Anyone have any more details?
Printable View
Anyone have any more details?
It was coming in from BWI landing in heavy snow, no reports right now of how bad.
I heard it hit a few cars at Chevron and 55th Street.
Here's the intersection:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.79... ... &t=k&hl=en
here is the current METAR from MDW:
KMDW 090053Z 10011KT 1/2SM SN FZFG BKN004 OVC014 M03/M05 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP196 R31C/4500FT SNINCR 1/10 P0000 T10331050 $
now i'll decode the important parts for those who don't know it:
09 Dec, 0053 Zulu, wind 100* at 11knots, visibility 1/2 statute miles, snow, freezing fog, overcast at 1400 feet. tempurature -3*C, dew point -4*C, altimiter 3006. the rest don't matter...
Watching CNN, the snow is really comin down hard there. I'm surprised the airport was still open.
well it was open until this happenned. wonder what WN's filed alternates are...
i just flew that exact same flight 2 weeks ago BWI-MDW Also flight 1248, my mom had pointed it out to me she said didnt u fly that flight number and i went to check my boarding pass and indeed I had!
Tha't's weird.
98 on board...all ok.
No word on the occupants of the car though.
Certificates for one free drink, to be redeemed no later than six weeks from today, will be provided to all passengers inconvenienced by todays off loading at the Chevron and 55th street hardstand.
Hahah that is great! There is someone at Southwest saying, "can we still turn her around in 20?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
Up dates.
5 injured from the two cars involved, 2 Adults, 3 children, one seriously injured and one critically injured, jaws of life was used.
Aircraft is a 737-700 N471WN is the aircraft involved.
Flight 1248 BWI-MDW.
98 souls on board all evacuated and no injuries from the evacuation.
More updates to come.
Alex
The word is that MDW is closed as of 9:15 EST.
Plus the car that was rammed by the jet had a guy in it who supposedly is seriuolsy injured.
Anyways looks like we'll be getting that snow in Chicago here in NYC tomorrow.
The 4,500 visibility on Runway 31C is pretty significant, but even more so is the snow increasing rapidly report, especially since the "main" METAR doesn't report heavy snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
This means conditions were getting worse; visibilty decreasing, and snow getting heavier, meaning more accumulation betweens plows. I'm sure it didn't help that the ceiling was 400 feet either...
I've always been surprised in what these planes can land in. I was coming back to Denver last year in a snowstorm, and when we landed, the runway was snowpacked. Although landing a plane on a snow-covered runway is different than stopping a car on the same surface, and the braking system is different, it still surprises me that runway slideoffs don't happen more often.
One death confirmed. Young boy approx 8 yrs old.
R.I.P.
:oops:
RIP
Captain was a 10 yr old veteran with SWA, First officer was a 2 yr hire.
Some crewmembers reported to be seriously injured, but right now only being rumored.
Alex
So if the winds were 100 at 11kt, why are they landing Rwy 31? Shooting a approach down to minimums then landing on a short, snow-covered runway with a tailwind just doesn't make much sense to me. Not much room for error there.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
Really I think when all is said and done we will find that landing with a tail wind and the storm caused this plane to overrun the runway. Those runways at MDW are too damn short, there is no room for error.
...and the pilots will get blamed as usual. Then again, why not go around? Unless they were too tight on fuel.....?
I dont care who the carrier is, I hate hearing news like this, although, you know its inevitable. Its going to happen again somewhere.
Well, the final decision to put a plane down lies with the pilot. We can't know what went on in that cockpit but he must have felt that though the landing was not routine that he could get it down safely. If he felt the tail wind was not a problem then we can assume the runway and snow and or ice caused the pilot to have trouble braking. It could be a lot of things, was visability bad so that he landed too far down the runway or was he too fast? We have to wait and see.
I hope the WN plane is doing ok!
Looks like a total loss to me. They totaled another one in Burbank few years back, the pilot landed short and ran thru a fence onto a busy street too.Quote:
Originally Posted by IslipWN
I just read today that a 6 year old boy died. He was in one of the cars that got hit. A real shame, and a sad loss for the family.
Word on another board is that WN disables autoland and autobraking functions on the 737 because of maintenance costs. If true this is a sad statement, and confirms their status as the "Walmart" of the airline industry. Further reason why I would NEVER fly them.
That said, latest news is that there was a problem with the thrust reversers not deploying properly during the rollout--this could be a big factor in the incident.
By the way does anyone know the approximate age of the aircraft involved? By reg it appears to be relatively new.
My thoughts and prayers to the little one's family--may he rest in peace.
Art, N471WN was a little over a year old, delivered around Aug 2004. I read on another site because autobrakes start braking at main gear wheel contact they normally reduce landing roll-out distance by about 400 feet, which was probably significant in this case.
When a carrier orders a new 737 from Boeing or a new 319/320 from Airbus there are literally hundreds of factory options, many are cockpit and avionics related, while many others are cabin related such as number of and brand of galleys, even the little fish-eye fresh air vents above your seat. I have flown on a few 737/757's with out them (BA), not fun. Anyway point of story WN is known for ordering their 737's pretty stripped down, very basic versions. Many of the US Majors tend to order theirs much more fully equipped, such as the carrier you most frequent.
Regards
LGA777.