Plane incident at Chicago Midway

[Lewisc]

Of course, the runways are used either way, depending on conditions.

Previous poster was suggested shrinking the runways by a hundred feet or so and putting the barriers in the beginning of the runway since the planes don't touch down in the first hundred feet or so.

That would require the runways have the planes take off from one direction but land in the other direction. I always thought short runways were more of a problem taking off than landing. I don't know how much shorter you can make the runways and still allow the present planes to take off fully loaded.

The bottom line is the airport needs more land in order to operate safely.

added to say Bicker all the reports say there is only about 82 feet between the end of the runway and the end of the airport. Probably not enough land to properly build the barriers. You'll still need some land for the fence and I doubt the barriers start at the very end of the runways. The first step should be relocating the roads below grade level and then decide how many houses have to be purchased to make the airport safe.

To be fair, the barriers we're talking about would be installed at both ends of the runway, so regardless of which way the aircraft is landing, the barriers would apply. Also, these barriers aren't walls, but a special type of pavement that collapses in a certain way to slow the aircraft down. There is already about a hundred feet of grass at the ends of these runways, so the barriers could be installed there.

Even with the barriers, Midway would still not be safe.

 

[JDietz40]

One of the local radio stations is saying that the air traffic controller did not know at first that the plane left the runway because he could not see the runway because of the weather. I certainly have no qualifications to be an air traffic controller and I realize that the planes can fly via instruments but it seems that the controllers should be able to see the planes when they are inside the boundaries of their airport especially one the size of Midway and if the visability is that bad perhaps they shouldn't be trying to land planes.




John

 

[marc1477]

One of the local radio stations is saying that the air traffic controller did not know at first that the plane left the runway because he could not see the runway because of the weather. I certainly have no qualifications to be an air traffic controller and I realize that the planes can fly via instruments but it seems that the controllers should be able to see the planes when they are inside the boundaries of their airport especially one the size of Midway and if the visability is that bad perhaps they shouldn't be trying to land planes.




John

I agree here. If the controllers in the tower cannot see the field they should hold the aircraft in an orbit around the airport until conditions improve. Granted, the aircraft do have good computers and utilize tracking systems, visibility should be decent before they can land.

 

[inkkognito]

Problem is, the plane might have been running low on fuel. Sometimes there is no option but to bring it in. That happened to us at Midway once...we circled as long as we could, but finally they had to bring us in. The weather was so nasty that we had to abort our first landing attempt because a small aircraft trying to take off before we landed ended up skidding into a snowbank. Thankfully, we made it in on our second attempt.
Barb

 

[manning]

This was in an article in The Chicago Tribune Sunday.

From a pilot who use to fly into Midway.

There is an electronic glide path that the pilot follows to the runway. If you are on the glide path it will guide you to a landing spot 1600 feet from the beginning edge of the runway. So it appears a barrier can be built.

The barriers are in use at other airports and have stopped several planes at one of the New York airports.

The barriers are not like a wall. It is level with the ground and is super soft. The plane would enter the barrier and sink, like driving a car from the parking lot at the beach into the sand.

 

[Lewisc]

Your joking I hope. You think the 6500 feet runways can be shortened to 5900 feet? Fully loaded airlines need almost all of the runway to take off. Planes can't land in the beginning of the runway and clear the fence.

EMAS shortens the RSA from 1,000 feet to around 600 feet.

There is an electronic glide path that the pilot follows to the runway. If you are on the glide path it will guide you to a landing spot 1600 feet from the beginning edge of the runway. So it appears a barrier can be built.

The barriers are in use at other airports and have stopped several planes at one of the New York airports.

The barriers are not like a wall. It is level with the ground and is super soft. The plane would enter the barrier and sink, like driving a car from the parking lot at the beach into the sand.

 

[tinaluis]

I just read a story on YahooNews that said that Midway doesn't have enough space to install any of the barriers proposed. It looks like the only safe thing to do is to expand the airport. We live about 8 blocks from the airport (and are actually in a flight pattern) so we'd probably have to move. Fortunately, we were in Orlando when the incident happened.

