Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 03:26:51 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  SW 737 slid off runway at KMDW
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SW 737 slid off runway at KMDW  (Read 14067 times)
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
daru1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2005, 12:58:00 PM »

Quote from: PHL_Approach
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.


i didn't say this was a 0/0 i said watch where the wheels touch on that approach, and yes it's because the glidescope "aims" to that point.  it doesn't matter what those pilots say because that's a company policy, not an FAA one, which is what the NTSB will compare this incident to...   go look at previous reports about long landings and you will see what i'm talking about
Logged

CP-AMEL-IA
AmericaWestCMH
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2005, 02:02:53 PM »

Quote from: n57flyguy
Personally, I  think the pilot overshot his ILS and landed to late on the runway.



How in the world can you even make such a statement?
Logged

n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2005, 09:40:39 AM »

Sorry. I should keep my mouth shut because I'm not even flying yet and am not instrument rated but I was honestly just speculating what coiuld have happened. Ive been reading up alot about ILS approachs since and your right, how could I say that? email me and we can talk further if you would like.
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
daru1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2005, 11:28:29 PM »

Back in New Orleans, where I belong Tongue

anywho... just stopped in briefly to show you guys this: http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/13417692.htm
Logged

CP-AMEL-IA
Ronski
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2005, 12:20:03 PM »

Well, that puts an end to all the speculation.

Thanks.
Logged

"Who am I to blow against the wind"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!