PDA

View Full Version : Chicago airliner causes fatality



Enzp
2005-Dec-09, 11:04 AM
I don't see this up here already. A Southwest plane landing in Chicago slides off runway onto a car, killing a six year old child. Not many details as I watch the TV news. Passengers all OK, several others injured on the ground.

Nicolas
2005-Dec-09, 11:47 AM
I don't see this up here already. A Southwest plane landing in Chicago slides off runway onto a car, killing a six year old child. Not many details as I watch the TV news. Passengers all OK, several others injured on the ground.

Still no reason to post it twice ;) :D

I haven't heard anything on the story yet. :confused:

Captain Kidd
2005-Dec-09, 01:17 PM
It was at Chicago's Midway airport. The front nose gear broke off and the plane slide throught the end of the runway and into a road intersection hitting two cars. One was wedged under a wing and the other against the nose.

Not to speculate, but there's one interesting part to some of the articles.
Chicago Tribune: (www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512090223dec09,1,6906504.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

Midway is in the middle of a densely populated neighborhood, with homes and small businesses butting up against the 1-mile-square perimeter of the airport. Because the airport was built in the age of propeller planes and is landlocked by the neighborhood, it has abnormally short runways.

The overrun area at the end of the runway is much smaller than at most major airports, leaving pilots an exceptionally small margin for error. In severe winter weather, pilots aim to land the plane hard at the very beginning of the runway, giving themselves as much room to stop as possible.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-09, 01:30 PM
There are several pictures in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178203,00.html). Nasty.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-09, 01:31 PM
Still no reason to post it twice ;) :D

I'm pretty sure the forum was lagging at the time; the accidental dupe has been removed.

ToSeek
2005-Dec-09, 04:08 PM
It was a Southwest Airlines flight from my local airport (Baltimore-Washington International). The local news stations had interviews with people from this area who were on the flight.

Haven't heard what went wrong yet.

mugaliens
2005-Dec-09, 07:09 PM
That is so sad!

I checked with a friend and he said depending upon the weight of the aircraft, they might have needed a dray runway between 4,000 and 8,000 feet. The one they landed was 6,500, which with the snow probably wasn't enough.

It's the pilots who figure out what they need based on the local conditions (dry, snow, ice, etc.). Not the airport, who gives it to the pilots.

I'm glad more poeple weren't killled.

Candy
2005-Dec-09, 08:39 PM
I watched this last night. The news breaks started just before 8pm CST.

I don't really know if this is considered an airplane crash. If so, it will be Southwest's first ever. If not, they still have a clean record.

I was saddedned to hear the boy DOA upon arriving at the hospital. :cry:

Candy
2005-Dec-09, 08:43 PM
That is so sad!

I checked with a friend and he said depending upon the weight of the aircraft, they might have needed a dray runway between 4,000 and 8,000 feet. The one they landed was 6,500, which with the snow probably wasn't enough.

It's the pilots who figure out what they need based on the local conditions (dry, snow, ice, etc.). Not the airport, who gives it to the pilots.

I'm glad more poeple weren't killled.
I believe Midway has the shortest runways compared to any other major airport in the USA.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-09, 09:51 PM
I don't really know if this is considered an airplane crash. If so, it will be Southwest's first ever. If not, they still have a clean record.


Personally, since a fatality is involved, caused by a plane in motion, I'd consider it a crash. But that's up to NTSB and the FAA, I think.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-09, 11:46 PM
I was thinking about that when I saw this story. Did the kid die in a plane crash or a car accident?

LurchGS
2005-Dec-09, 11:51 PM
the way I read it, he was squished by a plane - the fact that he was in a car is incidental to the accident being labled a plane crash. (again, MY take on things)

-----------------

Lots of people know that air travel is unsafe
Lots of people know that automobiles are unsafe
put the two together and you are just asking for trouble!

Candy
2005-Dec-09, 11:56 PM
I was thinking about that when I saw this story. Did the kid die in a plane crash or a car accident?
I would say the boy died in a car accident. There were two cars involved in the collision. What force the plane must have hit to partially crush one of the cars.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-10, 12:15 AM
I thought the cars were essentially under the aircraft - not involved with each other... and those planes are *heavy*. I tried pushing one once (brakes off). Makes more sense for me to push a point

Candy
2005-Dec-10, 12:23 AM
I thought the cars were essentially under the aircraft - not involved with each other... and those planes are *heavy*. I tried pushing one once (brakes off). Makes more sense for me to push a point
The news reported it as one car partially crushed under the plane. I'll assume this is the one the boy was in, since it required triage (spelling). The plane looks as if the back end collapsed after running through the fence, etc... The other car was hit by the plane (or the car hit it). If the snow had not made the roads so bad last night, I can guarantee there would've been more cars involved.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-10, 12:35 AM
no argument - I've driven in Chicago in the winter any number of times. It was nice having the roads essentially to myself.


side issue: Any victim of an accident requires triage, though. It may be a quick look by the EMT ascertining that the victim is 'fine', or it may take a few seconds for the EMT to decide "nope, this one's dead, just not stopped breathing yet". It's quick, ideally, but EVERY victim should be triaged.

(Triage is one of the most difficult jobs in medicine. You have to be able to judge whether the victim you are examining has any reasonable chance of survival if medical assistance is rendered quickly. It's awful to have to walk away from a badly injured person to check on others, even though you know there's not a darn thing that can be done for him. My wife had to do this a couple years ago - was in counseling for months afterwards)

-----

Is that a red tag I see on that man?
No sir, it's black.

Enzp
2005-Dec-10, 06:43 AM
Yes, the forum was not working smoothly. I thought it had bugged on me so the double post happened inadvertantly. WHo knows what servers do late at night?

LurchGS
2005-Dec-10, 06:58 AM
The SHADOW knows!

ToSeek
2005-Dec-12, 04:37 PM
Latest news report I saw said that it appeared to be a problem with the thrust reversers.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-12, 07:49 PM
For anybody unfamiliar with Midway - that is one tight airport. I was filling up with gas at a station perfectly kitty-corner from the airport. That means the station is directly in line with take-offs and landings and the planes are only a few hundred (maybe only a couple hundred) feet off the ground when they pass over. At first I thought it odd that everybody had earmuffs on - it wasn't that cold out. Then a plane took off overhead. OMG!!! Everything on the ground, including the ground, is doing the shake, rattle, and roll. It can not be good for anyone's hearing to live near that place; much less the annoyance of a stray airplane. Makes me wonder though; if you tried to get that close to an airplane on take-off or landing at any other major airport you'd probably be in violation of some sorts of rule or another.

Candy
2005-Dec-12, 10:18 PM
Latest news report I saw said that it appeared to be a problem with the thrust reversers.
I saw that, too. The pilot's thrust reversers did not work. The co-pilot's did, but there were seconds lost due to reaction time.

If I'd known the plane was in the street for ~two days, I would've gone down and taken some photos. I bet security was tight. I probably wouldn't of gotten very close.


That means the station is directly in line with take-offs and landings and the planes are only a few hundred (maybe only a couple hundred) feet off the ground when they pass over. At first I thought it odd that everybody had earmuffs on - it wasn't that cold out. Then a plane took off overhead. OMG!!! Everything on the ground, including the ground, is doing the shake, rattle, and roll.
That is funny! :lol:

There is some great footage from the local news within the last 1.5 years. During a baseball game, a ~Southwest plane was flying so low upon landing that it freaked people out. You could see it "plain" as day, this huge airplane just coasting in for a landing. I thought it was cool. The plane wasn't supposed to be that low. I think communications got "mixed" up between the controller and the pilot.

ToSeek
2005-Dec-12, 11:12 PM
Some years ago, people in the USA Today building in Rosslyn, right next to one of the main flight paths into Washington National, were claiming to be able to see faces of the passengers on the airplanes going by.

