SWA and safety at MDW

magsau

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
787
0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...ing-rules_x.htm

"Boeing sent a memo last week to airlines urging them to review the way they calculate a jet's stopping distance on slick runways.

USA TODAY obtained a copy of the memo, as well as Boeing's Operations Manual for the 737-700, the type of plane that crashed at Midway. It shows that landing at Midway on Dec. 8 was barely possible if everything went perfectly. With moderate snow on the runway and a tailwind, Boeing says it would take about 5,800 feet to stop. The runway is 5,826 feet long."


26 Feet????

"Not all airlines would have allowed a landing at Midway on the night of the Chicago crash. Continental Airlines' pilot manuals for its fleet of 737-700s show that Midway's runway was hundreds of feet too short for a landing in the conditions that existed Dec. 8."

SWA and it's liberal interpetation of the stopping distance will be a key in the case against the airline. Past practices will be cited and the liability could be substantial.
 
View attachment 4317This reminds me of the old "30 minutes or less" campaign that Domino's pizza had to stop doing in the late 80's early 90's because there were so many accidents with the drivers.

Maybe WN has been using the old domino's manual....
 
On second thought, sometimes posting just encourages them.
YEah, I know. But with an ego the size of mags, no response might make him feel like everyone's in agreement. I am sure that when a UAL incident occurs, he will be urging everyone to let the NTSB do their job. Also find it humourous that he cites USA today as less than credible in one post, then uses it as a citation in another one. Lambastes someone for questioning the accuracy of one columnist critical of SWA and dismissing the comments from another columnist that is critical of UAL.
 
Ok, all of that aside, why don't you respond to the post.
Because I am not an expert in accident analysis, but at least I admit it. The NTSB will investigate and the NTSB will decide what was and wasn't done right in this accident. And I am sure the NTSB has a greater insight into the training and pilot operations at Southwest than mags ever will. And it most likely WILL come down to pilot error, just as 99.9% of any aviation accidents are. Mags takes something out of USA Today and convicts SWA flight ops of wreckless disregard for the safety of their passengers. Anything short of grounding SWA will be viewed by him as "sweeping it under the rug". I've met some UAL pilots that were quite humble. One of them was the FO on UAL232. IT's hard to believe he worked at the same airline as mags.
 
Not being shy about jumping in, I'll do just that....

Also from the article:

"But once pilots are airborne, there is no federal requirement to recalculate whether it is safe to land. Airlines provide stopping distances to pilots for a variety of circumstances, but the figures are advisory, and there is no required margin of safety."

I strongly suspect that the FAA will earn it "tombstone agency" nickname once again by coming up with a standard requirement after the damage has been done.

Jim
 
there is no required margin of safety."

Jim

The Captain of an airliner is given the duty of operating the airplane in the safest manner. As the PIC, the Captain could have and should have said "26' is not SAFE, even though it is legal." There are individual airline requirements that pertain to how the airplane is flown. In the article it mentioned CAL as not allowing a landing under the conditions that existed at MDW on the night the SWA crew decided to attempt the landing.

A good example of no rules does not always mean something is safe is the large T-Storm off the departure end of a runway. You are landing and the missed approach area is clogged with storms that could impact the safety of the flight. Just because your airline has no rule not to land under those conditions does not make it safe.

The trust of the passengers for the pilots to make the best and safest decisions is one that does not always come gift wrapped in an FAR. Smart and safe decisions require a crew that is aware that what is legal is not always safe.

Since KC did not like the USA Today article, here is the NTSB letter:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/a06%5F16.pdf
 
The Captain of an airliner is given the duty of operating the airplane in the safest manner.

Oh, come on magsau - you oughta know better than that. Someone with your experience surely knows the "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, cut with an axe" rule.

What you propose - "the safest manner possible" - would mean no pilot would use any runway except 32L/14R at ORD. After all, it's the longest runway available, so even on a perfect day it gives more margin for error - thus "operating the airplane in the safest manner" possible. I haven't noticed ORD shutting down all the other runways for lack of use - have you?

"The safest manner possible" would mean that every airplane would have the maximum amount of fuel it could carry - you never know what might happen at the destination and alternate airports. More fuel is safer, right? Oh wait, more fuel means a longer T/O roll - that's less safe!! So better carry the min fuel then - that's safer. No tankering fuel, then - like that's ever going to happen.

