Southwest Airlines flight 1248


#1

Southwest airlines flight 1248 off runway at Chicago Midway airport. Went through peremiter fence on to Central Ave. No word on injurys.

flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1248


#2

You can see that they were in a hold for a while prior to their arrival, especially when you zoom into the 800x600 flightawrae map.

This sounds a lot like their ~2000 incident in Burbank.


#3

*…The accident happened about 7:15 p.m. when Southwest Flight 1248 inbound from Baltimore slid off the runway, crashed through the airport’s boundary fence and stopped on part of Central Avenue, according to the
Federal Aviation Administration’s regional office in Chicago.

“It got really bumpy, and then a big crashing sound,” passenger Katie Duda told WMAQ-TV. The next thing she knew, the airplane was past the airport and on the street, Duda said.

Passengers used inflatable slides to exit the plane, she said.

“Everyone was very calm. Everyone around me seemed very OK. … There was no chaos,” Duda said.

As many as 95 people were on board the flight, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation. Southwest Airlines did not immediately return messages seeking additional information…*

The only reported injuries at this time are on the ground, from a car struck when the a/c came onto the road. It has been reported as pinned under the wing.

Minus the 7" of snow Chicago got to today, of course, which may very well be a big factor.


#4

Greta Van Susstren just said the magic words:

“…www.FlightAware.com…”

:mrgreen:

Any insight into the odd alt variations in the track log??? Wonder what the actual wind was. Look at the GS jump in the last two hits…

04:59PM 4116N/8715W 246 30000
05:00PM 4119N/8712W 241 30000
05:01PM 4122N/8709W 225 6600 descending
05:02PM 4126N/8709W 243 30000 climbing
05:03PM 4127N/8715W 233 30000
05:03PM 4126N/8714W 231 6000 descending
05:04PM 4129N/8720W 238 30000 climbing
05:04PM 4128N/8719W 234 5800 descending
05:05PM 4131N/8724W 238 4800 descending
05:05PM 4131N/8723W 242 4800
05:06PM 4134N/8727W 244 4000 descending
05:06PM 4134N/8726W 247 4000
05:07PM 4136N/8730W 220 4000
05:07PM 4137N/8731W 244 4000
05:08PM 4139N/8733W 203 4000
05:08PM 4139N/8734W 226 4000
05:09PM 4141N/8737W 212 3400 descending
05:09PM 4142N/8738W 215 3400
05:10PM 4143N/8739W 165 2600 descending
05:10PM 4144N/8741W 204 2500 descending
05:11PM 4145N/8742W 146 1700 descending
05:11PM 4146N/8743W 180 1700


#5

Wasnt there a crash at KDCA some years ago involving a US air 737 in very snowy weather that failed to get airbore due to icing on the wings and crashed into the Potomac killing X# of people?


#6

That was an AirFlorida flight, not USAir. The pilots were delayed, and decided to takeoff without getting deiced again (they had been deiced some time before). Wings were iced and engine inlet probes were iced over, thus giving wrong engine readings. The engines didn’t produce the right power (thrust levers weren’t set properly) and the aircraft couldn’t climb, and hit a bridge on the Potomac.


#7

Yeah, I remember that. They did a made for tv movie about it that I remember watching. In the movie they made a big deal about one of the survivors requesting a seat above the wings and I remember that scene every time I fly commercially and get a wing seat. Strange what the brain retains.


#8

This is an issue we’ve seen with a lot of flights. During the climb or descent, one radar site will report the correct altitude and another (sometimes nearby, sometimes far away) will report the aircraft is at its filed cruise altitude.
Some sort of intelligence to detect this is on the to-do list, but since this bug in the FAAs system rarely causes confusion for our users it’s relatively low on the list.


#9

74 of the 79 people on Air Florida (“Palm 90”) died when it crashed back on Jan 13th 1982.

There were many factors with the most obvious being the de-icing/anti-icing (the plane was treated with almost no glycol in the water, so they had virtually no holdover time after application).

Read the report here- amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR82-08.pdf


#10

Any idea how this flight got in after the airport was closed?

flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8806

Could it have been something from SW related to crash recovery?


#11

It is possibly a ferry flight to pick up the next day’s flight out.


#12

I read on Airliners.net that this was the Southwest “Go Team” responding for the investigation.


#13

“It is possibly a ferry flight to pick up the next day’s flight out.”

Would they really allow a ferry flight to land at an airport that is closed because of a fatal crash?


#14

Someone in another thread that was closed and sent here said:

It is a 737-700 w/winglets which means it is new

Which is not true becuase most, if not all, of the -700 now have winglets.


#15

True, although I believe this was was new enough to have been delivered with them as it was in July of 2004, N471SW.


#16

I know the aircraft is a fairly recent addition for Southwest.

What I should have said was that just because it had winglets it does not follow that the aircraft is new.


#17

chicagotribune.com/news/loca … i-news-hed


#18

First of all, why was that runway still active during the snow storm if according to eyewitnesses it was still coverd by snow?

Also, did any of the other pilots who had landed on 31C report any braking trouble?

When i flew back to KMDT on American Eagle during a snow storm from KORD, the first things i heard on the ATC was “####, say braking on runway ##X

Im sure they did that at KMDW that fateful night, but did any planes reply that the braking was poor and sliding was evident?

If other flights replied that they had slided on 31C, then wouldnt the ATC/Airport maintenance be to blame?

Last of all, if the pilots noticed that that the aircraft was not stopping, couldnt they manually retract the spoilers, and perform a go around, and possibly land on another runway?
:confused: :question: :exclamation:


#19

Those kind of questions cannot be answered by anyone here, and the people with the answers won’t have anything until the NTSB prelim report.

As for a go-around, not on that short of a runway.


#20

ATC is required to ask aircraft about braking action on wet and icy runways. However, it is the pilots decision to land, and I’m sure the crew felt it would be safe to land. Also, a go-around is a maneuver that is performed prior to touching the ground. Once the airliner is on the runway, especially one that short like rdale said, they’re committed to landing. Hydroplanning/sliding happens, only this time unfortionately they overran the runway and struck traffic. Again like rdale said, lets wait until the NTSB report comes out before jumping to conclusions or speculating.