SWA 737 Burbank incident
12-07-2018, 09:19 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by WhaleSurfing
Rick 7777
So you’re saying they dilibertley ignored the landing data that would have been dashed out (giving them no ref speeds or stopping distances) and continued the approach?
Man you 20K message keyboard warriors are full of yourselves. GMAFB!
So you’re saying they dilibertley ignored the landing data that would have been dashed out (giving them no ref speeds or stopping distances) and continued the approach?
Man you 20K message keyboard warriors are full of yourselves. GMAFB!
12-07-2018, 09:42 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by WhaleSurfing
If you doubt then you don’t know what you’re talking about. The data is either valid or it comes back with no data, meaning you can’t continue.
Originally Posted by WhaleSurfing
So you’re saying they dilibertley ignored the landing data that would have been dashed out (giving them no ref speeds or stopping distances) and continued the approach
12-07-2018, 09:43 AM
#93
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,306
Originally Posted by WhaleSurfing
Rick 7777
So you’re saying they dilibertley ignored the landing data that would have been dashed out (giving them no ref speeds or stopping distances) and continued the approach?
Man you 20K message keyboard warriors are full of yourselves. GMAFB!
So you’re saying they dilibertley ignored the landing data that would have been dashed out (giving them no ref speeds or stopping distances) and continued the approach?
Man you 20K message keyboard warriors are full of yourselves. GMAFB!
My guess is the numbers they had did not precisely account for the available braking action. But i don't think it was prudent under the conditions to just call it good because nobody threw an official braking action flag.
They had two strikes to start with. Whether +RA constituted strike three for braking action was a judgement call. We'll know soon enough.
12-07-2018, 09:46 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by WhaleSurfing
So, you’ve already reviewed the FDR and know what happened, and how it could never happen to you?
Impressive!!
Impressive!!
It couldn't possibly be exactly what it looks like. I'm a proponent of Occam's Razor, but time will tell.
12-07-2018, 10:01 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
Here are a few other tidbits you may not know... Southwest operates well over 4,000 flights each and every day and it's steadily increasing... all in 737's. Our largest base is MDW which ironically boasts some of the shortest runways in the country.
I've flown into BUR many times as a Southwest pilot and in the previous life. Runway 8 is short, but it's not the shortest runway in our system either. SNA is shorter,
Back to BUR... though this runway has been resurfaced, it still has a hump, kinda like 4R in MDW does as well. It's grooved, but in my experience, it's much slicker than any other runway in our system with a similar amount of precip - lots of rubber deposits there. Factor? An investigation will tell.
And yes, we do use calculated performance numbers for each landing.
I've flown into BUR many times as a Southwest pilot and in the previous life. Runway 8 is short, but it's not the shortest runway in our system either. SNA is shorter,
Back to BUR... though this runway has been resurfaced, it still has a hump, kinda like 4R in MDW does as well. It's grooved, but in my experience, it's much slicker than any other runway in our system with a similar amount of precip - lots of rubber deposits there. Factor? An investigation will tell.
And yes, we do use calculated performance numbers for each landing.
So, short and shorter runways in your system, possibly slick - sounds like a reason to be extra conservative, not an excuse for occasionally running one off the end. If anything, you're supporting an argument for more frequent diverts. Would you rather have the "Why does SWA divert from BUR, SNA or MDW so often?" discussion 1000 times or this one once?
The fact that this airline chooses to service airports with tiny runways really isn't a valid excuse if this event is exactly what it appears to be.
12-07-2018, 10:06 AM
#97
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,617
Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs
Disagree. When someone uses that phrase, they make this out to be a game of chance. Stuff like this doesn't just happen because it was their turn. It's not a one-off corrosion issue or a manufacturing defect that turns into a catastrophic failure they had no control over. Those events "could easily happen to any one of us". This was a conscious decision to land on a 5800' wet runway with a max tailwind.
So, no.... it couldn't happen to any one of us unless we let it happen.
So, no.... it couldn't happen to any one of us unless we let it happen.
But hey, forget all that. Let's just hang a crew because who needs that scientific hogwash telling us what's what. We should just "eyeball" it and call it good or bad, right? But wait... isn't that what you and your ilk accuse us of doing?
12-07-2018, 10:15 AM
#98
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,617
Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs
What is your point? Lots of flights - so you get "x" amount of "mulligans"?
So, short and shorter runways in your system, possibly slick - sounds like a reason to be extra conservative, not an excuse for occasionally running one off the end. If anything, you're supporting an argument for more frequent diverts. Would you rather have the "Why does SWA divert from BUR, SNA or MDW so often?" discussion 1000 times or this one once?
The fact that this airline chooses to service airports with tiny runways really isn't a valid excuse if this event is exactly what it appears to be.
So, short and shorter runways in your system, possibly slick - sounds like a reason to be extra conservative, not an excuse for occasionally running one off the end. If anything, you're supporting an argument for more frequent diverts. Would you rather have the "Why does SWA divert from BUR, SNA or MDW so often?" discussion 1000 times or this one once?
The fact that this airline chooses to service airports with tiny runways really isn't a valid excuse if this event is exactly what it appears to be.
"Extra conservative" - what does that mean specifically? How much margin do we add to be "extra conservative"? If the FAA calls the runway contamination as 5-5-5, should we just "eyeball" it and call it 4-4-4 for our calculations and call it "extra conservative"? Or do we just say 'naaaaaaaaaw' despite that the company pays A LOT of money to provide us with the best and most accurate information possible to help us make the best possible decision?
Your argument is emotional and bears no semblance of a rational thought. I realize that's all the rage these days in politics, but thankfully, that's not how we approach events like this. After the investigation is complete, then we can cast stones and hang the crew if they need hanging... until then, I'm a very interested party with an open mind.
12-07-2018, 10:19 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,750
Originally Posted by Fixnem2Flyinem
This thread is why I hate pilots...
Hindsight is always 20/20. Most pilots have one thing in common: a desire to complete the flight to the destination airport. Sometimes this can lead us to do things we later think wasn't the best idea. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Very, very happy nobody got hurt.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
