According to United Airlines, United flight UA878, operating from Houston to Minneapolis, was unable to land at MSP and was diverted to Madison, Wisconsin (MSN) due to Wx. Takes off again for MSP, still unable to land at MSP and diverts Green Bay (GRB), where the plane skids off the runway.

http://abc13.com/houston-united-flight- ... -/3128673/

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

Links to photos from passenger on flight.

Green Bay is not msn. Green Bay is GRB

drmlnr1 wrote:

Green Bay is not msn. Green Bay is GRB

Thanks, I moved it to Madison and added GRB.

indcwby wrote:

According to United Airlines, United flight UA878, operating from Houston to Minneapolis, was unable to land at MSP and was diverted to Madison, Wisconsin (MSN) due to Wx. Takes off again for MSP, still unable to land at MSP and diverts Green Bay (GRB), where the plane skids off the runway.

http://abc13.com/houston-united-flight- ... -/3128673/

Hoh-Lee Cow! Picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue...!

It looks like they executed a missed approach to 12R at MSP on what turned out to be the MSN-GRB leg as well. Good times.

They gave up too easily. They should have inspected the airplane, made field repairs and tried again.

Sounds like those pax got their moneys worth.

Missed diversion to ORD
Then missed diversion to MSN
Then an attempted landing at MSP
Then a successful diversion to GRB only to skid off the runway.

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

sdh9 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

What are yours to question mine?

ANET is an open forum which users can express their opinions. At least it used to be. Similar incidents have happened in the past.

sdh9 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

You don't need too many qualifications to arrive at such a conclusion when you look at a flight history like that one. Numerous missed approaches and diversions. If you've followed enough flights over the years, it's not unfounded speculation to wonder if a low fuel state forced their hand and their landing in Green Bay. And anyone who's an aviation enthusiast knows how many landing incidents have been caused by get-there-itis.

mcdu wrote:

This appears the have been at the end of a very long day for this crew. I think there will be several contributory factors like there are in all incidents and accidents. Get there itis would certainly not be one of those unless they had forced a landing at MSP in below mins conditions.

The end of a very long day, and they want to land... I believe that is the very definition of get-there-itis.

Siren wrote:

sdh9 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

You don't need too many qualifications to arrive at such a conclusion when you look at a flight history like that one. Numerous missed approaches and diversions. If you've followed enough flights over the years, it's not unfounded speculation to wonder if a low fuel state forced their hand and their landing in Green Bay. And anyone who's an aviation enthusiast knows how many landing incidents have been caused by get-there-itis.

Get there itis? That is pretty absurd statement. That is when a flight is pushed to the destination versus the safer option of diverting to an alternate. If anything this crew is the anti “get there itis”. They could not land at the intended destination, did not force the flight to land there and diverted not once but twice!

As for fuel didn’t they land in MSN? That would have been for fuel and the next attempt to get to the MSP.

The 737-900 has been proven to be a runway challenge in slippery conditions. From the reports the GRB braking action may have been much less than anticipated or reported. There is not one 737 pilot that is not acutely aware of the the need to land in the TDZ and use max braking in the event of slippery conditions.

This appears the have been at the end of a very long day for this crew. I think there will be several contributory factors like there are in all incidents and accidents. Get there itis would certainly not be one of those unless they had forced a landing at MSP in below mins conditions.

WN732 wrote:

sdh9 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

What are yours to question mine?

ANET is an open forum which users can express their opinions. At least it used to be. Similar incidents have happened in the past.

This by the two diverts is the antonym of get there itis. You don’t divert if you are trying to hard to get to your destination.

Siren wrote:

sdh9 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

This sounds like it could have been a low fuel situation where the pilots were running out of options. Or maybe even get-there-itis after so many diversions and go arounds.

And exactly what are your qualifications to make such a statement?

You don't need too many qualifications to arrive at such a conclusion when you look at a flight history like that one. Numerous missed approaches and diversions. If you've followed enough flights over the years, it's not unfounded speculation to wonder if a low fuel state forced their hand and their landing in Green Bay. And anyone who's an aviation enthusiast knows how many landing incidents have been caused by get-there-itis.

As was said above, get-there-itis would have been holding for MSP and landing there regardless of braking action reports indicating stopping performance near the limits.

Diverting = the complete opposite of get-there-itis.

Why not divert to MKE?

This forum has been reduced to people arguing over the definition of a word that doesn't actually exist.

spacecadet wrote:

This forum has been reduced to people arguing over the definition of a word that doesn't actually exist.

