Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Pages : 1 [2]

View Full Version : SWA 737 Burbank incident


450knotOffice
12-10-2018, 01:24 PM
What's being trained these days? Balked landing? Bounced a landing? Just touched down? Yes, you can still go around. I should have clarified to represent this scenario where you land, get on the brakes and reverse and realize you aren't stopping on the runway so you try to go around. Lots of bad accident history here.

Most operators out there have a do-not-go-around after the TRs are out during landing. You're committed at that point to try and stop, not power up and go around.

Glad you clarified that, because we do a balked landing or two quite often in the Sim. Easy to do, and great practice. The caveat is that once the reversers are out, we are committed to the landing roll.


Andy
12-11-2018, 01:46 AM
Went to BUR after the incident and jotted down some real world numbers. Obv our data will be different because Iíve no idea what their ldg weight was.

We were in a -700 with a ldg weight of 123.0 with 138 pax. ATIS reporting clm winds (went to a 6 kt tailwind at 500í that went away in the flare), landing rwy 8.

Flaps 40 data had a 132 kt approach speed. Didnít need auto brakes but Max gave a 1200í stopping margin.

Reran numbers while in cruise. No data returned with a 10 kt tailwind and 5/5/5 or 4/4/4 at our weight. Reran with 115k ldg weight: No tailwind and 5/5/5 gave around 600í with auto brake Max. 10 kt tailwind and dry gave 880í stopping margin with Max auto brakes.

Was a little sobering seeing the ruts in the EMAS as we taxied by. We were wondering if they skidded off centerline or swerved trying to avoid the red/white painted blast fence. The final report will be a interesting read.

Would anyone here be surprised if the report came back that once the numbers were run for the aircraft's weight + conditions at the time, the results came back, 'no bueno'? I'd love to hear from someone who expects different and has run actual numbers to post the parameters they ran to make the landing data work. One of the news articles listed 112 pax, 5 crew.

No matter, this incident has already fallen out of the news cycle. We can debate this until the accident report is released but the public doesn't care, nor will they care what the report states.

flyguy81
12-11-2018, 02:56 AM
No idea when they ran the numbers or if they reran it due to changing conditions. We usually run prior to TOD so if the storm was moving fast and/or there was a headwind at the time then the number may very well have been acceptable. Iíll rerun the numbers for different runways/conditions if they change but if you get busy I can see how you might forget.


rickair7777
12-11-2018, 06:03 AM
Would anyone here be surprised if the report came back that once the numbers were run for the aircraft's weight + conditions at the time, the results came back, 'no bueno'? I'd love to hear from someone who expects different and has run actual numbers to post the parameters they ran to make the landing data work. One of the news articles listed 112 pax, 5 crew.


I'll be astounded if good numbers were available for the actual conditions. As others have said, they probably had some numbers but something was off.

Caveman
12-11-2018, 08:08 AM
:eek: Wow. Would have liked to be a fly on the wall after that flight. Where do we get such pilots?

Quite a few are posting in this thread.

at6d
12-11-2018, 08:30 AM
Would anyone here be surprised if the report came back that once the numbers were run for the aircraft's weight + conditions at the time, the results came back, 'no bueno'? I'd love to hear from someone who expects different and has run actual numbers to post the parameters they ran to make the landing data work. One of the news articles listed 112 pax, 5 crew.

No matter, this incident has already fallen out of the news cycle. We can debate this until the accident report is released but the public doesn't care, nor will they care what the report states.

So you think they ran numbers that came back with no data for landing and then what, fudged them to make it acceptable?

The likelihood that they went into **** conditions and short runways with manipulated numbers is low.

Emmerson Bigs
12-11-2018, 08:49 AM
Iíll rerun the numbers for different runways/conditions if they change but if you get busy I can see how you might forget. :confused: Really? You can see forgetting to do one of the most important parts of making a decision to land on a short, wet runway with a tailwind? Choose not to because you don't feel the current conditions have changed enough from the last time you ran them? Ok. But to just simply forget? That's like saying you can see forgetting to determine mins on an approach or V-speeds for takeoff. No, that's unsat.

rickair7777
12-11-2018, 08:59 AM
So you think they ran numbers that came back with no data for landing and then what, fudged them to make it acceptable?

The likelihood that they went into **** conditions and short runways with manipulated numbers is low.

I seriously doubt they manipulated anything. But something probably changed, or was not accounted for correctly. I've flown four transport types into BUR (but not a 73) and I doubt I could have generated legit numbers for any of them given those conditions (empty plane maybe).


But there was an RJ going into JAC right after TALPA was implemented...

FICON was something like 5/5/3, which required using code 3 for aerodata.

Aerodata said no-go, so they "took the average" and used code 4. Aerodata was cool with that, so they shot the approach and off the end they went...


And for clarity I have not made any commentary (stated or implied) about SWA culture or pilots, I'm simply addressing the technical issues at hand. Moral of the story, I think TALPA is pretty accurate, but probably doesn't have much "padding" built in (other than what's normally required by 121).

Andy
12-11-2018, 10:41 AM
So you think they ran numbers that came back with no data for landing and then what, fudged them to make it acceptable?

The likelihood that they went into **** conditions and short runways with manipulated numbers is low.

So you think they ran the correct data and it came back, 'bueno'?????
Run some numbers that work and post all the details. 737-700 with 112 pax and 5 crew.

If they didn't manipulate the numbers, they didn't run any numbers.

at6d
12-11-2018, 11:47 AM
So you think they ran the correct data and it came back, 'bueno'?????
Run some numbers that work and post all the details. 737-700 with 112 pax and 5 crew.

If they didn't manipulate the numbers, they didn't run any numbers.

Really?

Show me the METAR that was used when they got the numbers. Thatís the key.

I will say that if they ran the numbers 30 mins prior, they very much may have gotten data that was acceptable.

Did they redo the numbers five minutes prior to landing? Probably not but we donít know.

The data is pulled from the coded METAR.