I think they revised the flight path a little bit after the FAA started hearing about this.

Hutch
2005-Dec-12, 11:42 PM
I've flown into Midway (along with maybe 50-60 other airports in my life) and it is one of the more nerve-wracking places to get into, because in landings you see nothing but buildings and homes until you are 5-8 seconds from landing. and then the pilot slams you down and once on the ground you brake like crazy.

Taking off is also an adventure because you know by then just how small the airport is and while a long run on a 10,000' runway is ok, a long run at Midway causes the tension to rise. It's a good airport and great location, but don't get a window seat.

Washington National ain't great either, you're over water until you're about 10 seconds out...

Candy
2005-Dec-12, 11:55 PM
Washington National ain't great either, you're over water until you're about 10 seconds out...
Me, being a dummy, have you ever noticed most airports are located near water? I'm sure there is a reason, but I never noticed it, until I started traveling.

R.I.P., heroes of "that day" - I think I was in 10th grade, when I saw the airplane land in the Potomac River during sub zero temperatures. During live coverage, I literally saw people drowning on live news. I saw people jumping in to save passengers only to not surface again. It was very disturbing to me. I never want to see that again. I had nightmares for a few months.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-13, 12:08 AM
I've flown into Midway (along with maybe 50-60 other airports in my life) and it is one of the more nerve-wracking places to get into, because in landings you see nothing but buildings and homes until you are 5-8 seconds from landing. and then the pilot slams you down and once on the ground you brake like crazy.

Taking off is also an adventure because you know by then just how small the airport is and while a long run on a 10,000' runway is ok, a long run at Midway causes the tension to rise. It's a good airport and great location, but don't get a window seat.

Washington National ain't great either, you're over water until you're about 10 seconds out...

Heh - I've done my share of flying... Midway is indeed a little anxious-making. Flying into Alaskan airports is much, much worse.

Sitka - the entire runway is on a man-made island (essentially) - ocean is literally feet from the runway in 3 directions.

Juneau - at the mouth of the Mendenahll valley - big tall mountains everywhere around you. And water

Kodiak - you land facing the biggest mountain in the area. Please don't overhoot. you take off in the opposite direction - and the ocean is (again) only feet from the end of the runway.

Attu - big mountains all around.

Ketchikan - water on one side, mountains on the other three (taking off from Ketchikan once, we lost 500 feet in what seemed like 2 seconds. There was very definately an extended period of negative Gs there. A number of passengers panicked (tourists - those of us who flew AK a lot barely woke up. I was awake because I was talking to my wife...)

Sea-Tac (ok, not Alaska, but close enough) surrounded by houses and near water - and built on top of a gosh-dang hill!

Hickam AFB - water on 3 sides, and ships moored at the west end of the runway (I spent weeks there.. Sleep is for the weak)

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-13, 12:10 AM
Latest news report I saw said that it appeared to be a problem with the thrust reversers.
I've been told that most commercial airports frown on the use of thrust reversers for regular landings because of the noise, but I guess this was a case of a quite short runway plus show so they where needed.


Me, being a dummy, have you ever noticed most airports are located near water? I'm sure there is a reason, but I never noticed it, until I started traveling.
I would expect a large part of it is that it makes it possible to largely avoid populated areas while you're flying low so you avoid noise complaints.

Candy
2005-Dec-13, 12:19 AM
Heh - I've done my share of flying... Midway is indeed a little anxious-making. Flying into Alaskan airports is much, much worse.

Sitka - the entire runway is on a man-made island (essentially) - ocean is literally feet from the runway in 3 directions.

Juneau - at the mouth of the Mendenahll valley - big tall mountains everywhere around you. And water

Kodiak - you land facing the biggest mountain in the area. Please don't overhoot. you take off in the opposite direction - and the ocean is (again) only feet from the end of the runway.

Attu - big mountains all around.

