Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 05, 2016, 09:41:32 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: Air Race Classic 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  SW 737 slid off runway at KMDW
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SW 737 slid off runway at KMDW  (Read 17918 times)
keithpilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« on: December 08, 2005, 09:03:18 PM »

They are working the emergeny now.  News reports it slid off end, hit a car.  At least 1 injured.  Nothing confrimed, but they did have video of the ARFF response.

Keithpilot
Logged
jamall02864
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2005, 09:22:01 PM »

ya im looking at it on cnn   its been a realy bad year for plane crashes this is like the 5 this year. it looks like every one is going to be fine but the people in the car could be in the most trubble i hope everyone is going to be ok
Logged
PIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527



« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2005, 09:31:37 PM »

They just closed the airport due to the accident, wont open till 6 tommrow. thats basically what happens when you have that short of runways and bad runway conditions, and that large of jet.
Logged
ZOTAN
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2005, 11:21:53 PM »

8 year old boy died in the car.....  Sad
Logged

Matt Stevens
Sirclown82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2005, 04:18:12 AM »

I hate WN's arrogance. The high level people for southwest here in Dallas said that because no one was hurt in the plane they still maintain an accident free safety record, no mention of the child on the ground that was killed when the plane skidded over the top of his parents car.  angry
Logged

_____________________
Chris
jamall02864
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2005, 12:07:18 PM »

ya thats not cool
Logged
Haribda
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2005, 12:18:06 PM »

Well, if there was no snow, the kid wouldn't die. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, the plane would stop at the end on the runway if there was no snow, so I don't think we can blame the company/pilot/plane for this particular case. Simple, no snow - no outside fatality.
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2005, 01:01:39 PM »

Quote from: sirclown82
I hate WN's arrogance. The high level people for southwest here in Dallas said that because no one was hurt in the plane they still maintain an accident free safety record, no mention of the child on the ground that was killed when the plane skidded over the top of his parents car.  angry


Did you also happen to note that this was before the injury list came out and they had reported that there was 1 fatality? I heard the same thing, and that was well before they finally got the injury list.

BL.
Logged
Sirclown82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2005, 02:18:31 PM »

I heard it on the 10P news. I dont know when the list came out, but the child was pronounced dead immediatly and was all over the news. Don't get me wrong, i love WN, even though i can fly with them cause they are to far away at DAL.
Logged

_____________________
Chris
r0bCDW
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2005, 02:32:00 PM »

horrible news.. reminds me of the time a challenger skidded off runway 4 (i think) on Rt46 at TEB airport. and hit 2 or 3 cars, that was a crazy day
Logged
Sirclown82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2005, 02:47:02 PM »

You know things tend to happen in groups, including A/C accidents. Oh i hope that doesnt start the next round of accidents.
Logged

_____________________
Chris
jamall02864
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2005, 03:07:08 PM »

Quote from: Haribda
Well, if there was no snow, the kid wouldn't die. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, the plane would stop at the end on the runway if there was no snow, so I don't think we can blame the company/pilot/plane for this particular case. Simple, no snow - no outside fatality.



right but the pilot could have chosan to wait for it to clean up a little or divert or reqest a diverant runway but you are sort of right.  that storm jsut hit here in bos
Logged
Neil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2005, 03:20:45 PM »

Given the amount of visibility at the time, I would imagine the pilot has to rely on pireps and voices from the ground about how safe the runway is....

In my *very* humble opinion, a 6500ft runway with 8 inches of snow on the ground in a residential area and low vis shouldnt be open to a 737. But whos going to change that? Certainly not the airport, and certianly not the airlines....
Logged

tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2005, 03:30:26 PM »

Quote from: jamall02864
Quote from: Haribda
Well, if there was no snow, the kid wouldn't die. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, the plane would stop at the end on the runway if there was no snow, so I don't think we can blame the company/pilot/plane for this particular case. Simple, no snow - no outside fatality.



right but the pilot could have chosan to wait for it to clean up a little or divert or reqest a diverant runway but you are sort of right.  that storm jsut hit here in bos


Problem with the diversion though, is this.

