Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
← Back to Squawk list
  • 46

Southwest skids off runway at Burbank airport

Enviado há
 
A Southwest Airlines flight skidded off the runway Thursday morning at the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Southwest Flight 278, which departed from Oakland, rolled off the end of runway eight shortly after 9 a.m., the FAA said in a statement. (www.fox10phoenix.com) Mais...

miles wohl
ÁsPaparazziJet SetterViciado em NotíciasMáximoAjudanteEntusiastaAmigo de confiançaLista de HonraExploradorCríticoFeeder ADS-BDiretoFotógrafo amadorPromotorAltruístaAnuncianteAutobiógrafo

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


southgeek
stacey go 6
Also a classic "A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly long roll
out after touching down.
San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right turn at the end
of the runway, if you are able. If you are not able, take the
Guadeloupe exit off Highway 101, make a right at the lights and return
to the airport.""
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
sgbelverta
sharon bias 4
Will the plane be scrapped or a repair attempted? Does landing in the EMAS change this?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
The gear took the brunt of it... I doubt much if any of the arresting material went into the engine. My guess would be a worst case scenario would be to replace the gear, but just guessing, I would say it will be ok. I think the biggest damage will be the bruise the captain got upon landing! :)
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Volgeezer52
Volgeezer52 -4
Runway 8/26 at this airport is just 5,800 feet in length. I have never been aboard an aircraft that was landing at BUR, but knowing what is very apparent concerning this facility, I do not believe I would be inclined to board a commercial plane which is bound for BUR. The runway is simply TOO SHORT for a fully loaded B-737 or any similar aircraft.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
For a properly skilled and trained crew it is not a problem... 737's used to fly into KROA for years on a 5800 foot runway with much smaller engines.... That is plenty of room!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
teslataildragger
Willie Wonka 2
Question from a non-airline flight enthusiast: I see Key West has a Delta 737 routinely operate in and out of their field and they have an approximately 4800ft runway.Not a huge difference in field elevation. Does anyone know if they have special approach/landing criteria.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Up at the top of the FA window search for airport and KEYW. You can look thru the available information including map and approach information. Go thru that information and see if your question is answered.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
Clear case of not following a checklist properly.... I am betting that the crew did not properly set the auto spoilers... With Auto Spoilers set at 50' Radio Altitude plus a set amount of time the Flight and Ground spoilers will deploy automatically in the case the crew cannot get weight on wheels. This is a known 737 issue since Piedmont Airlines did this in KGSO quite a number of years ago... When those ground spoilers come up... You will get weight on wheels and you will be able to get your TR's an Brakes functioning correctly... Clear case of Pilot Error!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 6
That may have been the case with the Classic, but not the NG. From the FRM, auto speed brake deployment occurs with RA less than 10ft and strut compression or main wheel spin up more than 60kt and thrust levers idle.

If they forgot to arm the auto spoilers they would still deploy when 1) main wheel spin up. 2) Thrust levers idle. 3) Reverse thrust levers positioned for reverse.

Speed brake deployment, or lack thereof, is a required callout upon touchdown. Same with reversers.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
If they were hydroplaning, they may not have gotten that much wheel rotation! and if he did not have weight on wheels, he could not have opened the TR's
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 3
Wrong again. Per FRM: The thrust reverser can be deployed when either radio altimeter senses less than 10ft, OR when the air/ground safety sensor is in the ground mode.

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to land, I don't know. But I do know you should stick to topics you actually have knowledge of and stop trying to crucify this crew for failing to follow procedures/checklists without any evidence whatsoever.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
If that was the case.... This captain really messed up in many different avenues.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
patpylot
patrick baker 1
the tailwind was not entirely helpful , was it....
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 1
I'm reminded of accidents like AF358 where bad weather slick runways and wind plus pilot decisions resulted in a the inevitable crash.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
mwilcox1950
Mike Wilcox 1
Heavy rain and an 8 to 11 knot tailwind.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ukusapkm07201942
Paul Miller -2
Did any of you smart guys out there see my "Question" some 20 hours or so ago ? I would love to know the answer to it PLEASE!!!!!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
mwilcox1950
Mike Wilcox 2
The reversers deploy when you bring the throttles to idle and then lift them up for reverse thrust. There is no connection between the brakes and the reverse thrust. And I agree that the reverser looks stowed in the photo.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ukusapkm07201942
Paul Miller 1
Thank you kind Sir, they say the only stupid question is the one that you DON'T ask ? so anyway at least I now know a little bit more.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jmadunleavy
John D 6
Be curious as to how they get the plane out of the EMAS.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 0
They towed it out.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jmadunleavy
John D 2
yea, figured that. Just would like to see how that is engineered :)
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dpbishop
Dennis Bishop 9
Big rainstorm overnight dumping about 3-4 inches. A lot for this area, and drainage may have been an issue. Aircraft may have hydroplaned. It's probably fortunate that it ONLY ran off the end instead of sliding off the runway at an odd angle.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
captrags80
Michael Ragsdale 10
Flew MD-80s into BUR. No room for error - period.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
bartmiller
bartmiller 2
There is a trend with airliners to land well past the TDZ.

Most of the previous accidents like this one (Burbank, Chi Midway, Montreal, Sao Paolo) were:

toofast + toolong + wetrunway.

5800’ on rwy 8 at KBUR, which is just under 5000’ past the TDZ. Enough for most 737s on wet runway.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
baingm
Gary Bain 1
It will be interesting to see what the airplane configuration, approach speed and touchdown point. I flew into Burbank in 737's. Flaps 40, on speed, plant the airplane. No room for error at BUR especially on a wet runway and with a tailwind.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djjamar
Jamar Jackson -8
Burbank is a short runway. The pilots should have not tried to land in the rain we had yesterday unless the approach was on the numbers. This was pilot error. He needs a flight review to protect us flying public from his decisions and choices
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 2
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CarlSmeraldi
Carl Smeraldi 0
Right on target Jamar
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
I disagree... That plane should have had no problems.... If the auto spoilers were set, at 50' rad alt plus a preset time the ALL Ground and Flight Spoilers would have fully deployed and they would have had weight on wheels and been able to operate the TR's... Their shortest runway is 5800 feet. Well more than enough room for it...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbermo
jbermo 4
Such harsh judgment requires a reading of the final report first.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mikeosmers
Michael Osmers 4
I’ll be interested in reading the accident report on this one. Weather, visibility and proper calculated approach speeds vs. what was actually flown (“stable approach criterion met or not) and if at any point a missed approach was indicated. Won’t know any of that for months though... Can’t tell exactly but it looks like a -600 or -700, anyone know what the type actually is?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 10
They don't have any -600s in their fleet anymore, as they phased out the 73NGs. This is a -700. The winglets aren't the dual-tipped winglets that you'd see on a -MAX, and the cowling on the engines aren't shark-tipped. Good indicators that it isn't a MAX. Also, if you look at the over wing exit doors, if there are 2 on the wing, that would be an -800. If there is only 1, it would be a -700.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
wenkmanmark
Mark Wenkman -2
Flaps up on touchdown !!, Could of helped with braking !!.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
dee9bee
dee9bee 2
Not enough time. The spoilers come up on top of the wings to put enough weight on the main wheels to provide traction.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rwf1001
Robert Fleming 1
Sounds scary!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

737man
737man 3
Max landing weight? 117 of 143 on a 1 hour flight I highly doubt that.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
I think your are right Carl. BTW, Loved flyin’ the L1011.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CarlSmeraldi
Carl Smeraldi -1
I know I am right
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CarlSmeraldi
Carl Smeraldi 1
L1011 the best memories of my career JFK EUROPE MIDDLE EAST ASIA PACIFIC CARIBBEAN SOUTH AMERICA A FANTASTIC HEAVY WIDEBODY
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CarlSmeraldi
Carl Smeraldi -4
No need to read final report Chief all the evidence is clear as a bell pilot error once again EITHER HOLD OR DIVERT TO KLAX PERIOD NO BRAINER THE SAFE RIGHT THING TO DO PERIOD.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 1
aw man, that looks like a new engine intake on the left engine.., (note the missing white letters)
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
jmt123
jmt123 3
It means the nose cowl on that engine is not the one that was on the aircraft at the time the rest of the cowl (and probably the aircraft) was painted. The engine could be much older or newer than the paint.

