Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
737 off runway at MDW
- Thread starter skoker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agree.IJ Reilly said:
The problem with 737's, is that they accumulate more Take Off and Landings than most other airframes. Each take off and landing stresses the airframe and components. Over time this can result in failure.
As you mentioned, it will be interesting to see what was the cause.
Sushi
sushi said:
This was a 737-400 though, wasn't it? A fairly new airplane. Maybe that's beside the point if you are talking generally about 737s.
Do you happen to know if he was landing at or near minimums? It was a snowing at the time, so I suspect so. Certainly wasn't VMC.
IJ Reilly said:
The plane was commissioned in July of last year.
Had scheduled maintenance Just this past week.
I was speaking in general about the 737s.IJ Reilly said:
However, even the newer ones, compared to say newer 747s, still accumulate more take off and landings for the same amount of flight hours.
Don't know the weather at the time. But since it was snowing, I would think that it was near minimums.IJ Reilly said:
Just speaking from experience as the transition from instrument flying to visual flying during landing can be a challenge depending on the weather. Snowing conditions can be very disorienting during this transition.
Note, while not in this case, this is especially true if the runway heading and the ILS approach are not exactly lined up.
Sushi
So it was fairly new.iGary said:
This doesn't mean much as the term scheduled maintenance is vague.iGary said:
For example, taking an oil sample could be considered scheduled maintenance. So could fixing a pilot reported problem, as the maintenance was scheduled to check/fix the problem. A major inspection based on TBO times/flight hours could also be considered scheduled maintenance.
Bottom line, is that we don't know what they mean by scheduled maintenance and as to whether or not this affected the situation.
Edit: Looking over the articles, the term "service check" is used. This could mean many things. So we'll have to wait and see.
Sushi
I'm not instrument rated myself, but I can well imagine. Even VFR nighttime landings can be pretty disorienting.
Yes, the long term effects of age on airframes is becoming a major issue, even in the general aviation fleet. I think about that just a bit since my own airplane is now 37 years old.
Yes, the long term effects of age on airframes is becoming a major issue, even in the general aviation fleet. I think about that just a bit since my own airplane is now 37 years old.
So true about the VFR nighttime landings with the unaided eye.IJ Reilly said:
When I was getting my private license, my instructor would always turn off the landing light during night landings. I hated it at first, but got good at landing without a landing light.
I was glad I received this training. Two events come to mind:
One time, while night VFR over the midwest, I lost the landing light somewhere along the flight.
Another time I was night VFR over New York city and experienced a total electrical failure.
In both cases, being comfortable landing without a light was very helpful.
I think this may become even more pronounced with the composite airframes as it may be harder to tell their condition.IJ Reilly said:
What do you have?
Sushi
JFreak said:
Yep, us here too. I don't understand how cities can shut down, etc. when there's a little bit of snow or ice on the road. It can be -40 degrees and blizzarding and we still get around just fine. Wimps.
Seriously though, with repsect to this accident, it is of course very unfortunate. It could have been much worse though, so if there's a bright side... Nonetheless, it is still a horrible experience for those on board who were injured.
I own a 1968 Cessna 172. Or more correctly, it owns me. You?
I don't get many night flying opportunities. My home airport doesn't have lights, so I only get in night landings away from home -- and consequently can't stay night current. I do try to keep my hand in though. The last time flew at night, a couple of months ago, I ran into an unforecasted thunderstorm, complete with ground strikes. That was fun.
You?I don't get many night flying opportunities. My home airport doesn't have lights, so I only get in night landings away from home -- and consequently can't stay night current. I do try to keep my hand in though. The last time flew at night, a couple of months ago, I ran into an unforecasted thunderstorm, complete with ground strikes. That was fun.
He was - it's up on CNN.com now. It is really sad.Laser47 said:I just herd that a 6-year old boy was killed in the accident.
Thats truely sad.
I swear that SouthWest is the Aeroflot of America - it's got about the same service, aged and crumbling airplanes, and safety rate.
FoxyKaye said:
Swear all you like, but that won't make it true. This is only the second accident in the entire history of the airline. Their fleet is probably also one of the newest in the U.S. -- mostly recent 737-400s. If you want to fly on shabby airplanes, try any of the major carriers currently operating in bankruptcy, which is most of them. As for service, it has declined industry-wide, so I don't know where you expect to find good or even better service than SWA.
Flew Alaska this past summer, and let me tell you, it was abysmal. I'll take SWA anytime.
IJ Reilly said:
This is quite true - they do indeed have a very new fleet especially when compared to the other airlines. SWA is very similar to WestJet up here, whom I try to fly with as much as possible to avoid Air Canada.
Mind you, Air Canada (as well as WestJet) are making money, so they must be doing something right, since the rest of the industry seems to be struggling, what with all these American carriers near or in bankruptcy and all.IJ Reilly said:
I assume you don't mean internationally. I can name a whole host of airlines which have better service than SWA. Not saying the service is bad - on the contrary, SWA has very good service, but industry-wide? Nope, I've flown on (relatively) far better airlines throughout the many years I've been globetrotting around the world. SWA is good, but not that good.
You know what, I was wrong - now that SWA has their planes painted all blue, I keep mixing them up with ValueJet.IJ Reilly said:
[Edit]: Shows you how long it's been since I've flown anywhere.
~Shard~ said:I assume you don't mean internationally. I can name a whole host of airlines which have better service than SWA. Not saying the service is bad - on the contrary, SWA has very good service, but industry-wide? Nope, I've flown on (relatively) far better airlines throughout the many years I've been globetrotting around the world. SWA is good, but not that good.
Yeah, I was referring specifically to U.S. carriers. As for what the foreign carriers are doing right, I think it might be that their more regulated conditions have protected them from the economic realities the airlines are facing here. Years ago we decided to deregulate the airlines in the U.S., and we got what we have now: lower fares but a relatively chaotic market, with everything that entails.
IJ Reilly said:
Fair enough, makes sense. And I agree, this is one instance where regulation is probably a good thing.
Im pretty sure that Finlands airports dont even come close to the airtraffic they have in Chicago. Flew into Helsinki once and I may have seen 9 planes if I was lucky. Chicago has one of the worlds busiest airports. Over a million passengers each weekJFreak said:
JFreak said:
For some reason, we don't prepare for it as much in Chicago as we probably should. It sure as hell isn't normal to get this much snow this early in the winter in Chicago.
And it's be nearly determined that the snow on the ground didn't have much of an effect on the accident.
iMeowbot said:
If you look at old pictures of Midway (long ago Chicago Municipal Airport), there was nothing around it, much in the same way there was nothing around O'Hare until the suburbs built up. Now that the city has grown around the airport, the space if very limited. They have no other choice than to have the runways in that pattern.
Because of the lack of space, Midway doesn't have the minimum 1,000 feet that the FAA declares safe for run-off airplanes, but Chicago has a deal to operate the airport even though it's not up to standards.
On a side note, at one time there use to be a school on the Midway Airport grounds. When it was open, they couldn't use the runway that terminated right at the edge of it. I don't know if it was at this corner (55th and Central) or at the southwest corner (63rd and Central).
freeny said:Im pretty sure that Finlands airports dont even come close to the airtraffic they have in Chicago. Flew into Helsinki once and I may have seen 9 planes if I was lucky. Chicago has one of the worlds busiest airports. Over a million passengers each week
O'Hare either leads in the volume of planes, volume of passengers, or both each year. Only Atlanta comes close and sometimes surpasses O'Hare.
Midway, on the other hand, is the fastest growing airport in North America. Quite a comeback for the former world's busiest airport.
Nice airplane. Fun to fly. Safe.IJ Reilly said:I own a 1968 Cessna 172. Or more correctly, it owns me.
I understand your point about it owning you. Planes can sure be an expensive hobby.
As for me, nothing.
No way here in Japan. Just too darned expensive.Unforecasted weather -- especially thunderstorms -- is the nemisis of all pilots!IJ Reilly said:
This is especially true at night when it is much easier to get into something before you know it!
Glad to hear that you made it back okay.
Sushi
IJ Reilly said:
Leave it to CNN to challenge my better judgement
I thought it was on landing, last time I trust them NO! Nononono! Southwest only flies 737-300's and -500 (only in the south) and the majority of the fleet is the brand new 737-700, also referred to as the 73G or 737NG. I would spit on Southwest if they ever flew a -400, the WORST revision to the 737 family. You can tell the -400 from the rest, BTW, by the dual overwing exits on both sides on the aircraft. The -700's are distinguishable by the (at least for Southwest) winglets sticking up from each wing.
Again, where in the hell do you people get this information?!? The -400 is going on 18 years old! First aircraft went to Piedmont (now merged with US/AWA) in 1988!
That's quite the accusation to make-- Aeroflot SUCKS in comparison to SWA, but you have mixed up facts. Southwest has the newest (with AirTran and Frontier in close seconds) aircraft in the US- average fleet age (with a majority of 737-700's) is only a bit more than a year- US Air, Northwest, Delta, Continental, and America West can cry in shame over that.
It's also important to note that SWA has the best safety rate of any airline in the WORLD- 100% of PASSENGERS have arrived safely and without injuries. Yesterday may have bumped that to 99.999%, but still pretty safe considering they have been flying for 35 years. JetBlue (who had an accident at LAS a few weeks ago) and Frontier also have a high safety rate, but those airlines have each been in business for less than 4 years each.
Amen!
Also, my home airport is BUF- Buffalo, NY/ Niagara Falls International, where we CONSTANTLY get socked with HEAVY lake effect in our little snow capital of the world. We've had FAR worse snow than that of last night, and really never close our airport unless the power goes out or the FAA makes us. Regardless, my thoughts and prayers go out to those effected last night, esp. the family of Joshua Woods. who I must say looked like a great little kid full of energy and liveliness. Truly sad ending to this one.
One last question: Do you guys think that Gary Kelly will attend the funeral? Herb Kelleher? All the employees at MDW (Colleen from Airline on A&E!)
Guys, let them do the investigation before making assumptions. It could have been mechanical failure, pilot error, or simply the weather. The NTSB will look at all of these (and more) closely and reach a conclusion when they have enough evidence, but not before. Patience. ~Josh