As for the more specific case - landing length required - how many pilots know precisely how much runway is required to stop, and therefore how much extra is available, on the runway they intend to land on if something doesn't go right? I see lot's of airplanes landing at DCA - if something doesn't work as expected (autobrakes, antiskid, spoilers, T/R's, etc) do all those pilots know if they have 30ft, 300 ft, or 1000 ft to spare?

As to this specific case, what did the pilots actually know? That they only had 30 ft to spare or only that they had enough runway (a "Yes"/"No" answer)? I certainly don't know that answer - do you?

From official reports so far, one thing jumps out at me. Braking seems poor compared to the pireps. The NTSB says the deceleration rate was only 0.15G - not quite what one would expect given the "fair braking" reported. Eventually, the investigators will hopefully figure out exactly why what happened happened.

Till then, everything is just idle speculation. But one thing I know for sure - I'll never understand the apparent glee some find in the misfortune of others.

A character flaw, perhaps - the desire to build onself up by tearing others down.....

Jim
 
Till then, everything is just idle speculation.

Jim - a majority of everything said on this board is idle speculation... in fact, speculation is arguably the main purpose for it.

I'm not defending what magsau may say on other threads, but the USA Today & NTSB references are valid, and they bring up a legitimate point. It is the PIC's duty to operate the aircraft in the "safest way possible"... is it honestly realistic or possible to use one runway at ORD? You know it's not. So, therefore, it's not possible. With your fuel example, it's the job of the Captain to determine the appropriate amount of fuel load with regard to all risks... the "safest" option in any flight situation being the one that will most likely satisfy each risk involved with a common result: arriving safely at the gate. We evaluate, determine the safest option, and proceed.

In this case, the flight officer in charge did not operate the aircraft in the safest way possible, hence the accident. As KC said, the NTSB will likely determine pilot error in this case... they should have never made the approach. Of course, like CO, it's easy for me to say this now in hindsight...

As to this specific case, what did the pilots actually know? That they only had 30 ft to spare or only that they had enough runway (a "Yes"/"No" answer)? I certainly don't know that answer - do you?

I certainly hope that this flight crew didn't operate knowingly with a 26-foot cushion against the city streets of Chicago... and if I were that little boy's father and I found they did, there would be hell to pay.

The point I'm trying to make is that when you couple the Southwest business model with this and other situations and close encounters, this situation does not speak well for the SOP's of WN pilots. I meant my earlier post partially serious and partially in jest... but my point still stands. Domino's doesn't guarantee you a pizza in 30 minutes any more for this very reason. In the end, time (and money) can never replace our ultimate responsibility to deliver our product safely.
 
What you propose - "the safest manner possible" - would mean no pilot would use any runway except 32L/14R at ORD. After all, it's the longest runway available, so even on a perfect day it gives more margin for error - thus "operating the airplane in the safest manner" possible. I haven't noticed ORD shutting down all the other runways for lack of use - have you?


Jim

Jim,

I respect your opinion and knowledge. However, I think you might be stretching this too far. The safest option is to leave the airplane at the gate. The Captain has to balance the safety of the flight on the conditions for the operation. In your example of 32L at ORD you and I know the balanced field and the accelerate stop distance is what really matters versus the length of the runway. V1 is V1 no matter how long the runway is. You hit V1 at 4000' down a 9000' runway or a 14000' runway you do the same thing. It is the stopping that is the question. Am I at my runway limit weight? Do I have a pad or am I planned to Accelerate and Stop on the last available brick? Am I using reduced thrust (or Flex for you airbus pilots)? Can I lower the assumed temp to get better margins? These are all questions you and every other pilot has to decide before every t/o.

As to your fuel example. No, full tanks do not for the safest flight make. What about a eng. failure with all that extra weight? What about arriving at destination too heavy to land?

Again I respect your opinon and interpetation of this accident. However, the SWA use of TR's to determine landing data is a first for me. I had never heard of this before and find it interesting that SWA was using this to achieve workable numbers for MDW.
 
....
Again I respect your opinon and interpetation of this accident. However, the SWA use of TR's to determine landing data is a first for me. I had never heard of this before and find it interesting that SWA was using this to achieve workable numbers for MDW.
Interest is fine, continual baiting on this subject is not.

This part of the question was conveniently ignored in the first level headed response from the skygod.

And yet you are the one to bring this up.

The Circle of Life continues....

Final warning to the two of you. If I have to police any more flames, snide remarks, or personal attacks from either of you I will be forced to take some type of action.