Iím sure United has a similar function.

biigD
12-11-2018, 12:38 PM
Hereís the METAR data starting a few hours prior to the event, most recent at the top:

KBUR 061715Z 29008KT 1SM +RA BR FEW005 BKN013 OVC031 08/08 A2993 RMK AO2 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0026 T00830078

KBUR 061653Z 28011KT 1 1/2SM +RA BR FEW004 OVC013 08/08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP122 P0033 T00830083

KBUR 061641Z 26011KT 2 1/2SM RA BR FEW004 BKN013 OVC019 09/09 A2989 RMK AO2 P0023 T00890089

KBUR 061553Z 29005KT 1 1/4SM +RA BR BKN011 BKN017 OVC047 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 SLP106 P0021 T00940089

KBUR 061547Z 29005KT 1 3/4SM +RA BR SCT011 BKN047 OVC060 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 P0017

KBUR 061453Z 32003KT 4SM RA BR FEW003 SCT026 OVC049 09/09 A2985 RMK AO2 SLP103 P0020 60063 T00940094 58002

Andy
12-11-2018, 12:42 PM
Really?

Show me the METAR that was used when they got the numbers. Thatís the key.

I will say that if they ran the numbers 30 mins prior, they very much may have gotten data that was acceptable.

Did they redo the numbers five minutes prior to landing? Probably not but we donít know.

The data is pulled from the coded METAR.

Iím sure United has a similar function.

You have the metar data, you know it was a 737-700 with 112 pax and 5 crew.
Run the data and tell us what numbers you chose. Should be +RA with at least 5 kts tailwind.

You won't be able to make the numbers work.

at6d
12-11-2018, 01:07 PM
Hereís the METAR data starting a few hours prior to the event, most recent at the top:

KBUR 061715Z 29008KT 1SM +RA BR FEW005 BKN013 OVC031 08/08 A2993 RMK AO2 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0026 T00830078

KBUR 061653Z 28011KT 1 1/2SM +RA BR FEW004 OVC013 08/08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP122 P0033 T00830083

KBUR 061641Z 26011KT 2 1/2SM RA BR FEW004 BKN013 OVC019 09/09 A2989 RMK AO2 P0023 T00890089

KBUR 061553Z 29005KT 1 1/4SM +RA BR BKN011 BKN017 OVC047 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 SLP106 P0021 T00940089

KBUR 061547Z 29005KT 1 3/4SM +RA BR SCT011 BKN047 OVC060 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 P0017

KBUR 061453Z 32003KT 4SM RA BR FEW003 SCT026 OVC049 09/09 A2985 RMK AO2 SLP103 P0020 60063 T00940094 58002

Here are the actual observed METARS:


KBUR 061806Z 01014G17KT 3SM +RA BR SCT022 BKN050 OVC070 08/08 A2992 RMK AO2 PRESFR P0006 T00830078=

KBUR 061753Z 29005KT 2 1/2SM +RA BR FEW020 BKN026 OVC048 08/07 A2996 RMK AO2 SLP139 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0049 60166 T00830072 10100 20083 53035=

KBUR 061723Z 28012KT 1 1/4SM +RA BR FEW008 BKN016 OVC024 08/08 A2994 RMK AO2 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0032 T00830078=

KBUR 061715Z 29008KT 1SM +RA BR FEW005 BKN013 OVC031 08/08 A2993 RMK AO2 AIRCRAFT MISHAP P0026 T00830078=

KBUR 061653Z 28011KT 1 1/2SM +RA BR FEW004 OVC013 08/08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP122 P0033 T00830083=

KBUR 061641Z 26011KT 2 1/2SM RA BR FEW004 BKN013 OVC019 09/09 A2989 RMK AO2 P0023 T00890089=

KBUR 061553Z 29005KT 1 1/4SM +RA BR BKN011 BKN017 OVC047 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 SLP106 P0021 T00940089=

KBUR 061547Z 29005KT 1 3/4SM +RA BR SCT011 BKN047 OVC060 09/09 A2986 RMK AO2 P0017=

KBUR 061453Z 32003KT 4SM RA BR FEW003 SCT026 OVC049 09/09 A2985 RMK AO2 SLP103 P0020 60063 T00940094 58002=

at6d
12-11-2018, 01:17 PM
I wonder how the numbers looked for the arrival aircraft 10 mins prior?

Andy
12-11-2018, 01:26 PM
Soooo, you ran the numbers and couldn't make it work, eh?

I wonder how the numbers looked for the arrival aircraft 10 mins prior?

Ö and have now opted for the 'yes, I'd also jump off the bridge' defense.
(as in, if Tommy jumped off a bridge, would you?)

at6d
12-11-2018, 01:27 PM
Soooo, you ran the numbers and couldn't make it work, eh?



Ö and have now opted for the 'yes, I'd also jump off the bridge' defense.
(as in, if Tommy jumped off a bridge, would you?)

No I have not. And no I have not.

Andy
12-11-2018, 02:23 PM
No I have not. And no I have not.

On the second part, yes, you did.

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

hoover
12-11-2018, 02:37 PM
I ran the numbers and with a 9 kt tailwind using 5/5/5 it works. Auto brakes max required.
If you use 4/4/4 it doesn't work.
That's all I know about it tho. I don't know what was reported for braking action. Most likely 5 and then it works so I can see how they'd continue with those numbers.

rickair7777
12-11-2018, 05:01 PM
I ran the numbers and with a 9 kt tailwind using 5/5/5 it works. Auto brakes max required.
If you use 4/4/4 it doesn't work.
That's all I know about it tho. I don't know what was reported for braking action. Most likely 5 and then it works so I can see how they'd continue with those numbers.

The problem is +RA...

Since BUR wasn't reporting FICON, you (the pilot) have to convert reported conditions to FICON (assuming SWA uses FICON for LDG, but if not it still sheds light on the problem).

<= 1/8" water = FICON 5
> 1/8" water = FICON 2

With sustained +RA, can you comfortably assess that you have no more than 1/8" on the RWY?

This is the problem, there's significant uncertainty as to runway condition with +RA, and there's a huuuge performance difference between FICON 5 and 2.

captjns
12-11-2018, 05:21 PM
Guys and gals... for the time being... nothing to see... quit burying and convicting the crew. Move along... Quit speculating and arm chair quarter backing. FOQA, DFDR, DCFR, Flight crew testimony and ASAPs will lend information concerning the event. Fly your trips, follow your SOPs and be safe out there.

Macjet
12-11-2018, 05:51 PM
If you have valid landing data that shows legal numbers given the length, wet, and tailwind, there are guys who would say they are legal and comfortable for the approach. Without being in their seat that day, at that instant, with their duty day length (fatigue?), I would not presume to make a statement this soon about a bad judgement call.

Of course post-incident sitting in the comfort of your computer chair, "I would have never done that!"
Hindsight always meets 1st class FAA medical eye standards ;)

Their airplane came to rest in the EMAS. A go around is always a viable option and one that they chose not to execute. So yeah, I'm in the bad judgement crowd as we watch another Southwest airframe get towed back to the field.

BMEP100
12-11-2018, 07:34 PM
All of the discussions and speculation about wx and runway conditions, for whether the landing could be made hinge on one missing and important piece....landing in the touchdown zone, on speed.

Landing overruns usually occur because the aircraft landing long and/or fast. Most FOQUA reports on the final approach and landing are due to high speed, high sink rate, or touchdown out of the touchdown zone. It is easier to do with a tailwind, and especially easy when the tail winds are higher than reported.

That last 10 feet RA seems to last forever when you are hot, and itís really easy to say to yourself, the wheels will be on any second......... then they are, 500 feet past the touchdown zone and 10 knots fast.

Iíve done it, trying to be a nice guy and helping approach with keeping up the speed. Luckily, I only had to apologize to my FO afterward, because it was a dry 10,000 foot runway.

YMMV

RadarColor
12-11-2018, 11:35 PM
The problem is +RA...

Since BUR wasn't reporting FICON, you (the pilot) have to convert reported conditions to FICON (assuming SWA uses FICON for LDG, but if not it still sheds light on the problem).

<= 1/8" water = FICON 5
> 1/8" water = FICON 2

With sustained +RA, can you comfortably assess that you have no more than 1/8" on the RWY?

This is the problem, there's significant uncertainty as to runway condition with +RA, and there's a huuuge performance difference between FICON 5 and 2.

How do you find the time Rick? I wish I had the time to be a full time keyboard Fleet Admiral.

RadarColor
12-11-2018, 11:38 PM
Their airplane came to rest in the EMAS. A go around is always a viable option and one that they chose not to execute. So yeah, I'm in the bad judgement crowd as we watch another Southwest airframe get towed back to the field.

Read the post previous to the one you posted. Talk about bad judgement. Youíre the poster child.

at6d
12-11-2018, 11:48 PM
Guys and gals... for the time being... nothing to see... quit burying and convicting the crew. Move along... Quit speculating and arm chair quarter backing. FOQA, DFDR, DCFR, Flight crew testimony and ASAPs will lend information concerning the event. Fly your trips, follow your SOPs and be safe out there.

Agreed....

Andy
12-12-2018, 03:12 AM
The problem is +RA...

Since BUR wasn't reporting FICON, you (the pilot) have to convert reported conditions to FICON (assuming SWA uses FICON for LDG, but if not it still sheds light on the problem).

<= 1/8" water = FICON 5
> 1/8" water = FICON 2

With sustained +RA, can you comfortably assess that you have no more than 1/8" on the RWY?

This is the problem, there's significant uncertainty as to runway condition with +RA, and there's a huuuge performance difference between FICON 5 and 2.

That's the rub. I used to live in LA and still live in the desert southwest. It rarely rains. However, when it rains, all of the embedded rubber and fluids on the roads that haven't washed away for a year make driving conditions similar to that of an ice covered road.
Assuming less than 1/8", FICON 3 (Slippery When Wet (wet runway) ) would appear to be the correct choice for any wet runway in an arid region.

This is why I wanted to see what numbers were used - at the very least, this should serve as food for thought for all of us. You may disagree with my opinion that FICON 3 should be used, but I'd feel comfortable explaining to anyone why I diverted while others landed at the destination.

Skyward
12-12-2018, 03:47 AM
Haha. Some of you guys are hilarious.

Can someone just go ahead and get me my numbers for tomorrowís flight please? Since we can just come up with them from our couch now, lol.

rickair7777
12-12-2018, 08:47 AM
That's the rub. I used to live in LA and still live in the desert southwest. It rarely rains. However, when it rains, all of the embedded rubber and fluids on the roads that haven't washed away for a year make driving conditions similar to that of an ice covered road.
Assuming less than 1/8", FICON 3 (Slippery When Wet (wet runway) ) would appear to be the correct choice for any wet runway in an arid region.

This is why I wanted to see what numbers were used - at the very least, this should serve as food for thought for all of us. You may disagree with my opinion that FICON 3 should be used, but I'd feel comfortable explaining to anyone why I diverted while others landed at the destination.

I saw that, and gave benefit of the doubt that since it had been raining for a few days that the oil had been washed away. But 3 is more conservative. The problem here is that you could be anywhere between 2 and 5, and it's hard to know for sure.

badflaps
12-12-2018, 09:58 AM
You don;t need a machine to tell you that whizzing around at 140k, 3 feet off the ground in heavy rain is nutz.:eek:

WHACKMASTER
12-12-2018, 11:01 AM
You don;t need a machine to tell you that whizzing around at 140k, 3 feet off the ground in heavy rain is nutz.:eek:

.......on a short runway no less.

butthert
12-12-2018, 11:03 AM
Or, we could have a pic of a UAL 737 in DEN in the weeds and have two pilots looking at rudder peddles and the captain saying, ď What are these things used for?Ē

And Iím not talking about the UAL 737 that just went off the hard surface in DEN just two short weeks ago.

Yeah I thought UAL might have figured the whole rudder thing out after that 747 lost an engine coming out of SFO a few years ago :rolleyes:

Adlerdriver
12-12-2018, 11:11 AM
Yeah I thought UAL might have figured the whole rudder thing out after that 747 lost an engine coming out of SFO a few years ago :rolleyes: You mean UA 863... over twenty years ago in June of 1998? :rolleyes:

Peacock
12-12-2018, 11:15 AM
You mean UA 863... over twenty years ago in June of 1998? :rolleyes:

The previous runway overrun mentioned over and over here happened what, 18 years ago?

Adlerdriver
12-12-2018, 01:18 PM
The previous runway overrun mentioned over and over here happened what, 18 years ago? Okay. Did anyone bring it up and actually say it happened "a few years ago"? That was my only point in responding. Big difference between "a few years" and over 20 - that's all.

