OT - Southwest crash

[Orlaam 306]

Has anyone replicated the landing with the NG in FS9? I know it's unrealistic, but just for the heck of it. I applied what I believe was the same time and date a few days ago and was shocked at how low the visibility was. I couldn't see the runway until it was too late to even flare. It needed an autoland. Crazy.

[Guest sgfintl]

My guess is that when the jury's back, the verdict will be one of three things:1. Too much speed at the threshold.2. Too much elevation at the threshold.3. BothTerrible tragedy...but frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often at MDW. It's a tight airport.

[windycloud 30]

That's very cool. I wish I had a job like yours. Oh well I guess I'll get yet a step closer to your kind of life when PMDG 747-400F comes out. :) Now did I just sound like an enthusiast or a loser? ...o..k...enthusiast it is. Jason

[Tabs 2,790]

I think this will probably cause a reevaluation of SWA's SOPs with regard to excessive approach speeds, long touchdowns etc. A very similar incident happened at KBUR a few years ago that fortunately didn't result in any fatalities, but it was the same deal - high approach speed, wheels down past the TDZ, and smashing through a barrier into a roadway area.Obviously we have to wait to see what the NTSB says related to the reversers etc, but I can't imagine this won't implicate those aspects of SWA's procedures as a factor...

[Guest D17S]

Well, for the sake of discussion . . . My guess is that they'll find the pilot's election to arm (and use) the autobrake system is the only reason the airplane didn't end up another 3 streets into adjoining neighborhood!It's interesting to get an inside look at SW's procedures though. For instance, someone said SW doesn't proscribe the use Vnav/Autothrottles too. Airplanes have been flying without these systems for years. One has to ask then: "Why was Vnav developed?" Simply, fuel conservation. I would think SW would want to use Vnav. Have ya'll noticed that Vnav/AT is the system we Serious Simmers are having the most trouble with as well? It's tough to master and can get you into a lot of trouble. Is SW concerned about "tempting fate." The RL pilots I work with just got a 'letter.' It said essentially:

[Guest tmetzinger]

As mentioned before, sometimes the autobrakes won't engage immediately on a contaminated runway because the air/ground logic isn't satisfied. If in fact the pilot in command decided to use the autobrakes instead of being responsible for braking himself, that decision will come under a lot of scrutiny.However, a pilot can engage autobrakes during the rollout as long as the speed is above 60 knots, so he may not have armed them in the air, but during the rollout when he wasn't getting the braking performance, and had so many other things to worry about that he decided to turn braking over to the system - which will still get scrutiny, but may end up being seen as a good decision.As far as autothrottles and VNAV go, one of the main reasons SWA doesn't use autothrottles is because not all of their fleet HAD autothrottles. It's only recently that they retired their last -200 aircraft.By minimizing the differences between aircraft (SWA was one of the big driving forces behind having the EFIS/MAP option on the NG Glass), SWA can send their pilots through ONE training curriculum, and any SWA pilot is good to fly any SWA airplane. This save a lot of money and provides a lot of flexibility. I don't remember off hand whether the autothrottles are not installed, or just disconnected.What will happen when SWA's fleet is all NGs or newer? Perhaps they'll start activating some of the features.As for VNAV and autothrottles, there's nothing magic about them except that they can do it all day long and not get bored. SWA has profiles for climb and descent with target speeds and thrust settings, and as long as their pilots fly those profiles, they operate efficiently.Oh, and VNAV does not require autothrottles to work. You can certainly engage the system in VNAV with the autothrottles disconnected, and get resulting pitch commands, but it's up to you to manage the thrust. Try it sometime in the PMDG - with the autothrottle off, you can perform climbs (VNAV maintains pitch for programmed speed, throttle controls rate of climb), cruise (VNAV maintains altitude, throttles control speed) and descents (in PATH mode VNAV maintains descent profile, throttles control speed, in SPD mode VNAV maintains airspeed and throttles control rate of descent).Best Wishes

[Guest WesFlight]

I agree with you completely. Alot of times airlines make descisions based on what I would call real world circumstances. For example, lets look at say Delta airlines. Delta has one of the biggest varieties of airplanes compared to any other airline. One of Deltas downfalls is there is not always enough flight crews to man the specific aircraft. This is why when I fly to Alanta from Jacksonville it is always on a 767, but the plane is never more than half way full. I have talked to many flight crews and they have told me that Delta has a problem with finding smaller aircraft that work with in the confines of the demand flying out of some airports. For example Jacksonville. Delta physically does not have enough aircrews to man smaller aircraft such as an MD series or even smaller 737's. In turn, delta is forced to do two things. One, use computer type aircraft such as ERJ 145 or CRJ's, or send big aircraft half full on certain routes. However, southwest has come up with the solution of useing only one general type of aircraft (I do know that each 737 series can be vastly diffrent, but you get the picture). Southwest views it like this, if we have one type of aircraft, we can emply pilots anywhere. We do not have to worry about finding pilots certified and checked out to fly certain types of aircraft. This makes Southwest very flexible. Not to mention that nowdays the 737 can fly almost anywhere with one or two stops. As far as autothrottles go, I love to sometimes fly with out using them. Look at military pilots. They will be the first ones to tell you that they want a plane that they can fly. They dont want to sit cockpit in which they watch a computer. Look at the blue angels or thunderbirds, they physically fly their routines without help from many computers. After all, is that not what most of us want to do. I find it funny that if there were a 737 or a sterman sitting on the runway, most people would choose to fly the stearman. THis is what being a pilot is all about, is it not? Having the freedom to do what you want? Sorry for the long winded post. :-rotor

[Guest]

Knowing the press and their "knowledge" of aviation they most likely meant "170mph" and some editor who'd head aviators talk in knots replaced mph with knots without recalculating the number.170mph is approximately 135-140 knots so well in the basket for landing a 73N.

