Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN Nose Gear Collapse At LGA Part 2  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 514 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26239 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to length, here is part two. Please stay on topic and follow forum rules as the last thread got way off topic.

Previous thread: WN Nose Gear Collapse At LGA (by pit Jul 22 2013 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-07-25 17:45:55]


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
133 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13209 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26304 times:

So, we have some preliminary disclosures of a 'nose first' landing. This leads to several questions: was there a problem with the systems they use during landing, were winds or traffic factors on the approach or was there just a misjudgment by the pilots ? I guess that will be only found in the final report.

User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8299 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 26031 times:

From what's known at this point, there are signs of an unstabilized approach. Therein the question is what environmental factors may have influenced that, in terms of weather, crew, ATC - they have to look at the whole picture. The responsibility to continue or go-around lies with the crew though, and if other pilots who witnessed the event are saying it was a three-point landing with no flare, that's a pretty big issue.

I wonder if this will quiet the peanut gallery on other boards who were waving red-white-and-blue flags claiming Koreans lack airmanship. This stuff can happen to anyone - and any pilot needs to be vigilant. That's kinda the point of epaulets and such, no?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinejayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 25844 times:

60 seconds out to go to flaps 40 still prob had them configured and stable by the min altitiude in their ops specs to be stable by...

Does anyone know what the last 2 departures off the intersecting runway were before their arrival? if one was a 757 we could be looking at an example of wake turbulence causing the rapid pitch change and nose first landing...


User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 25753 times:

Quoting jayspilot (Reply 3):
Does anyone know what the last 2 departures off the intersecting runway were before their arrival? if one was a 757 we could be looking at an example of wake turbulence causing the rapid pitch change and nose first landing...

The intersection is at the other end of Rwy 4. This is what a proper Rwy 4 landing looks like. Rwy 13/31 is closer to the departure end of Rwy 4. It's a good 4,000 feet from that touchdown zone to the intersection.

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/Airliners-and-Airport-Spotting/LaGuardia-Airport/i-dkPbRW7/0/XL/JM_2009_06_27_N939WN_LGA_004-XL.jpg

[Edited 2013-07-25 19:27:41]


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineseven3seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 320 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 25374 times:

Quoting MCDU:

"Flaps in transit from 30 to 40 less 56 seconds before landing. Add to the pitch change it looks like the FDR backs up an unstabalized approach. This should have been a go around but instead they tried to force it onto the runway with what was fortunately a non-fatal accident. They were lucky the nose gear collapsed, if it had held they could have ballooned like the FedEx MD11 at NRT."

You're a professional pilot, supposedly for United Airlines, and yet you are so biased towards Southwest you would make this offensive comment condemning the flight crew before the facts are even out. Something beyond their control could have happened.

The 737 can automatically move the flaps from 40 to 30 due to an overspeed. Could have been a wind gust that finally lessened, returning the flaps to 40. That could explain the flaps returning to 40 later on. There also could have been a windgust in the flare.

Regardless of what happened, your biased speculation on a public forum is offensive and repugnant.

[Edited 2013-07-25 21:19:50]


My views are mine alone and are not that of any of my fellow employees, officers, or directors at my company
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 24938 times:

What happens if the pilots seat slides forward just as he/she is about to flare? I've been on the jump seat when the Captains seat slid all the way aft on a take off roll. The captain, who was pilot flying, lost control of the airplane and instantly said "your airplane" to the F/O who took over and aborted the take off. Good thing it didn't happen on rotation, that would have been interesting.

Not saying something like this is the cause, but before we blame the crew, as quite a few of our resident A net 'experts' seem to be doing, maybe we should wait for all the facts?


User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8299 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 24547 times:

Quoting T prop (Reply 6):
Not saying something like this is the cause, but before we blame the crew, as quite a few of our resident A net 'experts' seem to be doing, maybe we should wait for all the facts?

What kind of pie-in-the-sky world are you living in? This is a.net  



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24168 times:

Quoting T prop (Reply 6):
Not saying something like this is the cause, but before we blame the crew, as quite a few of our resident A net 'experts' seem to be doing, maybe we should wait for all the facts?

Hardly plausible. The crew was unstable inside 1,000 feet (flaps 30-40) 56 seconds before impact. That's not a seat. I would bet it turns out the crew got behind the airplane and realized it was a short runway and tried to force the airplane on.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 23528 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 5):
You're a professional pilot, supposedly for United Airlines, and yet you are so biased towards Southwest

For what it's worth, over the years I have heard many pilots of other airlines being critical of the piloting at Southwest, some even going as far as saying they would be uneasy in their jumpseats.
Is that repugnant and offensive to note? I've stayed out of this conversation this far, but I have to admit that what happened on that flight seems to align with the criticisms I have heard, as well as my own observations of WN pilots coming in noticeably hotter than other airlines' pilots do.

Of course, there are many variables, and applying various hypotheses to the variables will often appear to show many of the hypotheses fitting the variables -- until enough data points are added that disqualify some of the hypotheses. That's why it's not okay to jump to the conclusions at this point. But it is almost worst to immediately rule out hypotheses that do fit the known variables just because they are offensive.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinejayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days ago) and read 22820 times:

thanks for the configuration clarification Moose. I haven't flown into LGA in 10+ yrs and had the intersection location backwards in my head thinking this happened near the 13/22 intersection. To exhaust the wake turbulence angle did anything large land before them? I thought I saw the last landing being a 737-800 from AA but I didn't print or save the flight aware log.

I fly the 75/767 and when we come in light or tight behind someone we can get rocked by a wake from almost anything 737/A320 and up if the winds and conditions are right to make the wake settle into our path.

I'm asking these questions b/c the easy answer these days seems to be to blame the crew but that rate of pitch change on such short final from the data shared by the NTSB makes me think this was more then a pilot induced pitch change error. I hope its not the case that they were just a little long in the flare and wanted to make sure to stop before the intersection of the runway to avoid a longer taxi, hold and the forced it on with very negative results.


User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2960 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days ago) and read 22392 times:

So of it turns out that this was a simple case of pilot error what would happen to the pilot ? Would the airline discipline him in any way ?


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlinebrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 22266 times:

Quoting jayspilot (Reply 10):
I'm asking these questions b/c the easy answer these days seems to be to blame the crew but that rate of pitch change on such short final from the data shared by the NTSB makes me think this was more then a pilot induced pitch change error. I hope its not the case that they were just a little long in the flare and wanted to make sure to stop before the intersection of the runway to avoid a longer taxi, hold and the forced it on with very negative results



Were there LAHSO ops in use that day, that could have induced the pilots to "put her down" more aggressively than usual- maybe in a situation of excessive landing speed?


User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 22254 times:

Can 2 deg nose up at 32 ft AGL to 3 deg nose down at 0 ft AGL be explained by any weather or wake turbulence phenomena? How many deg/sec pitch down is that?

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 21817 times:

I know weather conditions had created the backlog at LGA that day.

I haven't seen a METAR for the time of the accident. Anyone?


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 21650 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 14):
I know weather conditions had created the backlog at LGA that day

The videos released had small puddles present in drainage areas on the taxiway but the runway and taxiways appeared dry.
I am suspecting that the storm had moved off the property at least 20-30 minutes earlier if not longer.
My first thought was of a micro-burst or something along that line. Wake turbulence could come into play. Of course none of that is visible but would be recorded on the FDR with quick airspeed changes.

My only thought is if those quick airspeed changes were recorded that the NTSB would have mentioned that in there press release.

Okie


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 21610 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 5):
The 737 can automatically move the flaps from 40 to 30 due to an overspeed.

The way I read the report the flaps were selected from 30 to 40 versus flap load relief activation. There is a difference and if you find yourself on a short runway with load relief operating due to the conditions it is probably a good idea to go-around.

I am not picking on WN. I have strong opinions on the lack of flying skills exhibited by the Asiana crew too. This WN approach most likely went bad well before the nose gear hit first. Congested airspace, enroute holding, schedule etc will probably all a role in the decision to continue the approach.

If these same type of incidents didn't occurr at WN it would not get the attention it seems to create. It is a self fulfilling prophecy when the same phase of flight

Quoting brucek (Reply 12):
Were there LAHSO ops in use that day, that could have induced the pilots to "put her down" more aggressively than usual- maybe in a situation of excessive landing speed?

No LAHSO


Quoting hivue (Reply 13):

Can 2 deg nose up at 32 ft AGL to 3 deg nose down at 0 ft AGL be explained by any weather or wake turbulence phenomena? How many deg/sec pitch down is that?


Wake turbulence induces roll oscillations. Generaly not pitch changes. In he video there is no eveidence of a wake encounter.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4789 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20116 times:

This is not good.


Southwest has a long history of trying to 'make a landing work' where they should have thrown it away and gone
missed approach with several accidents over the years sharing this common theme.


