Southwest Crash in Chicago - New Report

[Geoff_M]

Gotta love when someone does debate ex nihilio (debate out of nothing). It might be your interpretation of what I wrote, but I don't believe I've written that SW's business model was a root cause of the decision to land.

In a summation you stated (bolding mine):

There is no reason for this to have happened, except for the SW mindset of getting the plane down, unloaded, reloaded and back in the air -- all for the money.

If this isn't pointing to SW business practices as a primary role in the tragedy, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way.

You also weren't stating the above as a possible theory that a lawyer might forward on an emotional appeal in court.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I
Since there is an overwhelming preponderence of evidence against the airline and the airport regarding this case, why on earth does the attorney feel he needs "witnesses"?

What did the airport do? FAA mandates allow Midway to have the set-up it does.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

In a summation you stated (bolding mine):If this isn't pointing to SW business practices as a primary role in the tragedy, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way.

Feel free to interpret (or misinterpret!) it anyway you choose. That's what I love about Internet message boards.

You also weren't stating the above as a possible theory that a lawyer might forward on an emotional appeal in court.

So much for developing a thought. I didn't realize that one had to submit the complete, finished product all in one post.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

What did the airport do? FAA mandates allow Midway to have the set-up it does.

To be fair, it might be shown that the airport had some liability if the lawyers can demonstrate that they failed to keep the runways clear of snow/ice, thus making it more difficult for the pilot to easily identify when he could safely touch down.

There may also be some liability in allowing planes to continue to land given that readings shortly before and after the accident showed visibility was considerably LESS than what FAA regulations required for a safe landing on the runway in use. They might even make the argument that the control tower should have shut down the airport and diverted inbound flights to other destinations or held them at their origination point (I know this is extremely unlikely, but given the nature of the storm, I hope they can demonstrate they considered it).

 

[Miss Jasmine]

To be fair, it might be shown that the airport had some liability if the lawyers can demonstrate that they failed to keep the runways clear of snow/ice, thus making it more difficult for the pilot to easily identify when he could safely touch down.

There may also be some liability in allowing planes to continue to land given that readings shortly before and after the accident showed visibility was considerably LESS than what FAA regulations required for a safe landing on the runway in use. They might even make the argument that the control tower should have shut down the airport and diverted inbound flights to other destinations or held them at their origination point (I know this is extremely unlikely, but given the nature of the storm, I hope they can demonstrate they considered it).

Hmm yeah I had not thought of the clearing issue (living in a warm weather climate will do that), then Ops could play a role, but I don't think it would have had much of an impact given all the other factors.

Again, the ATCT is separate from the Airport.

 

[sgtdisney]

I am by no means a propent of frivolous lawsuits, but in this case I think the family was right. In terms of blame, we will all have to wait to see what the NTSB reports, but coming from an airline family with a pilot for a dad, ultimately the responsibility for the aircraft and all it's passengers lies firmly in the captain's lap. That is why they (used to) get the big bucks.

As someone else posted there are always a number of contributing factors in any aviation disaster, and the blame can, and will, be spread. However the fact is that the plane came in long and over shot 1/3 of the runway before touching down. We'll see what happens, but I am of the opinion, that with a tail wind, and the weather conditions at the time, it will be reported that the pilots should have been aware of this long, hot approach and aborted the landing and performed a go around. When all is said and done, I bet that pilot error, compounded with mechanical failure along with complications from the weather will be the cause. The first two are Southwest's responsibily. We can say the runway is too short from now until 2015, however it is within "legal" limits according to the law. It was up to the pilot to know that he had burned up 1/3 of the runway before the wheels even touched the ground, in a tail wind.

I know it was an accident, and accidents do happen, but there is always culpability to some party. I just don't think we will find it was the airport. Do I think the runways should be lengthened, yes. But people, and airlines, continue to use midway because of it's cost advantages. My Dad used to tell me stories about flying into midway and how much he, and other pilots, hated it. It isn't an easy airport to land in during good weather conditions, much less bad conditions. Either way that family has lost a child and I am sure the airline, pilots, and airport staff feel horrible about it as well.

Sad no matter how you look at it.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Sad no matter how you look at it.

