NTSB Report on MDW Crash
- Thread starter magsau
- Start date
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
Nobody seems to point out that major, land locked airports with ridiculously short runways and population residing immediately beyond the perimeter is a recipe for disaster, and will be again soon.
Once I come off reserve, I will actively avoid bidding MDW. I don't have a death wish, thankyouverymuch.
In KC, we figured out in the sixties that our 7000+ foot rwy in an urban area was no longer suited to major airport operations and were only too happy to move to a bigger, safer facility after similar accidents there, thankfully with no fatalities.
MDW needs either a major expansion or restrictions on movements (or both) or people will continue to lose lives.
Once I come off reserve, I will actively avoid bidding MDW. I don't have a death wish, thankyouverymuch.
In KC, we figured out in the sixties that our 7000+ foot rwy in an urban area was no longer suited to major airport operations and were only too happy to move to a bigger, safer facility after similar accidents there, thankfully with no fatalities.
MDW needs either a major expansion or restrictions on movements (or both) or people will continue to lose lives.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
Great thought but who is holding a gun to SWA's head to serve MDW? If the airport is unsafe then the operations there should be suspended. If the SWA crews can not operate within the performance specs of the airplane for that particular flight then they should not T/O or Land. If as you allege that these airports are unsafe, then SWA has accept some blame for choosing to serve these unsafe facilities. The problem is SWA has made a career out of undercutting safety and sensibility. It is finally starting to bite them and will continue until they take positive steps to arrest the attitude of cowboys at the controls.
Of course you have SWA pilots diverting over Toilet Paper, yet they will land at MDW in a snowstorm with a Tailwind that puts them over the usable distance to land. The logic is hard to follow.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
I'm not a pilot... I'm an f/a.
My point is that with runways that are that short, it is only a matter of time before there is another accident during abnormal conditions, and I'd rather not increase my likelihood of being involved in it. This is assuming we ignore the lessons learned from this incident and do nothing about it. Aviation safety is principled on constant improvement, lowering probabilities, and increasing your knowledge base by applying solutions to known causes. It makes sense to do something about MDW now before it happens again, and currently there is nothing to stop it from happening again.
CynicalResAgent
Veteran
Didn't MDW recently install runway barriers at the end of the runway as a result of the accident? Its that cement that collapses under the weight of a jet thus slowing down a jet the goes into the barrier? As long as the airport is safer as a result then that is an improvement. It still would be better if the city could buy out some of the houses around the airport to allow more of a buffer but I don't see that happening. Just go to Google Earth and look at how close the houses go to the airport it's amazing how hemmed in that airport is.
CynicalResAgent
Veteran
edited
citrus jock
Advanced
If you (as a passenger or a F/A) want to reduce the chances of being involved in an accident/incident involving running off the end of a runway, then avoiding MDW would certainly do that. From a pilot's perspective, it's not that easy. Let's say I'm going to PHF (Newport News, VA). There are two runways there. 7/25 is about 9000 ft. long. As we're approaching the airport, I'm informed that another aircraft is disabled on 7/25, leaving me the options of landing on the only other runway (2/20), which is a little less than 6000 (IIRC) ft. or diverting. At this point, I would pull out our paperwork and see how much distance it tells me I'll need to land (if I'm a test pilot, flying a perfect airplane, flying a perfect approach, etc.). I'll compare that distance to the usable length of the runway, think about how much sleep I got last night and how I'm presently feeling, etc., and make my decision. Remember, when I departed for PHF, I had plenty of runway; now I don't.
I won't hesitate to divert if I feel I need to, and that's the problem for some pilots (my disclaimer: none of this is directed at SW, the accident at MDW, or any other airline). Some might work for an airline that would actually fault them for diverting (I know I used to work for a commuter that would), and some erroneously think that they work for an airline that would. Some want to hurry home to the family, some want to hurry to the hotel for that great layover, some want to hurry to their hotel bed for their reduced rest, and some erroneously think that because the paperwork says the aircraft can land in X amount of distance, then that's a guarantee that it's going to happen. The "hurry up" mentality can happen to any pilot (those that say, "Not me!!!" are the one's you really have to watch), and it's something that we're trained to watch out for in ourselves and each other. My point: as a pilot, my definition of "long" and "short" is going to be different from other pilots. Even though I have to pass the same checkride to the same standards as another pilot, our "comfort level" in landing on a "short" runway, and therefore our ability to do so, is going to be different. In the above example, the Captain of one flt. might decide to land, another might decide to divert (in the exact same aircraft, at the exact same landing weight), and they BOTH made the right decision.
I've landed at MDW numerous times. I find it challenging and fun, while understanding the danger involved. The danger is not because the runways are short; the danger is me. If I don't recognize that we've touched down too far down the runway, the spoilers didn't deploy, if I don't apply immediate braking/reverse, I have to make the decision to go around immediately (again, I AM NOT directing any of this at SW). And that thinking actually applies to any runway you land on. If I'm landing on a runway that's 15,000 ft. long, there is some point that, if I'm not on the ground and/or various systems don't work, we're going to go off the end. In that sense, MDW is no different from any other airport. What IS different at MDW is that my decision to go around must be made sooner than at other airports.
CynicalResAgent
Veteran
Thank you for providing an nonjudgemental and thoughtful account from the cockpit. That gave me some valueable insight into what a pilot must do.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
Thanks for your post, citrus... 
I certainly agree that going off the end of the runway is never an ideal situation. LIT, YYZ, and all those other overruns all have had their own drawbacks, runway length notwithstanding. The most regrettable thing about MDW, however, is like Res said, it is so tightly packed in that overshooting is most certainly going to result in injuries, such as the death of the young boy in this particular case.
