SWA 737 Burbank incident
12-09-2018, 04:43 PM
#241
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Accident history shows that once a crew touches down, continuing the attempt to stop on the runway would have been much better than trying to power up and go around. Far too many fatal examples with this. Despite how late they touched down on the table-top runway at Mangalore, even the Air India Express 737-800 would have stopped on the runway overrun area (paved) had the crew continued max braking and max reverse to full stop, instead of what they actually did. Accident history also shows that most of the crews who do elect to go around once already on the ground very typically forget to bring flaps to an appropriate Takeoff/GoAround setting. Once you're on the ground and slowing, the odds are stacked against you for taking it up in the air.
That is completely against everything that is being trained these days. Where do you get your "history"? Because the ones that went around after touchdown don't get reported as accidents.
12-09-2018, 04:48 PM
#242
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Originally Posted by oldcarpilot
That is completely against everything that is being trained these days. Where do you get your "history"? Because the ones that went around after touchdown don't get reported as accidents.
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.
12-10-2018, 08:04 AM
#244
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
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.
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.
I did such a go-around once. We floated more than expected (short runway) I told the FO to go-around but he said "I got it". By the time I said my "controls, go-around" we had actually touched down but off we went again.
12-10-2018, 08:15 AM
#246
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
https://youtu.be/LMUK3OYn_9c
It’s a short video and a corporate jet but still applicable to your discussion.
It’s a short video and a corporate jet but still applicable to your discussion.
12-10-2018, 08:40 AM
#247
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by Frip
I'll have a talk with the CP any day rather than get myself, crew and pax into an untenable position.
In what world does a go-around or even a divert generate a "talk with a CP?"
In what world does a go-around or even a divert generate a "talk with a CP?"
12-10-2018, 10:03 AM
#248
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Wow. Would have liked to be a fly on the wall after that flight. Where do we get such pilots?
12-10-2018, 10:37 AM
#249
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 777 Left
Posts: 347
I have never flown the 737. Used to drive the 320 for a number of years. Looking at what is known about conditions (aside from wt, speed, etc), I cannot imagine doing this landing in a 320 at any weight. Still, having said that, I feel sad that many are blaming the crew or even the company culture. Not a single one of us were on that flight deck when this occurred. We do not know what was happening, what the real data of the moment was, why they chose to land vs miss, etc. When the report comes out, we will all learn a lot. For now, thank God that the runway safety systems worked, nobody was injured or killed, the crew and passengers walked away and hope this is a learning event for the crew and not a career ending event.
12-10-2018, 12:38 PM
#250
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by flyguy81
Went to BUR after the incident and jotted down some real world numbers. Obv our data will be different because I’ve 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 500’ that went away in the flare), landing rwy 8.
Flaps 40 data had a 132 kt approach speed. Didn’t need auto brakes but Max gave a 1200’ 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 600’ with auto brake Max. 10 kt tailwind and dry gave 880’ 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.
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 500’ that went away in the flare), landing rwy 8.
Flaps 40 data had a 132 kt approach speed. Didn’t need auto brakes but Max gave a 1200’ 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 600’ with auto brake Max. 10 kt tailwind and dry gave 880’ 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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
