SWA overrun NTSB preliminary facts.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Kingairer

---------off into the dirt -----------

Phil....There is no dirt, there is not pavement, there are no taxiway lines...ITs all snow brotha.

Did you notice where I asked what the edges at MDW looked like?
if there's a ditch or berm aside the runway with snow that isn't tamped down I think I'd take that over the expressway..

[Kingairer]

I can bet the guys wanted to give themselves every chance to make it safe to the end of the runway. Pull it over in the "ditch" (even if they had the directional control to actually make it over there) wouldnt have been on the high end of the list.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Kingairer

I can bet the guys wanted to give themselves every chance to make it safe to the end of the runway. Pull it over in the "ditch" (even if they had the directional control to actually make it over there) wouldnt have been on the high end of the list.

perhaps, perhaps not.
shouldn't have been put in the position to make that decision, but you've got to do SOMETHING haven't you? Can't just sit there skidding down the runway.

[Doug Taylor]

I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.

[JaceTheAce]

How about "Just ask Airliners.net" for the answer

[Doug Taylor]

"I...I....I flew the same profile on MSFS with a tailwind and I was able to get it stopped..."

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.

mine either, it's an idea I stole from a retired eastern captain that I "work" with after about a 20 minute lecture on all the places this guy went wrong. You never know, if traction was really that bad they might have still had some rudder authority, tough to say how it would go differently.

don't get him started on check captains, sheesh.

[shooter13]

So why does the glideslope intersect 1000 feet down the runway anyway? I mean I knwo that is normal and all but why was it set up that way. When you guys fly normal landings (non IFR) do you still try to land 1000 feet down the runway? Is it so that if you are below glideslope you would still land on the runway????

[Doug Taylor]

Terps perhaps?

[OldTownPilot]

Something really doesn't add up roght for these guys. They were flying the ILS which as Matt said has 4925 feet if you follow it down. Based on the NTSB report they needed 5300 feet to stop. So even if they followed the ILS down they would have over run by 400 feet.

Somthing is a little fishy here as to why they landed.

[Chris_Ford]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Thank you channel 12... I'm sure your reporters were up late fact-checking THAT one. Bonuses all around.

(hijack)
I was driving a car full of 3 males who mooned Lin Sue Cooney while she was in the Channel 12 Action Van™ or whatever it's called.

/hijack

[flyover]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Something really doesn't add up roght for these guys. They were flying the ILS which as Matt said has 4925 feet if you follow it down. Based on the NTSB report they needed 5300 feet to stop. So even if they followed the ILS down they would have over run by 400 feet.

Somthing is a little fishy here as to why they landed.

We were looking at tailwind restrictions in class today. 10 kts max is an industry and Boeing standard. But some airlines in the last few years started reducing crosswind and tailwind limits based on braking reports. So, for example, our tables showed a max allowable tailwind of 10 knots for good braking action, 5 kts for fair and 0 kts for anything less. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that SWA has not adopted that yet. If they had, they wouldn't have made that approach. So even if the tailwind wasn't the primary reason they departed the end, a more conservative tailwind limit might have saved their day.

As for taking it in the dirt. One, it wouldn't have turned, and secondly I'm still thinking in the back of my mind that I'm going to stop (and save my career) right up until the time I leave the end.

[Ophir]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I do have to admit that if I wasn't decelerating fast enough during what seemed to be another routine contaminated runway, the idea of "off-roading" wouldn't have crossed my mind at all.

Honestly, I think that is the last thing you should do. I can't imagine going off the paved runway would help you stop and be any safer, in any way.

[Ophir]

Originally Posted by shooter13

So why does the glideslope intersect 1000 feet down the runway anyway? I mean I knwo that is normal and all but why was it set up that way. When you guys fly normal landings (non IFR) do you still try to land 1000 feet down the runway? Is it so that if you are below glideslope you would still land on the runway????

We have to according to our SOP (land in the touchdown zone that is).

I think if you were to go back to the thinking behind the terps you would see that the came up with the 3 degree glide slope for various reasons, obstacle clearance, speed, sight picture, etc. But they figured that a lot of landings don't go as planned and the needed to come up with a way of making sure that people weren't clipping fences or coming up short in anyway. Then combine that with the idea that all runways need to accomodate takeoffs (which typically need more length) and the placed the GS 1000ft down the runway.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Ophir

Honestly, I think that is the last thing you should do. I can't imagine going off the paved runway would help you stop and be any safer, in any way.

then what do you do? Sit with your hands in your lap skidding along?

[Doug Taylor]

The problem is that you're leaving a somewhat plowed, improved surface with some braking action to an uneven unplowed surface with a chance of zero braking action, maybe even filled with other suprises to impact during your deceleration -- which compounds the situation.

There was an MD-80 in CMH that landed off the runway that was probably 15 feet from a complete hull loss, if not multiple injuries/fatalities about a year ago.

Your best bet, under most circumstances, in my opinion, is to stay on the runway surface.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The problem is that you're leaving a somewhat plowed, improved surface with some braking action to an uneven unplowed surface with a chance of zero braking action, maybe even filled with other suprises to impact during your deceleration -- which compounds the situation.

There was an MD-80 in CMH that landed off the runway that was probably 15 feet from a complete hull loss, if not multiple injuries/fatalities about a year ago.

Your best bet, under most circumstances, in my opinion, is to stay on the runway surface.

if you've got collapsible blocks or a large runoff area without buildings/cars/trees I'd agree.

[Doug Taylor]

I haven't seen any of that stuff at a major airport.

Lets put it this way, transport category aircract are so sensitive to surface that the centerline lights go "BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! and shake the bejezus out of the cockpit during takeoff" I betchya if you went offroading, it's going to shear the gear off, hopefully simultaenously.

[mtsu_av8er]

Do you know what you're talking about, Doug?

[Doug Taylor]

No, not really. I'll go back to moderating!

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

On the news here in PHX, they have a small newsticker that scrolls on the bottom of the screen. l think I've seen the most thought-inspiring, objective news nugget today:

"Airplane experts say that jet involved in deadly crash needed more runway to land"

Thank you channel 12... I'm sure your reporters were up late fact-checking THAT one. Bonuses all around.

Have you seen the new commercials? Goes something like this:

"It's coming...to give you more acurate up to the minute more predictable weather. Doppler 7000 (don't actually know the real name)...stay tuned weather in PHX will never be the same!

-Matthew

[Doug Taylor]

We really don't need meterologists in PHX except for our two month period of a 'seasonal change in winds' which is mislabeled "Monsoon Season".

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

We really don't need meterologists in PHX except for our two month period of a 'seasonal change in winds' which is mislabeled "Monsoon Season".

Agreed...the meterology segments on local news here need only be 5 secs long if not shorter.

"Its going to be hot today people. Hotter then yesterday."

Then sit back down next to the anchors and crack chessy anecdotes.

-Matthew

[Doug Taylor]

"I'm Brad Perry!"

So...Stop dancing and making a fool of yourself for "The Man".

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I'm not sure why the media (not the NTSB) is focusing on thrust reversers. As none of the calculated landing distances are based upon thrust reverser deployment. They really don't do much besides make a lot of noise on most aircraft.

I have heard you say this several times before. In my very *limited* knowledge of big steel. I'd think that thrust reversers would be very beneficial in assiting a plane flying 120-140 knts. to stop in a short distance. By redirecting engine thrust. At least in normal conditions on a standard runway.

-Matthew