They are fortunate to have 'only' had one fatality.


There seems to be a real cultural problem with their operation that needs to be fixed quickly.


They were lucky this time.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19855 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Southwest has a long history of trying to 'make a landing work' where they should have thrown it away and gone
missed approach with several accidents over the years sharing this common theme
WN is operating 4,000 flights per day roughly. 1.46M landings per year.
I would guess if you put a pencil to it you find WN on the low end of the scale on accident rates from botched approaches.

Okie

Edit Had to get my eraser out and move my decimal point  Wow!

[Edited 2013-07-26 13:15:11]

User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19465 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 18):
I would guess if you put a pencil to it you find WN on the low end of the scale on accident rates from botched approaches.

Simply because they pull it off, does not mean that it was safe. I'm not picking on WN here, simply the concept that no accident = safe.


User currently offlinen92r03 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19419 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Southwest has a long history of trying to 'make a landing work'

Got any factual data on that one?


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19334 times:

what kind of facts do you want? He's pointing out that you don't see United, American, Delta, USAirways, Frontier, JetBlue, America West, Continental, Northwest, Western Pacific, Allegiant, Southeast, Piedmont, Republic, North-Central, Air Florida, Allegheny, Midwest, TWA, Ozark, Britt, People Express... etc blow through runways like we have seen Southwest. It would be a challenge to state that Max Q & others are WRONG if we had all those other airlines doing this more often.

There is a common denominator at Southwest that has resulted in botched landings that is not present at other airlines.



xx
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19210 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 21):
what kind of facts do you want? He's pointing out that you don't see United, American, Delta, USAirways, Frontier, JetBlue, America West, Continental, Northwest, Western Pacific, Allegiant, Southeast, Piedmont, Republic, North-Central, Air Florida, Allegheny, Midwest, TWA, Ozark, Britt, People Express... etc blow through runways like we have seen Southwest. It would be a challenge to state that Max Q & others are WRONG if we had all those other airlines doing this more often.

There is a common denominator at Southwest that has resulted in botched landings that is not present at other airlines.

You want facts...look at USAir in the late '80s and '90s, they put 2 off the runways at LGA. DAL ran one off the runway at NAS Jacksonville last week. In WN's history there have been 3 high profile runway accidents. But to say that it is systemic within WN is plain wrong. Are there safety issues at WN sure, but this is not the accidents that highlight them. Every carrier has had incidents around the runways, hell United had a jet run out of fuel in the '70s near PDX.

While there appears to evidence that the pilots screwed up in this case, all the facts are not in yet, and this certainly is not evidence of a systemic problem with the highly professional and well trained pilots of WN and the rest of the airline pilot corps of the US.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19102 times:

NBG - and those takeoffs at LGA - 1 was a drunk pilot (I think, the 737-400) and the other was a Fokker 28 with ice on the wings. The NTSB did realize the Fokker 28 incident had a common demoninator: the thing doesn't deice well. The common denominator was never pointed at USAirways flight ops, crew training, etc.

So dig up more facts please and show where there has been a consistent COMMON item at an airline. You won't find it.

Southwest is great in that they have never killed anyone (well, on their airplanes) and have never had a hull loss. For that you are correct. But there is something different in how Southwest operates compared to other airlines that very well COULD be that common denominator....



xx
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19058 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 21):
Allegheny,

Try Flights 736 and 737 at Erie, Pa within two weeks of each other.

Quoting usxguy (Reply 21):
Air Florida

Landing on a bridge, well you get the point.

It would be pretty easy to blow holes through that post.

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 22):
While there appears to evidence that the pilots screwed up in this case, all the facts are not in yet, and this certainly is not evidence of a systemic problem with the highly professional and well trained pilots of WN and the rest of the airline pilot corps of the US.

I will stick with that NBG.

I suspect that the Captain and FO had a pretty good idea what happened when the soles of their shoes started smoldering from the heat generated by the nose of the aircraft being ground off by the runway. Okay a little dramatic license.

Okie


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 739 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19429 times:

Don't forget American off the end of the runway in Jamaica.

User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19600 times:

In the last week, UA23 had a cabin decompression and UA 58 (IAH-AMS) had an engine shutdown immediately after takeoff. Must be because of UA's sub-par maintenance program


My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 20133 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 25):
Don't forget American off the end of the runway in Jamaica

Dont forget the Caribbean Airlines 738 off the runway at GEO


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 19669 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 23):
NBG - and those takeoffs at LGA - 1 was a drunk pilot (I think, the 737-400) and the other was a Fokker 28 with ice on the wings. The NTSB did realize the Fokker 28 incident had a common demoninator: the thing doesn't deice well. The common denominator was never pointed at USAirways flight ops, crew training, etc.

So dig up more facts please and show where there has been a consistent COMMON item at an airline. You won't find it.

Southwest is great in that they have never killed anyone (well, on their airplanes) and have never had a hull loss. For that you are correct. But there is something different in how Southwest operates compared to other airlines that very well COULD be that common denominator....

AAL1420 - pilot landed in winds that exceeded the maximum crosswind component for the MD-80
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...euznuqsert1fl1/U07262013120000.pdf
AAL587 - PF overloaded the rudder system after encountering wake turbulence.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...kpe45nyrrid451/R07262013120000.pdf
DAL191 - Flew into a severe thunderstorm.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...velj0magcbreq1/U07262013120000.pdf
DAL1141 - Failure of the pilots to set the flaps/slats properly for takeoff.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...4ze2esyc0ei451/N07262013120000.pdf

Now, this is just a small example of the list of fatal crashes associated with pilot error. There are literally hundreds of non-fatal crashes and incidents that have been attributed to pilot error. Incidents and non-fatals like -

AAL2253 - where the pilots became distracted by a malfunctioning reverser and overran the runway.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...lt3i0p2rfekuh1/L07262013120000.pdf
AAL1586 - The pilot followed the aircraft generated V1 call rather than that of the FO and over-rotated the plane.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...gji45q32ojvzg1/I07262013120000.pdf
AAL20 - flight crew flew too close to a thunderstorm causing injury to a flight attendant.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...jbzmkeuttc5451/G07262013120000.pdf
AAL1402 - Failure to go-around and deviation from a CATIII approach proceedure, scraped its wing on the runway.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...hk445ouavup551/L07262013120000.pdf

This isn't even the first half of just American Airlines incidents on the NTSB database. A conclusion to draw from this list...American Airlines has horrible pilots that are going to kill everyone they fly if they aren't grounded right now!!!!!
/sarcasm



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19310 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 25):
Don't forget American off the end of the runway in Jamaica.

And again, lets go to basic english. com·mon de·nom·i·na·tor
Noun

A shared multiple of the denominators of several fractions.
A feature shared by all members of a group.

so.. please show other American 737-800s that went off a runway and broke up into pieces while landing.

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 28):
AAL1420 - pilot landed in winds that exceeded the maximum crosswind component for the MD-80
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...euznuqsert1fl1/U07262013120000.pdf
AAL587 - PF overloaded the rudder system after encountering wake turbulence.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...kpe45nyrrid451/R07262013120000.pdf
AA A300 - rudder issue, not a common denominator with the MD-80

Quote:

DAL191 - Flew into a severe thunderstorm.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...velj0magcbreq1/U07262013120000.pdf

Ok, different airline, different aircraft type from above.

Quote:

DAL1141 - Failure of the pilots to set the flaps/slats properly for takeoff.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...4ze2esyc0ei451/N07262013120000.pdf

same airline, different aircraft type.

Quote:

AAL2253 - where the pilots became distracted by a malfunctioning reverser and overran the runway.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...lt3i0p2rfekuh1/L07262013120000.pdf

American Airlines - 757 - automation issue, pilot issue.

Quote:

AAL1586 - The pilot followed the aircraft generated V1 call rather than that of the FO and over-rotated the plane.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...gji45q32ojvzg1/I07262013120000.pdf

American Airlines - 737-800, not the same as the 757, so that isn't a COMMON DENOMINATOR, automation issue however is a common item - due to pilot error entering the wrong data,

Quote:

AAL20 - flight crew flew too close to a thunderstorm causing injury to a flight attendant.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...jbzmkeuttc5451/G07262013120000.pdf

American Airlines, 767-300, not the same as a 757 or 737, so not a common denominator, not an automation issue so there's no common denominator, issue with unanticipated turbulence around a storm.

Quote:

AAL1402 - Failure to go-around and deviation from a CATIII approach proceedure, scraped its wing on the runway.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...hk445ouavup551/L07262013120000.pdf

American Airlines, MD-80, not a 767, not a 757, not a 737 so not a common denominator here. Not necessarily an automation issue.

