionally an accident regardless of who investigates.


No, it’s not an accident, by definition in Annex 13, see quote below.

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of

- being in the aircraft, or

- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or

- direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,



GF
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:46 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Not being investigated by the NTSB, as noted above.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA


I’m confused. I said nothing about NTSB investigation. A hull loss is definitionally an accident regardless of who investigates.


No, it’s not an accident, by definition in Annex 13, see quote below.

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of

- being in the aircraft, or

- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or

- direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,



GF


Are we both talking about the same thing? That DH4 most certainly sustained damage or structural failure that adversely affected its structural strength, performance, and flight characteristics. It was destroyed. A hull loss with no injuries is an accident.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:49 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
usflyguy wrote:
and then we have Alaska Airlines whom had an airliner stolen... what does that say of their safety/security culture?


I’m looking forward to the final report on that as well.


Here’s the post that started us down the trail here regarding an Alaska, owned by Horizon, and it’s rhe only hull loss there of a DH4, stolen by a ramper. By definition, it’s not an accident, as defined under the NTSB and ICAO Annex 13 quoted above. A hull loss by intentional act is a crime, not accidental.

Excerpted,
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew


GF
 
PDX88
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:31 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Not being investigated by the NTSB, as noted above.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA


I’m confused. I said nothing about NTSB investigation. A hull loss is definitionally an accident regardless of who investigates.


No, it’s not an accident, by definition in Annex 13, see quote below.

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of

- being in the aircraft, or

- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or

- direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,



GF


Did you just ignore section b) ?

Because that exactly fits the definition of an accident for the stolen Q400.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos