It’s pretty common to have a different tower report vs the METAR/ATIS. When I flew ASE at SkyWest, the tower reported wind was the only way we could ever legally operate into their most days.

Monday morning quaterbacking, so easy even a caveman could do it :rolleyes: Sad what fellow professional pilots are writing against the crew without all the facts being known.

Agreed. Seemingly poor judgment.

Slight editing.

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 ;)

So you’re saying that even if the landing data supported it, and we know the ILS Approach criteria was met, that you’d still not attempt the approach? Based on what exactly?

And I’ve flown the plane for many years and into KBUR and with tailwinds and rain....So what?

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kb...2018-1630Z.mp3

King Air goes missed at 04:30ish

Windshear alerts reported by unknown aircraft at 10:40ish mark and 12:03ish, 12:25ish

SWA 278 on at approx 32:15 it appears. First wind report given to that aircraft (garbled, believed to be 278) is

"wind 260 at 9, and (garbled) reported good (garbled) minutes ago by a 737". Cleared to land, Runway 8 also stated by tower.

tower discusses areas of heavy precip "directly on top of Burbank" at 34:09

"winds 270 at 10" by Tower to unknown aircraft at 34:28

note: (Speculation) based on audio comms it appears significant weather may have existed on the departure end and this may have impacted any "go around/missed" decision making.

** for some reason when I listened to the above link it did not capture the incident itself beyond that

I did not see any "numerous windshear reports in the last hour" or "we had a few aircraft go missed within the hour" passed to SWA278. Maybe "not required" per FAA policy but it would be good from an S.A. standpoint.

Not so sure I would be dropping the crew in the grease over this one.

Remember all accidents require numerous holes in the swiss cheese to line up.

Honestly, aircraft at limits for tailwind into moderate to heavy rain at a minimum with no reliable breaking action reports and a mostly full airplane to a runway that's less than 5000ft? I know it's easy to Monday morning QB it, but if I'm going into Keywest with those circumstances, I'm strongly encouraging a different course of action. Get there itis can haunt your dreams and careers. I hope it is a fluke and they just had a bout of bad luck, but it seems like they may have missed a few steps in the ADM process.

Tailwinds and wet runway? And you “data” supported it, I doubt it.

Does anybody else think it would be cool if both of these pilots got to keep their jobs on the stipulation that they had to be the stars of one of those really funny "****DING- Wanna get away?" commercials, filmed in front of the airplane on the EMAS?