Quote:
This isn't even the first half of just American Airlines incidents on the NTSB database. A conclusion to draw from this list...American Airlines has horrible pilots that are going to kill everyone they fly if they aren't grounded right now!!!!!
/sarcasm

wow, you are right. Those all have something in common. um. nothing? pilot error on a few?

so I still swing back to my other post. Show me some COMMON DENOMINATORS HERE.

most of Southwest's incidents do. 737 - common denominator occurred at landing - common denominator all involved speed/overspeed - common denominator

so that's where people get the OPINION, based on multiple COMMON DENOMINATORS that Southwest pilots are hot shots, add in the high speed taxis performed by WN. That's all I'm getting at. People have the opinion of that, this incident supports it. Do I care? no. You have yours, others have theirs and that's ok, but I won't sit here and call someone stupid because they feel the A320 is the perfect airplane, or that automation could have saved them. who knows. we weren't in the cockpit.

I've unfortunately worked for 3 airlines that have killed people, and I was on the safety committee at one and we looked THROUGH every nook & cranny of our operation during one particular crash so we can fix any errors to PREVENT a common denominator from occurring. So all I'm point out here is, the underdogs have a valid reason because of the COMMON DENOMINATORS of the incidents at WN.

[Edited 2013-07-26 16:30:26]


xx
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19262 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 29):
common denominator all involved speed/overspeed - common denominator

Sorry a 133kts at LGA in this incident seems to be right on the money.

Okie


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19196 times:

Alright USX...lets play a game...I showed you mine, now show me yours. Show me your evidence of a COMMON DENOMINATOR at WN. Where all of their incidents occurred because of being too fast, too high, too slow, etc. Exclude the high profile incidents at MDW and BUR as we are well aware of these incidents, I want NTSB reports and links.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18999 times:

but MDW and BUR have a common denominator: 737, southwest airlines, too fast, didn't stop in time. And we'll probably hear from NTSB if this guy was coming in HOT (or girl, I should say). They were late, so the pilots were already under pressure to get this plane on the ground, get to the gate, offload, onload, and go. So the idea of doing a go-around at one of the busiest, if not busiest airport in the country, will just make things worse. (although that landing kinda DID make it worse..) Now I'm jumping the gun... I know this was a hard-ass landing compared to other 737s - and living in Alaska, the Alaska Air pilots are KING of firm/hard landings on the 737 - and if I was on that plane I'd be saying "holy shii%%" as well. But my deductive reasoning isn't going to equate the LGA incident directly to the 737, because when I fly on Alaska, the pilots at least flare before landing. well, try to.

I'm just standing up for the underdogs here. I was on the safety committee while working at an airline where we DID kill people.. and guess what? Our first objective was to look for COMMON DENOMINATORS.. (sound familiar). Lets make sure this doesn't happen again. We looked at all of our incidents and maintenance reports/dispatch logs of the plane, the flight crew, then started looking for anything that was similar/common occurrence. Just as Boeing did with the 787, well FAA... battery issue on 787 in Boston, and minor reports elsewhere - so the battery was the common issue. Now, many people, in their minds, feel the 787 batteries are flawed. Doesn't make the 787 a bad plane, sloppy design, etc.

But people have the right to say "pilots at Southwest are hot-shots" because of the track record of incidents on landing and their exceptionally fast taxiing. You may not agree with that generalization, but that's ok - that's your choice. But I won't do what some do on a.net and get a GOD complex.



xx
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18769 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 32):

The problem with your argument is that because of 3 incidents, decades apart, there is a systemic issue at Southwest, and only Southwest. I am trying to explain that all airlines have these issues, and the soul common denominator between all of them is the human at the controls. Humans make mistakes, that is why there is an entire field dedicated to human factors, and how to understand and mitigate them in the future.

We don't know all of the factors, was there something going on in the cockpit that distracted the crew? Did something malfunction? Maybe the pilots were fatigued, the end of a long duty day/week? We don't know. To blame the "safety culture" or lack there-of of a single carrier is ignorant at best. It is great that you work to promote safety at your carrier, but to insult someone else's work at another carrier simply because you have a different opinion of their operation is just wrong.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18665 times:

No no, you see since it all happened at one airline, with one plane type, the 737 AND southwest are huge safety risks needing to be grounded FOREVER to prevent more loss of life......

When the reality is that any metric that accounts for the true safety record will show WN as being safer than pretty much any other airline. The only ones that could be less have 0 fatalities. So do it by fatalites per million passenger miles, or some other real metric and find out that 0 passenger fatalities and 1 total over the last 46 years... Is impressive.


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18657 times:

but see, that's where you aren't seeing my point. I'm in no way advocating for changes at Southwest or saying there is an inherent safety culture problem there. I'm backing up those who feel Southwest has some hot shot pilots.

I'd be sitting here shooting them down like the rest of you if WN has had a lot of other incidents. Fact is, they haven't. Outside of a fluke panel falling off a 737-300 and the normal AOG's from ground equipment, you can't sit there and notice the correlation / common denominator / that when Southwest trashes an airplane, its typically on landing.

Back in the 1980s, you'd probably argue the same thing when the Delta L1011 smashed into the highway in DFW. It wasn't until the NTSB and FAA found a common denominator with the L1011 crash and those of a few others - (Eastern @ JFK, Pan Am @ MSY - takeoff I think?, and a few others) microbursts. And on the flip side, it was common denominators after the ValuJet crash that put pressure on the FAA to take harder looks at Kiwi, Air South, Vanguard, etc. (despite there not being any major issues at those airlines outside of some paperwork errors). Who knows, maybe in a few years someone will find that flaw in WN. Or this is just a weird fluke and that its just mere coincidence that when Southwest has major hull damage its from landing.



xx
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18574 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 30):
Sorry a 133kts at LGA in this incident seems to be right on the money.

Approach speed is based on weight not runway length/location. Do you know what the weight and ref speed were for a 40 flaps approach for this particular flight. Otherwise you don't know whether this was on speed or not.

Also I would suspect the power was idle as they went to 40 flaps close to the ground and the nose down pitch at time of the crash. The speed was probably bleeding off at a very good clip at impact.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18395 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 36):
Approach speed is based on weight not runway length/location

Correcto, unfortunately you forgot to read the post that referenced BUR/LGA and the LGA reference was to separate the two.
Yes, we do not know the exact weight but we are going to guess that 133 knots is going to be in the ballpark we are talking a 700 here way less than MLW.

Okie


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 739 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18415 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 29):
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 25):
Don't forget American off the end of the runway in Jamaica.

And again, lets go to basic english. com·mon de·nom·i·na·tor
Noun

A shared multiple of the denominators of several fractions.
A feature shared by all members of a group.

Here's some more English for you, bucko:

Quoting usxguy:
He's pointing out that you don't see United, American, Delta, USAirways, Frontier, JetBlue, America West, Continental, Northwest, Western Pacific, Allegiant, Southeast, Piedmont, Republic, North-Central, Air Florida, Allegheny, Midwest, TWA, Ozark, Britt, People Express... etc blow through runways like we have seen Southwest


You always get rude and pedantic when you are very specifically too far out on a limb? You could be right that Southwest has a higher num·er·a·tor of occurrences, but you actually claimed American's is zero. The fact that they flew the same type of plane off the end of a runway fairly recently does indeed make you incorrect. Doesn't matter how much pedantry you pile on later, you were being hyperbolical, and too much so. I'd have more respect for your claims if you didn't get so defensive based on my mentioning one specifically relevant counterexample.

Honestly, it reminds me of the whole taxi speed kerfluffle, but speaking of denominators and other such statistical concepts, I don't know that there's any hard data there, as plausible as it sounds.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4789 posts, RR: 19
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 18346 times:

Problem is, their reputation of always pushing the limit, taxiing too fast, making the landing 'work' no matter what is well deserved and accurate.


I have never seen any other Airline consistently brake and decelerate as rapidly as possible to make an early turn off then taxi like a bat out of hell to the gate. Like wise on the way out to the runway for departure they are always in a hurry.


I have watched them operate in this manner for years, if there is one thing you get the clear impression of with their operation it's that time is critical and saving minutes here and there is a very high priority.


After all this is part of the well known history of Southwest, in their early days they had to return one of their Aircraft as they couldn't afford the payments, so they kept the same network by stretching the remaining planes further. And of course their rapid turnarounds are famous.


It really is a cultural issue and their accidents all have a common denominator, trying to force a landing that should have been thrown away and why ? I would say that a reasonable explanation is that saving time is so ingrained at that company it overrides good judgement.


Remember this also, these accidents are likely just the tip of the iceberg, I have seen a close call by one of their Aircraft myself due to rushing and other's take place more often than you would think.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8299 posts, RR: 26
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 18139 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
I have watched them operate in this manner for years, if there is one thing you get the clear impression of with their operation it's that time is critical and saving minutes here and there is a very high priority.

Could very well be true, but even if so, the FAA won't do anything about it.

