Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6255
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:34 am

Did you not read the NTSB report? It’s NOT an accident; it didn’t crash from accident, it was stolen.

GF
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14567
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:38 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Did you not read the NTSB report? It’s NOT an accident; it didn’t crash from accident, it was stolen.

GF


This really isn't hard. 49 C.F.R. 830.2 (that's an NTSB reg btw):

Aircraft accident means 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 and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.


Unless you want to argue that a hull loss is not "substantial damage," which is almost a frivolous argument, the hull loss of an occupied airplane is an accident regardless of injury.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PDX88
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:43 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Did you not read the NTSB report? It’s NOT an accident; it didn’t crash from accident, it was stolen.

GF


You're confusing the literal definition of an accident: an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, with the NTSB's definition, which aren't interchangeable. Just because a plane didn't crash accidentally doesn't mean it isn't categorized as an accident by the NTSB.
 
bradyj23
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:24 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:44 am

Well this thread spiraled out of control faster than WN went off the pavement.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6255
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:45 am

 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:08 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.



it honestly feels like this happens all the time to WN ..... is it because they fly into smallish airports like OMA?
 
PDX88
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:10 am

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.

So AA in 1999, 2009, 2011.

Okay...

Southwest:

Burbank 2000 - Runway overrun
Midway 2005 - Runway overrun
Midway 2011 - Runway overrun
Islip 2012- Taxied off taxiway
La Guardia 2013 - Landing gear collapse
Branson 2014 - Landed at wrong airport
Nashville 2015 - Taxied into a ditch
Orlando 2015 - Taxied off taxiway
Baltimore 2018 - Plane off edge of taxiway
Burbank 2018 - Runway overrun
Omaha 2019 - Taxiway excursion

This is only the (near) off-pavement incidents, and I may have missed a few as well. It's not a secret or a myth that Southwest taxis a little more dangerously than everyone else. Which 99.99% of the time works out, however they appear to have far more off-pavement incidents by far than anyone else out there. Thankfully none of these have been fatal (to passengers), however it's ignorant to claim the Southwest "cowboy" culture doesn't add a small amount of danger to the passengers. The LGA 2013 incident could have easily ended up like FedEx in NRT in 2009.
 
Chemist
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:15 am

I'd be interested in knowing the number of daily landings for WN versus AA, DL, UA so that we can normalize the data.
Given the quantity of planes at WN and the number of short segments, I'd guess they have at least 2-3x more landings/day, which opens up more chances for excursions. Not to mention more small airports.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14567
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:18 am

PDX88 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:

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.

So AA in 1999, 2009, 2011.

Okay...

Southwest:

Burbank 2000 - Runway overrun
Midway 2005 - Runway overrun
Midway 2011 - Runway overrun
Islip 2012- Taxied off taxiway
La Guardia 2013 - Landing gear collapse
Branson 2014 - Landed at wrong airport
Nashville 2015 - Taxied into a ditch
Orlando 2015 - Taxied off taxiway
Baltimore 2018 - Plane off edge of taxiway
Burbank 2018 - Runway overrun
Omaha 2019 - Taxiway excursion

This is only the (near) off-pavement incidents, and I may have missed a few as well. It's not a secret or a myth that Southwest taxis a little more dangerously than everyone else. Which 99.99% of the time works out, however they appear to have far more off-pavement incidents by far than anyone else out there. Thankfully none of these have been fatal (to passengers), however it's ignorant to claim the Southwest "cowboy" culture doesn't add a small amount of danger to the passengers. The LGA 2013 incident could have easily ended up like FedEx in NRT in 2009.


If you have some data that show WN off the pavement more than others, I'm all ears. Part of the problem, of course, is that WN operates into some airports with short runways; if anyone is going to have a problem at BUR or MDW, the odds are it'll be WN. (A fair retort is that WN's processes ought to account for the operational realities of these airports.)

But sharing this list and blaming it on cowboy culture is silly. The transcript for 1248 is especially illuminative in that regard; there was a lengthy discussion of potentially diverting to points as far away as MCI. BNA was a freak accident that is hard to tie to anything cultural or WN-specific other than that that WN is about the only one who uses that turnoff.

