NTSB Report on MDW Crash

[KCFlyer]

Don't we owe it to ourselves and our passengers to make every situation absolutely as safe as it possibly can be?

To make it almost perfectly safe, we can close airports, pull the wings off of planes and send people by bus. I mean...if closing MDW is the best option for safety of passengers, why don't we close DFW, since a DC-10 went off the runway there during a rainstorm? Obviously, the runway wasn't wide enough.

Delta 191 went down in windshear in 1985. As a result, intensive training in wind shear encounters was implemented by almost every airline. But in 1994, a USAir DC9 went down in Charlotte because of wind shear. Reading the cockpit transcript - the pilots sure seemed to be aware of wind shear - seemed like they planned what they would do. But still they crashed. Did they not do everything possible to insure it was safe? A plane landed just a minute before them and said the approach was "smooth". Should we just close all airports as soon as any kind of inclement weather is in the area? After all...the goal is to make it as safe as it possibly can be for your passengers?

 

[mga707]

I'm sure there have been many more ops not to mention pax that have operated over the life of DFW than MDW.

- astra

Passengers, probably, since 21-passenger DC-3s or even 80 passenger DC-6s and Connies are no longer the 'queens of the skies'.
Aircraft operations, I highly doubt, since DFW only opened in 1974 and Midway, formerly Chicago Municipal Airport, has been in operation since it was a grass field in the 1920s. Don't forget, for many years (right up until about 1960 or 61) it was the busiest airport in the world.
Yes, I fully realize that comparing the number of fatalities is a specious way to rank the safety of airports. My point was that even at modern airports with long, non-intersecting runways (like DFW) accidents do happen. Midway's safety record in recent years has been exemplary. The last accident that resulted in fatalities on or near the airport prior to the WN overrun was way back in December 1972, when a shiny new United 737-200 crashed into houses shortly after takeoff (the infamous "Watergate crash" for all the conspiracy nuts). Ironically, at the time Midway was all but a ghost airport, with UAL and several other carriers only operating a few token flights.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

C'mon guys. You know what I mean. As safe is as "practicably" possible. An expansion at MDW would not be impractical, plus it would be safer for the immediate community living under the departure/arrival corridors.

 

[JS]

C'mon guys. You know what I mean. As safe is as "practicably" possible. An expansion at MDW would not be impractical, plus it would be safer for the immediate community living under the departure/arrival corridors.

Expand MDW? Are you serious?

 

[CynicalResAgent]

Nobody answered my question. As a result of the accident didn't they install cement barriers at the end of the runways that collapse under the weight of an aircraft that goes into the barrier slowing down the aircraft? So as a result MDW is actually safer?

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

As best as I can tell, there is a short 191-ft. engineered materials arrestor system (EMAS) at the departure end of runway 31 C. That's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KMDW_Airport_Map.png

- astra

 

[CynicalResAgent]

So it looks like they installed one, but they still need to do more, all the runways there should have them. I could not remember the technical term for them.

 

[mga707]

Expand MDW? Are you serious?

A project of that magnitude...in the city of Chicago! Boston's "Big Dig" would be a model of construction efficiency by comparison. How many generations of workers would be working on it, and how much in $$ would crooked Cook county politicos and mob-front construction companies make off of it? :blink:

 

[FM2436]

As best as I can tell, there is a short 191-ft. engineered materials arrestor system (EMAS) at the departure end of runway 31 C. That's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KMDW_Airport_Map.png

- astra

Interesting that the US Senate tucked a provision into the 2006 Transportation-Treasury-Housing bill (HR 3058) that mandates an end date that not later than December 31, 2015, the owner or operator of an airport certified under FAR Part 139 shall improve its runway safety areas to comply with FAA design standards required by FAR Part 139. In addition, the FAA is required to report annually to the Congress on the FAA's progress toward improvement the runway safety areas at FAR Part 139 airports.

The FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, titled Airport Design, establishes a design standards for runway safety areas beyond a runway's end. Runway safety area design standards for aircraft approach categories C and D (Midway) is 1000 ft beyond the runway end and 500 ft wide, or;

FAA AC 150/5220-22A, titled Engineered Material Arresting Systems, establishs the desighn standards for EMAS's. The design standard is based upon an aircraft leaving the runway at 70 knots and gives examples of several different types of aircraft. For example (right from the AC) a 737-400 leaving the runway at 70 kts would require a EMAS 400 ft in length; a 757 would require a EMAS 450 ft in length; a CRJ-200 would require a EMAS 325 ft in length; and a 747 would require a EMAS 675 ft in length.

So the estimated 191 ft EMAS off the ends at MDW do not appear to meet current FAA design standards. It would be interesting to see which runway safety area design standard City of Chicago chooses to construct prior to December 31, 2015.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Autobrakes only work if you select them.