In any case, if that is all true, WN drivers deserve a good hard pat on the back for all the years of high-stress 737 flying they accomplish day in and out under those operational/management demands.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18038 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
Remember this also, these accidents are likely just the tip of the iceberg, I have seen a close call by one of their Aircraft myself due to rushing and other's take place more often than you would think.

May I also remind you that southwest pilots perform more landings each day than any other airline in the world? They have an almost impeccable safety record. Expediency does not always mean overriding good judgement. Every airline has its fair share of lose encounters, statistics add up, not anecdotal opinion.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBarney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1002 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17649 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 35):
Back in the 1980s, you'd probably argue the same thing when the Delta L1011 smashed into the highway in DFW. It wasn't until the NTSB and FAA found a common denominator with the L1011 crash and those of a few others - (Eastern @ JFK, Pan Am @ MSY - takeoff I think?

Interesting you choose Pan Am 759 at MSY in your example. Are you aware that a WN flight was cleared for takeoff just prior to that crash? The WN crew took a look at the TRW that was off the departure end of runway 10 and refused the takeoff clearance - opting to wait for better conditions. The Pan Am crew who was number 2 behind WN was then asked if they could accept the takeoff. They did, and tragically flew right in to a microburst that was unrecoverable costing the lives of all 145 aboard the 727 as well as 8 on the ground.

After the BUR incident, WN hired NASA AMES research to conduct a top to bottom evaluation of all the procedures. It led to industry leading changes to the way the aircraft is operated. There are no more "Taxi Checklists" - everything including Flap selection is completed prior to moving the aircraft - a much safer procedure. All of the NG's and most of the Classics have data monitoring that will trigger flags if parameters are exceeded - including an unstabilized approach. The crew can expect a phone call to explain why they were outside of the norm.

The only place I'm aware that the "get 'er done" attitude at WN is alive and well - is right here on Anet.

[Edited 2013-07-27 03:15:13]


...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinechristopherwoo From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17742 times:

Apologies if it has already been posted (Couldn't see it) but here's a video a passenger took of the crash

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14e_1374891817

Sounds like the throttles went to idle at about 75-100ft and it just fell on to the runway... looks like a pretty painful impact.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17162 times:

That video confirms idle thrust way early in the approach.

User currently offlineBarney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1002 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16805 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
That video confirms idle thrust way early in the approach.

It does?

I hear a reduction in thrust as they cross the fence - which can be completely normal.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16829 times:

Quoting christopherwoo (Reply 43):
looks like a pretty painful impact.

Wow.

People choking on smoke in the cabin, and they still refuse to evacuate?

Guess we haven't learned a damn thing from KT 28M.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16761 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
People choking on smoke in the cabin, and they still refuse to evacuate?

Guess we haven't learned a damn thing from KT 28M.

Or maybe something was learned from the Asian crash 3 weeks ago where a young lady was run over by a firetruck. I'm sure her family and herself would have rather choked on smoke than evacuated and then get run over by a firetruck. For someone that wasn't there, you sure do have quite a bit to say about this incident.
     



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16643 times:

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 45):
I hear a reduction in thrust as they cross the fence - which can be completely normal.

You don't go idle at that height unless you are too high or too fast. I believe it will be revealed that both of these were present.

If this turns out to be something other than idle thrust I will be the first to apologize. Read the stabalaized approach at WN is 1,000'AGL. With flaps moving from 30 to 40 at 53 seconds sounds like they were unstable. NTSB said they were at 133kts, that should = 650fpm ROD. That would put them under 1,000' at the 53second mark. Also looks high in the video over the freeway.


User currently onlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16645 times:

The scary part was the F/A on the intercom saying "Please keep your seats, we are not at the gate yet" WTF????? I have to ask....where was he front crew after they shut everything off. Or where was the evacuation announcement? The front crew had to know they were in trouble as they were staring at grass out the front window.......

User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16508 times:

What is it with a.net that whenever we have an accident we make the most generalised conclusion? An Asian airline crashes in SFO => all Asian pilots have an issue with authority. Once out of ten million flights there's a WN crash => clearly all their pilots are hot heads. What gives?

Surely logic about statistically likely events among millions of flights and hundreds of thousands of airline employees would indicate that somewhere, someday, someone is going to have a bad that. Or that these people are not all from the mold, that there are personal differences.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16466 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 34):
So do it by fatalites per million passenger miles, or some other real metric and find out that 0 passenger fatalities and 1 total over the last 46 years... Is impressive.

Not quite that long. WN's first flight was June 18, 1971, a little over 42 years.


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 510 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16676 times:

That video is amazing, hadn't seen that one yet. I have only seen the airport video showing the aircraft skidding with the NLG already collapsed and now this one. Are their any videos that show the aircraft actually contacting the pavement from the exterior?

I think there are some pretty strong feelings on both sides of this thread. From my own personal observations, Southwest is much more aggressive while taxiing to and from their gate areas than most. I don't know that it compromises safety or if it is a "culture issue" and it probably has little or nothing to do with this event but it is something that at the very least sets Southwest apart from just about everyone else.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16539 times:

Quoting christopherwoo (Reply 43):

Apologies if it has already been posted (Couldn't see it) but here's a video a passenger took of the crash

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14e_1374891817

Wow. That was one hard impact.

IANAP, but speed before landing seemed on the high side.


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16464 times:

I also hear the power reduction starting at 0:03 in the video and ending at 0:05.

It's impossible to be sure (due to the instability of a hand held camera and no idea of it's exact/precise orientation) but if you watch the horizon starting at 0:08, it seems to imply a steady nose-up attitude until 0:11; at 0:11 it seems to change implying nose down (pitch down) motion of the aircraft which continues until impact.

when looking at that video purely as a passenger (I.e. imagining myself in that position with that view), the video is certainly a bit shocking. I have not flown as much as some people (I've flown about 250,000 total miles on the commercial airlines as a passenger), and I've never flown into LGA that I recall, but my eyes are glued to the windows on takeoff/landing whenever possible. Everything looks pretty "unremarkable" to my eyes until ~ 0:10. Just about when you expect the descent to "float" for a bit over the runway (I'm assuming this is ground effect) before touchdown, the nose is instead rotating down and then you get that huge impact. frightening when viewed as a passenger.


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16466 times:

I haven't seen if this information has been released or not, but between this video (what is seen outside the window) and google maps, you can estimate the impact point on the runway - by my estimation, it appears to be right at or just past the 1500ft markers on the runway.

133 knots speed is ~ 225 ft/second; if (for example) it had taken another 4 seconds to "land" without pitching the nose down, then they would have been at about 2500ft down the runway at that time.

Runway 4 is 7000ft long.

I'm curious what someone else with more experience than myself could say about landing distances needed.

[Edited 2013-07-27 13:42:52]

User currently offlinedashman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16383 times:

I dont see anything way out of the ordinary in the video. I have ridden way too much in back of a 737's and a number of the times in the JS of WN 737. The round out(or lack there of) just prior to impact seemed a little flat but there are many legitiment reasons for it. I wouldn't have guessed this outcome based on the video. Personally I will be following the NTSB report closely. As pilots there will be something we can learn from this one as well Asiana.

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 16251 times:

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 55):
by my estimation, it appears to be right at or just past the 1500ft markers on the runway.

From the first video (which unfortunately is a video of a video...), it looked like they hit ~150 feet from the 1000' markers.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 47):
Or maybe something was learned from the Asian crash 3 weeks ago where a young lady was run over by a firetruck. I'm sure her family and herself would have rather choked on smoke than evacuated and then get run over by a firetruck. For someone that wasn't there, you sure do have quite a bit to say about this incident.

Let's see; stay on an airplane and deal with toxic smoke and possibly fire, which has killed thousands of people over the years, or evacuate and risk getting run over by a fire truck, which has happened ONCE, to an incapacitated passenger who was probably going to die anyways.

Her family would have rather her choked on smoke? Really? For someone who's not related to her, you sure do have quite a bit to say about it.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16234 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
People choking on smoke in the cabin, and they still refuse to evacuate?

The news media reported and Live ATC tapes verified that tower told the pilots to delay the evacuation until the fire crew could extinguish the flames under/ near the nose.

If people had started an evacuation, they would have gone forward (as most always do) or out over the wings - into the flames.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 53):
Wow. That was one hard impact.

Yes, it was hard - but the main reason it looks so bad was that the idiot apparently was not buckled in his seat tightly and dropped his phone. That makes the impact look a lot worse than it really was.


User currently offlineairtechy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16191 times:

Looking at the destruction of the electronics bay by the nose wheel gear, I'm surprised that the pilots were able to still talk to the tower. The comms must be on the side of the rack.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):

Yes, it was hard - but the main reason it looks so bad was that the idiot apparently was not buckled in his seat tightly and dropped his phone. That makes the impact look a lot worse than it really was.

How hard does one have to be buckled in to avoid dropping his phone with this impact? Sounds like an assumption on your part.  