And the point about FX80 is equally silly. There is almost no way unrelated to terrain that a 737 winds up upside down on landing. An M11 is obviously a different story.
Last edited by Cubsrule on Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:35 am

Chemist wrote:
I'd be interested in knowing the number of daily landings for WN versus AA, DL, UA so that we can normalize the data.
Given the quantity of planes at WN and the number of short segments, I'd guess they have at least 2-3x more landings/day, which opens up more chances for excursions. Not to mention more small airports.


According to Southwest's Fact Sheet, it operates more than 4000 weekday departures during peak season. In 2017, each 737 flies over five flights a day.

Assuming a fleet size of 750, times an average of five flights, at least 3750 flights a day.



https://www.swamedia.com/pages/corporate-fact-sheet
 
PDX88
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:48 am

Cubsrule wrote:
PDX88 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

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.

So AA in 1999, 2009, 2011.

Okay...

Southwest:

Burbank 2000 - Runway overrun
Midway 2005 - Runway overrun
Midway 2011 - Runway overrun
Islip 2012- Taxied off taxiway
La Guardia 2013 - Landing gear collapse
Branson 2014 - Landed at wrong airport
Nashville 2015 - Taxied into a ditch
Orlando 2015 - Taxied off taxiway
Baltimore 2018 - Plane off edge of taxiway
Burbank 2018 - Runway overrun
Omaha 2019 - Taxiway excursion

This is only the (near) off-pavement incidents, and I may have missed a few as well. It's not a secret or a myth that Southwest taxis a little more dangerously than everyone else. Which 99.99% of the time works out, however they appear to have far more off-pavement incidents by far than anyone else out there. Thankfully none of these have been fatal (to passengers), however it's ignorant to claim the Southwest "cowboy" culture doesn't add a small amount of danger to the passengers. The LGA 2013 incident could have easily ended up like FedEx in NRT in 2009.


If you have some data that shows WN off the pavement more than others, I'm all ears. Part of the problem, of course, is that WN operates into some airports with short runways; if anyone is going to have a problem at BUR or MDW, the odds are it'll be WN. (A fair retort is that WN's processes ought to account for the operational realities of these airports.)

But sharing this list and blaming it on cowboy culture is silly. The transcript for 1248 is especially illuminative in that regard; there was a lengthy discussion of potentially diverting to points as far away as MCI. BNA was a freak accident that is hard to tie to anything cultural or WN-specific other than that that WN is about the only one who uses that turnoff.

And the point about FX80 is equally silly. There is almost no way unrelated to terrain that a 737 winds up upside down on landing. An M11 is obviously a different story.


I provided 11 examples of Southwest off the pavement since 2000, I'm sure we can both agree we would have a hard time finding anyone else close to that number. I provided hard data, I welcome you to do the same.

And sure, short runways are a factor in 4 of the incidents I listed, however Southwest is not the only airline to operate mainline into these airports, nor does that excuse them for failing to make the safe decision to divert when weather plays a serious factor. All 4 of those short runway incidents were completely avoidable. Especially 1248, where you say they discussed diverting yet failed to do so, even 15 miles away to ORD.

BNA was not a freak accident, either, that's to claim that it was completely unavoidable. The ditch didn't jump in front of the plane, the crew couldn't see where they were going but elected to continue moving the aircraft regardless. I have taxied on T3 and T4 on multiple occasions without issue.

And in LGA, had the nose gear not collapsed, the 737 could have easily began porpoising until an eventual stall and wing drop, also like Executive 5401 in SJU.

I'm not sure why you're defending every Southwest incident like none of them are their fault.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:51 am

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...

You're right...they obviously need to be permanently grounded and shut down.
 
shaneam12
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:00 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:03 am

PDX88 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
PDX88 wrote:
So AA in 1999, 2009, 2011.

Okay...

Southwest:

Burbank 2000 - Runway overrun
Midway 2005 - Runway overrun
Midway 2011 - Runway overrun
Islip 2012- Taxied off taxiway
La Guardia 2013 - Landing gear collapse
Branson 2014 - Landed at wrong airport
Nashville 2015 - Taxied into a ditch
Orlando 2015 - Taxied off taxiway
Baltimore 2018 - Plane off edge of taxiway
Burbank 2018 - Runway overrun
Omaha 2019 - Taxiway excursion

This is only the (near) off-pavement incidents, and I may have missed a few as well. It's not a secret or a myth that Southwest taxis a little more dangerously than everyone else. Which 99.99% of the time works out, however they appear to have far more off-pavement incidents by far than anyone else out there. Thankfully none of these have been fatal (to passengers), however it's ignorant to claim the Southwest "cowboy" culture doesn't add a small amount of danger to the passengers. The LGA 2013 incident could have easily ended up like FedEx in NRT in 2009.


