37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 741358 |
Time | |
Date | 200706 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : mdw.airport |
State Reference | IL |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-700 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | landing : roll |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 241 |
ASRS Report | 741358 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : local |
Events | |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance Aircraft Company |
Primary Problem | Ambiguous |
Narrative:
Flight was planned to take off at approximately 136;000 pounds while tankering 2000 pounds of fuel to land at approximately 125;000 pounds with a circle to land runway 22L approach. Although only barely legal per the fom (i.e. Within 3000 pounds of landing performance limit; not wet or tailwind) the tanker fuel was not prudent given the wind and performance conditions both actual and forecast for mdw. The landing weight of the aircraft required flaps 40 with all braking options besides maximum bracketed. Tankering under those landing performance conditions is 'just plane stupid.' additionally; using the applicable ATIS at the time the landing performance for runway 13C was; as I recall; some 2/3 better than was the runway 22L landing performance. When runway 13C was discussed with ATC; it was not an option on their part. Although the use of runway 13C offers; in general; a marked increase in stopping margin as well as precision guidance to the runway; local ATC customs dictate use of runway 22L. In reality; during VFR conditions and the use of visual apches; there is no impact upon ord operations and no more than a coordination information call is required as the ord airspace is not conflicted with while conducting VFR operations. It is ridiculous in air carrier operations to not be able to use the runway best suited for landing performance at such a short and challenging field; certainly so when it is due to FAA-ATC local custom and in conflict with providing the safest landing environment for the traveling public. Given the normal wind conditions when runway 22L operations are in effect; there is a propensity for the aircraft to be blown towards downtown chicago which creates a more aggressive turn back towards the runway while maneuvering close to the ground and attempting to fly a glidepath with no precision guidance in turbulent and windshear conditions. The use of runway 13C with its precision glidepath and less topographically induced turbulence and windshear is a more precise and safe approach and the runway affords a greater amount of landing performance to air carrier operations. Convince local ATC to utilize runway 13C more often and provide it when requested by the PIC. Quit tankering fuel into mdw when performance margins are so slim and maximum braking is required.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737-700 FLT CREW LAMENTS LNDG AT MDW NEAR MAX GROSS WT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO USE THE MOST SUITABLE RWY DUE TO LCL AND ATC CONSIDERATIONS.
Narrative: FLT WAS PLANNED TO TAKE OFF AT APPROX 136;000 LBS WHILE TANKERING 2000 LBS OF FUEL TO LAND AT APPROX 125;000 LBS WITH A CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 22L APCH. ALTHOUGH ONLY BARELY LEGAL PER THE FOM (I.E. WITHIN 3000 LBS OF LNDG PERFORMANCE LIMIT; NOT WET OR TAILWIND) THE TANKER FUEL WAS NOT PRUDENT GIVEN THE WIND AND PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS BOTH ACTUAL AND FORECAST FOR MDW. THE LNDG WT OF THE ACFT REQUIRED FLAPS 40 WITH ALL BRAKING OPTIONS BESIDES MAX BRACKETED. TANKERING UNDER THOSE LNDG PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS IS 'JUST PLANE STUPID.' ADDITIONALLY; USING THE APPLICABLE ATIS AT THE TIME THE LNDG PERFORMANCE FOR RWY 13C WAS; AS I RECALL; SOME 2/3 BETTER THAN WAS THE RWY 22L LNDG PERFORMANCE. WHEN RWY 13C WAS DISCUSSED WITH ATC; IT WAS NOT AN OPTION ON THEIR PART. ALTHOUGH THE USE OF RWY 13C OFFERS; IN GENERAL; A MARKED INCREASE IN STOPPING MARGIN AS WELL AS PRECISION GUIDANCE TO THE RUNWAY; LOCAL ATC CUSTOMS DICTATE USE OF RWY 22L. IN REALITY; DURING VFR CONDITIONS AND THE USE OF VISUAL APCHES; THERE IS NO IMPACT UPON ORD OPS AND NO MORE THAN A COORD INFO CALL IS REQUIRED AS THE ORD AIRSPACE IS NOT CONFLICTED WITH WHILE CONDUCTING VFR OPS. IT IS RIDICULOUS IN ACR OPS TO NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE RWY BEST SUITED FOR LNDG PERFORMANCE AT SUCH A SHORT AND CHALLENGING FIELD; CERTAINLY SO WHEN IT IS DUE TO FAA-ATC LOCAL CUSTOM AND IN CONFLICT WITH PROVIDING THE SAFEST LNDG ENVIRONMENT FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. GIVEN THE NORMAL WIND CONDITIONS WHEN RWY 22L OPS ARE IN EFFECT; THERE IS A PROPENSITY FOR THE ACFT TO BE BLOWN TOWARDS DOWNTOWN CHICAGO WHICH CREATES A MORE AGGRESSIVE TURN BACK TOWARDS THE RWY WHILE MANEUVERING CLOSE TO THE GROUND AND ATTEMPTING TO FLY A GLIDEPATH WITH NO PRECISION GUIDANCE IN TURBULENT AND WINDSHEAR CONDITIONS. THE USE OF RWY 13C WITH ITS PRECISION GLIDEPATH AND LESS TOPOGRAPHICALLY INDUCED TURBULENCE AND WINDSHEAR IS A MORE PRECISE AND SAFE APCH AND THE RWY AFFORDS A GREATER AMOUNT OF LNDG PERFORMANCE TO ACR OPS. CONVINCE LOCAL ATC TO UTILIZE RWY 13C MORE OFTEN AND PROVIDE IT WHEN REQUESTED BY THE PIC. QUIT TANKERING FUEL INTO MDW WHEN PERFORMANCE MARGINS ARE SO SLIM AND MAX BRAKING IS REQUIRED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.