To clear things up, the 6 year old boy who was killed was not a passenger, but rather in a vehicle that the plane hit.
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
Your Frontier comment interested me.skoker said:
When I was a kid, many years ago, I flew on Frontier planes.
Looks like it was a different company than the Frontier of today.
The current one has been in business since July 5, 1994 according to their website.
Sushi
sushi said:
Thanks. It was one of those "never again" stories. I flight plan like a fiend and I understand more about WX and forecasting than any other GA pilot I know, and yet I was still nailed by a system that arrived about six hours ahead of schedule. We get so little of this kind of WX around here. My biggest problem was assessing the risk of pressing on vs. turning back. Am I a lightening rod out here? I didn't really know. I learned later, after talking with pilots in other parts of the country who face electrical storms regularly, that lightening isn't attracted to airplanes. I spent more energy worrying about a lightening strike than I needed to. A good lesson in trying to stay within your competencies.
skoker said:
I missed a digit, sorry. The airplane involved in the accident is a -700. The point was, SWA's fleet is relatively new.
Out of curiosity, any idea what happened to the Frontier that operated back in the 70s and early 80s?skoker said:
They used to serve the little cities in the midwest with good reliable service. Mostly they had 727s, but also a few dual prop jobs. The 727s came in handy at the small airports since they had their own stairway built in.
Were they absorbed by another airline? Go bankrupt. Can't seem to find much/any information on them.
Sushi
I think many people don't realize how serious flying in winter weather conditions are. Up unitl this summer I was a ground crew employee of an express carrier for US Air (I'm back in school now), and while things were normally fun/lighthearted there, when we did our annual winter-weather recertification the mood got very serious, very quickly. A lot of things can go wrong in snowy/icy conditions, and I think the lack of accidents are a testiment to how dilligent the industry is in this respect. I just remember hearing passengers complaining about delays due to snow, and thinking to myself "would you rather them not de-ice the aircraft, have the elevator freeze, and your plane not be able to gain altitude?" I think some people who fly frequently take the safety of it all for granted, and seem more concerned with their meetings than with safe travel. But then again you get pretty jaded when you have to deal w/ the flying public
.
As for the accident, I suspect that the stopping action on the runway (I've already forgotten all the terminology), played a large factor, and I'm sure the tail/crosswind didn't help things. A tragedy indeed. Thankfully it wasn't worse (and it could've been much worse).
.As for the accident, I suspect that the stopping action on the runway (I've already forgotten all the terminology), played a large factor, and I'm sure the tail/crosswind didn't help things. A tragedy indeed. Thankfully it wasn't worse (and it could've been much worse).
A serious business indeed. Ice is basically the aviation triple-whammy. Ice acts against everything you're tying to accomplish in flying -- it increases drag, decreases lift and reduces thrust.
Facts Ahead:
Frontier Airlines started in 1948 and flew domestically until it was taken over by Continental Airlines in 1986.
The next incarnation of Frontier Airlines, where the only thing common with the old Frontier is the name, started in 1994 with a fleet of 737s. Those have since been retired in favor of Airbus A319 and A318 series aircraft.
Southwest Airlines operates a fleet of 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft. They were one of the first customers for the 737-700 Next-Generation aircraft. The combination of -300, -500, and -700 737s give Southwest nearly 450 737s making them the largest operator of the type. Relative to all other airlines, the safety record of Southwest is impeccable.
The safety of the 737 (any generation) is no better or worse than other planes out there. Those people concerned with the 737 landing cycles should also be concerned with those of the DC-9, CRJ, ERJ, 757, A319, A320, etc. cycles. My point is that these do not matter.
At the point the aircraft reaches an age where cycles become a factor, typically 100,000 cycles, they will be retired. Most airlines will retire an aircraft for fuel efficiency or worn interiors before they retire it for cycle or maintenance reasons.