Not arguing over the word but the implication that the cause of the incident was the crew disregarding safety to land at the destination.

The people on here that consider themselves Aviation safety experts with zero training or industry experience is the downfall of the forum.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Why not divert to MKE?

My guess, and mind you this is a guess is MKE was most likely suffering the same issues as to why the cancelled the diversion to MSN,

A friend got off the MSP-LHR flight a few hours ago with a four hours delay due to poor weather conditions at MSP. The aircraft required de-icing twice and refuelling and she said the runways and taxiways were being ploughed. Some poor conditions at MSP it seems.

Mods, can we change the title of this thread? It makes it sound like they skidded off the runway at MSN.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Why not divert to MKE?

What would make diverting to MKE more advantageous than GRB? The two runways at GRB, at 8,699 and 7,699 feet respectively, are more than long enough to accommodate a 737-900.

GRB is almost an hour closer to MSP than MKE by car, so the decision to divert there makes sense, especially if the crew was close to timing out and they believed they might have to cancel.

lavalampluva wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

Why not divert to MKE?

My guess, and mind you this is a guess is MKE was most likely suffering the same issues as to why the cancelled the diversion to MSN,

They didn't cancel the diversion to MSN. They diverted to MSN the first time and departed again for MSP. They missed the approach at MSP and then diverted the second time to GRB.

It'll be interesting to see if the approach was stable. United flight ops were pioneers with the stabilised approach concept and a lot of airlines use the same or similar gated concept.

Edited to add:

The 737-800/900 can be a handful, especially when you're crossing the fence at 145-150 knots. Cursory glance at a generic -900 qrh suggests around 6500ft needed with medium braking action and closer to 8000ft when poor braking action. Rwy 06 has an lda of about 7700ft. Looks like mcdu is closer to the mark.

KGRB wrote:

Mods, can we change the title of this thread? It makes it sound like they skidded off the runway at MSN.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Why not divert to MKE?

What would make diverting to MKE more advantageous than GRB? The two runways at GRB, at 8,699 and 7,699 feet respectively, are more than long enough to accommodate a 737-900.

GRB is almost an hour closer to MSP than MKE by car, so the decision to divert there makes sense, especially if the crew was close to timing out and they believed they might have to cancel.

But isn't MKE a larger UA station and has more interline options to re-accommodate passengers to their final destinations?

Surprised no one has asked what aircraft was involved... so I’ll tell you. N30401 739 non-ER.

AAlaxfan wrote:

KGRB wrote:

Mods, can we change the title of this thread? It makes it sound like they skidded off the runway at MSN.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Why not divert to MKE?

What would make diverting to MKE more advantageous than GRB? The two runways at GRB, at 8,699 and 7,699 feet respectively, are more than long enough to accommodate a 737-900.

GRB is almost an hour closer to MSP than MKE by car, so the decision to divert there makes sense, especially if the crew was close to timing out and they believed they might have to cancel.

But isn't MKE a larger UA station and has more interline options to re-accommodate passengers to their final destinations?

At that point you might as well put her down in ORD. I've seen UA dispatch various flights to MN with ORD at the alternate

Get there it is, to me, is not just about the destination, but also the idea of wanting to "finish this", in that case not make yet another missed approach/diversion, or go around when the approach was not going that well, but "put it down" hoping it would be OK.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but for every botched landing this has to be the first question : couldn't they go around ?

Aesma wrote:

Get there it is, to me, is not just about the destination, but also the idea of wanting to "finish this", in that case not make yet another missed approach/diversion, or go around when the approach was not going that well, but "put it down" hoping it would be OK.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but for every botched landing this has to be the first question : couldn't they go around ?

. . . Assuming they botched the landing. But my guess is that at that hour there weren’t many aircraft landing at GRB who could report braking action and it’s entirely possible that it was a perfectly fine landing but the runway was slipperier than they anticipated.

iahcsr wrote:

Surprised no one has asked what aircraft was involved... so I’ll tell you. N30401 739 non-ER.

A 739 non-ER doesn’t have the short-field performance option that’s standard on the 739ER. It’s the worst airplane in the 737 family for takeoff and landing performance.

Those of you speculating that the crew had get-there-itis, or flying an unstablized approach, are very quick to judge without knowledge of the facts (which by the way, nobody on here has).

Cubsrule wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Get there it is, to me, is not just about the destination, but also the idea of wanting to "finish this", in that case not make yet another missed approach/diversion, or go around when the approach was not going that well, but "put it down" hoping it would be OK.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but for every botched landing this has to be the first question : couldn't they go around ?