AT


User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16050 times:

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 49):
The scary part was the F/A on the intercom saying "Please keep your seats, we are not at the gate yet" WTF????? I have to ask....where was he front crew after they shut everything off.

As was pointed out in the first part of this thread, there is another PA shortly after telling everyone to remain seated. It sounds like it could have come from the flight deck -- possibly the crew reaching that item in their emergency checklist.


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16001 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 57):
From the first video (which unfortunately is a video of a video...), it looked like they hit ~150 feet from the 1000' markers.

In the first video, the solid white of the 1000ft markers seems to disappear under the #2 engine about 1.5 seconds (time measured with a stopwatch against the video, admittedly not high accuracy) before impact. At 225ft/sec, that would put impact at about 1330ft, give or take.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15533 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 57):
Her family would have rather her choked on smoke? Really? For someone who's not related to her, you sure do have quite a bit to say about it.



For someone that wasn't on this plane or witness the crash in any other way, you sure do have a lot to say about it.

[Edited 2013-07-27 21:27:53]


My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15235 times:

The NLG shear bolt is supposed to shear to prevent further damage to the primary structure....in case of higher than normal impact.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 962 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days ago) and read 14962 times:

Holy crap that thing hit HARD!!


Man, I will tell ya with how many cameras that are filming almost everything these days, its almost traumatizing for all of us that see all these things happening. First that horrific Bagram 747 crash, the Asiana 777, now this all within a short period of time. I can only imagine what the people onboard are going through, but to see all these videos is very difficult, but its hard not to watch them.

[Edited 2013-07-28 07:12:44]

User currently offlinewhitewasp From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14813 times:

I don't know what SWA FA training is, but where I worked, we where told if we had a major incident where we knew we had a massive problem with the aircraft, Like a gear up, alot of smoke in the cabin, fire (obviously) or whatever, and we where stopped and engines were off, and we had not heard from the pilots, we where to use our own judgment to initiate an evacuation asap. Why didn't the FA's evacuate the aircraft once it stopped? Its painfully obvious especially for the crew in the back that the aircraft was not in the correct position. Very nose low. I know it's hind sight, and what happens in an emergency happens. But training should of kicked in and boom, they should of initiated the evacuation sequence. Its very disturbing that one of the FA's was saying stay in your seats were not at the gate yet!

Just my 2 cents.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14641 times:

Quoting christopherwoo (Reply 43):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14e_1374891817

WOW!!!!

That is a hard landing!

Thanks for sharing this one. This is a very different video from the earlier in-cabin video posted here.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 50):
What is it with a.net that whenever we have an accident we make the most generalised conclusion? An Asian airline crashes in SFO => all Asian pilots have an issue with authority. Once out of ten million flights there's a WN crash => clearly all their pilots are hot heads. What gives?

Because in both situations, it fits a pattern. You and I may not like the implication of the pattern, but removing hypotheses because we do not like the implication is not the proper way to determine cause.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
the idiot apparently was not buckled in his seat tightly

Really? You can tell that from having dropped a camera when the plane hit the ground? I guess the nose wheel wasn't buckled in very well either. (If the impact is hard enough to break the nose wheel, you really need to give a guy (two in this case) a pass when he drops the camera.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
That makes the impact look a lot worse than it really was.

No, it really doesn't. Nosewheel broken, shoved up into the electronics bay. Although the sound should be enough to convince you of the magnitude of the impact.

Quoting whitewasp (Reply 65):
we where told if we had a major incident where we knew we had a massive problem with the aircraft, Like a gear up, alot of smoke in the cabin, fire (obviously) or whatever, and we where stopped and engines were off, and we had not heard from the pilots, we where to use our own judgment to initiate an evacuation asap. Why didn't the FA's evacuate the aircraft once it stopped?

Probably because the FA's can see that the plane is intact, they do not know that gear has collapsed, and it does not appear that the plane is on fire. Sounds like a good time to keep everyone in their seats, and not scrambling around outside the plane on what may be an active runway, or initiating slide evac, which we all know WILL injure people.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14501 times:

Quoting whitewasp (Reply 65):
and we had not heard from the pilots,

The FA's heard the pilot's announcement for people to stay in their seats (which is clear on the video), in response to the Tower telling the pilots to NOT evacuate the aircraft.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4864 posts, RR: 25
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 66):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14e_1374891817

WOW!!!!

That is a hard landing!

Thanks for sharing this one. This is a very different video from the earlier in-cabin video posted here.

In my opinion the difference is likely due to the person holding the camera, how they held the camera and how they reacted to impact rather than a difference in how the impact felt from the two points of view.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13209 posts, RR: 16
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14309 times:

I wonder if there has been major structural damage to this a/c from this hard landing. From some reports, parts of the NLG went into electronics bay and adjacent areas. Do we have any idea of the degree of damage done to this a/c with this incident ?

We have seen with other hard landings the buckling of the fuselage, damage major to structural components and the a/c become written off due to the costs to repair vs. it's value. I believe this a/c is 15 years old (correct me if I am wrong) with a high cycles rate and hours, so depending the level of work needed vs parts and scrap value, it may be headed to the bone yard, I guess that WN's accountants are running the numbers as they get more information on the damage done to the a/c. It may be so damaged, it may never be flyable again, it may have to broke up at LGA. Any thoughts on this?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14182 times:

Quoting whitewasp (Reply 65):
Why didn't the FA's evacuate the aircraft once it stopped?

Evacuations can kill people. Panic can kill people. Panic during evacuations will kill people.

Far better for the FA's to ensure the conditions outside the aircraft, and being an organised evacuation once it is safe to do so. Even if it means the passengers have to wait a few minutes in less than perfect air. You can be sure that if there was evidence of an actual fire inside the aircraft they would be evacuating with haste... yet still taking the time to ensure passengers are not evacuating into a running engine, lakes of fuel, etc.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14163 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 62):
witness the crash in any other way,

Oh, yes, I wasn't aware the 4 videos from 4 different angles don't qualify as having "witnessed" the accident.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewhitewasp From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13933 times:

Ok, either I'm deaf or something... Because I played back this video 4 times. twice with speakers twice with headphones. I did not hear the pilots say stay in your seats. I heard flight attendants.

User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13859 times:

Quoting whitewasp (Reply 72):

Ok, either I'm deaf or something... Because I played back this video 4 times. twice with speakers twice with headphones. I did not hear the pilots say stay in your seats. I heard flight attendants.


The quick remain seated PA is from the female pilot. Confirmed on another forum it was PA made by female Capt


User currently offlinewhitewasp From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13627 times:

Ah thank you. I couldn't tell the difference. I didn't know what gender the cockpit crew was.

User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 13220 times:

The FA's wording ("we are not at the gate yet") perhaps can be attributed to her being a little stunned by the impact, and not yet having fully absorbed the situation. In a time of uncertainty people will first fall back on habit. Her standard procedure was to keep people in their seats until they reached the gate, and that had just been reinforced by the flight crew's announcement. She had not yet processed the fact that they weren't going to reach the gate, at least not in that aircraft.

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 13221 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 5):
You're a professional pilot, supposedly for United Airlines, and yet you are so biased towards Southwest you would make this offensive comment condemning the flight crew before the facts are even out. Something beyond their control could have happened.

Once, again, the "protect the pilot at all cost" brigade is out in full force.

It's fine to suggest ATC errors, mechanical errors (due to poor maintenance?) and any number of factors that would point the blame at other non-pilot humans, but if you dare say the pilot flew the damn plane into the ground, it's offensive.

Watch the videos. The pilots flew the damn plane into the ground. If they had problems they might have pulled up, warned the customers to brace themselves, etc. But it sure seems like, similar to the OZ crash, they flew the damn thing into the ground.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBarney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1002 posts, RR: 12
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13263 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 76):
The pilots flew the damn plane into the ground.

And that is exactly why the NTSB should not be releasing preliminary data without supporting information - it causes many to draw premature conclusions.

All we know at this point are the basics of "what" happened. There are months of investigation required to determine "why".

A mechanical failure? Pilot incapacitation? Weather? Wake turbulence? Pilot error? A combination? There are literally an infinite number of things I haven't even imagined.

At this point, I suspect no one knows the "why" - certainly not you.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12792 times:

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 77):
At this point, I suspect no one knows the "why" - certainly not you

I bet the two people in the cockpit know why......They are just trying to find a way to defer the blame away from themselves. The NTSB has enough data on the FDR that if this was a mechanical failure to post a notice that would trigger an inspection of a specific system or control by the FAA. Lacking any of those it truly appears the crew was unstabalized and drove forced the nose down on a short runway. If this accident turns out to be something other than pilot error I will be happy to apologize. There aren't a lot of Ernie Gann mystery endings to crashes. With so many systems being monitored by the FDR the cause is usually known quite early in the investigation. If this was 1947 then you might have a longer wait to determine the cause.


