Why Not Fly to the Destination?

I don't think they take a vote....but probably to avoid adding risk, such as weather or other planes

GA. Your right, they had no choice but to return back to Oakland. Even if it was a deferrable maintenance item, aka DMI, they still would need a mechanic to sign off the aircraft log. Commercial Airlines can defer some non critical systems if it's approved by the Administrator (FAA) in their operations manual.

What the San Francisco/Oakland TV stations were reporting a possible nose wheel tire blew out during takeoff. And Southwest Airlines are not disclosing anything yet.

Oakland would be the best place to handle an emergency situation like this, opposed to landing in another major airport and shutting that airport down for how many hours during one of the busiest travel days of the year

A blown nosegear tire doesn't seem to fit the 'maintenance item' explanation being offered.

What would Sully have done?

Maybe they ran over something that punctured the tire, that would probably fall under runway maintenance....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/business/23runway.html

...or maybe it was just due for a tire change....or leak check....or bearing grease...

"What would Sully have done?" The same thing he did in New York and what the Southwest Airline pilots did, try to return back to the originating airport. Once they made that statement that, "they have a problem", they have to try to land at the nearest airport, preferably one that can handle the type of aircraft. And, if they can't .... they have to pick a spot to put her down.

Where do you get the idea that a nose wheel tire is a non-critical component or system? I stated, "Commercial Airlines can defer some non critical systems if it's approved by the Administrator (FAA) in their operations manual.

Nose wheel tires are part of a critical system, and are not allowed to be deferred.

I think that one really has to know the definition of a "maintenance item". I am not fully aware of what the aviation industry defines this as, but I would suspect that a "maintenance item" could be anything from a toilet not working properly or an engine that has failed or a section of the plane that has come lose or fallen off. The terminology used is, I am sure(?), so worded so as not to alarm the passengers and create a panic situation.

A blown tire does require maintenance, correct?? Even if that maintenance means it has to be changed.

Generally "deferrable maintenance items" are systems with 2 or more redundant back up(s) that's not related to flight safety. Meaning landing gear (including wheels and tires), wings, empennage (tail section) main engine(s) are not allowed to be deferred maintenance. And this is all dependant on the type of aircraft and what the governing authority (FAA in the US) allows in the airline company's operations manual.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

P. 2

----------------------------------------------------------This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank ------------------------------------------------

I wonder if it has to do with do with problems of forensics and logistics, in case a major accident occurs. It would likely be easier for investigators if the flight returned to it's point of origin, since there will already be a team of investigators there. A second team would be needed if the plane crashed at it's destination. That would add complexity and layers of bureaucracy to the crash analysis.

I don't imagine a team of investigators was dispatched for a "maintenance item".

There was no crash and I doubt that an emergency was declared.

Do we even know why they returned to the airport?

I saw no evidence of a blown tire when it landed.

"After takeoff, the Captain in Command made the decision to return to Oakland to check a maintenance item on the aircraft,"

Additional info.

According to another report Flt. 2547 did declare an emergency.

Still no indication of a blown tire and the aircraft did return to the gate after a very short period of being stopped on the taxi-way.

"Just after the plane took off from Oakland International at 6 a.m., bound for Chicago, the passengers heard a loud, strange metal-on-metal grinding noise as the landing gear attempted to retract. Sparks flew outside the window. The plane jolted. The pilot's voice crackled through the cabin."

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29305250/oakland-southwest-airlines-emergency-landing-shakes-up-christmas

The NTSB "Go Team" probably wasn't dispatched, but I'll guarantee the FAA was there to greet the pilots after they deplaned everyone. I've dealt with situations simulator to this, nothing to do with my workmanship, just the lucky inspector on duty at the time.

I'm sure that the incident was investigated. So it should be.

Since the cause of the situation is "undisclosed", aren't we operating winth insufficient data in attempting to answer the question?

The question was answered, for me, when I learned that the pilot had declared an emergency.

I think it's wonderful that the pilot(s) were putting the passengers safety as a top priority.

I make it a habit to shake the hand of the pilot or bus driver at the completion of my trip and thank them for a safe trip.

Now I wouldn't advocate that everyone do that because no one would get off the plane/bus, but if you have a moment and its not holding anyone up, spreading a little good cheer will even help to brighten your day.

SWA was going to Chicago Midway, where the longest runway is 6,500 feet long. Oakland has a 10,520 runway.

If you had gear problems, which would you prefer? (SWA had an overrun accident at MDW once - killed a child off airport on a street).

Pax reported "sparks" during gear retraction, so the exact extent of the problem/damage was unclear. A gear-bay fire might have developed.
Is the gear hanging out and adding drag? You may not be able to make Chicago with the fuel on board.
The first 1000 miles east of OAK are mostly mountains (Sierras and Rockies reach 14,000 feet), desert, and wheat/cornfields, without a lot of places to put down a 737 quickly if something worse developed.
Seems it was smart to hang around the big airport, burn off fuel weight if possible, with the option to make a overweight landing on a long runway (with a RON maintenance base) if things rapidly decayed.

I agree.

Personally, I hate it when the spiny thingy makes the grindy sound when being put away for later, and sparks fly by the windows.

It only makes sense to stick around a place where the plane can land again safely, even if slightly (or more??) compromised conditions exist. At least it was not propeller driven AC with four (or more) spiny thingies to make it go. A true pilot always hates it when the spiny thingies stop spinning and going around and around.