Engines don't typically come with nose cowls attached. Cowling is not part of an engine.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lakewood85
lakewood85 -1
This incident highlights the reason that I won’t fly into or out of Burbank and John Wayne - SNA. Both have short runways and have additional dangers that I don’t consider worth the risk.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
OnTheHorizon
Tony Smith 2
Yet you will get in a car, or uber, or other vehicle to get to LAX where you have a much greater chance of getting injured/killed than on the airplane, wither at SNA or BUR. Overhyped & sensationalized media = irrational public
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
I suspect you're assuming he doesn't have to drive to SNA or BUR.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

dee9bee
dee9bee 3
As a passenger living on the south end of the L.A. area, I agree. As a Pilot, I'll take any local airport other than SNA or BUR in a heartbeat.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
You do realize that these runways are more than a mile long, right? They can handle the performance of such a short runway; in fact, they are designed to, and given the fact that a B757 can fly in and out of SNA without a problem, and an A320 can land on 8L/26R at KLGB, a B737 has no problem with handling a runway over a mile long.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lakewood85
lakewood85 1
I was driving past SNA yesterday during the same heavy rainstorm that hit Burbank. The CHP was slowing traffic on The 405fwy so I had a chance to look at the look at the runways hoping no one was landing or taking off. I saw an SWA plane ready to take off and visibility was very low. I confident the pilots and the tower didn’t have a full view of the runways as I could barely see the plane.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbsimms
James Simms 2
Remember seeing a 747 disappear into a wall of rain one afternoon @ the old Kai Tak airport as my own 747 was waiting to take off
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
Those were the days. Those 74 captains could probably land on a carrier deck with 30 mins. of instruction. I miss the flying club at Kai Tak.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 5
Add rain and its a whole different ballgame. Those are short runways in rainy gusty conditions.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
belzybob
belzybob 3
Looks like the kitty litter did a good job at pulling it up.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ukusapkm07201942
Paul Miller 2
From one report by a passenger the reverse thrust was used & brakes applied, but from the pictures I DON'T see the engine on the Port side wing showing any sign of the thrust reverser being in operation though ? or does the reverse system shut down once the brakes are applied ? silly question but does anyone have ideas on that please !!!!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
baingm
Gary Bain 2
The crew would have stowed the reversers. You always use reverse thrust at Burbank. No reason for them to be in the deployed position as they would have shut down the engines and that is done with the reversers stowed.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Actually, the performance charts/ FMS accounts for landing distances required for FAR 121 ops on a contaminated runway and all ATP drivers know the hydroplane speed of their aircraft! Maybe you remember 9 timess the square root of the tire pressure?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 29
At least they didn’t get as far as the gas station, this time. That system works quite well.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
carpcoppondpig
nick gorham 8
I haven't laughed that hard in a while. For those that don't understand the reference.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

bbabis
Bill Babis 3
That was the MDW accident and it was sad. SWA1455 was at The same airport and same runway as this one. Just no EMAS.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon -2
Yep. I forgot it was Midway. Still no laughing matter. Looks like two more careers are on the block.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 11
Which is why you didn’t get the irony of it? The laugh was not at the expense of property/loss of life........but that they did it again! Lighten up.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
carpcoppondpig
nick gorham 7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1455
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ADXbear
ADXbear 14
This could be a case of rubber buildup on that runway.. its normally removed at airports that have regular rain.. Burbank and Socal not much rain.. i bet they will be doing runway testing in the future..
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
I disagree... Note my comment "Clear case of not following a checklist properly.... " -
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 2
I've watched them scrub the runways at LAX many times.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
trumpeter27
Eugene Boyle 1
According to FAA tweet, the flight was landing on Runway 08 which is the shorter of the two runways at KBUR, and is less than 6000ft long. Unclear why they were using the shorter runway in bad weather. Runway 15/33 is over 1000ft longer. Winds must have been really favoring 08?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
Winds were out of the north, 330@11G15, so optimally they would have been using 8 for landing, 33 for departures. Besides, runway 8 is the only one with an instrument approach (ILS 8, VOR 8, or RNAV/GPS 8) available. For the visibility they would need the ILS.