I think, that because the length of the runways is such that the likelihood of a similar accident happening again is greater under similar circumstances, something ought to be done (for example) about the buffer zone (or lack thereof) between the threshold and the intersection of 63rd and Cicero. If not, then weather/slot restrictions should be employed, or perhaps companies such has WN should take a more responsible approach to serving MDW or perhaps even reconsider serving it at all. After all, wasn't ORD supposed to be the jet-age replacement for MDW once upon a time?
Just my opinion.
- astra
I certainly agree that going off the end of the runway is never an ideal situation. LIT, YYZ, and all those other overruns all have had their own drawbacks, runway length notwithstanding. The most regrettable thing about MDW, however, is like Res said, it is so tightly packed in that overshooting is most certainly going to result in injuries, such as the death of the young boy in this particular case.
I think, that because the length of the runways is such that the likelihood of a similar accident happening again is greater under similar circumstances, something ought to be done (for example) about the buffer zone (or lack thereof) between the threshold and the intersection of 63rd and Cicero. If not, then weather/slot restrictions should be employed, or perhaps companies such has WN should take a more responsible approach to serving MDW or perhaps even reconsider serving it at all. After all, wasn't ORD supposed to be the jet-age replacement for MDW once upon a time?
Just my opinion.
- astra
citrus jock
Advanced
I understand your point about the distance between the end of the runways at MDW and the adjacent roads. But, that situation already exists at many airports. If you go off the end of 27R at FLL, it's only a matter of seconds before you're barreling across 8 or so lanes of I-95. The difference is, of course, the length of 27R at FLL is much longer than any runway at MDW. But, as I stated in my first post, if I don't do my job properly, and/or if things on the aircraft don't work as advertised, I would not only go off the end of 27R in FLL, I'd probably cause a lot more damage at FLL than at MDW (due to more people, usually, being on I-95 compared with Cicero).Thanks for your post, citrus...
I certainly agree that going off the end of the runway is never an ideal situation. LIT, YYZ, and all those other overruns all have had their own drawbacks, runway length notwithstanding. The most regrettable thing about MDW, however, is like Res said, it is so tightly packed in that overshooting is most certainly going to result in injuries, such as the death of the young boy in this particular case.
I think, that because the length of the runways is such that the likelihood of a similar accident happening again is greater under similar circumstances, something ought to be done (for example) about the buffer zone (or lack thereof) between the threshold and the intersection of 63rd and Cicero. If not, then weather/slot restrictions should be employed, or perhaps companies such has WN should take a more responsible approach to serving MDW or perhaps even reconsider serving it at all. After all, wasn't ORD supposed to be the jet-age replacement for MDW once upon a time?
Just my opinion.
- astra
Weather/slot restrictions are in no way going to ensure/increase the chances of the PIC of a particular flt. excercising good judgment (again, none of my comments are directed at SW; I have not read the accident report, and therefore feel it inappropriate to comment). Southwest's (or any other airline's) responsibility (in this situation, as you're describing it) is limited to hiring, training (initially and recurrently), and line checking pilots to ensure that they demonstrate the ability to operate the aircraft safely in the type of operations that they conduct. Doing all of that is no guarantee that the next flt. won't run off the end of the runway at MDW, FLL, or anywhere.
It's like one of my (many) pet peeves when the media reports on aircraft accidents. They'll say that the aircraft "crashed because of fog". Aircraft don't crash because of fog. Fog CAN compound problems associated with mechanical failures, poor judgement, etc. But fog DOES NOT cause crashes. Short runways, and houses/roads near them do not cause accidents. They compound other problems.
boeingdriver213
Member
The last time I looked, most of the major airlines have flights into and out of MDW. Air Tran, Continental, Frontier, and Northwest do it with Boeing and Airbus equipment, even 757's. The aircraft are designed to operate into these runways and the crews are trained to operate into the airports. Look at Reagan(DCA). Those are short runways. There are many airports with short runways that are used by air carrier aircraft. That's what they pay us for. No one is perfect, but the airlines safety record is pretty damn close......
With pie-in-sky standards for runways, there would be only two airports in this country with any flights at all -- DEN and DFW. Then Southwest would have to start flying out of DFW.
One death, while unfortunate, is very little considering the number of MDW flights over its history. MDW is not a dangerous airport. It's a tiny fraction of a percent less safe than DEN and DFW, big deal.
One death, while unfortunate, is very little considering the number of MDW flights over its history. MDW is not a dangerous airport. It's a tiny fraction of a percent less safe than DEN and DFW, big deal.
DFW has had at least two fatal accidents, both involving Delta. L-1011 landing (wind shear) in 1985, IIRC, and a 727 on takeoff just a couple of years after that. The 1011 crash had many fatalities, the 727 far less but still more than one. By that yardstick, MDW is safer than DFW. New DEN has been fortunate since it opened in 95. No fatalities yet.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
I hope you're right. I hope WN, the management at MDW, and indeed pilots everywhere are taking to heart the lessons learned from that blustery night in Chicago. But isn't airline safety predicated on the principle of redundancy? If something fails, shouldn't there be buffer? Isn't it negligent not to mention ignorant to believe that a mistake like that won't be made again? Don't we owe it to ourselves and our passengers to make every situation absolutely as safe as it possibly can be?
Hey now. You know that's statistically no way to draw conclusions about the safety of an airport. I'm sure there have been many more ops not to mention pax that have operated over the life of DFW than MDW.
- astra
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Investor looking for serious changes at Southwest- Latest: Jalsporteam
-