Ketchikan - water on one side, mountains on the other three (taking off from Ketchikan once, we lost 500 feet in what seemed like 2 seconds. There was very definately an extended period of negative Gs there. A number of passengers panicked (tourists - those of us who flew AK a lot barely woke up. I was awake because I was talking to my wife...)

Sea-Tac (ok, not Alaska, but close enough) surrounded by houses and near water - and built on top of a gosh-dang hill!

Hickam AFB - water on 3 sides, and ships moored at the west end of the runway (I spent weeks there.. Sleep is for the weak)
When I flew out of Indianapolis to Anchorage (via Dallas and Seattle), I never realized how big Indianapolis was and how small Anchorage was! This was my first flying experience. I was shocked.

Candy
2005-Dec-13, 12:21 AM
I would expect a large part of it is that it makes it possible to largely avoid populated areas while you're flying low so you avoid noise complaints.
That's makes sense.

jaeger
2005-Dec-13, 12:45 AM
Washington National ain't great either, you're over water until you're about 10 seconds out...

I used to fly in/out of Reagan National all the time. When the pilots flew the down-river route on landing, juking right and left, you thought there was a MiG on your tail. I also saw the story about workers in the USA Today building looking directly across and seeing passenger faces. Used to work on the other side of the Potomac and saw lots of planes low on the glidepath.

Another scary airport is Lindbergh Field in San Diego - hillsides, houses, and the Bay. Love the city, though.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-13, 12:49 AM
When I flew out of Indianapolis to Anchorage (via Dallas and Seattle), I never realized how big Indianapolis was and how small Anchorage was! This was my first flying experience. I was shocked.


Heh = Anchorage... 250,000 people, give or take. That's about half the entire population of the state.

Candy
2005-Dec-13, 12:54 AM
Heh = Anchorage... 250,000 people, give or take. That's about half the entire population of the state.
I think Indianapolis (with suburbs) is 1 million (total Indiana population 6 million).

LurchGS
2005-Dec-13, 12:57 AM
I would expect a large part of it is that it makes it possible to largely avoid populated areas while you're flying low so you avoid noise complaints.

I dunno - keep in mind that most major airports in this country were placed well outside the city (land was cheaper there - at the time they were built, and noise complaints were unheard of (pardon the pun)). My thought is that the construction companies used bottom soil/rocks as cheap fill for the runways etc rather than truck it in from the next county.

Noise complaints, in general, annoy me - as I said, when the airport was built, there was nobody living nearby - but people being people wanted short commute times, so built homes near the airport at whch they worked. After they moved out, somebody else moved in. All along the line, it's a voluntary action to put yourself near the airport.

Even Denver's new airport is an example of this. City built a brand new airport "half way to Nebraska". it's a half hour drive from downtown, on interstate and interstate like roads. The first few years, all you could see out on the grasslands was this absolutely hideous main terminal building and some annexes. Now there are hotels just a mile or so away, and housing developments just beyond them.. In the next ten years, I expec the airport to be surrounded, just like the old one was. And people will whine about the noise

Enzp
2005-Dec-13, 09:03 AM
Washington National, now Reagan, was always right downtown. OK, across the river, but nonetheless downtown. You can look at the Capitol and Washington monument while standing on the runway. That is some approach, from the west it is right down the Potomac, with a quick dogleg just before final approach. But the view out the left side is pure picture postcard. I have heard it said that the approach is so dangerous it is safe. Insofar as you can't let your attention wander.

I remember when the Air Florida flight crashed through the ice. Quite a story. You could see the damage repair on the 14th street bridge for years afterwards. The plane clipped the bridge and crushed a couple cars as it plowed into the river. I was in Morgantown WV waiting for one of our technicians to fly in from DC, and his flight was right after that one. But of course as soon as the plane went down, the airport closed.

It was a sad event, and there were some real heroes.

I recall flying into Muncie once and I wondered where we were, because there were cornstalks all around us. The terminal building was about the size of my garage.