And that is the bottom line.

 

[aimee11621]

I don't want to even try to imagine living without one of my girls.

I know I would not be able to function (work, bills , everyday responsibilities). Suiing would help me live in a lala land for the rest of my life . So I can just sit and cry until I die.

 

[JimB.]

that with a tail wind,

I have not read much about this, but lemme' get this right.......

The pilot attempted a landing in less than ideal weather, on a 6500' runway that had diminished braking capability, with a flipping tailwind???

Well, geeez, no wonder he overshot by 2000'.

This was, IMHO, poor decision making by the pilot in command of that aircraft.

And the lack of overrun protection at the airport certainly contributed to the boy's death.

Why a lawsuit?? Many times it takes a suit to force culpable organizations to make necessary changes.

If this is "ops normal" for Southwest, they certainly need to rework what is considered acceptable conditions for attempting a landing. Midway needs overrun protection. If it takes paying out a few million $$$$ to make that happen, then so be it.

BTW, I am not a fan of lawsuits, but IMHO, this one is deserved and necessary.

ETA: IMHO< this is also a side effect of what happens when growth is allowed to encroach upon pre-existing airports. Midway (in it's infant stages) was first opened in 1923, & until the opening of O'hare in the 50's was the busiest airport in the world (until 1962, to be exact). There is a lesson to be learned about "buffer zones" here. Hopefully other municipalities will learn it.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Sad no matter how you look at it.

definately.

As far as I know, the lawyer that is currently asking for eye witness reports is the same lawyer the family originally contacted to help them deal with the media and act as their spokesperson directly after the event. I'm not sure what sort of plans they have regarding asking for damages, but I certainly think they deserve compensation.

And of course lawyer is asking for witnesses, he is doing his job. If I was in their position, I would also want a legal representative to help me navigate through the system, I don't blame them a bit.

 

[Honu]

Anyone else remember this? - Burbank

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Well, geeez, no wonder he overshot by 2000'.

Part of the reason for overshooting the runway was that he glided over part of the runway at the beginning before setting down the plane. I don't know if that was due to visibility from the plane or not knowing where the runway started due to the heavy, blowing snow. That's something that needs to be determined.

And the lack of overrun protection at the airport certainly contributed to the boy's death.

Midway is in the middle of a heavily populated neighborbood and is essentially landlocked. Some of the runways end within a stone's throw of a street, homes and businesses. There is almost no room for overrun protection.

In 2004 Chicago passed an ordinance allowing the city to purchase surrounding property for a "protection zone and airport development." However, so far nothing's been done and no plans are in the works to build a protection zone.

Despite requests from the gov't. the city has yet to submit a plan on how to make Midway safer. Sadly, this tragedy will probably be the impetus to make the city finally take action.

 

[Geoff_M]

Feel free to interpret (or misinterpret!) it anyway you choose. That's what I love about Internet message boards.

Then please set me straight and tell me what you meant by the "There is no reason for this to have happened, except for the SW mindset..." statement.

 

[mrsv98]

Just an FYI in terms of lawsuits being filed so quickly. Most likely, many defendants will be named in the lawsuits, including, I am guessing, the city of Chicago because it operates Midway. When a municipality is involved, the rules are different and the statute of limitations to file is much shorter than when dealing with an ordinary lawsuit. My guess is, the family will file in the first part of the new year to make sure they are within the shortened timeline.

I am guessing the the pilot, co-pilot, SWA, the City of Chicago, the air traffic controler(s) and the mechanics and snow removal company if they are separate will all be parties to the suit. This was an avoidable accident, a child died because of many factors and I don't think badly of the family for wanting compensation. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is a settlement, tho, because not one of the parties will want the inevitible bad publicity that a lawsuit will bring.

Whatever happens, my heart goes out to the family, I think Christmas will never be the same, nor any day really.

 

[nuke]

I would love to know what landed right before the SW plane and if that pilot had problems or not.

I've flown in and out of Midway for years and it's always an adventure landing there. It's get on the ground, brake fast and turn off the runway. Even with the risks I'll take that 3-5 minute taxi to the gate anyday over a 20 minute or more tour of O'Hare.