If someone wants to bring up a 20-year old UAL incident, that's their prerogative. It might help if it actually had any relationship at all to whatever point they're trying to make re: landing overruns. Rudder use, I guess :rolleyes:
An 18-year old incident involving the same airline, same airport, same runway in a like type aircraft seems a bit more germane to the event under discussion than a botched V1 cut, IMO.

WhaleSurfing
12-12-2018, 01:39 PM
Okay. Did anyone bring it up and actually say it happened "a few years ago"? That was my only point in responding. Big difference between "a few years" and over 20 - that's all.

If someone wants to bring up a 20-year old UAL incident, that's their prerogative. It might help if it actually had any relationship at all to whatever point they're trying to make re: landing overruns. Rudder use, I guess :rolleyes:
An 18-year old incident involving the same airline, same airport, same runway in a like type aircraft seems a bit more germane to the event under discussion than a botched V1 cut, IMO.

His ďreferenceĒ was to my UAL 737 incidents with one being rudder control during a crosswind takeoff. The point of my reference was geared toward an uniformed poster (PNWFlyer) who thinks it is only WN who departs the hard surface. Thereís your reference.

snowdawg
12-12-2018, 05:09 PM
His “reference” was to my UAL 737 incidents with one being rudder control during a crosswind takeoff. The point of my reference was geared toward an uniformed poster (PNWFlyer) who thinks it is only WN who departs the hard surface. There’s your reference.


The good ole days:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOpBXmqa0eY

Andy
12-13-2018, 07:15 AM
I saw that, and gave benefit of the doubt that since it had been raining for a few days that the oil had been washed away. But 3 is more conservative. The problem here is that you could be anywhere between 2 and 5, and it's hard to know for sure.

Based on actual results, we know it wasn't 5. And since there's a pad (15% IIRC) in the landing numbers, it would appear that it was less than 4.

This has been a good thought exercise for me; I will be double checking the data that the FO plugs in for landing data if there's any question at all involving landing distance. Garbage in, garbage out.

at6d
12-13-2018, 08:02 AM
Still to be determined is the touchdown point.

WhaleSurfing
12-13-2018, 08:57 AM
Still to be determined is the touchdown point.

Oh why worry about that silly stuff when a cast of thousands on here have already solved the mystery with their PhDís in rainfall, rubber, wind, and asphalt measuring.

rickair7777
12-13-2018, 09:15 AM
Oh why worry about that silly stuff when a cast of thousands on here have already solved the mystery with their PhDís in rainfall, rubber, wind, and asphalt measuring.

Don't need a Phd to know that you shouldn't do BUR in a NB with a 10 kt tailwind in heavy rain. Running the numbers just re-states the obvious for those who don't get it.

Doesn't matter what numbers they had, or how they got them, still a bad idea. At some point reality and common sense needs to kick in rather than wink, wink, got the answer we wanted to hear...

at6d
12-13-2018, 10:44 AM
Don't need a Phd to know that you shouldn't do BUR in a NB with a 10 kt tailwind in heavy rain. Running the numbers just re-states the obvious for those who don't get it.

Doesn't matter what numbers they had, or how they got them, still a bad idea. At some point reality and common sense needs to kick in rather than wink, wink, got the answer we wanted to hear...

My point is that we actually DO need the numbers and how they got them.

We DO need to know the decision making process, what information they had (or didnít), what procedures or policies need to be revisited, where they touched down, mechanical data, runway data, period.

Since people here donít know me other than a screen name, Iím willing to bet that Iím the kind of person you want on an accident/incident investigation/response team.

I want facts. We all have opinions, and those opinions can be quickly changed when certain pieces of information are either ruled out or added to the big picture.

It wasnít just one thing that led to this outcome.

At the end of the day, the big picture will come out for better or worse.

For those of us that werenít there, we still learn.

BTW, anyone know if there was substantial damage to the aircraft?

Caveman
12-13-2018, 11:55 AM
Anyone wanna bet on the ratio of current and future bid avoid types are the "experts" posting in this thread.

The entitled runs strong in you geniuses that have it all figured out already.

I'm sure that attitude will serve you well in the long term in your aviation career?

How about you nerd wannabe check pilot sky cops stop posting in this thread break out a brown paper bag, huff and puff in it, and wait for the facts to come out before having your internet hissy fit?

Is this what you do when there's an abnormal in flight?

Andy
12-13-2018, 12:05 PM
I like to learn from the error of others so that when I find myself in a similar situation, I won't repeat their error. Although frankly, this one was about as close to being a no-brainer as it gets. YMMV.

Caveman
12-13-2018, 03:22 PM
The irony in Andy's post is remarkable.

WhaleSurfing
12-13-2018, 03:23 PM
Don't need a Phd to know that you shouldn't do BUR in a NB with a 10 kt tailwind in heavy rain. Running the numbers just re-states the obvious for those who don't get it.

Doesn't matter what numbers they had, or how they got them, still a bad idea. At some point reality and common sense needs to kick in rather than wink, wink, got the answer we wanted to hear...

Wink, Wink? Asinine response, but expected from someone spending hours every day behind a keyboard. And what does the NB aspect have anything to do with this? I ask in the form of a question so you can get the free sub sandwich once you hit 25,000 messages. Please enlighten us more on your 737 Burbank expertise!

WhaleSurfing
12-13-2018, 03:24 PM
I like to learn from the error of others so that when I find myself in a similar situation, I won't repeat their error. Although frankly, this one was about as close to being a no-brainer as it gets. YMMV.

Because you were there? Another uninformed rant.

WHACKMASTER
12-14-2018, 04:27 AM
The irony in Andy's post is remarkable.

Really? Short runway with heavy rain and a tailwind? If the crew KNOWINGLY landed in that then it was a no-brainer (not to). Letís hope there were some extenuating circumstances beyond their control. So we wait for the report.

Packrat
12-14-2018, 05:45 AM
Really? Short runway with heavy rain and a tailwind? If the crew KNOWINGLY landed in that then it was a no-brainer (not to). Letís hope there were some extenuating circumstances beyond their control. So we wait for the report.

You'd be surprised what some supposedly qualified, experienced Captains think. I once had a call from an MD skipper who had taken off from LAX and had an engine roll back at 28,000 feet.