If you have some data that shows WN off the pavement more than others, I'm all ears. Part of the problem, of course, is that WN operates into some airports with short runways; if anyone is going to have a problem at BUR or MDW, the odds are it'll be WN. (A fair retort is that WN's processes ought to account for the operational realities of these airports.)

But sharing this list and blaming it on cowboy culture is silly. The transcript for 1248 is especially illuminative in that regard; there was a lengthy discussion of potentially diverting to points as far away as MCI. BNA was a freak accident that is hard to tie to anything cultural or WN-specific other than that that WN is about the only one who uses that turnoff.

And the point about FX80 is equally silly. There is almost no way unrelated to terrain that a 737 winds up upside down on landing. An M11 is obviously a different story.


I provided 11 examples of Southwest off the pavement since 2000, I'm sure we can both agree we would have a hard time finding anyone else close to that number. I provided hard data, I welcome you to do the same.


Here you go, straight off of AvHerald:

Delta A319 at Minneapolis on Dec 20th 2010, runway excursion
Delta MD88 at Saint Louis on Mar 26th 2011, runway excursion
Delta MD88 at Buffalo on Jan 13th 2012, runway excursion during turn off
Delta B738 at Columbus on Apr 19th 2013, runway excursion
Delta B763 at Madrid on Dec 5th 2013, burst tyre on takeoff, hydraulic failure, taxiway excursion after landing
Delta B738 at Madison on Dec 16th 2013, runway excursion after landing
Endeavor CRJ2 at New York on Jan 5th 2014, runway excursion during turn off
Delta MD88 at New York on Apr 2nd 2014, hydraulic failure and runway excursion
Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing (yes this was the one where they ended up on the side of the seawall feet from ending up at the bottom of the Flushing Bay)
Delta MD88 at Detroit on Dec 11th 2016, runway excursion on landing
Delta B712 at Atlanta on Jun 29th 2017, runway excursion on landing
Endeavor CRJ9 at Lexington on May 19th 2018, runway excursion on landing

And this is just from 2010.

My point is, everyone has their fair share of incidents/accidents. They cannot be attributed to any one airline.
 
PDX88
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:29 am

shaneam12 wrote:
PDX88 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

If you have some data that shows WN off the pavement more than others, I'm all ears. Part of the problem, of course, is that WN operates into some airports with short runways; if anyone is going to have a problem at BUR or MDW, the odds are it'll be WN. (A fair retort is that WN's processes ought to account for the operational realities of these airports.)

But sharing this list and blaming it on cowboy culture is silly. The transcript for 1248 is especially illuminative in that regard; there was a lengthy discussion of potentially diverting to points as far away as MCI. BNA was a freak accident that is hard to tie to anything cultural or WN-specific other than that that WN is about the only one who uses that turnoff.

And the point about FX80 is equally silly. There is almost no way unrelated to terrain that a 737 winds up upside down on landing. An M11 is obviously a different story.


I provided 11 examples of Southwest off the pavement since 2000, I'm sure we can both agree we would have a hard time finding anyone else close to that number. I provided hard data, I welcome you to do the same.


Here you go, straight off of AvHerald:

Delta A319 at Minneapolis on Dec 20th 2010, runway excursion
Delta MD88 at Saint Louis on Mar 26th 2011, runway excursion
Delta MD88 at Buffalo on Jan 13th 2012, runway excursion during turn off
Delta B738 at Columbus on Apr 19th 2013, runway excursion
Delta B763 at Madrid on Dec 5th 2013, burst tyre on takeoff, hydraulic failure, taxiway excursion after landing
Delta B738 at Madison on Dec 16th 2013, runway excursion after landing
Endeavor CRJ2 at New York on Jan 5th 2014, runway excursion during turn off
Delta MD88 at New York on Apr 2nd 2014, hydraulic failure and runway excursion
Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing (yes this was the one where they ended up on the side of the seawall feet from ending up at the bottom of the Flushing Bay)
Delta MD88 at Detroit on Dec 11th 2016, runway excursion on landing
Delta B712 at Atlanta on Jun 29th 2017, runway excursion on landing
Endeavor CRJ9 at Lexington on May 19th 2018, runway excursion on landing

And this is just from 2010.

