sw plane goes off the rnway in mdw

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I'm not the one gloating over a fatal accident, you and the newbie are. And IMHO, that type of behaviour epitomizes the definition of a**hole.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KCFlyer,

I know you well enough "J", to know when your REALLY PISSED OFF !!

YOU ARE CORRECT TO FEEL THAT WAY,
and I thank you for this/your response !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[x15]

The thing I'm really curious about is why Southwest discourages autobrakes. I did max last night on a cluttered 6000 runway. Though physically possible, I know there's no way I could have stopped that quickly on my own. What gives?

Max autobrakes is not as effective as full manual braking.
Boeing will tell you that max autobrakes on the 737 is not as effective as full manual braking for shorter stopping distance. The autobrakes "ramp up" slowly and don't provide full system pressure to the anti-skid valves and work to provide a set deceleration in conjunction with the thrust reversers. FULL and IMMEDIATE 3,000PSI brake pressure ONLY occurs in RTO. If you PLAN to use manual full braking immediately, you'll actually stop in a shorter distance. If you don't know how, or feel you can't do that, you are certainly better off with auto-brakes. NTSB has asked Boeing to do tests in the past and THOSE WERE THE RESULTS. Again, it's sort of scary seeing how confidentily pilots post things when in fact, they are wrong ....just like CNN does. One has to rememeber this internet site is not necessarily factual or the official Boeing or NTSB site.

 

[Paul]

Just a friendly neighborhood reminder to keep the topic civil please.

Thank you.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

I'm new here, great forum, lots of good info and opinions (some stupid crap, too).

This approach would have been illegal at my company in our 737NG (-800). We are restricted to 5 knots of tailwind when braking action is fair and 0 knots of tailwind when braking action is poor. ?

Welcome to USAviation! "Good info and opinions and stupid crap", in various ratios, sums it up quite well. And thanks for an interesting first post.

 

[WNrforlife]

I think we should name the next 737-700 off the Boeing line after the child who was killed in this most unfortunate, unavoidable, accident.

 

[nostradamus]

Just before Southwest entered the PHL market there was a lot of pressure er, I am sorry, suggestions on how much more 5400 ft runways 17-35, could be used. This is another good example on how the system is being pushed to far. The pilot group should take their cowboy boots or bunny slippers off and draw a line on what is acceptable regardless of money or political pressure. The whole system of aviation in the US failed that 6 year old boy.

 

[atoguy]

OK folks I just have to say something. I have read most of the comments on here. I have worked in the airline industry since 1979. With my current airline 23 years. My wife use to work with me but has been an SWA employee for 4yrs. The airline I work for has had our share of incidents. As well as other carriers out there. Yes we all have our competitive edge against each other. But we do not wish for any kind of incident involving loss of life on anyone. We are all like one big family when tragedy strikes. Yes we all want to be the best. But for various reasons seems like everyone gets their turn sooner or later. Kind of like Murphy's Law. Not to wish any bad luck on anybody. But in all of the years I have been in the industry, have seen highs and lows for many airlines. Some still here and many gone. It is an industry that seems to be in constant turmoil. I blame that mostly on our government. As far as the comments about LCC's not being safe. Well in my opinion I think that most US carriers follow very strict safety standards. WE ARE THE SAFIEST COUNTRY TO FLY IN. And beleive me I am a very nervous flier. My thoughts go out to all SWA employees knowing what they have to go through. My heart goes out to the family with the so young loss of life.

 

[OPNLguy]

I am shocked, shocked, that a cable news channel, (be it CNN, Fox, CNBC, they are all pretty bad) could get an aviation related stort wrong!!

[I remember one of them reporting that an airliner involved in an accident (AS off Pt Mugu?) had recieved an "A" on its most recent mtc check, but only a "C" on a check a few months before!

Along those lines, two of the reportors covering 1248 had an on-air exchange that went something like this:

Reporter #1 (male): The aircraft went off the runway and through the sound barrier... [Meaning the noise abatement wall]

Reporter #2 (female, and quite possibly, a blonde) Why were they landing -that- fast?

Reporter #1 corrected her, on-air.

 

[Busdrvr]

Max autobrakes is not as effective as full manual braking.
Boeing will tell you that max autobrakes on the 737 is not as effective as full manual braking for shorter stopping distance. The autobrakes "ramp up" slowly and don't provide full system pressure to the anti-skid valves and work to provide a set deceleration in conjunction with the thrust reversers. FULL and IMMEDIATE 3,000PSI brake pressure ONLY occurs in RTO. If you PLAN to use manual full braking immediately, you'll actually stop in a shorter distance. If you don't know how, or feel you can't do that, you are certainly better off with auto-brakes. NTSB has asked Boeing to do tests in the past and THOSE WERE THE RESULTS. Again, it's sort of scary seeing how confidentily pilots post things when in fact, they are wrong ....just like CNN does. One has to rememeber this internet site is not necessarily factual or the official Boeing or NTSB site.