Me: "What did you do?"
Him: "Declared an emergency and went back to LAX."
Me: "What's the problem?"
Him: "Well, I elected to overfly Burbank. I hope the Company doesn't come after me for that."
Me: "You're single engine in a heavy airplane and you'll need to do a flaps 28 landing. Burbank is way too short for that so its not a suitable airport. The QRH says 'Nearest Suitable Airport'. You'll never hear a peep from the Company."
Him: "Just making sure."
Me: "I think you did exactly the right thing."

He never heard any comments or criticism from the Company.

Andy
12-14-2018, 08:03 AM
Because you were there? Another uninformed rant.

All the data's freely available to calculate landing distance. Or do you think that landing data involves some sort of alchemy?
The only way that crew could 'legally' shoehorn that plane onto the runway under those conditions was to use FICON 5. In RA+.

WhaleSurfing
12-14-2018, 09:39 AM
All the data's freely available to calculate landing distance. Or do you think that landing data involves some sort of alchemy?
The only way that crew could 'legally' shoehorn that plane onto the runway under those conditions was to use FICON 5. In RA+.

So I say again, "You were there?" GMAFB. Go back to your MS Flight Sim in the basement.

at6d
12-14-2018, 09:49 AM
All the data's freely available to calculate landing distance. Or do you think that landing data involves some sort of alchemy?
The only way that crew could 'legally' shoehorn that plane onto the runway under those conditions was to use FICON 5. In RA+.

What was landing weight?

What was reported FICON?

Did they use 30 or 40 flaps?

(Did they have good numbers for 40 and accidentally set 30?)

Why donít you tell us what the landing distance numbers were?

Skyward
12-14-2018, 09:56 AM
All the data's freely available to calculate landing distance. Or do you think that landing data involves some sort of alchemy?
The only way that crew could 'legally' shoehorn that plane onto the runway under those conditions was to use FICON 5. In RA+.

Hmm. You have all the data from the BUR flight? Were you the pilot, the NTSB lead investigator, a fly on the wall? I know... you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The weather report might be published, but if you think you have ALL the info pertaining to this, then you havenít been around very long.

Swingline78
12-14-2018, 10:46 AM
Anybody passing judgment on this is part of the problem. We are all capable of pushing too hard or making mistakes. If you don't understand that I don't want you in my cockpit. What's wrong with you that you take such pleasure in other flight crews mishaps? This brings us all down. Wait for the report. Learn from it. And remember that there are those that have and those that will.

WhaleSurfing
12-14-2018, 12:28 PM
Andy..

See posts 299, 300, 301.

Yes, you and others like you ARE the problem!!!

Andy
12-15-2018, 02:35 PM
No Whale, the problem is that you and others here are keeping the cowboy ops reputation alive and well by circling the wagons on this one. As for the data, one doesn't need to even run numbers on this to know that it was dicey at best.

I cannot believe that anyone would even attempt to defend such poor judgment.

Swingline78
12-15-2018, 03:03 PM
No Whale, the problem is that you and others here are keeping the cowboy ops reputation alive and well by circling the wagons on this one. As for the data, one doesn't need to even run numbers on this to know that it was dicey at best.

I cannot believe that anyone would even attempt to defend such poor judgment.
Pack up your suit case and go back to your bridge, troll. You are calling yourself out to every professional who reads this forum as someone no one wants to fly with.

WhaleSurfing
12-15-2018, 03:18 PM
Pack up your suit case and go back to your bridge, troll. You are calling yourself out to every professional who reads this forum as someone no one wants to fly with.

Andy is a UAL guy. Probably the best hand flying pilots in the world. Just ask him and his CEO.

Just like your CEO and MEC chairman comments on the Lion Air accident. I assume you were all on board that flight too and have ďALLĒ the data.

Again...GMAFB!!

RJSAviator76
12-15-2018, 03:22 PM
No Whale, the problem is that you and others here are keeping the cowboy ops reputation alive and well by circling the wagons on this one. As for the data, one doesn't need to even run numbers on this to know that it was dicey at best.

I cannot believe that anyone would even attempt to defend such poor judgment.

For someone who supposedly wants to learn from the mistakes of others, you sure are quick to throw the crew under the bus without knowing all the facts, factors, workload, calculations, etc.

I refuse to believe that any airline pilot in this country would knowingly violate procedures and policies and recklessly push into a questionable destination, ergo... a mistake was made somewhere. The question is where?

Did the crew make a mistake of running dry vs. wet numbers? When were the numbers run? Did the wind shift since the initial calculation was performed? Was the crew distracted? Did they float? How did they end up off to the side of the runway as opposed to going straight out into the blast pad? So many unanswered questions, yet that doesn't seem to stop the comments like "cowboy ops!!!" especially from someone who claims they want to learn.

Disappointing...

WhaleSurfing
12-15-2018, 03:26 PM
Not disappointing RJ....Just ignorance and arrogance!

okawner
12-15-2018, 03:43 PM
I refuse to believe that any airline pilot in this country would knowingly violate procedures and policies and recklessly push into a questionable destination

This is a pretty naive statement. Not saying this SWA crew falls into this bucket because I, like many others, will wait until all the facts are presented before making my own personal, private judgments. But to say there are not reckless pilots in this industry? They're out there. Certainly a small minority but present nonetheless.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

RJSAviator76
12-15-2018, 04:03 PM
This is a pretty naive statement. Not saying this SWA crew falls into this bucket because I, like many others, will wait until all the facts are presented before making my own personal, private judgments. But to say there are not reckless pilots in this industry? They're out there. Certainly a small minority but present nonetheless.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

You need to re-read my post. Notice the "AIRLINE" pilot part?

Airlines tend to be standardized, monitored via FDAP/FOQA programs, and deviations tend to get addressed. It's far more difficult to be a "cowboy" in the airlines today than it was 20+ years ago.

pangolin
12-15-2018, 05:09 PM
So I say again, "You were there?" GMAFB. Go back to your MS Flight Sim in the basement.

Assuming 10kt tailwind. Reported wind gives a less than 10kt tailwind component. Point is we donít know.

Caveman
12-15-2018, 07:00 PM
All the high & might rhetoric would instantly come to a screeching halt if the posting names/identities were happened to be revealed.

