SWA 737 Burbank incident
12-06-2018, 03:54 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,912
Originally Posted by Tunes
I’m not judging, just stating a fact
And clearly, by no means am I a “There by the grace of God”, or “It can happen to anybody” kind of sky jockey. Let’s wait for FOQA, DFDR, DCVR Tower Controllers, and witnesses statements to be revealed before the crew is slagged or congratulated.
I think all can agree that fortunately nobody went to the hospital in a body bag.
12-06-2018, 03:54 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
8 is the only viable instrument approach.
See Jepps. 4575’ usable beyond GS.
See Jepps. 4575’ usable beyond GS.
Are you actually suggesting that's a valid reason for trying to land? I'll bet all the LAX or LGB ILS approaches were "viable".
12-06-2018, 05:35 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs
Do these guys compute landing data? Maybe with everyone flying the same a/c into the same old fields day after day they get to the point where it's assumed. But, WTH? 
10 kts of tailwind on a wet 5800' runway?????? 
10 kts of tailwind on a wet 5800' runway??????
12-06-2018, 06:10 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by captjns
I get that.
And clearly, by no means am I a “There by the grace of God”, or “It can happen to anybody” kind of sky jockey. Let’s wait for FOQA, DFDR, DCVR Tower Controllers, and witnesses statements to be revealed before the crew is slagged or congratulated.
I think all can agree that fortunately nobody went to the hospital in a body bag.
And clearly, by no means am I a “There by the grace of God”, or “It can happen to anybody” kind of sky jockey. Let’s wait for FOQA, DFDR, DCVR Tower Controllers, and witnesses statements to be revealed before the crew is slagged or congratulated.
I think all can agree that fortunately nobody went to the hospital in a body bag.
12-06-2018, 06:24 PM
#37
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by GPullR
The facts show it was a poor judgement to even attempt that approach in those conditions. Yes we need more for a clearer picture but that much can be seen easily.
Were they outside of any limitations to “attempt” an approach?
Was the landing data acceptable?
Did the tower issue verbal weather that differed from the ATIS?
There’s a difference between shooting an approach and actually landing, but you know that.
How many other aircraft landed in that same environment?
Was there a mechanical issue?
My concern is the touchdown point and actual speed.
No worries—we will all know the real information soon enough.
Happy nobody was hurt.
12-06-2018, 06:35 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by at6d
I disagree. You don’t know all the facts.
Were they outside of any limitations to “attempt” an approach?
Was the landing data acceptable?
Did the tower issue verbal weather that differed from the ATIS?
There’s a difference between shooting an approach and actually landing, but you know that.
How many other aircraft landed in that same environment?
Was there a mechanical issue?
My concern is the touchdown point and actual speed.
No worries—we will all know the real information soon enough.
Happy nobody was hurt.
Were they outside of any limitations to “attempt” an approach?
Was the landing data acceptable?
Did the tower issue verbal weather that differed from the ATIS?
There’s a difference between shooting an approach and actually landing, but you know that.
How many other aircraft landed in that same environment?
Was there a mechanical issue?
My concern is the touchdown point and actual speed.
No worries—we will all know the real information soon enough.
Happy nobody was hurt.
12-06-2018, 06:36 PM
#39
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by at6d
I disagree. You don’t know all the facts.
Were they outside of any limitations to “attempt” an approach?
Was the landing data acceptable?
Did the tower issue verbal weather that differed from the ATIS?
There’s a difference between shooting an approach and actually landing, but you know that.
How many other aircraft landed in that same environment?
Was there a mechanical issue?
My concern is the touchdown point and actual speed.
No worries—we will all know the real information soon enough.
Happy nobody was hurt.
Were they outside of any limitations to “attempt” an approach?
Was the landing data acceptable?
Did the tower issue verbal weather that differed from the ATIS?
There’s a difference between shooting an approach and actually landing, but you know that.
How many other aircraft landed in that same environment?
Was there a mechanical issue?
My concern is the touchdown point and actual speed.
No worries—we will all know the real information soon enough.
Happy nobody was hurt.
Previous landing was 9 minutes prior- rain showed intensifying during that time period.
What we don't know are the mechanical state and their energy state.
I will say that the thought of landing in those conditions in that length of runway even with a well functioning airplane perfectly in the slot gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 12-06-2018 at 06:49 PM.
12-06-2018, 06:44 PM
#40
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by GPullR
Sorry, u are wrong. Flew the plane for many years. Would never attempt a landing with the wind reported to them and the rain and visibility on that runway. Poor judgement.
You first said they were wrong to even attempt an approach. That’s where we disagree.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