ValuJet, which ceased operations in 1996, never operated a blue aircraft similar to Southwest's Canyon Blue. The baby blue tail with a tan fuselage has as much in common with Southwest as green polka dots.
Please do your research before posting unfounded 'facts' on any forum. These things decrease the signal to noise ratio making the quality information that much harder to find.
</facts></rant>
Frontier Airlines started in 1948 and flew domestically until it was taken over by Continental Airlines in 1986.
The next incarnation of Frontier Airlines, where the only thing common with the old Frontier is the name, started in 1994 with a fleet of 737s. Those have since been retired in favor of Airbus A319 and A318 series aircraft.
Southwest Airlines operates a fleet of 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft. They were one of the first customers for the 737-700 Next-Generation aircraft. The combination of -300, -500, and -700 737s give Southwest nearly 450 737s making them the largest operator of the type. Relative to all other airlines, the safety record of Southwest is impeccable.
The safety of the 737 (any generation) is no better or worse than other planes out there. Those people concerned with the 737 landing cycles should also be concerned with those of the DC-9, CRJ, ERJ, 757, A319, A320, etc. cycles. My point is that these do not matter.
At the point the aircraft reaches an age where cycles become a factor, typically 100,000 cycles, they will be retired. Most airlines will retire an aircraft for fuel efficiency or worn interiors before they retire it for cycle or maintenance reasons.
ValuJet, which ceased operations in 1996, never operated a blue aircraft similar to Southwest's Canyon Blue. The baby blue tail with a tan fuselage has as much in common with Southwest as green polka dots.
Please do your research before posting unfounded 'facts' on any forum. These things decrease the signal to noise ratio making the quality information that much harder to find.
</facts></rant>
Cycles do matter because repeated airframe stress does matter, though how much is the subject of debate. Nobody really knows how much stress and how many hairline cracks an airframe can take before it can no longer handle the aircraft's rated load. Perhaps you will recall the FAA directive a number of years back to retrofit the tail sections of the entire 747 fleet.
IJ Reilly said:
I agree that they do matter, but not even close to the extent that people here think they do. The number of cycles for which these commercial airline frames are designed for is much higher than what any Southwest plane is running. Northwest Airlines on the other hand, I'd be happy to discuss cycles on their fleet.
Looks like it was a problem w/ the reverse thrusters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0/AR2005121001562.html?nav=rss_print/asection
sushi said:
Yep, the transition from instrument to visual on approach is the hardest thing. Its even harder when visibility is below 1 mile. I think non pilots don't understand that even with all the automation in modern aircraft, humans still make the decisions.
When you have less than 1 mile visibility or your flying in heavy rain, snow or light fog/haze things look as if their moving faster. Its real easy to mess up any approach (precision and non-precision) when it comes to airspeed and timing.
Yes, reverse thrusters are probably going to be singled out on the plane, but the pilot also was coming in a bit too fast and possibly too high.
IJ Reilly said:
Ice on the wing has nothing to do with thrust.
IJ Reilly said:
Actually, this is not correct either. Engineers perform fatigue testing on each of the components. During a fatigue test, the components are loaded (downward force) and unloaded (no force) and possibly even reverse loaded (upward force) until the part fails. This testing is in addition to absolute max load failure. To say that they don't know how many cycles or how much stress an airframe can take is ridiculous. If engineers didn't have a clue, we'd have airplanes falling out of the sky all of the time.
uaaerospace said:
I never said it did. Ice on a propellor does. I also forgot to mention the fourth whammy of structural icing: increased weight.
uaaerospace said:
Good grief. No, I never said the engineers "didn't have a clue," I said they are still learning about how airframes perform over the long haul. No engineer worth his salt would claim perfect knowledge when they design a system. This is why the FAA issues probably hundreds if not thousands of ADs every year.
Not to mention the runway was already shorter than most. This runway doesn't even comply with current FAA regulations, but since it was built before the new rules it doesn't have to change.Warbrain said:
http://www.kcra.com/news/5511275/detail.htmlkcra.com said: