Back to Squawk list
  • 37

Southwest slides off runway at Midway, no injuries

No injuries were reported when a Southwest Airlines plane slid off a runway at Midway Airport and into a patch of mud this afternoon, officials said. The plane, Flight 1919 from Denver, was carrying 140 passengers and crew, according to Chicago Department of Aviation spokeswoman Karen Pride and fire department officials. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Dubslow 0
White Castle anyone?
Chris Shumeyko 0
Glad everyone is okay. The interviewed passenger doesn't seem to be a little off the deep-end though. Purposefully leaving water on the runway? I don't think you're going to find that in an airport operations manual. Sounds like heavy rain overwhelmed drainage systems. How he can blame that on the airport, I have no idea.
alex schwan 0
why did this happen?
indy2001 0
Quote from article:
Moelter, who was flying back to the area after visiting family in Denver, Colo., faulted airport officials for not properly dealing with the rain.
"Why they didn't let the water run off the runway or run something on the runway to get the water off, I'll never know. It was pretty stupid," he said. "We almost died."

What exactly does he want the airport to use, a giant squeegee?

And I certainly hope the passenger who believes the pilot intentionally ran off the runway is wrong. Wouldn't it have been better to stay on the runway and then use the EMAS pad at the end (installed after the fatal overrun accident in 2005) to stop the aircraft?

Finally, a question about runway selection since I'm not too familiar with KMDW. According to FlightAware, the wind at the time of the accident (1:35 pm) was roughly 210°-220° at 10-12 knots, with a ceiling of roughly 3400 ft and no precipitation. I know 13C has an ILS approach, but wouldn't the VOR/DME RNAV - GPS approach into 22L be acceptable? The available lengths for landing are almost the same -- 5812 ft for 22L vs. 6059 ft for 13C. So why not use 22L (where the wind would be almost directly on the nose) instead of 13C (where the wind was almost exactly 90° from the heading)?
I think there was a glitch in the article, flight 1919 from Denver to MDW was a boeing 737-300. To the passenger who said they almost died:The pilot with thousands of hours of experience was ahead of the aircraft, he knew he wouldn't be able to brake in time. He was determined to prevent what occurred on 2005 from happening again and decided to go into the grass, which I believe was a smart move. The wall is literally right at the end of the runway(flew to the airport twice) and would have increased risk of injuring someone due to the aircraft's momentum and high velocity.
I agree with inde....Wind on the nose would make it slow down faster....It's like a bike tp the wind.....slows the bike downfaster than going with the wind
They should have a tarp crew, like these guys:

eai2006 0
The usual Southwest type accident. Landing overun, crosswind, contaminated runway, etc... Hurry up and get to the gate boys.
MAKPilot718 0
Probably from the slick runway from the storm.
mark tufts 0
midway is a smaler airport compared to o'hara but the pilot did do the right thing as saving 134 souls plus crew is quite a feat considering that the airstrip was waterlogged
chalet 0
The runways at MID are marginal when snow or water have accumulated so it looks like theis pilot came in high and/or hot.
Chris Bryant 0
I'll be curious to read the NTSB report, which will cite reported braking action, airspeed at touchdown, etc. Until then all we can do is speculate.
I really wonder if news crews go through the people involved and pick out the stupidest ones they can find to put on camera or quote in an article.
Indy, runway choices for Midway are often determined by what runways O'Hare (8 miles away) is using. If Midway was as close to Chicago's major airport, then yes the tower would likely favor the 22s.

If Midway was not as close to Chicago's major airport, then yes the tower would likely favor the 22s.
New Comment
I'm with Indy on this one also -- wondering why the EMAS pad wasn't used as an arresting surface. But in last minute decisions it's hard to tell what the rationale would be. My guess is that the pad can sometimes collapse the nose gear to use the body of the aircraft for additional surface area friction. With the speed at which it appears they were traveling at the end of the runway, there was probably a high level of confidence that the grass would slow the plane less abruptly. I'm just a frequent passenger (often at this facility), so trained pilots should be able to answer the question better. As far as KMDW itself, it's one of the trickier spots to land, with the shorter rwy length and buildings surrounding the facility -- so you have to drop in, set it down quickly (sometimes harder), ensure the are speedbrakes deployed (hopefully armed for auto) and thrust reversers engaged. I'm not sure about SWA's operating procedure, but I would assume 30-degrees of flaps with a slight increase in speed would counter the crosswinds (I can't recall if Flaps-40 is allowed in this scenario due to noise abatement and landing weight). As usual, the determination comes down to human error and/or equipment failure. I'll be interested to follow the story for the official outcome from the NTSB.
Ralph Wigzell 0
The good old 727 nosewheel brakes are sorely missed! However carrying too much speed on approach and landing on a waterlogged runway...


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from 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.