Posted on 12/16/2005 12:18:32 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser
Expert says Midway plane crash was avoidable
By Jon Hilkevitch
Originally published December 15, 2005
CHIAGO // The city of Chicago and Southwest Airlines have "carelessly ignored" for years 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.
The crash was avoidable, and the outcome would have been much worse if fuel tanks on the plane ruptured and caught fire, said Gunnar Kuepper, chief of operations at Emergency & Disaster Management Inc., a Los Angeles-based company that advises government agencies and private businesses on emergency-planning strategy.
Advertisement "This was not a surprising risk for anyone in the aviation industry," Kuepper said. "Surely it was a surprise for the people on the street outside Midway Airport who collided with a Boeing 737."
For a fraction of the financial losses that Chicago and Southwest will pay out from the accident, he said, the city and its major airlines at Midway should have invested in safety systems to minimize the damage of a plane skidding off a runway.
The Southwest flight, which originated in Baltimore, landed in a snowstorm at Midway on Dec. 8, slid off the runway, crashed through barriers and hit several cars on Central Avenue. A 6-year-old boy in one car was killed, and 10 other people were injured.
"Midway chose not to address and mitigate the apparent hazard. ... Southwest did not seem to care about reducing the risk either," said Kuepper's 35-page report.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
SWA should start researching this guy. It looks like he will be testifying for the plaintiff if this thing goes to trial.
Close the airport, ban flying. That will stop the accidents.
My thought, too. He talks like a trial lawyer, and I'm sure that his position as a possibly highly-paid consultant to the plaintiffs in the inevitable lawsuit is purest coincidenct.
Did the plane CRASH or SLIDE?
I'm not ready to blame the pilot until a report is done by experts with the FAA, rather than journalists that wouldn't know the difference between a 737 and a DC3.
Often in a plane crash or other disaster, the cause is a combination of many small factors. Think of the ATC decision to clear the landing, the pilot's error in aiming the plane on the runway, the airport for allowing the runway to deteriorate to such a condition, Southwest for its braking policy, a plane with bad brakes, etc. When the lawsuit comes, it will be difficult to determine who was at fault and at what percentage.
It crashed.
Into a fence, ILS equipment, a sound fence and into a car.
Not sure whether the hull will be written off, probably not.
Anybody know anything about 737 reversers? I have a couple buddies that said they have had the reversers stick on them as well.
With a bit more runway, it would have been another safe landing in nasty weather, but now it looks like pilot error. Another story here said the plane landed long and with the wind.
Has there ever been an aircraft "accident" that wasn't avoidable?????? Aren't all accidents avoidable?
As is usual, cities build right up to airports, effectively choking any safety buffer zones and preventing airport expansion. When an accident happens, it's the airport, airline and pilot's fault, never the ones who built right to the end of the runway.
Notice that this article completely ignores the fact that the thrust reversers weren't applied for the first 18 seconds of the landing due to mechanical error and or pilot error.
The plane would have easily have stopped in time if the thrust reversers were applied, and I would have to wonder if the pilot had simply tried taking off again when he was unable to reverse the thrusters, if this also would have been avoided.
The runway is short, but it's been safely used for many flights a day for many years.
The pilot is strange.
He landed with "auto-brakes"
set to on. That is
against policy
at Southwest. It's fair to ask
what else he did wrong.
About Gunnar Kuepper
http://www.emforum.org/eiip/VFRE/kuepper.htm
Yes, but on that day
we'd just gotten lots of snow.
Papers here report
other pilots warned
the end of the runway was
in poor condition.
Again, papers here
report pilots suggested
a different runway,
but Midway didn't
open it because somehow
the different approach
would impact flights at
O'Hare. This mess will take weeks
to get sorted out.
Lets see now....
A several hundred thousand pound vehicle (at this point) travelling on an icy snowy surface at 152 mph. I am thinking/conjecturing but it may have been a tad difficult for the crew to reach over, taking their hands off the wheel, and unlock and then engage thrust reversers which are locked during flight for obvious reasons.
FWIW I flew into Midway the next day and our 737 was slippping sliding and skidding until a stop.
From the NTSB report.
The pilots stated that everything was normal through the point of touchdown. Approaching the airport, weather was of concern to them, and they listened to the ATIS (the recorded weather update) four times during the latter portion of the flight. They stated that they agreed with the dispatcher's assessment of the conditions for landing on runway 31C and backed up that assessment by inputting the numbers into the on-board laptop computer tool.
The computer confirmed that the landing would be within the operational parameters of the airplane and Southwest's procedures, they said.
...
The flying pilot (Captain) stated that he could not get the reverse thrust levers out of the stowed position. The first officer, after several seconds, noticed that the thrust reversers were not deployed and activated the reversers without a problem.
...
FDR data show that thrust reversers were activated about 18 seconds after touchdown or about 14 seconds before contact with the blast fence. Testing and examination of the thrust reverser systems will continue.
They weren't the only plane landing in that weather. The pilots, the dispatcher, and the computer all apparently agreed that landing on that runway was within the set safety standards.
However the brakes on a plane that large are not meant to stop a plane in that short of a distance. The thrust reversers have to be used.
I would suggest reading the link to the report to get a better explaination of what the NTSB knows at this point than my few selective quotes provide.
I'm not sure I think
what folks say on the record
is the complete truth.
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.