NEOWatcher
2005-Dec-13, 01:53 PM
I would expect a large part of it is that it makes it possible to largely avoid populated areas while you're flying low so you avoid noise complaints.
I dunno - keep in mind that most major airports in this country were placed well outside the city (land was cheaper there - at the time they were built, and noise complaints were unheard of (pardon the pun)). My thought is that the construction companies used bottom soil/rocks as cheap fill for the runways etc rather than truck it in from the next county.

My 2cents... I believe another factor is that level terrain is easier to find near the water.

Imagine being that lady on the plane that lived only a few blocks away. Or her husband who got her cell call that said "I'm on the plane on 55th, come get me". Then not be allowed to go home to be "deprocessed" (assuming that means sign various legal junk)

LurchGS
2005-Dec-13, 09:42 PM
My 2cents... I believe another factor is that level terrain is easier to find near the water.

Good point - easier to find, easier to build...



Imagine being that lady on the plane that lived only a few blocks away. Or her husband who got her cell call that said "I'm on the plane on 55th, come get me". Then not be allowed to go home to be "deprocessed" (assuming that means sign various legal junk)

that, and check medical, check emotional (they'd really rather you hung around until you come out of shock)

Enzp
yeah, there are a few like that, but by and large, the airfields were built at least on the outskirts of town.

Never flown into Muncie... but at least it has a terminal. Been to a couple of fields (now that you reminded me) where the terminal was a baggage table under a ripped awning. Those probably don't really qualify, though at least the runway was paved.

Candy
2005-Dec-13, 09:55 PM
Never flown into Muncie... but at least it has a terminal. Been to a couple of fields (now that you reminded me) where the terminal was a baggage table under a ripped awning. Those probably don't really qualify, though at least the runway was paved.
Muncie, Indiana airfield is tiny. It's not for commercial use, as in big airlines.

Schaumburg, Illinois is another tiny airport. It is privately owned. They have flight lessons and a restaurant. Nice. :)

Schaumburg had the airplane show that I attended last year. It was great!

Lafayette, Indiana (well, West Lafayette) has a regular passenger plan for major airlines. I think United backed out due to revenue loss, but I think Northwest still runs big planes. United used to have Express.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-14, 03:30 AM
To go in the completely opposite direction, I'm looking forward to flying to Malta International which has one of the longest runways in commersial airports (3544m = 11627 ft).
It almost sounds silly, the runway is longer than a third of the country's width.

Candy
2005-Dec-15, 11:24 PM
Safety adviser criticizes Southwest, Midway (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Dec/20051215News023.asp)

CHICAGO - Chicago and Southwest Airlines for years have "carelessly ignored" the risks of short runways and insufficient over-run areas at Midway Airport, an expert on transportation disasters said yesterday in a report on last week’s fatal accident.

Josh 'flying high now,' mourners told (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-midway15.html)

A quarter is tucked inside the tiny palm of Joshua Woods' hand.
The 6-year-old Indiana boy was killed last week when a jet crashed atop his family's car near Midway Airport.
Southwest paid for his funeral. :(

LurchGS
2005-Dec-15, 11:37 PM
Safety adviser criticizes Southwest, Midway (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Dec/20051215News023.asp)

(

Myself, I'll wait for NTSB to put out their report. They have a tendency to conduct a thorough investigation, THEN discuss issues.

Candy
2005-Dec-15, 11:58 PM
Myself, I'll wait for NTSB to put out their report. They have a tendency to conduct a thorough investigation, THEN discuss issues.
This affects my airline, too. TED uses both O'Hare and Midway. I'd like to know public (news) views (updates), as well.

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 04:02 AM
Ouch, Channel 2 CBS News is reporting the parents are blaming Southwest Airlines calling it murder. No comment by the Airlines or the "City".

Thursday, December 15, 2200CST

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 04:12 AM
Ouch, Channel 2 CBS News is reporting the parents are blaming Southwest Airlines calling it murder. No comment by the Airlines or the "City".