Will the bid avoidance arm chair quarter backs wanna be check pilot types please quit posting your hot air, and just wait for the facts.

The world already knows how awesome & special YOU really are.

Macjet
12-15-2018, 08:09 PM
I refuse to believe that any airline pilot in this country would knowingly violate procedures and policies and recklessly push into a questionable destination, ergo... a mistake was made somewhere. The question is where?



It happens all the time. FOQA data will tell you as much.

okawner
12-15-2018, 08:18 PM
You need to re-read my post. Notice the "AIRLINE" pilot part?

Airlines tend to be standardized, monitored via FDAP/FOQA programs, and deviations tend to get addressed. It's far more difficult to be a "cowboy" in the airlines today than it was 20+ years ago.I read your post just fine. Seeing as this is an airline pilot forumn then, yes, I am talking about airline pilots.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

navigatro
12-16-2018, 06:14 AM
I refuse to believe that any airline pilot in this country would knowingly violate procedures and policies and recklessly push into a questionable destination, ergo... a mistake was made somewhere. The question is where?


Then you are naive. Go talk to the FOQA people at your own airline, to start.

RJSAviator76
12-16-2018, 06:36 AM
So... each airline, and Southwest in particular, has people who are willing to say "Damn the performance numbers... full speed ahead! We land anyway!"

Is that what you're saying?

e6bpilot
12-16-2018, 06:59 AM
Just stop replying to the idiots. This thread is akin to a Facebook political post. There are a couple of keyboard warriors who will defend their incorrect perception to the end.
Of course nobody will land without the performance numbers. That is a career ending event without a good (on fire) reason to do it. I have flown with the worst of the worst bid avoid guys here at SWA and not a single one of them would ever put the pax and aircraft, not to mention their careers, at risk like that.
This was an unfortunate incident that highlights the risk associated with operating to short runways in poor weather conditions.
When the data all comes out, we can discuss what went wrong and learn from it. Period. Dot. The end. Nothing else to really discuss or see.

FollowMe
12-16-2018, 07:50 AM
Just stop replying to the idiots. This thread is akin to a Facebook political post. There are a couple of keyboard warriors who will defend their incorrect perception to the end.
Of course nobody will land without the performance numbers. That is a career ending event without a good (on fire) reason to do it. I have flown with the worst of the worst bid avoid guys here at SWA and not a single one of them would ever put the pax and aircraft, not to mention their careers, at risk like that.
This was an unfortunate incident that highlights the risk associated with operating to short runways in poor weather conditions.
When the data all comes out, we can discuss what went wrong and learn from it. Period. Dot. The end. Nothing else to really discuss or see.

Purple monkey dishwasher.

navigatro
12-16-2018, 08:29 AM
So... each airline, and Southwest in particular, has people who are willing to say "Damn the performance numbers... full speed ahead! We land anyway!"

Is that what you're saying?

I am not singling out Southwest or saying they are any better/worse than any other airline.

I am saying that FOQA data PROVES that pilots regularly (intentionally) violate stable approach criteria, which is black and white.

That's all I'm saying.

(and by "regularly" I mean a surprisingly high %). I was serious about looking at FOQA data. It is eye-opening.

RJSAviator76
12-16-2018, 08:32 AM
Just stop replying to the idiots. This thread is akin to a Facebook political post. There are a couple of keyboard warriors who will defend their incorrect perception to the end.
Of course nobody will land without the performance numbers. That is a career ending event without a good (on fire) reason to do it. I have flown with the worst of the worst bid avoid guys here at SWA and not a single one of them would ever put the pax and aircraft, not to mention their careers, at risk like that.
This was an unfortunate incident that highlights the risk associated with operating to short runways in poor weather conditions.
When the data all comes out, we can discuss what went wrong and learn from it. Period. Dot. The end. Nothing else to really discuss or see.



Amen brother! Out.

Smokey23
12-16-2018, 09:01 AM
300+ posts and 32 pages. You guys need to get a life.

WhaleSurfing
12-16-2018, 10:59 AM
I am not singling out Southwest or saying they are any better/worse than any other airline.

I am saying that FOQA data PROVES that pilots regularly (intentionally) violate stable approach criteria, which is black and white.

That's all I'm saying.

(and by "regularly" I mean a surprisingly high %). I was serious about looking at FOQA data. It is eye-opening.

But that was really not the subject point that was being discussed. The issue by some on here was that a crew intentionally blew off invalid data (meaning no data, all dashed-out lines) and proceeded to land anyway. Thatís what I think RJ was addressing to some of these idiots who argued otherwise based on ďtheirĒ data and having ďallĒ the facts about what happened. There must have a been a swarm of flys in the cockpit to have all this info. Maybe we can start a ďFly on the Wall section for the ďKnow-It-AllsĒ

hilltopflyer
12-16-2018, 06:29 PM
Anybody passing judgment on this is part of the problem. We are all capable of pushing too hard or making mistakes. If you don't understand that I don't want you in my cockpit. What's wrong with you that you take such pleasure in other flight crews mishaps? This brings us all down. Wait for the report. Learn from it. And remember that there are those that have and those that will.

Ehhh I do the opposite. If I see an opportunity to divert its my first option....

WhaleSurfing
12-16-2018, 07:57 PM
Ehhh I do the opposite. If I see an opportunity to divert its my first option....

Define “opportunuty” for all us amateurs.

hilltopflyer
12-16-2018, 07:59 PM
Define opportunity.

Tailwind with heavy rain and short runway is an easy one. Iím not one to finish the mission if I see any doubts in it.

RadarColor
12-16-2018, 10:49 PM
More expert flies on the walls on this thread.

Photoflier
12-17-2018, 02:36 PM
Iím a UAL guy and Jumpseat on SWA all the time. Iíve NEVER seen anything but the utmost level of safety displayed by every crew Iíve ridden with.

Iíll be very interested to see if they lost directional control at the end or intentionally went left. This is a sobering reminder to me that I need to be briefing EMAS. I used to do it and have gotten out of the habit. ďWe have EMAS at the end of the runway. If something goes wrong and we are going off, Iíll try to keep the airplane in a straight lineĒ.

Skyward
12-17-2018, 04:42 PM
Tailwind with heavy rain and short runway is an easy one. Iím not one to finish the mission if I see any doubts in it.