Not if you PLAN to use perfectly techniqued manual brakes, it only applies if you DO!! If the runway condition is "fair", would it then follow that the deceleration rate of max would be in excess of what the runway will physically allow? Furthermore, there is no problem with braking being initiated by the autobrakes and then for the pilot to take over. In that case, the braking would be no worse than what the pilot would have done without autobrakes, but potentially better.

Now to the issue of how much Gary "cares". Accidents happen. It's a fact of life. The issue now is that SWA made affirmative actions that potentially reduced safety. SWA CHOSE to serve midway. They did it to SAVE MONEY. No if ands or buts. SWA CHOSE to disable the autobrakes. They did it to save moeny. SWA CHOSE to disable the autothrottles, they did it to save money. SWA CHOSE to forego the autoland feature and instead installed a HUD, and required HUMANS to handfly the approach to cat III mins. Humans who have bad days. Humans who could possibly intimidate the F/O from saying "go around". Humans who may have some unknown medical condition. The HUD wasn't installed to make the pilots feel "cool", that's what the leather jackets are for. The HUD's were installed to SAVE MONEY. Now if you accept the potential decrease in safety of flying into an extremely constricted airport with very short runways so that you can save a little coin or to save some time, great, fine, I don't care. But in this case you killed a kid who had absolutely nothing to do with it. They were just driving down the road. IF, and it is a BIG if, it is found that had SWA used autobrakes, or autoland, or not even been operating into this field, who should pay and how much? Should SWA be ALLOWED to pay, and move on, doing things like they were always done, and consider it in a cost benefit equation of getting you cheaper tickets? Ford tried that with the Pinto. Yup, Gary has been way upfront on this. Personally I think it's with good reason. This could be a HUGE turning point. This could cause a change in the way SWA does EVERYTHING, and the fields they are allowed to operate into. Again, accidents happen, metal bends, it's not a perfect world, and people make mistakes, but when people make decisions, knowing full well that the decision has the potential to hurt people, then they'd better be prepared to pay the full price when the piper comes, and that includes the potentialy astronomical punative damages to encourage them to re-examine the emphasis on "cost control"

 

[KCFlyer]

SWA CHOSE to serve midway.

Don't look now bussie, but your former airline also chooses to fly out of Midway. Could have easily been a UAL 320...you know...there but for the Grace of God....

 

[Busdrvr]

Don't look now bussie, but your former airline also chooses to fly out of Midway. Could have easily been a UAL 320...you know...there but for the Grace of God....

Then let's just agree that the place should be closed down. I'm sure UAL would be happy to do it. This is a market. If someone gets an advantage by cutting corners, you either have to, or you lose money. What do you say we establish some baselines for the industry, and prohibit the BS of certain carriers getting "special" deals to deviate. You in?

 

[E-TRONS]

--------
How does the pilot get more than 3000 psi out of the system??
--------

Borescope,

You need to check very carefully how the auto-brakes actually work upon landing and when and how they apply braking in conjunction with the reversers. The fact is, even at auto-brakes set at MAX, they may not necessarily be producing 3,000psi of braking at all times, especially at the very beginning of the landing roll.

I think BORESCOPE forgot about the antiskid system. No way you want 3000 psi getting to the brakes while moving. That is, unless you want to start a "tire dump" with all those blown out tires

 

[lovedandlost]

Again, it's sort of scary seeing how confidentily pilots post things when in fact, they are wrong ....just like CNN does. One has to rememeber this internet site is not necessarily factual or the official Boeing or NTSB site.

Your reading, spelling, and manners are sub-standard!

 

[robbedagain]

I read in an article on aol today that the NTSB is also looking at the Thrust Reversers as a possible problem. According to the flight attendants and the pilots, the crew had to do manual braking because the plane wasnt slowing down. isnt that more dangerous to use manual brakes in a snowstorm like that or does it make a difference?

 

[oldiesfan]

More examples of media ineptness in
covering airline/aviation stories:

Thursday evening, MSNBC tapped into live coverage
from WMAQ-TV Chicago where the "news team" was
doing a phone interview with a passenger from
Southwest 1248. One anchor asked her if
she was sitting in first class or coach. :blink:

On Friday's Paula Zahn-fest on CNN (8-9pm ET),
in a background report by Miles O'Brien which
aired about 7-8 minutes into the show, it was
stated (paraphrasing) that MDW had the shortest
runway of any major U.S. airport which has
mainline jet service.
Gee Miles, when did they close SNA?

On Friday's CBS Evening News--at least on the
east coast feed, I don't know if it was corrected
later for the left coast--a graphic of MDW
labelled the runway in question as "33."