SWA 737 Burbank incident
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 1,901
Tower comms and ATIS info is readily available and matched. Weather report actually showed 11 knot tailwind vs. tower reported 10 (hmmmm...).
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.
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.
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,621
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,232
Tower comms and ATIS info is readily available and matched. Weather report actually showed 11 knot tailwind vs. tower reported 10 (hmmmm...).
I will say that the thought of landing in those conditions in that length of runway, with a headwind, even with a well functioning airplane perfectly in the slot gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I will say that the thought of landing in those conditions in that length of runway, with a headwind, even with a well functioning airplane perfectly in the slot gives me the heebie-jeebies.
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,902
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
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
#46
Banned
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 289
And I’ve flown the plane for many years and into KBUR and with tailwinds and rain....So what?
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: Captain
Posts: 278
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.
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.
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,103
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
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
#50
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post