Well, Murder won't fly (pardon the pun). Murder is explicitly "intent to kill". They MIGHT get manslaughter (negligent)

I agree, statements like this will affect your (and any other) airline - and that's reason enough for you to pay attention to them. Not that I expect any of these people to produce anything like a detailed/thorough explanation. Or even accurate. Fortunately, these "reports" won't affect my life, other than some of my customers (one of whom maintains a crash database, taken from NTSB reports - keeps a roof over his head)

-------------

is it bad when the wings come off?

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 04:30 AM
Paying for the funeral is, in the eye of most laws, grounds for defeat.

I think, in this case, negligence is most admirable. Now, the decision as to what a child is worth comes into question... :(

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 04:44 AM
Paying for the funeral is, in the eye of most laws, grounds for defeat.

I think, in this case, negligence is most admirable. Now, the decision as to what a child is worth comes into question... :(

It's frequently an admission of culpability, true. But I really don't think any kind of murder charge will fly.

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 05:21 AM
Not murder, negligence - you said it first. The news is saying "murder". I doubt the family is saying that.

What's a child worth, though? I don't know, I don't have children. I bet the parents will want a lot.

tmosher
2005-Dec-16, 03:41 PM
Murder requires the element of malice.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-16, 04:13 PM
I recall flying into Muncie once and I wondered where we were, because there were cornstalks all around us. The terminal building was about the size of my garage.

I had a vacation go sour once near Mitchell SD. Had to send my dog home via air. What a hoot. Two flights per day. About half an hour before each arrival, this guy in a pickup shows up and unlocks the door to the "terminal" and checks in the passenger for the day, my German Shepherd. He goes out on the tarmac and waves the plane in with those orange flashlight thingies, rolls the steps over, and helps unload. Same guy refuels the plane, loads my dog, and guides the plane out of the "gate area." We say thank you's and goodbye's, he locks up, everybody leaves, and the place is all quiet again until the evening arrival.

This was in the mid-70's; the place might be a little busier now.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-16, 04:36 PM
Paying for the funeral is, in the eye of most laws, grounds for defeat.

I think, in this case, negligence is most admirable. Now, the decision as to what a child is worth comes into question... :(

My guess is that the lawyers for most large companies, and certainly for the airlines, have a rough idea of what the courts will say a child, or any one of a variety of human lives is worth. It's one of the things they must use (or should use) when making decisions about risky activities (such as landing at airports with short runways).

I know it rubs some people the wrong way, but there is a monetary value we all place on life. As an extreme example, we could deploy surveillance and enforcement to such a degree that crime would be almost completely eliminated. But the cost would be intolerable.

Same with air travel. It's relatively safe, but it could be made even much safer than it is with rules like no housing within 5 miles of an airport, runways twice as long as are actually needed, flight crews that only had to work a maximum of 4 hours per day, etc. I do not know the mechanics well, but I'm sure they could be built to an overkill level much higher than currently exists.

But only the wealthy could afford to fly. So we live with the fact that there will be preventable deaths that are not worth preventing, comfortable in the fact that the odds of you being the person to die are very slim. I don't know anyone that would argue that, until of course it's someone they care about that dies.

I do struggle with the responsibility part though. Everyone should know when they get on a plane that the ticket is affordable only because we do not take all the ultimate precautions against an accident. Then again, the airline buys insurance and prices their tickets with insurance premiums and overhead like lawsuits as part of the formula. Maybe it's all just business as usual; including the use of the term murder to get everyone's attention.

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 05:07 PM
Farmerjumperdon, now that you mention it, I remember there being wording about "built in" insurance for death, luggage, etc... on a paper ticket. It's been so long since I've seen a paper ticket, though.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-16, 09:14 PM
I don't fault the airlines or equipment much. Similar to our skydiving rigs, the overkill factor on the equipment is pretty outrageous already. I think consumer expectationsd are often to blame. Seems too many people these days want everything cheap, fast, and perfect.

