Old 12-16-2005, 03:46 PM
  #8  
skybolt
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Default

Originally Posted by Fly4Beer
NTSB: Plane touched down too late

After agreeing with a Southwest Airlines dispatcher that it was safe to land amid a blowing lake-effect snowstorm, the pilots of Flight 1248 that crashed at Midway Airport touched down long---more than 2,000 feet beyond the edge of the 6,522-foot runway, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.

The plane hit the runway forcefully, bouncing and becoming momentarily airborne again, during a 29-second landing attempt that needed at least another 800 feet of runway to avoid hitting anything or anyone.

There was also a longer delay than previously reported in deploying the aircraft's thrust reversers, which are designed to assist the braking system in stopping the plane.

The captain told investigators that he had trouble moving the lever that activates the thrust reversers, which are supposed to begin working as soon as the plane lands. In a separate post-accident interview, the first officer said he reached over after "a few seconds'' and was able to trip the thrust reverser release.

But data from the plane's flight data recorder now show that the thrust reversers did not activate until about 18 seconds after landing, the safety board said. The delay meant that the thrust reversers were working to redirect air from the jet engines in a forward-upwardly direction for only about 14 seconds before the plane hit the fence.

Preliminary calculations, using radar information and the flight data recorder onboard the Boeing 737-700, show that the plane touched down with about 4,500 feet of runway remaining, said a factual report issued by the safety board.

The aircraft needed about 5,300 feet stopping distance to avoid hitting obstructions, the report said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...81690.story?co


Typical news media crap. Everything in this story appears to be factual, but it
still misleading. For example, they talk about landing 2000 feet beyond the end, without mentioning that it is illegal/unsafe to land exactly on the end. To the non-pilot reader, this mis leading statement makes the landing distance seem much worse than it was. It would nice if the trib reporter would actually report the facts as they apply to this case. How hard would it have been to say that the airplane needed 5300 feet of a 6500 foot runway? Even with the extra thousand feet wasted in the flare, they should have had 200 feet to spare. Obviously, the long landing wasn't the main problem.

skybolt
skybolt is offline