 

[marc1477]

Problem is, the plane might have been running low on fuel. Sometimes there is no option but to bring it in. That happened to us at Midway once...we circled as long as we could, but finally they had to bring us in. The weather was so nasty that we had to abort our first landing attempt because a small aircraft trying to take off before we landed ended up skidding into a snowbank. Thankfully, we made it in on our second attempt.
Barb

I agree if the plane was low on fuel they would have had to bring them in, but that should only be in an emergency. But if the weather is that bad how about deverting them to another airport for fuel. I think that the FAA needs to reevaluate the landing conditions better.

 

[inkkognito]

I know that Rockford is capable of handling aircraft diverted from Midway for refueling. We had to go there one night when we couldn't land at Midway due to severe thunderstorms. Their runways must be large because we landed in a 757-300. Not sure why the SW jet couldn't refuel there...perhaps their weather conditions were bad too. The Gary airport is also nearby, but I don't know what kinds/sizes of aircraft they can handle.
Barb

 

[NotUrsula]

I think that Rockford and Gary were pretty much socked in, too. They would have had to divert much further afield than that, possibly as far away as Bloomington or even Springfield.

I used to fly into LGA and San Diego quite often before they built the soft barriers. IMO, those last few seconds when you are praying you will feel the wheels catch air rather than water are worse than anything I've ever dealt with at MDW. Airlines don't put rookies on any of those routes, and for good reason.

Honestly, I don't see that Midway is really inherently all that much more dangerous than other short-runway fields in urban areas. For all MDW's flight volume, this is the first overrun they have had in a very long time. I think it would be best to go ahead and fill in that grass with barrier, which I think is a reasonable compromise given the situation. Something is better than nothing after all, even if it isn't the optimal length. Perhaps the barrier area could be built to gently slope up at the ends, which might help a bit more. The other thing that I think might be a workable stopgap would be for some kind of warning devices to be put up in the area approaching the intersection, as with a rail Xing, so that the airport safety officials could preemptively halt traffic on the roads in the event of an expected difficult landing situation putting vehicles at risk.

While I agree that buying out land in the area and putting the roads under tunnel is the optimal solution, the reality is that Chicago can't live without that runway for the years it would take for that work to be planned and carried out. They need to come up with some immediate improvement that will at least help mitigate the worst danger.

 

[manning]

Lewisc, What is the length of the runway at the Burkbank airport in California? .....5800 feet. Southwest flies in there. That is where they overshot the runway.

Burbank installed an EMAS system (after the overshoot). It is 75 feet back from the edge of the runway and is 170 feet long for a total of 245 feet. It is at one end of the runway and did not shorten it. EMAS is designed to stop aircraft entering it at 70 knots. If the news report is correct the plane at Midway left the runway at 46 mph ( 40 knots)

The Midway runway now is 6522 feet. (I understand the other runway is shorter, but I can't find the length). Put AMAS at both ends of the runway and assuming they have to do this within the present runway footprint you shorten the runway to 6032 feet. 6032 - 696 (unusable for landing due to obstacles) = 5336 usable landing distance. Landing in the other direction you may get that 696 back. I imagine there is some wiggle room on where it can be placed, so the runway could be longer than 6032.




Takeoff/landing distance in feet are as follows for(assuming maximum weight, source doesn't indicate):

B737-300 - 6081/4809
B737-500 - 5100/4050
B737-700 - 5232/4254

Southwest flies all three.

Can it be done. Only the experts know and the FAA is after them to come up with a plan. All I can say it looks like it can.

 

[Lewisc]

The experts say there isn't enough room.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/12/14/ap2390601.html

Your runway length figures are way off. I know a 7000 foot runway isn't long enough for the 737 to take off at maximum weight. You might take a look at the Boeing website if you want accurate information.

Burbank is a horrible example. There are weight limitations. SW files to Vegas and Phoenix from Burbank. The planes can't take off fully fueled.

You have a point, your plan would work if the airlines were limited to flying to St. Louis and Detroit.

Takeoff/landing distance in feet are as follows for(assuming maximum weight, source doesn't indicate):

B737-300 - 6081/4809
B737-500 - 5100/4050
B737-700 - 5232/4254

Southwest flies all three.

Can it be done. Only the experts know and the FAA is after them to come up with a plan. All I can say it looks like it can.