User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 77):
A mechanical failure?




Now why was that the first on your list of possibilities? Kind of a Freudian slip?? We keep your aircraft very reliable and safe. Yes things can fail but the first on the list, I doubt it.


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11467 times:

Quoting whitewasp (Reply 72):
Ok, either I'm deaf or something... Because I played back this video 4 times. twice with speakers twice with headphones. I did not hear the pilots say stay in your seats. I heard flight attendants.

The pilot on the radio is a female. So not sure who is saying what. But typically, before you blow the slides, you assess the situation. Fire wasn't present - so the FA's were waiting to hear from the cockpit what to do. I'm not sure these folks waited quite as long as the ones in the Asiana crash did... but its always a good day when everyone walks away unscathed.



xx
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10469 times:

Update courtesy of Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york...ent-at-laguardia-airport-1.5843037

Quote:
The National Transportation Safety Board says the captain of the Southwest Airlines plane that landed on a collapsing nose gear at New York's LaGuardia Airport took control from the first officer just 400 feet from the ground.

The NTSB says the captain was monitoring the landing and suddenly took over from the plane's first officer. The officer has been with Southwest for about a year and half, and the captain for more than a dozen years. It was their first trip together.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

This has more info:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...mmand-before-crash.html?cmpid=yhoo

"While the first officer had experience flying to LaGuardia, including six flights there this year, it was the captain’s second landing there. On the previous touchdown, he had been monitoring another co-pilot instead of commanding the plane, according to the NTSB.

The crew told investigators they encountered a wind shift as they approached the runway at LaGuardia, according to the release. Below 1,000 feet altitude, they said they had a tailwind of 13 miles (21 kilometers) an hour. On the ground, the wind was at the same speed in the opposite direction, they said."


User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10315 times:

From Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158&opt=0

"The crew reported, they had the runway in sight about 5-10nm out, the aircraft was on speed, track and glidepath until about 400-200 feet AGL."


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10151 times:

Unfamiliar with the airport due to WN's newness to LGA and lack of coordination between the crew. Sounds very similar to the muck-up in SFO.

FO: wow, the winds are shifting.
CAP: no worries son, let me crash that for you...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9878 times:

Change of control below 400'. Wonder why that occurred? What the chances the FO wanted to go around the the Captain didn't? The CVR will prove very interesting. Also, under those conditions why didn't the previous arrivals have the same difficulty?

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9675 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 85):
What the chances the FO wanted to go around the the Captain didn't? The CVR will prove very interesting.

The CVR will be interesting, indeed, but it seems to me that what pilots' intentions were is rank speculation with the information we have now.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13209 posts, RR: 16
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9572 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 82):
The crew told investigators they encountered a wind shift as they approached the runway at LaGuardia, according to the release. Below 1,000 feet altitude, they said they had a tailwind of 13 miles (21 kilometers) an hour. On the ground, the wind was at the same speed in the opposite direction, they said."

Interesting...I wonder if the claimed wind pattern can be proven or the pilots were just making up something to cover their mistakes. I also wonder if the Captain was in a power play and just wanted to land instead of the FO and just blew it. Maybe he really though the FO was going to blow it or do a go-around as another posted noted. Throw in that landing at LGA requires a high level of skill, their relative inexperience landing there and perhaps pressing to be on time and as they say, haste makes waste (or in this case a wasted a/c). Indeed the CVR will be critical here.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9601 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 86):
The CVR will be interesting, indeed, but it seems to me that what pilots' intentions were is rank speculation with the information we have now.

Perhaps, but I would say in over 20,000 hours I have never nor have I ever seen a transfer of controls below 400' unless we were conducting a monitored Cat II in the 727 back in the old days. And that was just the F/O flying the airplane on the A/P with the Captain looking out the window to make the landing. Perhaps this is SOP at WN? Maybe one of their pilots can chime in on the change of control below 400' at WN. Personally I think that is a hazardous way to to operate the airplane. Unless that was a planned exchange of control you are doing something that most don't do every day close to the ground. There has to be a moment when both pilots had the controls in their hands at or below 400'. That might explain the original FDR report of a nose up followed by a significant nose down.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 88):
Personally I think that is a hazardous way to to operate the airplane. Unless that was a planned exchange of control you are doing something that most don't do every day close to the ground.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't see how we get from "hazardous situation" to "f/o wanted to go around and captain did not." FWIW--probably not much--I fly a lot of segments both on WN and on OALs (I'm probably sort of unique in this regard) and my goaround rate seems about the same on WN as on the others.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

On other forums, the snarkers referred to the PF as "she", and others questioned how people knew to make the gender reference, as well as pointing out that there was a certain condescension in the posts referring to "she did this" or "she did that". It didn't initally make sense to me, since all-female flight deck crews are still relatively-rare, and the voice on the tower check-in on the Liveatc feed was female. I assumed that the female was the PM (or PNF for you old-schoolers) not the PF. Now I get it: the voice on Liveatc was the captain, who was the PM while on approach, and who took over as PF at 400 feet (which is when, by the way, the aircraft began to deviate from its otherwise rock-solid shot down the glideslope; so either she caused the deviation or responded to it).

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21881 posts, RR: 55
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9194 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 85):
Change of control below 400'. Wonder why that occurred?

Wow. I can't think of any reason for that to happen, barring a monitored approach (which the weather was too good for), that should not result in an automatic go-around.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinequickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9128 times:

Just curious. What happened to the aircraft? Who does that type of repair at LGA?

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

So, was the captain the woman we hear in the recordings?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 32):
but MDW and BUR have a common denominator: 737, southwest airlines, too fast, didn't stop in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R37wFYS_SDM

Don't forget this one. And the SWA that landed right before this one, damn near did the same thing.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
Yes, it was hard - but the main reason it looks so bad was that the idiot apparently was not buckled in his seat tightly and dropped his phone. That makes the impact look a lot worse than it really was.

I was using the fact that the nose gear ended up in the wheel well as an indicator of how hard the impact was.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 85):
Change of control below 400'. Wonder why that occurred?

If things started to go sideways, it would not be unheard of for the Captain to take control of the jet.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 50):
What is it with a.net that whenever we have an accident we make the most generalised conclusion? An Asian airline crashes in SFO => all Asian pilots have an issue with authority. Once out of ten million flights there's a WN crash => clearly all their pilots are hot heads. What gives?

Here's an Analogy.

All of the airlines are driving their airplanes down an interstate...a very safe interstate statistically speaking. On this interstate there is a flow of traffic...nobody "decides" what this flow of traffic is...it just kind of emerges. Most are just plodding along with the flow of traffic, but you have these SWA planes on this same interstate going just a little bit faster than everybody else weaving in and out as they go down the highway.

Over in the slow lane you have these asian/east European/African airlines over in the right lane having trouble "keeping it in the lines". It's not ALWAYS an asian airline, but they are disproportionately represented over in this right lane.

So on A-net there are those of us who work in this flow of traffic day in and day out who say, hey these are two of the problems we see wrong with our interstate...we got these guys going too fast through here and something has got to be done with these guys over in the right lane before they end up off the shoulder.

Just because the guys weaving in and out of traffic are adept enough drivers that they don't often get into accidents or the shoulder over on the right side is large enough so that the guys barely keeping it in don't run off the road very often, does not mean there is not a safety problem.

Just because other airlines have airplanes weaving in and out and crashing and going off the shoulder occasionally does not invalidate the overall pattern.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8449 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 94):
If things started to go sideways, it would not be unheard of for the Captain to take control of the jet.

I think most airlines advocate a go around command from the NFP if the approach becomes unstable. Change of control below 400' is definitely not a common occurrence. The industry standard is go around if unstable. Perhaps WN has a different philosophy?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8189 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 94):
Don't forget this one. And the SWA that landed right before this one, damn near did the same thing.

Is there any evidence that WN has a statistically significantly greater rate of landing incidents than other carriers (say AA)?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8159 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 93):
So, was the captain the woman we hear in the recordings?

According to the NTSB information released yesterday the captain was the PNF (until 400 ft). The PNF generally handles the radios. It appears the captain was also the crew heard saying "remain in your seats" toward the end of the passenger video.


User currently onlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8089 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 95):
I think most airlines advocate a go around command from the NFP if the approach becomes unstable. Change of control below 400' is definitely not a common occurrence. The industry standard is go around if unstable. Perhaps WN has a different philosophy?

One example of an unstable approach gone bad was the US CRJ that bit it on landing at PVD. Difference in that case was it was a main gear rather than nose. The only reason they aircraft was not written off was it was new. They had to replace the whole wing. Not sure on that one but there may have been a change in flight controls with that one too...

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20071217X01939&key=1



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21881 posts, RR: 55
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7634 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 94):
If things started to go sideways, it would not be unheard of for the Captain to take control of the jet.