Of the airports closest to MDW that SWA services, you have STL (which was in the storm), IND (which was in the storm), BNA, MEM, CLE (perhaps too far for reserves), MCI, and OMA. As the plane came from BWI, they could have gone to those in the path of the storm and toughed it out, but it would be harder to get out of those. That storm wasn't going to clear up until the early morning, so waiting was out of the question.  Unless we knew what alternate they had filed for or what they would request, we will never know. That storm went through OMA 2 days ago, and the town was socked hard. Although, I doubt this is the first of a string of incidents.

Let's also look at the field. From AirNav:

13L/31R: 5141 x 150 ft.
13C/31C: 6522 x 150 ft.
13R/31L: 3859 x 60 ft.
4L/22R: 5507 x 150 ft.
4R/22L: 6446 x 150 ft.

13R/31L, out of the question. 13C/31C is where they landed. If they had limited visibility (field was IMC), and 13C/31C had reduced RVR (which it did; R31C/3000V4500FT and decreasing as the storm passed), they could not use any other runway except 4R/22L, because of the ILS approach. With that one, they would have had a horrid crosswind component. Should they have used that runway, without knowing RVR on that, it would have been much worse than what it was. So their only other choice would be 13C with a headwind, or divert.

Until the NTSB comes out with their report, we can only speculate on what could and should have been done.

BL.
Logged
n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2005, 05:40:03 PM »

Personally, I  think the pilot overshot his ILS and landed to late on the runway. The runway the plane landed on was 6,522 feet long, plenty of room to land a 737, even in snow. One thing led to another and ended up killing a 6 year old boy. On the news they were wanting to know if the pilot braked and used trust reverse. Who wouldn't? They didn't specify the use of spoilers though. Just my opion though.
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2005, 05:50:51 PM »

Quote from: n57flyguy
Personally, I  think the pilot overshot his ILS and landed to late on the runway. The runway the plane landed on was 6,522 feet long, plenty of room to land a 737, even in snow. One thing led to another and ended up killing a 6 year old boy. On the news they were wanting to know if the pilot braked and used trust reverse. Who wouldn't? They didn't specify the use of spoilers though. Just my opion though.


The NTSB released prelim. data/info at a press conference last night (very unusual) and they only released sparce details, indicating speed on the ILS, touchdown, and speed they hit the fence (which was only 40 kts).

New reports have indicated the use/operation of reverse thrust may be in question.  Also note that runway was slick with snow and that the pilot opted not to go around.

I have to emphisize again....a go around is ALWAYS an option (in *most* situations) and is the MOST neglected operation in an aircraft nowadays.

SWA had a crash in Burbank a few years back...co-pilot was experienced, captain was inexperienced, and was the Pilot Flying.  The F/o who wasn't flying told the captain he was high and fast and wanted to go-around.  Instead, the pilot said (paraphrasing) "I'll make it work" and later reports indicated he touched down more than halfway down the runway [a direct violation of the 60% rule].

It's real hard to tell what happened, but this might be another possibility.  Let's let the NTSB do their job, and I'll make sure to post the NTSB report once it is released.

Jason
Logged
daru1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2005, 06:03:17 PM »

ditto on that burbank pilot, stupid call on his part...

now if i remember kmdw was at 200 and 1/4 at the time with reduced RVR, with that speed of only 40 knots hitting that fence, i want to see how long the brakes were applied, that will tell us whether or not he landed long, regardless of thrust reverser/spoiler use... i tend to agree with those that think he landed long, because the useful runway of 31C even with the threshold where it is, and the touchdown zone where it is, should have been able to stop a 737 on a slick runway...

all that being said, those people that run the airports in chicago are stupid.  plain and simple, having only a 200 ft safety area with the constant barage of planes midway gets is inexcusable... and did anyone see where they don't even have the crushable foam installed?  what the heck?  this was bound to happen sooner or later... too bad the little guy had to die before they get around to changing this stuff.
Logged

CP-AMEL-IA
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2005, 06:07:27 PM »

Quote from: daru1
all that being said, those people that run the airports in chicago are stupid.


I would give Mayor Daley a call, but I hear he's not to friendly to airplanes, airspace, or anything that moves above the surface of the earth.  rolleyes Not only is this a shame/tragedy, but it sure does bring back horrible memories of the bulldozers that left X-trenched runway 18-36 at Meigs field.

 cry

Quoting Mike A's post (Lives outside of Chicago) on the PilotsofAmerica.com webboards (Also known as Pilot Mike from the PilotCast):

Quote
As the cops say, "That's why they call them 'accidents.'"

