NTSB Update on Southwest Airlines Runway Incident at Midway Airport

NTSB | 12/16/05

[RunningWolf]

If it is a series -200 thru -500 of the 737, then you are right. The throttles must be brought back to the idle detent to engage the TR's, then of course you bring the throttles back up.

For the later series 737 I don't know.

I don't fly the planes, but know enough about these aircraft to confirm that for you.

Wolf

[Pukin Dog]

If it is a series -200 thru -500 of the 737, then you are right. The throttles must be brought back to the idle detent to engage the TR's, then of course you bring the throttles back up.

Okay, then let me expand on my supposition:

Say the pilot comes out of autoland at minimums, cuts autothrottle, and takes control of the landing. At the same time, due to conditions, he is getting his first view of the runway. He makes the determination that he is sinking and spools up the engines to lower the sink rate.(they landed hard anyway)So, he is on the deck now, but his engines just got spooled up.

He tries to engage reverse thrusters, but they wont go, because the engines have not spooled down yet from the pilots attempt to lower the landing sink rate.

Pilot tells CP that he cant get reversers, but by the time CP reacts, the engines have spooled down and reversers go active.

However, because of the pilot's spool up at the threshold, his touchdown was delayed until he was too far down the runway, and the rest is history.

That is my supposition, based solely on my opinion. It is not too unlike what would happen on a carrier landing where glideslope is almost completly dependent on engines, and a small adjustment can take you from a near ramp strike to an overshot of wire#4.

Just my opinion, though I probably dont have enough information for a more accurate opinion.

[RunningWolf]

That sounds pretty reasonable.

I don't know about all the decision making dynamics you just described there. But now that you described it I could picture that scenario going down. If its not exactly that, then it could turn out to be something close along those lines.

As I think you said earlier, it looks like somehow they got behind the airplane a little bit.

On another note there have been missed opportunities there to install the crushable concrete at the runways end. So what if they cant get 1000 ft of it in there.

Wolf

[Pukin Dog]

I'm not in favor of concrete barriers. Airplanes and concrete don't mix well. I am in favor of better pilots. If you cant put down a little thing like a 737 in a mile and a half under any conditions, maybe you should not be driving.

[RunningWolf]

That is a good point. That is plenty of runway under any circumstance. He probably wont drive anymore.

[pabianice]

An ILS does not have an MDA, it has a DH. I stand corrected. God, I hate getting old. First thing that goes is the memory.

Don't feel bad. I've been flying from the same airport since 1977. Last month I couldn't remember its name when I started to announce my takeoff on CTAF.

[Old Professer]

"The investigation has revealed that runway 31C was used as the landing runway because it contained lower landing minimums for aircraft using the ILS approach. If runway 13C was used, the runway most aligned with the wind, pilots would have been unable to land because of insufficient landing minimums."

31C and 13C are opposite ends of the the same strip, some 6,572 feet in length, there must be elevation restrictions in the flight path from ESE approach.

[Cheburashka]

Turns out it pretty much took a week. Seems odd to me.
---
This isn't the investigation. This is a preliminary progress report. Look at all the items they said they still have to review.