My point is, everyone has their fair share of incidents/accidents. They cannot be attributed to any one airline.


I'd exclude Endeavor from the data of Delta incidents, otherwise I appreciate the research. It's concerning the number of MD88 incidents compared to the rest of the fleet.
 
WNCrew
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:45 am

PDX88 wrote:
shaneam12 wrote:
PDX88 wrote:

I provided 11 examples of Southwest off the pavement since 2000, I'm sure we can both agree we would have a hard time finding anyone else close to that number. I provided hard data, I welcome you to do the same.



I'd exclude Endeavor from the data of Delta incidents, otherwise I appreciate the research. It's concerning the number of MD88 incidents compared to the rest of the fleet.


Does crow taste like chicken?

You can exclude Endeavor as long as we always make sure they're excluded when it comes to fleet size, on time stats, passengers carried and anything else that could provide a "positive" result.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2572
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:36 am

WNCrew wrote:
PDX88 wrote:
shaneam12 wrote:


I'd exclude Endeavor from the data of Delta incidents, otherwise I appreciate the research. It's concerning the number of MD88 incidents compared to the rest of the fleet.


Does crow taste like chicken?

You can exclude Endeavor as long as we always make sure they're excluded when it comes to fleet size, on time stats, passengers carried and anything else that could provide a "positive" result.


What's being discussed here is not a "brand" thing, but an operating certificate/seniority list thing.

Endeavour is a different company than Delta. Yes, it's a contractor for the mainline brand but for the purposes of safety culture it's not the same operation at all.

Two DL events on that list are also ones that aren't really there in the same way as the rest of the overruns/excursions be it at SWA, DL or wherever else. For instance, the Madrid event was an emergency handled well enough by the crew that it earned them a national superior airmanship award that year. The lack of steering caused issues, not taxiing around airports too fast.
 
Ward86IND
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:13 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:43 am

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...


I'm pretty sure you are talking out of your arse and you know nothing of which you speak.
Live your dream.
 
User avatar
SAAFNAV
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:02 am

PDX88 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

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.


An accident investigation's purpose is to... gasp... investigate the cause of the accident.
When someone steals and aircraft, and has only flown MS FS before, you don't really need an expert to figure out why the plane crashed?

They might open a docket, state the facts and close it, but what would you like them to find?
CFI/Gr. III, L-382 Loadmaster, ex C-130B Navigator
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:19 am

Ward86IND 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...


I'm pretty sure you are talking out of your arse and you know nothing of which you speak.


I already stated upthread that it was sarcasm directed at the person I was replying 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.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:57 am

goboeing wrote:
WNCrew wrote:
PDX88 wrote:


Does crow taste like chicken?

You can exclude Endeavor as long as we always make sure they're excluded when it comes to fleet size, on time stats, passengers carried and anything else that could provide a "positive" result.


What's being discussed here is not a "brand" thing, but an operating certificate/seniority list thing.

Endeavour is a different company than Delta. Yes, it's a contractor for the mainline brand but for the purposes of safety culture it's not the same operation at all.

Two DL events on that list are also ones that aren't really there in the same way as the rest of the overruns/excursions be it at SWA, DL or wherever else. For instance, the Madrid event was an emergency handled well enough by the crew that it earned them a national superior airmanship award that year. The lack of steering caused issues, not taxiing around airports too fast.


....different company on paper maybe...realistically however Endeavour is Delta through and through. From the top down. Just quick example the CEO of Endeavour is also the Senior Vice President, of Delta Connection and Delta Global Services.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:45 am

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

it honestly feels like this happens all the time to WN ..... is it because they fly into smallish airports like OMA?


OMA: 14R is 9,500' https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/0030 ... ddest=(OMA)

9,500' should be long enough to land, decelerate and turn off at a speed that allows you to stay on the asphalt even when the surface is not clear and dry.
 
Airbuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:24 pm

We all land on slippery runways. 9500 feet is pretty long. What was the braking action? Who was flying? What kind of experience does the crew have? On speed? Touchdown At 1000 feet? Did everything work as planned? Ice accumulation on wing? How heavy were they? Too many variables to know until the NTSB report. Why bother speculating? Every airline has close calls. Pilots screw up. We don’t intentionally break rules. I don’t get paid less when I decide to deice when I may not have had to. I don’t get paid less when I bump my fuel load up. I don’t get paid less when I go around. I don’t get paid less when I do the conservative choice. Do I screw up? Heck yes. I have 20,000 hours in the air. I have done some things that I shouldn’t have. I didn’t do those things again. What I am thinking about is two pilots second guessing the actions they took yesterday. They are not having a good time right now. Give them and their airline a break.
 
