PM monitors TR's. No callout unless they don't deploy.

 

I have deleted the last three insults in this thread. A pretty good discussion going on here so I hate to lock it.

As this thread progresses, please keep the insults to yourselves and make your point without the name calling.

 

I just deleted two more posts and I'd echo de727ups's insistence on taking the high road with respect to insults.

This thread has the potential to yield a useful discussion on aviation safety although blame and insults aimed at individual pilots or an entire pilot group won't be tolerated.

 

Had recurrent this week and asked this very question. At the time of the accident, the 300/500 did not use T/R in it's landing distance calculations. The 700 at the time did however, which the crew did not know. This tidbit was not in the FOM and the crew assumed that they had reverse thrust to add into the landing distance like the 300/500. They tried multiple scenarios in the OPC and all of them gave a positive stopping margin the lowest being 40-60 feet with MAX autobrake.

All OPC now includes the T/R's for stopping distance's for all aircraft. These guys spent all 2 hours of the CVR talking about options and using good CRM to make a decision. The data they had was "mixed". A citation landed just prior to the accident airplane and advised that the end of 31C braking action was poor to NIL. Tower never passed this on to these guys. If they had and they heard NIL, then I assume they would have diverted.

 

Any action taken with the controller?

Tom

 

It has been several months since I've read the CVR transcript but my recollection is that the Captain TRIED to deploy the T/Rs but couldn't get them to deploy. If someone has read the transcript more recently perhaps they can provide more detail.

I'm thinking that the Captain may not have had the throttles all the way back against the stop which prevented the T/Rs from engaging but I'm hoping to have that either confirmed or an alternate explanation presented. The new auto-brakes procedures could certainly have contributed to the Captain not getting the motions exactly right to get the T/Rs deployed, that doesn't mean that he wasn't trying to do it.

 

I am on the 800 series. Our landing data does not reflect the use of T/Rs for dry or wet surfaces... thus no corrections are required as long as the auto speed brake and auto brake systems are inoperative. I have never flown any other type of NG series. Is that company specific or actual type sepcefic regarding T/Rs... or is it because some operators may have disabled their auto brake system?

 

Did we turn you down. I'm sorry! Now move on. UAL has had some accidents that were the result of pilot error do hear anyone talking about their culture. American lost one in ARK which was the result of pilot error does that mean their culture is "mission accomplished" If want to bash us go ahead but stop trying so hard it makes you look like a child

 

Remember, the great thing about reading safety reports is that you would have never done what those guys did.....after all, you know that something bad happened

AND, I guarantee you, that "those" guys would be saying the same thing if it had happened to someone else.

Another thing I will almost guarantee, if you are reading any mishap and know, absolutely stone cold know, that it can't happen to you.....it will be you, someday.

This is the link to the animation, no CVR transcript out there yet, why the late TR deployment, no idea. And I bet, if you talked to the Capt involved, he wouldn't have an idea either.....could have been more concerned with keeping it on the centerline, most likely, IMO, was distracted by the something different approach w/ the autobrakes.

Would a reasonable pilot assume that the TR were gravy to the stop margin, especially if that was the case in every other 73 the company flew, I sure think so. Does every SWA guy out there know the differences now, hell ya.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2007/Chic...escription.htm

Again, go read the source NTSB documents. The rwy conditions these guys landed on were worse than the preceding company based on data interpretation from the FDRs. With the rwy condition these guys actually had, they would have had to go full reverse and stay there until the plane stopped.
So, when the NTSB says that the plane could have stopped on the rwy, IMO that's garbage. How many guys out there are going to leave it in reverse that long???? Or when the PM makes the speed callout, are you going to start taking it out of reverse.....until the end of the rwy gets closer and closer.

 

Honestly, I have no idea.