. . . Assuming they botched the landing. But my guess is that at that hour there weren’t many aircraft landing at GRB who could report braking action and it’s entirely possible that it was a perfectly fine landing but the runway was slipperier than they anticipated.

You are most likely correct. According to Flightaware.com, the last arrival into GRB was at 11:05 pm, a CRJ9 from DTW. N30401 didn't depart MSN until 1:17 am, and after reviewing Flightradar24 and Flightware, the best I can determine N30401 arrived GRB around 3:18 am after flying to MSP, flew a missed approach, and then on to GRB . According to Airnav.com, the GRB tower is only attended from 0500-2200 local, so they probably landed with very old runway condition reports.

The final destination for all those pax was MSP. MKE is not any better than GRB for getting them to MSP since the only airline flying to MSP for both is DL. In both cases they probably would have chartered buses, but GRB is closer to MSP. In retrospect the smart decision would have just been to cancel and bus when on the ground in MSN. I also suspect they did not go for MKE because of the earlier failed attempt at ORD, so MKE likely had similar weather to ORD.

The 737-900 is a disgrace.

20+ knots faster than widebodies over the numbers and one third the number of tires for braking.

Pathetic that Boeing is pumping these out of the factory in 2018.

The A321 at least has double slotted flaps for better takeoff and landing numbers.

Expect more 739 issues in the future, just as there has been in the past.

drdisque wrote:

The final destination for all those pax was MSP. MKE is not any better than GRB for getting them to MSP since the only airline flying to MSP for both is DL. In both cases they probably would have chartered buses, but GRB is closer to MSP. In retrospect the smart decision would have just been to cancel and bus when on the ground in MSN. I also suspect they did not go for MKE because of the earlier failed attempt at ORD, so MKE likely had similar weather to ORD.

Where does it say there was a failed attempt at ORD?

goboeing wrote:

The 737-900 is a disgrace.

20+ knots faster than widebodies over the numbers and one third the number of tires for braking.

Pathetic that Boeing is pumping these out of the factory in 2018.

The A321 at least has double slotted flaps for better takeoff and landing numbers.

Expect more 739 issues in the future, just as there has been in the past.

What’s pathetic is that you feel a need to post this

BENAir01 wrote:

goboeing wrote:

The 737-900 is a disgrace.

20+ knots faster than widebodies over the numbers and one third the number of tires for braking.

Pathetic that Boeing is pumping these out of the factory in 2018.

The A321 at least has double slotted flaps for better takeoff and landing numbers.

Expect more 739 issues in the future, just as there has been in the past.

What’s pathetic is that you feel a need to post this

The 737-900 itself is a contributing factor.

It's very relevant to the discussion of a contaminated runway excursion.

Non ers dont have a 2 position tail skid and have a higher approach speed than ers. About 5 kts faster and the brakes aren't the same. The spoilers don't extend as far either.

tjwgrr wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Get there it is, to me, is not just about the destination, but also the idea of wanting to "finish this", in that case not make yet another missed approach/diversion, or go around when the approach was not going that well, but "put it down" hoping it would be OK.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but for every botched landing this has to be the first question : couldn't they go around ?

. . . Assuming they botched the landing. But my guess is that at that hour there weren’t many aircraft landing at GRB who could report braking action and it’s entirely possible that it was a perfectly fine landing but the runway was slipperier than they anticipated.

You are most likely correct. According to Flightaware.com, the last arrival into GRB was at 11:05 pm, a CRJ9 from DTW. N30401 didn't depart MSN until 1:17 am, and after reviewing Flightradar24 and Flightware, the best I can determine N30401 arrived GRB around 3:18 am after flying to MSP, flew a missed approach, and then on to GRB . According to Airnav.com, the GRB tower is only attended from 0500-2200 local, so they probably landed with very old runway condition reports.

I don’t know if it was get-there-itis or its similar-looking cousin running-out-of-gas-and-need-to-land-itis, but GRB was an interesting choice. IINM they could not have gone to SAW despite the long runway because it doesn’t have full-time ARFF. Was the weather lousy at DSM?

Yeah GRB is farther away from MSP than MSN was. As a lay person it seems like a weird idea. Maybe the crew were keenly aware of the 739’s limitations (one supposes so), and all nearby airports had contamination. And by the time it all shook out, GRB itself had the weather, which generally travels from west to east. Or maybe GRB was the only alternate with anybody willing to do ground handling at 3-4am.