There are reports today that the pilots are saying they had some trouble engaging the thrust reversers. The lock-out locked out the captain for a few seconds until the FO got the reversers engaged.

On last night's Weekend NBC Nightly News the "In Depth" was the special report that there are longer runways at some other airports. And Midway's 31 doesn't the have 1000 foot buffer zone that is now required. And there is collapsible concrete that serves to slow down errant jets by slogging down the nose gear. "It is unclear if that would have had any effect on this accident."

Midway is on an exact square mile in the middle of a residential/industrial neighborhood. There was no 1000 feet for the taking, unless a 6000 foot runway became a 5000 foot runway.

When I drive by I'm amazed that Cicero on the east and Central on the west are barely a blast fence from the runway edge of 31. They just rerouted Cicero slightly more east to make room for the new terminal. There was room to the east. As you can see in the pictures there are bungalows across the street on the west. Duh Mare would only take the homes of people who don't vote for him, like those around O'Hare.


His CFI, Joe from Chicago also confirmed this information:

Quote
Weather at the time of the crash (01:15 Z) was:

KMDW 090053Z 10011KT 1/2SM SN FZFG BKN004 OVC014 M03/M05 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP196 R31C/4500FT SNINCR 1/10 P0000 T10331050
KMDW 090153Z 23003KT 1/2SM SN FZFG VV002 M04/M05 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP191 R31C/4000V4500FT SNINCR 1/10 P0000 T10391050
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2005, 07:44:43 PM »

Quote from: daru1
i tend to agree with those that think he landed long, because the useful runway of 31C even with the threshold where it is, and the touchdown zone where it is, should have been able to stop a 737 on a slick runway...


Keep in mind, that when MDW has low cigs, low RVR, and ice/snow on the runway. Aircraft are supposed to land on the threshold and not TDZ. I would lean more to them hitting the threshold, but then the thrust reversers and auto brakes not kicking in, I'd like to know if even the automatic spoiler deployment worked. By the time the realized and went to apply the brakes manually, they could have already been halfway down 31C.

EJ
Logged
daru1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2005, 09:52:56 PM »

sorry, but an ils has you land at the beginning of the TDZ, that's the point of a precision approach, if you go watch where the wheels hit on a catagory 3 approach (0/0) you'll see it's usually at that mark, in visual conditions the numbers, on a precision you should get to that mark...

regardless, still doesn't change that fact that the death shouldn't have happened...
Logged

CP-AMEL-IA
Sirclown82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2005, 12:09:41 AM »

I heard today taht the reversers didnt activate.
Logged

_____________________
Chris
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2005, 06:25:42 AM »

Quote from: daru1
sorry, but an ils has you land at the beginning of the TDZ, that's the point of a precision approach, if you go watch where the wheels hit on a catagory 3 approach (0/0) you'll see it's usually at that mark, in visual conditions the numbers, on a precision you should get to that mark...

regardless, still doesn't change that fact that the death shouldn't have happened...


I know what the TDZ is, the approch wasen't 0/0. When visual contact is made and there is know ice/snow on the runway (at MDW), they are "supposed" to land on the threshold to supply that extra 1,000 feet or so. I've heard it from a few pilots that work for COA, SWA and the likes. And just to correct you, the TDZ is next to the glideslope antenna.
Logged
n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2005, 09:52:49 AM »

the pilot did do a go around before landing. I do not see how conditions depending the pilot would not use trust reverse and spoilers. the news also indicated that visibillity was ample to land. when the news showed the aircraft the flaps were still down but the spoilers were not up. Usually, the spoilers are put down, not deactivated, right when the airplane turns of the runway. But, again we can only wait to the report comes out. And can't they just get the black box and listen to what happened?
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2005, 09:54:05 AM »

the pilot did do a go around before landing. I do not see how conditions depending the pilot would not use trust reverse and spoilers. the news also indicated that visibillity was ample to land. when the news showed the aircraft the flaps were still down but the spoilers were not up. Usually, the spoilers are put down, not deactivated, right when the airplane turns of the runway. But, again we can only wait to the report comes out. And can't they just get the black box and listen to what happened?
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
Sirclown82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2005, 10:25:49 AM »

Ok let me rephrase what I said. FNC said they "malfunctioned" and didnt do their part in the rollout.
Logged

_____________________
Chris
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!