 

[DebbieB]

My boss regularly takes a flight from Atlanta to Burbank and back on a Delta 757. Seems like that would be heavier than a 737 and would require more fuel for the long flight. I flew into Burbank on America West through Phoenix, I can't believe how small that airport is. Baggage claim on B side is actually outside! I had to go back out there last week, I decided to fly non-stop into LAX and take a shuttle to Glendale. The shuttle ride was about an hour, but it saved the connection so it was worth it.

 

[manning]

It's possible my takeoff/landing figures are wrong. It's the internet.

Burbank is a horrible example. There are weight limitations.

Well it looks like they aren't taking off at maximum weight, because there is no way they are going to get a fully loaded 737/757 off that runway. Could it be there are weight limitations at Midway too?

Perhaps the figures I found are minimum takeoff/landing distances. It didn't indicate. But one thing is definite, 737's are taking off from that airport in less than 7000 feet!


Here's a picture of the airport. The accident happened at the top. The curved line above it is the railroad tracks. You can click once on the picture to get a colored box with arrows. Click on that to get a blowup. (one time).

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/ASPphoto/1T0D5863.JPG

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I know that Rockford is capable of handling aircraft diverted from Midway for refueling. We had to go there one night when we couldn't land at Midway due to severe thunderstorms. Their runways must be large because we landed in a 757-300. Not sure why the SW jet couldn't refuel there...perhaps their weather conditions were bad too. The Gary airport is also nearby, but I don't know what kinds/sizes of aircraft they can handle.
Barb

Chicago/Rockford International Airport, which is about 90 miles from downtown Chicago, has a 10,000-foot runway (and an 8,200-foot runway).

The 7,000-foot runway at Gary-Chicago International Airport (which bills itself as "Chicago's third airport') in far northwestern Indiana is already longer than any runway at Midway Airport — and there are plans to add an additional 1,900 feet.

Chicago Midway International Airport's longest runway is 6,522-foot runway — but only 5,826 feet are usable due to light poles, utility lines, and other obstacles which prevent aircraft from using the first 696 feet.

 

[seashoreCM]

(copied from another forum)

Is it usual and customary for pilots to try for a quicker not so soft put down in bad weather particularly when it is windy or icy?

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

 

[JDietz40]

From radio reports today it sounds like they are trying to throw the pilot under the bus. They are saying that the plane touchdown at the 2000' mark on the runway not 1000' as he should have and that it took 18 seconds to hit the reverse thrusters. Mayor Daley has of course already commented that this proves him right that the airport is safe and the airport can't be held responsible for pilot error. Nevermind the fact that if the airport had the proper dimensions there would have plenty of room for error.

Jumping on my soapbox now:

This has all the markings of politics as usual in Chicago. The mayor that thinks all laws and regulations apply to everyone but him and up to now has had the power to back that up. I think alot of what is being said is under the basis of it's not our fault so sue SWA and keep the city out of it. There have been a number of local news reports today that for quite sometime the city has been buying property surrounding the airport and in fact owns the property directly beyond the where the plane ended up coming to rest. One news report that I heard earlier said that there were over 100 parcels of land that have ben purchased and this past summer the city merged all of those properties and sealed the ownership info so if you try to look up the info in "public record" it shows no information available. One radio station has said that when they inquired about this land they were told it would eventualy be used for an employee parking area. My guess is that if they were planning on expansion they don't want to admit to it now as it would give added ammunition to the lawyer working on behalf of the 6 year old killed in the accident.

Midway Airport would still be a virtual ghost town if not for everything that SWA has done for the airpoirt, most recently picking up the gates dropped by ATA. Based on other things that I have seen the current political administration in Chicago do if they continue to take no responsibility for this tragic accident and push it the pilot and SWA I think it would serve them right if SWA told the city that since we expect to be paying out a great deal of money for lawyers and such for this court case we will have to pullout a number of flights and give up a number of gates. I know it would never happen but it would be nice to see the Mayor squirm a little.

OK jumping back down off of my soap box now.



John

 

[manning]

(copied from another forum)

Is it usual and customary for pilots to try for a quicker not so soft put down in bad weather particularly when it is windy or icy?

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

A relative of mine use to fly all sorts of aircrafts in WWII ending with the B-29. I remember him saying one time that when the runway was wet you would do a hard landing to bleed the speed. I also had a birds eye view of the landing of a B727 at meigs field (39th floor of the then Amoco building). The pilot did the same thing. He hit the runway hard.