Flighty wrote:

Yeah GRB is farther away from MSP than MSN was. As a lay person it seems like a weird idea.

Yeah I sure the pilot thought to himself "well Green Bay is 8 miles further from our destination than Madison, so lets just go back down there".

yeo

I cant figure out why MSN or GRB would be used as the alternates so late at night. I dont know why ORD/DSM/MCI couldnt be used as the alternates. Could there have been a weight issue caused by the landing weight and thus a closer alternate needed to take all the passengers and bags? If there was no weight restriction and with the forecast weather, I doubt being low on fuel would be a problem unless you had an incompetent captain and dispatcher. Even with a weight issue, this was probably one of those situations where you need to add the extra fuel at the expense of passengers.

One thing I am not certain of is was the diversions due to MSP field conditions or visibility? In either case, the question has to be asked why they tried to go back to MSP after diverting to MSN. What info did the captain and dispatcher have to suggest that things had improved at MSP from the first try to get in?

MSN-MSP is a very short distance. If they were able to depart MSN safely, why not just go back to MSN? This is a very strange set of circumstances. ORD is not much farther away than MSN/GRB.

Is it possible the last part of the runway was more icy/slippery than the touchdown and initial braking zones? Perhaps the initial deceleration went to planned and gave the crew confidence on conditions. In order to expedite taxi and clearing, perhaps they carried 50-60knots to the end the runway to meet the taxiway but when they hit the brakes, they were in trouble and ended up going off the edge. Possibility maybe?

goboeing wrote:

The 737-900 is a disgrace.

20+ knots faster than widebodies over the numbers and one third the number of tires for braking.

Pathetic that Boeing is pumping these out of the factory in 2018.

The A321 at least has double slotted flaps for better takeoff and landing numbers.

Expect more 739 issues in the future, just as there has been in the past.

I've ridden jumpseat on some MD-11s (all FDX, if you're curious) and as I recall, those approach speeds were greater than a 737-900.

No, Boeing hasn't built a -900 version of the 737 in years. They are still producing the 737-900ER, which has some differences that allow a lower approach speed (IIRC).

The aircraft involved in this incident was CO's first 737-900 (not a -900ER).

goboeing wrote:

The 737-900 is a disgrace.

20+ knots faster than widebodies over the numbers and one third the number of tires for braking.

Pathetic that Boeing is pumping these out of the factory in 2018.

The A321 at least has double slotted flaps for better takeoff and landing numbers.

Expect more 739 issues in the future, just as there has been in the past.

You do realize all 737NG’s have doubled slotted flaps right? Clearly you didn’t so news flash, they do.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

I cant figure out why MSN or GRB would be used as the alternates so late at night. I dont know why ORD/DSM/MCI couldnt be used as the alternates. Could there have been a weight issue caused by the landing weight and thus a closer alternate needed to take all the passengers and bags? If there was no weight restriction and with the forecast weather, I doubt being low on fuel would be a problem unless you had an incompetent captain and dispatcher. Even with a weight issue, this was probably one of those situations where you need to add the extra fuel at the expense of passengers.

One thing I am not certain of is was the diversions due to MSP field conditions or visibility? In either case, the question has to be asked why they tried to go back to MSP after diverting to MSN. What info did the captain and dispatcher have to suggest that things had improved at MSP from the first try to get in?

MSN-MSP is a very short distance. If they were able to depart MSN safely, why not just go back to MSN? This is a very strange set of circumstances. ORD is not much farther away than MSN/GRB.

If I remember from when I worked at the FBO at MSN the tower closes there around 2300. While I’m not questioning the decision of the pilots who were no doubt working with the best information they had perhaps it wasn’t advisable to divert to an alternate without a working tower? Conditions can change rapidly and as posters above have said, its completely likely the pilots may have been working with “out-of-date” information. In hind sight perhaps the cautious thing to do was to keep it on the ground in MSN and have HQ print hotel vouchers for the night. UA could have sent an extra aircraft up from ORD easily enough the next morning with a fresh crew.

77H

Who knows, GRB is about as far as Fargo with a 9000 foot runway. Or they could had looked at Duluth with a 10000 foot runway. I am assuming this happened Thursday night? We got about 4 inches of snow then. Weather was great in MSP yesterday. Sunny and in the high 30s. Tonight is terrible again. upwards of 8 inches expected through the night. Started around 2pm today.

Just FYI N30401 departed GRBORD today as UA2786 26Feb.

Glad to see there were no injuries reported. Hopefully it stays that way.