[Guest]

Pilot survived, that means they'll have a hard time making pilot error stick (far easier if the guy can't defend himself, which is why nearly every crash where the crew died is blamed on pilot error and most other crashes they look very hard for other reasons).Poor runway conditions, deteriorating rapidly after the last weather update and runway cleaning are a likely cause.I think they'll try to blame it on the pilot still in order to avoid massive liability lawsuits against the airport operator, but it will be tough to make that stick I think.

[Guest WesFlight]

The only thing I find funny is the fact that any passengers on board will not be able to file a lawsuit against Southwest. The only way you can say the airline is liable for something is if you are hurt. The only lawsuits comming from this accident will most likely be from the family of the little boy who died in the car that was hit by the plane. THe same policy applies to aircraft that make a belly landing with no gear. You cannot file a lawsuit against this becasue you are not hurt, and you can not yet sue because they scared you. Do you remember the Jet Blue aircraft in California (I think at LAX) that snapped its landing gear. The state of California came back and told the passengers on board that they could not file lawsuits becasue the airline did not hurt anyone. The only thing that was hurt in the southwest accident was a multi-million dollor airplane. As far as the pilots go. They will probably be blammed, but I bet you a million to one they dont loose their jobs. Just watch.

[windycloud 30]

I am just wondering if that's really a fair note? Investigators blame the dead because they can't defend themselves?

[Guest WesFlight]

I agree with you. Each airline has their own policies, but the one thing we have to remember is that every policy is within safe operating standards and approved by the appropriate government agancy. In the United States case, the FAA.

[Guest tmetzinger]

Well a preliminary NTSB report is out, and the facts are:Autobrakes were selected and used, and applied shortly after touchdown. The report does not indicate what SWA policy on autobrakes actually is.The airplane touched down with about 4500 feet of runway remaining, which it covered in 29 seconds.Thrust reversers didn't become active until 18 seconds after touchdown, which was 14 seconds before hitting the blast fence.The airplane would have needed about 5300 feet to stop with the braking and reverse thrust actually used. The approaches to the opposite runway, into the wind, would have saved 1000 feet, BUT the minimums were too high for the conditions so that approach wasn't availableThe captain states that he couldn't get the thrust reversers out of the stowed position. The first officer stated that after several seconds he noticed the reversers were stowed and was able to activate them manually. The captain applied max braking manually when he felt they weren't decellerating normally, and was joined by the FO.Those are the facts from the NTSB. What follows is my speculation.The airplane was over halfway to the fence before the reversers were activated. How and why that happened is likely to be the focus. I expect the NTSB will calculate just when the reversers had to be active to make a happy ending.I don't think the brakes had anything to do with it, whether auto or manual braking was used. Whatever caused the application of reverse thrust to be delayed is the root probable cause of the accident.Of course, if more facts are published, my opinion may change completely.Best wishes

[Guest Darren Howie]

At the end of the day it seems Southwests lack of stabilised approach policy has caused another accident.They may well want there pilots to be pilots(what a load of rubbish as an excuse to save on training costs)but it seems once again this time its caused the death of an innocent bystander.Working for an airline which rigidly enforces a stabilised approach policy has its drawbacks but the advantages are that this situation if SOP's are followed could not occur because you are going around at 500' when not stable(ie greater than vref+15).As for Southwests lack of use Autobrakes sorry but they are designed for these conditions,slush/snow covered runways with reduced braking availability.There are very few excuses for running off the end of a runway particularly when you know it is contaminated.IE You should be more on the ball than normal and really getting the aeroplane down on target zone right on speed.In fact it would be interesting to know IF it is legal tooperate the 73 in KMDW if the runway is contaminated with its associated reduced braking action etc and hence the increase in landing distance required.Sorry but if these guys carried on into a known short strip which was contaminated with reports of reduced braking quality,are found to have continued with high approach speed and then landed long,didnt use reverse and max braking immediately and have killed some poor innocent then i have NO pity for them whatsoever.An interesting question is how many airlines in the US have a stabilised approach policy??That would make two accidents this year(if the Southwest one is found to have been assitedby overly high approach speeds) caused by crewslanding when they should have been going around.Air France and now possibly Souuthwest.When will people learn.DarrenFor those interested some of the features of a stabilized approach are.You must meet the following criteria at 500' and be fully configured.Within 1 dot papi,two dots vasi 1 dot glideslope/localiser.Vref +15 to VrefSink no greter than 1000'/minOn centreline or flightpath appropriate for position.If any of these are busted below 500' its go around time.If not you will be questioned and possible stood down when the on board monitoring equipment is analysed at the end of the month.And yes big brother is watching.

[Guest tmetzinger]

I'm sorry, what facts do you have to indicate the approach wasn't stabilized?All the information from the NTSB report shows a touchdown at the appropriate speed within the touchdown zone on the runway, and that autobrakes were in fact used and were working correctly.The only anomaly so far is that the thrust reversers were late. Since this is SWA's first (ever, I believe) fatal accident, it's hard to make a case that they've been doing it wrong all along.PS - none of the VASI's I've ever seen had dots. just red lights above white lights - so how is one two dots high or low on a VASI?