On the ATIS after the incident, they were still using ILS 8, Circle to land 33 approaches.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Actually I believe the surface winds were from about 280/10 at the time of the accident. In either case a tailwind component would have been present especially when the winds appear to be veering according to the 850 & 700 mb charts.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jmadunleavy
John D 1
Did the landing gear collapse or does the jet sink part of what EMAS does?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 7
The EMAS gets crushed by the weight of the jet, helping to arrest the aircraft. Yet the EMAS is firm enough to support first responder vehicles.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 3
The EMAS was installed because of this:

https://i0.wp.com/aireform.com/wp-content/uploads/20000305pic..-SWA1455-at-Burbank-plane-and-gas-station-sign.jpg?fit=848%2C1024

The SWA today ran off the same runway.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Dav5049915
Dav5049915 2
That's what the EMAS does.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ehlerts01
David Ehlert 2
Engineered Materials Arrestor System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

blackstock
Michael Blackstock 1
Trying to decide if you really mean this, or if it is sarcasm. This is not the first time Burbank has bit SouthWest : https://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/photo-d'actualit%C3%A9/ken-lubas-southwest-airlines-737-is-moved-back-photo-dactualit%C3%A9/569125159
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
williambaker08
william baker 3
How’s that. If it was raining as heavy as it was the runway was wet and the visibility was low why did they even try landing???
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbsimms
James Simms 2
Flew into SeaTac during a January Winter storm. Up/down, left/right, can’t see anything out the window. Was very happy to get back on terra firma. Worse weather than this incident.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 4
Pilots have landed in worse. My RPA flight from DEN-SDF landed in the middle of worse rains and a tornado warning, with gains of +/-20kts on short final. Pilots are able to handle those types of situations.

Visibility? that's what the ILS is for. The airport could be complete IMC, with VV001, and you could use the ILS to land your aircraft; even more so if it is a Cat III ILS and the aircraft is capable of autoland.

What they didn't account for was the potential hydroplaning, which wasn't reported by any previous arrival. That's what did this one in.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 -3
Actually, the performance charts/ FMS accounts for landing distances required for FAR 121 ops on a contaminated runway and all ATP drivers know the hydroplane speed of their aircraft! Maybe you remember 9 times the square root of the tire pressure? You also don’t use autoland in winds gusting +/- 20kts and Cat 111 normally means fog is the issue, not driving rain, 40kt xwinds!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
I didn't say we used Cat III with the landing with the +/- 20kts. I said that it was used with VV001. The question was why one would even try raining when the runway was wet. We landed in such a condition and in the middle of a tornado warning.

The landing with 16R/R1600 with VV001 was a different incident altogether.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 0
Yourr statements contradict each other.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
On the contrary. I never said that the landings I had in question were the same flight. The RPA flight into KSDF was landing on 35L, which is nearly 12000ft.

I never mentioned that the METAR had VV001 for visibility there. I stated that a given airport could be complete IMC with those conditions. I never said that that airport was KSDF. For the record, the airport in question was KSMF, which we get socked in with fog that low all the time, even with RVRs being no more than 1100ft on a 8600ft runway in the 16s.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Ok, so all your post refers to are pilots landing in windshear conditions or using an ILS in low visibiltes.....because that’s their job! To assume the crew forgot that an aircraft is prone to Hydroplaning at certain touchdown speeds dosen’t give SW much credit considering that’s the only type operated? Previous accidents at BUR/MDW would suggest otherwise. I’d wait for the final report before jumping to conclusions?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
Did you not see my first post? I indicated that hydroplaning was a contributing factor into this. Not only did I mention that, but a first hand account of the entire incident, by a pax on the flight indicated it as well. That is even mentioned in the article.

Passenger Moe Storch tweeted the Southwest plane from Oakland to Burbank appeared to hydroplane after it landed on the wet runway.

The pilot "regained control and hit brakes hit, reverse thrust, just in time."

Yes, the report on this will tell what truly caused this and what the fault of this was, but hydroplaning definitely is a contributing factor in this.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
linbb
linbb -4
Time to find some new pilots on this one.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Southwest Airlines Flight Skids Off Runway At Burbank Airport

BURBANK (CBSLA) — A Southwest Airlines flight arriving at Burbank Airport skidded off the runway after landing Thursday morning. The plane went into an emergency stop system. It’s not clear if there are any injuries.

Burbank Airport officials are now investigating.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/12/06/southwest-flight-skids-burbank-airport/
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
Let us in on your secret. This is the first time in many years I've seen a a duplicate squawk that didn't receive down votes.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
My guess is that the people who downvote recognized that my squawk was in fact the first one about this incident and got merged with a later squawk that had more activity.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Trolls on Xmas break?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Can we get a hallelujah?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Entrar

Forgot password?
Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Registre-se na FlightAware