This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 46

Southwest skids off runway at Burbank airport

Submitted
 
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) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 28
At least they didn’t get as far as the gas station, this time. That system works quite well.
carpcoppondpig
nick gorham 7
I haven't laughed that hard in a while. For those that don't understand the reference.

[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.
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon -1
Yep. I forgot it was Midway. Still no laughing matter. Looks like two more careers are on the block.
Highflyer1950
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.
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..
ElliotCannon
I've watched them scrub the runways at LAX many times.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -2
I disagree... Note my comment "Clear case of not following a checklist properly.... " -
jmadunleavy
John D 6
Be curious as to how they get the plane out of the EMAS.
Moviela
They towed it out.
jmadunleavy
John D 2
yea, figured that. Just would like to see how that is engineered :)
captrags80
Flew MD-80s into BUR. No room for error - period.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 4
Will the plane be scrapped or a repair attempted? Does landing in the EMAS change this?
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! :)
mikeosmers
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?
tyketto
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.
dpbishop
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.
belzybob
belzybob 3
Looks like the kitty litter did a good job at pulling it up.
teslataildragger
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !!!!
baingm
Gary Bain 1
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.
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.
patpylot
the tailwind was not entirely helpful , was it....
rwf1001
Sounds scary!
mwilcox1950
mwilcox1950 1
Heavy rain and an 8 to 11 knot tailwind.
shenghaohan
aw man, that looks like a new engine intake on the left engine.., (note the missing white letters)
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.
Highflyer1950
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?
jmadunleavy
John D 1
Did the landing gear collapse or does the jet sink part of what EMAS does?
TorstenHoff
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.
Dav5049915
Dav5049915 2
That's what the EMAS does.
trumpeter27
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?
tyketto
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.
Highflyer1950
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.
TaylorBeck
Taylor Beck -6
I for one am shocked to hear it was Southwest.
williambaker08
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???
tyketto
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.
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!
tyketto
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.
Highflyer1950
Yourr statements contradict each other.
tyketto
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.
Highflyer1950
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?
tyketto
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.
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.
blackstock
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
TaylorBeck
Taylor Beck 5
Yes sir total sarcasm.
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!
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.
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
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.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
If that was the case.... This captain really messed up in many different avenues.
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.
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
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
I suspect you're assuming he doesn't have to drive to SNA or BUR.
TaylorBeck
Taylor Beck 2
SNA is the best airport ever to fly in and out of...bollocks to LAX.
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.
tyketto
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.
bbabis
Bill Babis 5
Add rain and its a whole different ballgame. Those are short runways in rainy gusty conditions.
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.
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
Moviela
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.
TorstenHoff
(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/
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.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Trolls on Xmas break?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Can we get a hallelujah?
TorstenHoff
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.
linbb
linbb -4
Time to find some new pilots on this one.
wenkmanmark
Mark Wenkman -2
Flaps up on touchdown !!, Could of helped with braking !!.
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.
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
jbermo
jbermo 4
Such harsh judgment requires a reading of the final report first.
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."
CarlSmeraldi
Right on target Jamar
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...

[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.
Highflyer1950
I think your are right Carl. BTW, Loved flyin’ the L1011.
CarlSmeraldi
Carl Smeraldi -1
I know I am right
CarlSmeraldi
L1011 the best memories of my career JFK EUROPE MIDDLE EAST ASIA PACIFIC CARIBBEAN SOUTH AMERICA A FANTASTIC HEAVY WIDEBODY
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.
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.
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!
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!!!!!
mwilcox1950
mwilcox1950 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.
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.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!