Replies

Well, I don't know, it would depend on a few things. First, was he aware of the conditions? How much experience did he have at that airfield? There are multiple settings for the autobrakes, but the checklist should have taken care of a missed setting.

Was it a CATIII approach? I heard that there was a problem with the thrust reversers, but I wonder if he had forgotten to go idle thrust at the threshold. I think these boys just got behind the aircraft.

Looking at the conditions, he should have stayed off the autobrake though. It could have been much worse had they picked up an skid on on side or the other. It is a short runway, so I can see what he was probably thinking.

Sucks to be him.

You don't know me, but I do have an opinion . I was a captain for an airline that on some types required the use of autobrakes (under certain conditions), and on other types prohibited their use. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that perhaps the autobrakes were not maintained and this was the reason for the prohibition at Southwest (and do we really know that SW does not permit their use?). I did NOT fly for Southwest, and so have no idea what was their reasoning. When working properly, you cannot beat them, reverse thrust or not. Sometimes, especially on a slippery runway, reverse thrust might not be your friend. On the type of equipment I flew the most, I used autobrakes whenever they were operational and it made sense to do so (would not make sense if you were landing on a 12,000 ft. runway and were expected to turn off at the far end, for example). They are wonderful. I used them on "max" a few times, and they were completely smooth and powerful. Keep in mind that there are many factors about this accident that I am not aware of. This is intended as sort of a general opinion, and may be completely off base, depending on the circumstances of this particular airline/airplane/accident. I was "fired" a few years ago for exceeding a pilot operating limit - age!