But not to then continue the approach.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7216 times:

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The only thing abnormal is the inactivity of the FA's. We are taught at a different carrier: If we hear bumping, scraping, grinding we may initiate the evacuation. Plus there was smoke! We would have been halfway through the evacuation by the time the FA said "stay in your seats". Ideally, we do want to communicate with the cockpit, but I'm sorry, if I had been on the front jumpseat I would have had that door open and slide deployed (or after analyzing how close it was to the ground--opening it disarmed). Perhaps they were injured by the jolt and couldn't initiate it.

User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7181 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 100):
We would have been halfway through the evacuation by the time the FA said "stay in your seats".

Apparently it was the captain who said that -- possibly, as another poster has pointed out in the first part, going through a checklist. What would you have done at that point?


User currently onlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 100):
Ideally, we do want to communicate with the cockpit, but I'm sorry, if I had been on the front jumpseat I would have had that door open and slide deployed (or after analyzing how close it was to the ground--opening it disarmed).

Do you check with the flight crew or even look out the window to make sure there is no fire and the engines are off first??


User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7266 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 66):
WOW!!!!

That is a hard landing!

When I wore a younger man's clothes I used to watch landings intently, sometimes pressing my forehead against the window. A few years ago I realized that might not be so smart, and I started keeping my head against the headrest and in a more fore-and-aft position during landing. I still watch, but with far less twist on my spine. These videos tend to confirm the wisdom of my thinking on that!

sPh


User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 3
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 88):
Maybe one of their pilots can chime in on the change of control below 400' at WN.

A pilot friend of mine said he once had a sudden dizzy spell/spatial disorientation while he was the PF on departure. He said he handed control off, went to a neurologist once they landed and was fine, thankfully.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it certainly could be an explanation.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7063 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 100):
but I'm sorry, if I had been on the front jumpseat I would have had that door open and slide deployed

Great. Just in time for ARFF to hit you, the slide and the pax with a blast of foam/fluid from the engine.

The reason the evac was delayed was that ARFF advised the crew that there were no flames visible and that they wanted the doors closed while they hosed down the aircraft. The flight deck crew was apparently repeatedly asking why ARFF didn't want them to open the doors.

You can get this from the tower tape on liveatc.net


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

Quoting chrisair (Reply 104):
I'm not saying this is the case here, but it certainly could be an explanation.

Yes. As the pilot's union repeatedly reminds us, there are potential explanations, in the wildest of our dreams, for why the CAPT would take over at 400 feet and still continue the landing and that this would be the right call. It's not unreasonable, however, to point out that these are relatively-remote possibilities.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21881 posts, RR: 55
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

Quoting chrisair (Reply 104):
A pilot friend of mine said he once had a sudden dizzy spell/spatial disorientation while he was the PF on departure. He said he handed control off, went to a neurologist once they landed and was fine, thankfully.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it certainly could be an explanation.

It would explain why the captain might take control, but not why the approach would be continued.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6923 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
It would explain why the captain might take control, but not why the approach would be continued.

-Mir

I agree with what you have been saying in principle, but not quite in the black/white tone that is coming out in your posts. I believe they were at 4 hundred and change (4XX) feet and we know this by the FDR. So the captain is essentially right at the line of mandatory go-around/continue to land. It is only with the benefit of "instant replay" that we see that her foot was actually on the line and therefore out of bounds. But this is definitely not some egregious violation that your tone is making this out to be.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6893 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 100):
I would have had that door open and slide deployed (or after analyzing how close it was to the ground--opening it disarmed).

You would have opened the door right into the fire !!!!

Remind me to never fly your airline.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6872 times:

Delete Delete Delete

[Edited 2013-08-07 21:03:12]


My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 101):
We would have been halfway through the evacuation by the time the FA said "stay in your seats".
Quoting trex8 (Reply 102):
Do you check with the flight crew or even look out the window to make sure there is no fire and the engines are off first??
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 105):
Great. Just in time for ARFF to hit you, the slide and the pax with a blast of foam/fluid from the engine.

The reason the evac was delayed was that ARFF advised the crew that there were no flames visible and that they wanted the doors closed while they hosed down the aircraft. The flight deck crew was apparently repeatedly asking why ARFF didn't want them to open the doors.

You can get this from the tower tape on liveatc.net
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 105):
Great. Just in time for ARFF to hit you, the slide and the pax with a blast of foam/fluid from the engine.

The reason the evac was delayed was that ARFF advised the crew that there were no flames visible and that they wanted the doors closed while they hosed down the aircraft. The flight deck crew was apparently repeatedly asking why ARFF didn't want them to open the doors.

You can get this from the tower tape on liveatc.net

Thanks for your feedback. I am now reading directly from my inflight manual:

F/A AND FLIGHT DECK CREW AUTHORITY
In a life threatening situation, e.g., fire, smoke, impact forces, or abnormal A/C attitude, and when the A/C has come to a complete stop, F/A's HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE AN EVACUATION WITHOUT AWAITING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK.
F/A's will ATTEMPT to communicate with flight deck prior to evacuation, if possible.
If contact with the cockpit is not possible, F/A's will make an independent decision regarding evacuation and operate usable exits.
Replying to a few of the comments: yes, we always asses out the door before opening it. Sometimes in evacuations, engines have still been running and have been unable to be shut off--so I would direct people away from the engines--on a 737 down the chute and then forward of the airplane.
You can hear, after the hard landing, the passengers start talking about the smoke. I would have made it clear to the cockpit what the conditions were and that we were going to evacuate immediately unless they could give me a good reason not to.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 109):
You would have opened the door right into the fire !!!!

Remind me to never fly your airline.

Some of you must not fly much. We would never open a door if we saw fire outside. But I guess I am being multi-slammed which is fine. So, rfields5421, you would rather sit in a cabin filled with smoke instead of, exiting out the 1L door where there was no fire? Whatever you wish sir!


User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6859 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 101):
We would have been halfway through the evacuation by the time the FA said "stay in your seats".
Quoting trex8 (Reply 102):
Do you check with the flight crew or even look out the window to make sure there is no fire and the engines are off first??
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 105):
Great. Just in time for ARFF to hit you, the slide and the pax with a blast of foam/fluid from the engine.

The reason the evac was delayed was that ARFF advised the crew that there were no flames visible and that they wanted the doors closed while they hosed down the aircraft. The flight deck crew was apparently repeatedly asking why ARFF didn't want them to open the doors.

You can get this from the tower tape on liveatc.net
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 105):
Great. Just in time for ARFF to hit you, the slide and the pax with a blast of foam/fluid from the engine.

The reason the evac was delayed was that ARFF advised the crew that there were no flames visible and that they wanted the doors closed while they hosed down the aircraft. The flight deck crew was apparently repeatedly asking why ARFF didn't want them to open the doors.

You can get this from the tower tape on liveatc.net

Thanks for your feedback. I am now reading directly from my inflight manual:

F/A AND FLIGHT DECK CREW AUTHORITY
In a life threatening situation, e.g., fire, smoke, impact forces, or abnormal A/C attitude, and when the A/C has come to a complete stop, F/A's HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE AN EVACUATION WITHOUT AWAITING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK.
F/A's will ATTEMPT to communicate with flight deck prior to evacuation, if possible.
If contact with the cockpit is not possible, F/A's will make an independent decision regarding evacuation and operate usable exits.
Replying to a few of the comments: yes, we always asses out the door before opening it. Sometimes in evacuations, engines have still been running and have been unable to be shut off--so I would direct people away from the engines--on a 737 down the chute and then forward of the airplane.
You can hear, after the hard landing, the passengers start talking about the smoke. I would have made it clear to the cockpit what the conditions were and that we were going to evacuate immediately unless they could give me a good reason not to.
I would rather be hit by foam than be asphyxiated on board.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 108):
But this is definitely not some egregious violation that your tone is making this out to be.

It potentially becomes one when she lands it on the nose.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6801 times:

Ozark: You might be interpreting your manual a little differently than I. It seems to say that you "will" attempt to contact the flight deck first. This is mandatory from the wording, and it doesn't seem to mean a perfunctory attempt, as they might be a little busy. Had you followed your manual, and contacted the flight deck in this circumstance, you wouldn't have initated an evac.

And there's a difference between pax talking about smoke -- which they do every time you get frost blowing off the a/c in humid weather -- and YOU actually perceiving a material quantity of smoke.

Oh, and I mean the "fire engine" not the airplane engine, if I was confusing. I should have said foam or spray from the ARFF truck, or some such, to be clearer.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21881 posts, RR: 55
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 108):
But this is definitely not some egregious violation that your tone is making this out to be.

