To get fixed and recertified for flight. Probably cheaper to cut their losses and write it off. It's gonna need a new Air Worthyness Certificate at least. And what about the radar, it's ussually in the nose cone, right? Not to mention replacing the nose gear, which according to news reports, was busted off.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

This is what a friend of mine, a 737 ATP, suggested to me the day after the crash, as the most likely cause. Guess he was right. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-midway16.html

ATP or not, I wouldn't be so quick to say that your friend was right. I don't mean to take this out on you, Bob, but that article really ticked me off and is exactly what happens when the media takes a few facts and details out of context, draws its own conclusions, gets some former NTSB guy who wasn't even connected with the investigation to agree with them and they publish it as gospel. That article (with the possible exception of the Daley stuff) is total BS! The Los Angeles Times published an even more hideously innacurate article today basically making their own conclusions and attributing them to the NTSB. The NTSB said nothing of the sort!Here is the link to the ACTUAL NTSB press release where they got their information:http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2005/051215.htm"Preliminary calculations also show that, for the runway conditions and use of brakes and thrust reverser that occurred, the stopping distance without hitting obstructions would have been about 5,300 feet"If you read the full release and understand it, the 5300 foot calculated stopping distance was based on the conditions at the time (aircraft weight, speed, weather, use of autobrake) AND the fact that the thrust reversers did not deploy until 18 seconds after touchdown. In other words their statement is that under the conditions that occured, which included the amount of reverse thrust application, the aircraft would have required 5300 feet of runway to stop. Its actual stopping distance was 300 feet less which can be attributed to the friction created by going off the runway, through the fence and ILS equipment and into the cars.ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in the release did the NTSB make any kind of statement that the aircraft touched down late or past the 'zone' or anything like that. They made a simple statement that the preliminary calculations indicate that the aircraft touched down with about 4500 feet of runway left. Whether or not you consider that landing long (approx 1000 ft from the displaced threshold), the NTSB has not made that conclusion!The NTSB was not making a prediction on the required stopping distance had the thrust reversers been deployed earlier like they should have been. While the flight crew may not have set her down on the numbers, those guys had enough runway left under the conditions to stop that aircraft had the thrust reversers deployed when they were supposed to. Now, stepping away from the facts, I'll insert my opinion: the issue that we are going to see here is: why the reversers didn't deploy initially and was it pilot or mechanical error.Sorry to rant, but that kind of journalism belongs in the grocery store checkout line.Andrew

>they should have been. While the flight crew may not have set>her down on the numbers, those guys had enough runway left>under the conditions to stop that aircraft had the thrust>reversers deployed when they were supposed to. >Andrew,Points taken, but where did you get the information in your statement above? I did not find such a statement or conclusion in the NTSB press release.Don