N8302A
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:55 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:58 pm

Well said Airbuser! I'll be flying Southwest on 21 Jan.....with out hesitation.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14567
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:15 pm

PDX88 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're defending every Southwest incident like none of them are their fault.


That's not really the point. The point is that planes leaving the pavement are not necessarily evidence of a safety culture problem. As of 30 minutes ago, UA now has the "most recent runway excursion prize." Is UA now unsafe? My answer is "certainly not." YMMV.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
PA727
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:48 pm

Hey, can we carry this conversation over to the "UA off runway at ORD" thread - It's fresher!!! Hopes this proves the point. It's winter. Airliners have excursions.

Fortunately, the vast majority of cases end with mud on the tires and a bruised ego. For that, we should all be grateful.
 
swacle
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:41 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:51 pm

I guess United needs to get their safety culture under control as well, huh? :roll: https://wgntv.com/2019/01/19/plane-skid ... cials-say/
Aircraft Flown: SF3 DH8 DH4 328 ERJ CRJ CR7 CR9 E70 E75 D9S M80 712 72S 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 752 318 319 32
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:45 pm

You guys realize there are thousands of flights a day by these major airlines? If it was a company that had 1 flight a day and ran an airplane off the end every couple years, that's a problem. If pilots think it is something that won't happen to them and have no regard to safety, that's a problem. This is aviation, the pilots are human and mistakes happen. You learn from your own and others mistakes and you move on.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
FTMCPIUS
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:10 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:14 pm

tb727 wrote:
pilots are human and mistakes happen


With those runways in much less than ideal condition it's amazing more 'mistakes' don't occur
 
tomaheath
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:31 pm

Just listened to the ATC to the sounds of it the ground crews didn’t find it to be good braking conditions.
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Overrun at OMA

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:46 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

it honestly feels like this happens all the time to WN ..... is it because they fly into smallish airports like OMA?


OMA: 14R is 9,500' https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/0030 ... ddest=(OMA)

9,500' should be long enough to land, decelerate and turn off at a speed that allows you to stay on the asphalt even when the surface is not clear and dry.



I didnt mean the runway was short ..... I was just thinking that WN flies to medium size to smaller airports where maybe they dont maintain the runways as well in icy / snowy conditions.


But then I realized what I was saying was dumb lol So my bad.
 
flightwriter
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:53 pm

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 am

Airbuser wrote:
We all land on slippery runways. 9500 feet is pretty long. What was the braking action? Who was flying? What kind of experience does the crew have? On speed? Touchdown At 1000 feet? Did everything work as planned? Ice accumulation on wing? How heavy were they? Too many variables to know until the NTSB report. Why bother speculating? Every airline has close calls. Pilots screw up. We don’t intentionally break rules. I don’t get paid less when I decide to deice when I may not have had to. I don’t get paid less when I bump my fuel load up. I don’t get paid less when I go around. I don’t get paid less when I do the conservative choice. Do I screw up? Heck yes. I have 20,000 hours in the air. I have done some things that I shouldn’t have. I didn’t do those things again. What I am thinking about is two pilots second guessing the actions they took yesterday. They are not having a good time right now. Give them and their airline a break.


Well said, thanks.

Listening to the LiveATC feed may offer insights to a few of these questions. The preceding Alaska Airlines 737-800 queried the tower controller while on approach about TALPA field conditions, and the controller responded, "still all fives across the board. We haven't had a braking action report on 14R recently, we did have some on 14L which was deiced before 14R and they were all good."

As the Alaska flight rolled out after landing, the pilot advised "braking action, good" on 14R. However, while turning onto Taxiway Echo the Alaska pilot added "this patch down here at end of the runway is pretty icy." The controller acknowledged the information, and approximately 7-8 minutes later relayed the braking action report to the Southwest flight. LiveATC did not capture any comment the controller may have made about the Alaska crew's comments about the ice at the end.
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:46 am

 
kiowa
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: SWA 1643 Runway Excursion at OMA

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:46 pm

I am surprised there are so few pics of this excursion on the web.

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