at6d

My point is that we actually DO need the numbers and how they got them.

We DO need to know the decision making process, what information they had (or didn’t), what procedures or policies need to be revisited, where they touched down, mechanical data, runway data, period.

Since people here don’t know me other than a screen name, I’m willing to bet that I’m the kind of person you want on an accident/incident investigation/response team.

I want facts. We all have opinions, and those opinions can be quickly changed when certain pieces of information are either ruled out or added to the big picture.

It wasn’t just one thing that led to this outcome.

At the end of the day, the big picture will come out for better or worse.

For those of us that weren’t there, we still learn.

BTW, anyone know if there was substantial damage to the aircraft?

Caveman

Anyone wanna bet on the ratio of current and future bid avoid types are the "experts" posting in this thread.

The entitled runs strong in you geniuses that have it all figured out already.

I'm sure that attitude will serve you well in the long term in your aviation career?

How about you nerd wannabe check pilot sky cops stop posting in this thread break out a brown paper bag, huff and puff in it, and wait for the facts to come out before having your internet hissy fit?

Is this what you do when there's an abnormal in flight?

Andy

I like to learn from the error of others so that when I find myself in a similar situation, I won't repeat their error. Although frankly, this one was about as close to being a no-brainer as it gets. YMMV.

Caveman

The irony in Andy's post is remarkable.

WhaleSurfing

Wink, Wink? Asinine response, but expected from someone spending hours every day behind a keyboard. And what does the NB aspect have anything to do with this? I ask in the form of a question so you can get the free sub sandwich once you hit 25,000 messages. Please enlighten us more on your 737 Burbank expertise!

WhaleSurfing

Because you were there? Another uninformed rant.

WHACKMASTER

Really? Short runway with heavy rain and a tailwind? If the crew KNOWINGLY landed in that then it was a no-brainer (not to). Let’s hope there were some extenuating circumstances beyond their control. So we wait for the report.

Packrat

You'd be surprised what some supposedly qualified, experienced Captains think. I once had a call from an MD skipper who had taken off from LAX and had an engine roll back at 28,000 feet.

Me: "What did you do?"
Him: "Declared an emergency and went back to LAX."
Me: "What's the problem?"
Him: "Well, I elected to overfly Burbank. I hope the Company doesn't come after me for that."
Me: "You're single engine in a heavy airplane and you'll need to do a flaps 28 landing. Burbank is way too short for that so its not a suitable airport. The QRH says 'Nearest Suitable Airport'. You'll never hear a peep from the Company."
Him: "Just making sure."
Me: "I think you did exactly the right thing."

He never heard any comments or criticism from the Company.

Andy

All the data's freely available to calculate landing distance. Or do you think that landing data involves some sort of alchemy?
The only way that crew could 'legally' shoehorn that plane onto the runway under those conditions was to use FICON 5. In RA+.

WhaleSurfing

So I say again, "You were there?" GMAFB. Go back to your MS Flight Sim in the basement.