I don't know what WN's stabilized approach criteria are. But if I were in charge of an airline's standards department, I would set them at 1000' (which is common in the industry, some allow 500' in VMC). So, IMO, a change of control below 1000' with a continuation to landing is not a good idea, barring extenuating circumstances (i.e. the plane's on fire). I have no idea whether it's actually a violation under WN's SOPs - that's something the NTSB will have to look into. But it is certainly possible that something could be in accordance with SOPs and still not be a good idea - this certainly wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6537 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 106):
It would explain why the captain might take control, but not why the approach would be continued.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 106):
It's not unreasonable, however, to point out that these are relatively-remote possibilities.

Absolutely. And again, I want to make it clear that I'm not commenting on why the capt continued the approach. I was just offering an anecdotal story from a friend that might explain why the capt took over.

None of us here were in the cockpit that day, so we don't know what was going on. Of course waiting for the report isn't as much fun as speculating.  
Quoting Mir (Reply 115):
I don't know what WN's stabilized approach criteria are. But if I were in charge of an airline's standards department, I would set them at 1000'

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the WN stabilized approach criteria is 1,000'.


User currently offlinetwinotter From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6425 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 108):
I agree with what you have been saying in principle, but not quite in the black/white tone that is coming out in your posts. I believe they were at 4 hundred and change (4XX) feet and we know this by the FDR. So the captain is essentially right at the line of mandatory go-around/continue to land. It is only with the benefit of "instant replay" that we see that her foot was actually on the line and therefore out of bounds. But this is definitely not some egregious violation that your tone is making this out to be.

Unstable at 400 feet? Then you go around. Under no circumstances do you continue the landing. Mir is speaking in black-and-white tone because it is black and white!


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6322 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 111):
instead of, exiting out the 1L door where there was no fire?

There was fire outside the aircraft on both sides near the front doors - along with smoking hot metal parts when the aircraft stopped. The various videos clearly show fire. Though the fire went out as the fire fighters were quickly dousing the aircraft with foam.

That is why the fire fighters, tower told the pilots to not evacuate, and the pilots told the FAs and passengers.

This was not a dangerous delayed evacuation.


User currently onlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 112):
If contact with the cockpit is not possible, F/A's will make an independent decision regarding evacuation

This is a no-brainer. I can't imagine it's not the practice at all airlines including WN.

Your company's manual is not at odds with pax remaining in their seats when flight crew says "remain in your seats."


User currently offlinealuminumtubing From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6021 times:

Quoting chrisair (Reply 116):
I believe it was pointed out earlier that the WN stabilized approach criteria is 1,000'.

For us, it is landing flaps at 1000' and vref plus additives at 1000' IFR and 500' VFR

That is the airline I work for, not SW.

[Edited 2013-08-08 08:25:10]

User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

So is the cockpit crew still flying or is this a mandatory leave period until the investigation shows something?


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently onlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 14
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chrisair (Reply 104):

A pilot friend of mine said he once had a sudden dizzy spell/spatial disorientation while he was the PF on departure. He said he handed control off, went to a neurologist once they landed and was fine, thankfully.

I knew a pilot who didn't "feel right" landing his 747 and had to let the FO land, That was the first symptom of his brain tumor!!


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5452 times:

I believe there were some dynamics going on in the cockpit that will probably show up on the CVR.
At this point what information we have is that the F/O who was flying until 400 ft seems to be within normal parameters.

We do not have the FDR or CVR data which will eventually be released.
The F/O could have been making some large inputs to keep the plane within normal parameters which may have made the CA nervous.

Too many things we do not know, one thing for sure is taking over the controls at 400ft is pretty unusual.
We do not know at this point even if the F/O asked the CA to take over the controls or the CA took over from the F/O because the CA thought the F/O was not controlling the aircraft correctly.

Okie


User currently offlineskyguyB727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5421 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
For what it's worth, over the years I have heard many pilots of other airlines being critical of the piloting at Southwest, some even going as far as saying they would be uneasy in their jumpseats.

I would believe that. About six years ago, while waiting for my WN flight PHX-LAS in the early evening, I saw my plane taxiing into the gate without any anti-collision beacons on. When we taxied out and took off from PHX, the pilots forgot to turn on the seat belt sign. When we approached and landed at LAS, the pilots still forgot to turn on the seat belt sign.

When I asked them about the oversights at the end of the flight, the F/O gave me a sheepish look and said, "We hope you're the only one who noticed it and hope that no FAA inspectors were onboard."


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5180 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting okie (Reply 123):
We do not have the FDR or CVR data which will eventually be released.
The F/O could have been making some large inputs to keep the plane within normal parameters which may have made the CA nervous.

Too many things we do not know, one thing for sure is taking over the controls at 400ft is pretty unusual.
We do not know at this point even if the F/O asked the CA to take over the controls or the CA took over from the F/O because the CA thought the F/O was not controlling the aircraft correctly.

I think the point is that any such occurrence, for whatever reason, should have resulted in a go-around at 400ft.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 125):
I think the point is that any such occurrence, for whatever reason, should have resulted in a go-around at 400ft

We do not even know for sure if they were out of the parameters at 400', we do not know the reason for the transfer.
I am just suggesting there may be some issues with the dynamics between the CA and the F/O.
We will have to wait and see what "human factors" are listed in the report in a year or so.

Another issue Okie has is that the FAA reported 5 crew members injured and 3 passengers. While the media indicated 3 crew and 5 passengers. I am getting the idea that maybe we had a jumpseater up front.

Okie

[Edited 2013-08-08 21:40:53]

User currently offlinewncrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1485 posts, RR: 10
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

Quoting skyguyB727 (Reply 124):
When we taxied out and took off from PHX, the pilots forgot to turn on the seat belt sign. When we approached and landed at LAS, the pilots still forgot to turn on the seat belt sign.

Ummm.... while I could see ANY pilot "forgetting" to turn on the FSB signs on at the top of descent, or whatever their SOP dictated, the aircraft (specifically the 737) will automatically illuminate the FSB sign when the aircraft is configured for landing. I've seen this countless times. You will not land without the FSB sign OFF.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinea320fan From Australia, joined Apr 2009, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting wncrew (Reply 127):
Ummm.... while I could see ANY pilot "forgetting" to turn on the FSB signs on at the top of descent, or whatever their SOP dictated, the aircraft (specifically the 737) will automatically illuminate the FSB sign when the aircraft is configured for landing. I've seen this countless times. You will not land without the FSB sign OFF.

Wouldn't that depend on whether the switch was in the Auto or Off position?



Airliners flowen in: 737-700, 737-800, A320, A321, 777-300ER, 777-200ER, 777-300, 787-8, A330-200
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting wncrew (Reply 127):
Ummm.... while I could see ANY pilot "forgetting" to turn on the FSB signs on at the top of descent, or whatever their SOP dictated, the aircraft (specifically the 737) will automatically illuminate the FSB sign when the aircraft is configured for landing. I've seen this countless times. You will not land without the FSB sign OFF.

A) as already stated this depends on the switch being in auto, on, or off.

B) I would hope NO pilot would forget to turn on the FSB sign as everywhere I have ever flown it is a C/L item. If it is missed then it is a sign of poor checklist discipline.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlinewncrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1485 posts, RR: 10
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 129):
B) I would hope NO pilot would forget to turn on the FSB sign as everywhere I have ever flown it is a C/L item. If it is missed then it is a sign of poor checklist discipline.

I suppose that's possible, but as a WN FA I undoubtedly have more WN flights under my belt than anyone on this board and I haven't ever landed without the FSB sign off.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1002 posts, RR: 12
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Quoting wncrew (Reply 130):
but as a WN FA I undoubtedly have more WN flights under my belt than anyone on this board

Well, not quite.........  



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinewncrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1485 posts, RR: 10
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 131):
Well, not quite.........  

True Barney....true ; )



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

May I ask the question that if it has been answered on these many threads I must have missed it-----was the FO also female?

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WN Nose Gear Collapse At LGA posted Mon Jul 22 2013 14:57:35 by pit
DHL A300 Nose Gear Collapse At Bratislava posted Fri Nov 16 2012 01:11:54 by alespesl
US Air Nose Gear Collapse At PIT posted Thu Jul 27 2006 16:42:08 by LUVRSW
Nose Gear Collapse At DCA UA 604 posted Wed Sep 24 2003 18:20:35 by TransGlobal2
Air Bridge Collapse At HKG Part 2 posted Fri Jun 28 2013 21:08:27 by zeke
Global Air Landing Gear Collapse At PVR? posted Thu Nov 4 2010 19:48:00 by rgreenftm
Beech Nose Gear Collapse posted Thu Jun 3 2010 14:36:33 by JetJeanes
Malaysian 737-400 Gear Collapse At Gate posted Tue Oct 6 2009 06:33:13 by Clydenairways
CO 764 Gear Collapse At EWR posted Fri Sep 18 2009 08:18:36 by B6Contrails
WN Seeking More Slots At LGA posted Thu Mar 26 2009 10:58:50 by Enilria