Iíll divert too if necessary, but are you gonna pull the plug with any tailwind? On every short runway? What about a little bit of tailwind? What about a little tailwind with a somewhat short runway? What about a... this could go on all day. Every situation is different and one size does not fit all. Iíll wait for the report and the facts before I dish out a canned answer.

Itís easy IF the scenario is like we imagine it in our minds. Thatís the issue in this thread... without ALL the facts and the report weíre leaving the whole thing to our imaginations because none of us were there.

80ktsClamp
12-17-2018, 07:24 PM
I strongly doubt they intentionally landed with no data, however what data was input to generate valid numbers is going to almost certainly be a factor.

Us Deltoids have a reputation for a stick up our rear, and there are people that give that reputation cause. (looking at you, Hollywood)

In the same token, to deny WN types don't push it more than others is denying reality. Just a couple months ago, there was a storm covering up all 3 finals in ATL, and myself and UA said "no freaking way." 2 WN's said SURE!! Watching them penetrate that storm with very active cloud to ground lightening was eye opening (I've seen y'all do similar many times over the years- this was probably the worst). They were the last 2 in before the microburst hit.

We still got in on time without flying through a thunderstorm on short final...

Rolf
12-17-2018, 10:37 PM
80, your bias is showing again. I think I mentioned it years ago, could be wrong. Did these guys make the wrong decision? Maybe. But the culture you so loathe is long gone. How about all us CAís act professionally toward our colleagues and wait for the report, then we can compare quarterly ASAP summaries and see how everyone is doing. Maybe make the comparison per flight segment to give us lunatics a chance.

Skyward
12-18-2018, 06:47 AM
I strongly doubt they intentionally landed with no data, however what data was input to generate valid numbers is going to almost certainly be a factor.

Us Deltoids have a reputation for a stick up our rear, and there are people that give that reputation cause. (looking at you, Hollywood)

In the same token, to deny WN types don't push it more than others is denying reality. Just a couple months ago, there was a storm covering up all 3 finals in ATL, and myself and UA said "no freaking way." 2 WN's said SURE!! Watching them penetrate that storm with very active cloud to ground lightening was eye opening (I've seen y'all do similar many times over the years- this was probably the worst). They were the last 2 in before the microburst hit.

We still got in on time without flying through a thunderstorm on short final...

Ha. There’s been more than one time in my life that I’ve said no feeking way I’d take that risk that delta is. Get over yourself. WN types don’t take more chances. The reputation about the stick isn’t about flying skills, lol.

It was about two months ago that we got shamed by a controller for not flying through the hole in the TS that DAL and AA just went through. It just didn’t look good to us, so we took the long way around. A few mins later AA said ours was the better choice. We don’t all see the same thing on our radar, and it depends on more than one factor.

captjns
12-18-2018, 08:01 AM
It was about two months ago that we got shamed by a controller for not flying through the hole in the TS that DAL and AA just went through. It just didn’t look good to us, so we took the long way around. A few mins later AA said ours was the better choice. We don’t all see the same thing on our radar, and it depends on more than one factor.

Had same few years back. I told him, politely of course, I won’t tell you how to control your traffic, and in return, don’t tell me how to fly my jet.

ShyGuy
12-18-2018, 05:08 PM
When every other airline and airplane turned back, yet Delta continued into the approaching hurricane into the PR and took back again, they were hailed as heroes. If if it was SWA, you know they would be attacked for get'r done. :rolleyes:

Also remember at MDW a Delta taking a SWA takeoff clearance off 04R even though the ATC clearly said 31C. That was another close call. Fast talking ATC for sure, but the runway announcement was clear. Stuff happens. NO airline is immune to incidents and accidents. The problem is when finger pointing starts at one particular airline while not acknowledging the same thing could have happened to their own airline.

sailingfun
12-19-2018, 04:28 PM
When every other airline and airplane turned back, yet Delta continued into the approaching hurricane into the PR and took back again, they were hailed as heroes. If if it was SWA, you know they would be attacked for get'r done. :rolleyes:

Also remember at MDW a Delta taking a SWA takeoff clearance off 04R even though the ATC clearly said 31C. That was another close call. Fast talking ATC for sure, but the runway announcement was clear. Stuff happens. NO airline is immune to incidents and accidents. The problem is when finger pointing starts at one particular airline while not acknowledging the same thing could have happened to their own airline.

Those 15 knot winds down the runway were really tough during the hurricane. I am amazed you believe what the press reports.

Hetman
12-19-2018, 06:16 PM
... How about all us CAís act professionally toward our colleagues...


Yeah, right. What fun would that be, huh?

Rolf
12-19-2018, 06:34 PM
80 just ****es me off. Iím sorely tempted to stoop to his level and start posting widget incidents, then draw statistically significant conclusions about what kind of pilots they are. Damn tool.

shoelu
12-20-2018, 12:43 PM
This thread is exactly why I stopped coming to this site. Even though there are a number of individuals making the case that we all occasionally make decisions we would like to re-evaluate in hindsight, there are an equal or larger number of folks casting stones in glass houses.


Why do we as intelligent professionals choose to come to a public forum and excoriate our colleagues? When the NTSB report comes out someone might actually be able to draw some credible conclusions about causal factors and judgement of the flight crew but before that report is available the individuals ready to hang the crew are acting like uninformed toddlers when snack time is delayed.


Grow up people and act like the professional aviators you claim to be by commenting on this professional pilot website. I pray that each and every one of us is able to never make a bad decision or God forbid have an accident or incident. I know that is an impossible dream so I will say that I hope that if and when you or one from your pilot group has a mishap you will enjoy a complete and total lack of Monday morning quarterbacking from the likes of this ill informed mob!

FlyJSH
12-20-2018, 06:53 PM
Why do we as intelligent professionals choose to come to a public forum and excoriate our colleagues?
!

Simple: I'm a god because I work for the ONLY safe, professional company in the Universe. Also, I have a ginormous 'joystick' and a shiny hat... or is it the other way around?



I would love to see the accident/incident statistics based on Cycles rather than hours. It would be interesting to see if the companies that subcontract the bulk of their short hops fair better or worse than those who do all of their flying.