Speaking of equipment, there is enough money being generated by the sport of skydiving to support pretty nice planes at most drop zones these days. In fact, there is now a plane (PAC-750 I thin) designed and built specifically for skydiving. But I've heard some great stories from the old dudes (even older than me) about the stuff used in the past. A drop zone was usually the last leg of an airframes life. It's where the answer to the question of why we would jump out of a perfectly good plane came from: "You ain't seen the planes we use!" The riskiest part of the flight was from the ground up to the altitude at which a parachute can be reasonably expected to open. I suppose that's true of any flight though, and is probably why putting a parachute on theplance for every passenger wouldn't be worth it. Most accidents probably happen at too low of an altitude for a parachute to open. One last tangent; at least half, and maybe as much as 90% of untrained people would die on impact even under an open parachute.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 11:01 PM
that statistic hasn't changed in 25 years... good to know.

And - from my experience (25 years ago) nothing beats a DC-3 as a launch platform!

tmosher
2005-Dec-17, 04:06 AM
Farmerjumperdon, now that you mention it, I remember there being wording about "built in" insurance for death, luggage, etc... on a paper ticket. It's been so long since I've seen a paper ticket, though.

The Montreal or Warsaw Conventions apply.

From your employer:
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,2671,00.html

When you fly international, legal recourse is quite limited. These limitations have been contested in both TWA Flight 800 and AA A300 crash.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-17, 04:30 AM
Wow that page is difficult to read with javascript disabled:)
http://www.iaeste.dk/~henrik/images/UnitedUnreadable.gif

Candy
2005-Dec-17, 05:15 AM
Wow that page is difficult to read with javascript disabled:)
http://www.iaeste.dk/~henrik/images/UnitedUnreadable.gif
Now, you are just freaking me out, HenrikOlsen. :lol:

Thank you, tmosher.

Captain Kidd
2006-Jan-30, 05:28 PM
The NTSB has released a safety recommendation that the use of thrust reversers no long be employed in landing calculations. The calculations currently allow the thrust reversers to be factored in; however, they assume an instant response time. The reversers for the Southwest aircraft took 18 seconds to respond.

NTSB press release (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060127.htm)
NTSB Safety Recommendation (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/A06_16.pdf) (pdf)


From the press release:
While approaching Chicago on a flight from Baltimore, the pilots used an on-board laptop performance computer (OPC) to calculate expected landing performance. Information entered into the computer included expected landing runway, wind speed and direction, airplane gross weight at touchdown, and reported runway braking action. The OPC then calculated the stopping margin. Depending on whether WET-FAIR or WET-POOR conditions were input, the computer calculated remaining runway after stopping at either 560 feet or 30 feet.

Both calculations were based on taking a stopping credit assuming engine thrust reverser deployment at touchdown. Flight data recorder information revealed that the thrust reversers were not deployed until 18 seconds after touchdown, at which point there was only about 1,000 feet of usable runway remaining.

Doodler
2006-Jan-30, 07:18 PM
I've been told that most commercial airports frown on the use of thrust reversers for regular landings because of the noise, but I guess this was a case of a quite short runway plus show so they where needed.

One of the reasons I love BWI. BIG airport with minimal interface with the surrounding area, most of which is industrial. It hasn't grown to the point where Dulles International is, having its next major runway expansion screamed about by the locals.

I wonder about the reverse thruster thing, though. Last November, I flew Southwest from BWI to Columbus to Nashville, then from Nashville straight to BWI. Every landing used reverse thrust.

At some point, I think noise just needs to be lived with. At this stage of the game, that airport was there long before the homeowners were. They chose to live there, better them deaf than the passengers dead.

jt-3d
2006-Jan-30, 08:50 PM
Well the NTSB makes recommendations but the FAA may or may not decide to impliment them. Sounds like a stupid proposal but typical of the NTSB. They live in a fantasy world. Sometimes accidents just happen. That's why they're called accidents.

My 2˘: If the t/r's didn't deploy after the levers were pulled, it's on Boeing. If the levers weren't pulled until it was too late or they landed long, it's on the pilots. Either way, more rules are unnessesary.