Posted on 01/27/2006 12:17:25 PM PST by eraser2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board is urging that commercial airplane pilots change the way they calculate stopping distances on slippery runways to avoid a crash, such as the one in Chicago that killed a child.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
If true, that sounds like TERRIBLE judgement.
You mean they don't do this anyway?
Sheez!
"Be aware of the wet spot, is my motto."
I know I am, every time I go out on a da.....oh, never mind.
:0)
I'm not sure I'm following your point....
If you calculate that under the best conditions the runway in its current state will only have a 30 foot safety margin, you don't land on it. You either circle and wait or go somewhere else....
" change the way they calculate stopping distances "
Somehow my brain just glanced over 'change'.
(stupid brain. Wake up!):0)
Ok... following you now... :)
We all have those moments... 'specially on Fridays....
I guess. Just slow down and turn off at the end.
Anyway, it has been a long time since the commercial pilots in my family have been alive but I recall them talking about MDW (and others) and commenting that the runways were shorter than other airports. That’s how I recall it.
Don’t recall the specifics and I’m no pilot so it wouldn’t mean a lot to me anyway.
Specially if, typically, most pilots can't land within 30 feet of where the intend to land in the first place.
Ever seen the length of runway at most aiports with all the black marks on it?
Must be at least 500 feet!
(((.)))
Story also at:
http://www.aero-news.net/LinkToArticle.cfm?ContentBlockID=4747e1eb-3005-4c70-9a70-b145a5be7a2a
> ... they would have **30 feet** to spare at the other
> end of the runway, and they decided to land anyway?
Well, "either 560 feet or 30 feet", but in any case it
was a scenario with no margin for failures, except that
I would tend to think that 18 seconds was both long
enough to detect the reverser deployment delay, and yet
allow a bolter ("touch'n'go").
Yes this is unbelievable, I can't believe they would land knowing they would only have 30 feet to spare, do you realize how little 30 feet is in comparison to the size of that airplane....unbelievable.
Midway airport is 1 mile wide, 1 mile long.... the runways are on the diagonals and the longest one (the one they landed on) is just 6522 feet.
No doubt there... 560' is already cutting it close, IMO.... you'd have to get the plane down before the numbers....
That calculation used to include an added "safety pad." If they were 30 feet to the good, then that was probably 30 feet more than the worst case scenario plus the "safety Pad."
The braking action was fair to poor with a ten knot tailwind.
The folks at Midway had pressure not to change runways because the only possible runway switch at Midway would have caused an air-traffic logjam, curtailing the use of a major departure runway at O'Hare International Airport about 20 miles away. Swapping runway operations also would have added to the serious weather-related flight delays at both airports.
bink
From USA Today:
Pilots on a plane that had landed a few minutes before the Southwest jet reported that braking action had been fair to poor. Midway's measuring equipment had found the runway conditions were "good," Erin O'Donnell, Midway's manager, said shortly after the accident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.