The truly sad thing about attacking the pilots is NOTHING is learned. But if one thinks of the incident with the mindset that the crew was trying to perform as perfectly as each of us think we perform, then we can come up with 'what ifs' and discuss them. Those 'what ifs' may have zilch to do with the incident, but they are good thought experiments.

80ktsClamp
01-02-2019, 09:41 PM
Ha. There’s been more than one time in my life that I’ve said no feeking way I’d take that risk that delta is. Get over yourself. WN types don’t take more chances. The reputation about the stick isn’t about flying skills, lol.

It was about two months ago that we got shamed by a controller for not flying through the hole in the TS that DAL and AA just went through. It just didn’t look good to us, so we took the long way around. A few mins later AA said ours was the better choice. We don’t all see the same thing on our radar, and it depends on more than one factor.


The stick wasn't about flying skills. Please tell me you've seen our captain Hollywood??? Some stereotypes hold true, and it's worthwhile to try to mitigate them instead of defensively get butthurt and deny the existence. Guys I fly with routinely say they still see the GET R DONE behavior at WN consistently. I accept and try to change what we have in our culture... can you?

Nice decision, as holes going through en route storms tend to change by the minute. That doesn't change what myself and numerous others from many airlines have observed with WN being willing to "take a look" while others let y'all do what you do.

I know what I'm going to bet on with this report. (just to make the WN types even more defensive). :D

ShyGuy
01-05-2019, 04:19 PM
Those 15 knot winds down the runway were really tough during the hurricane. I am amazed you believe what the press reports.

Believe your own hype. :rolleyes: It wasn't the press reports, it was just fact. Everyone turned around except one.

Flightcap
01-12-2019, 06:40 PM
Man, I'm glad there are so many perfect pilots on this site. If we just hang out awhile longer perhaps some of your exceptional judgment and skills will rub off on me.

Burton78
01-13-2019, 02:52 PM
The stick wasn't about flying skills. Please tell me you've seen our captain Hollywood??? Some stereotypes hold true, and it's worthwhile to try to mitigate them instead of defensively get butthurt and deny the existence. Guys I fly with routinely say they still see the GET R DONE behavior at WN consistently. I accept and try to change what we have in our culture... can you?

Nice decision, as holes going through en route storms tend to change by the minute. That doesn't change what myself and numerous others from many airlines have observed with WN being willing to "take a look" while others let y'all do what you do.

I know what I'm going to bet on with this report. (just to make the WN types even more defensive). :D


I'll just leave this right here..


https://www.whio.com/rf/image_lowres/Pub/p10/WHIO/2019/01/13/Images/download%20(1).png


"GET R DONE"

USMCFLYR
01-13-2019, 04:33 PM
Man, I'm glad there are so many perfect pilots on this site. If we just hang out awhile longer perhaps some of your exceptional judgment and skills will rub off on me.
If you learn something from other people's mistake and possibly take an extra minute to think something over a little more since you remember something that you talked about/read about/thought about somewhere (maybe this forum) then you are right - - - maybe someone uses' exceptional judgment might rub off on you! ;)

Flightcap
01-13-2019, 05:08 PM
If you learn something from other people's mistake and possibly take an extra minute to think something over a little more since you remember something that you talked about/read about/thought about somewhere (maybe this forum) then you are right - - - maybe someone uses' exceptional judgment might rub off on you! ;)

No doubt. And there are those nuggets to be gleaned which I appreciate. I'm just fascinated by how many more perfect pilots exist on this website than exist in real life. At least if you listen to them talk.

costalpilot
01-14-2019, 02:07 PM
Well how would you spin it if you were in charge of corporate communications? Youíre a poster child as to why pilots are lousy airline managers. Really dumb post!

thatsa your 100th post?

wtf?

costalpilot
01-14-2019, 02:17 PM
Once you're on the ground and slowing, the odds are stacked against you for taking it up in the air.

Eh, depends on a lot of variables. imo.

80ktsClamp
01-14-2019, 04:09 PM
I'll just leave this right here..




"GET R DONE"

Cool... they were turning from a snow covered taxiway onto a snow covered ramp. No sliding involved... misread the blue lights.

Threat? Yup. Mistake made? Obviously. Get r done thing going on there? Nope.

Whatever makes you feel better, though.

rickair7777
01-14-2019, 04:39 PM
Eh, depends on a lot of variables. imo.

Yes, but it's pretty hard to calculate all of those variables on the fly so the safer answer is usually stay on the ground once the reversers/brakes are in play. If it's too short to stop at the end it's probably too short to going flying... do you want to go off the end at 20kts, or 120 kts with full thrust. You can generally do a touch and go, but I wouldn't linger for long...

Burton78
01-14-2019, 05:53 PM
Cool... they were turning from a snow covered taxiway onto a snow covered ramp. No sliding involved... misread the blue lights.



Threat? Yup. Mistake made? Obviously. Get r done thing going on there? Nope.



Whatever makes you feel better, though.



Uh huh. Predictable response as I see that my point eluded you. Should that be a plane wearing SWA colors we'd all be getting lectured about some mythical "Get r done" mentality trying to get to the gate. But since it's your brand, they get a pass.

'Whatever makes you feel better though.'

Let's all just agree to learn from unfortunate events such as these and do our best not to repeat them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

80ktsClamp
01-14-2019, 07:53 PM
Uh huh. Predictable response as I see that my point eluded you. Should that be a plane wearing SWA colors we'd all be getting lectured about some mythical "Get r done" mentality trying to get to the gate. But since it's your brand, they get a pass.

'Whatever makes you feel better though.'

Let's all just agree to learn from unfortunate events such as these and do our best not to repeat them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point was completely clear. You just jumped on a picture without having any idea what happened hoping it would make your point! I'll jump on us hardcore for that attitude too when it pops up... We had a MD-88 captain (which isn't surprising in this circle) self deice frost off the plane in PNS. That right there, is eye rolling.

Agreed on learning from our mistakes and not repeating them! That's what I'm trying to get at...

Burton78
01-14-2019, 07:57 PM
The point was completely clear. You just jumped on a picture without having any idea what happened hoping it would make your point!



Agreed on learning from our mistakes and not repeating them! That's what I'm trying to get at...



Still escaping you I see. The point is that things happen at EVERY carrier. There's no need to smear airlines with a falsely perceived culture that you know nothing about. Let's move on. I'm happy no one was injured in both scenarios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1