Southwest always touts to the news how it's doing new and more efficient things, and then I realize that it's something other carriers have been doing for 20 years.

I'll never forget the article that had a title like "passengers will notice a smoother descent on southwest flights soon." What was the article about? WN finally turning on VNAV in 2006.

The fact of the matter is that WN is many times decades behind other carriers in technology and safety implementation, but it has such a fanboy base that they don't realize it.

 

Their new motto... "At Southwest, we lead the trailing edge of technology"

 

I betcha my MD 11 has a faster approach than your 738.

164 Vref @ 491k.

 

People are still flying MD11's?

 

I didn't say we don't fly the aircraft - it is up to each pilot to determine how to fly (what and how much automation to use). The displays are there to use to give you a better picture of where you're going and how you're going to get there. I found that flying the newer models of the F-16 was a lot easier than flying the older models because of improved displays. We were all "dual typed" to fly block 25 and block 50. SWA chose to neuter the A/P, auto brakes, EFIS displays, etc. And then, there are press releases touting the use of new technology like RNP (available on the NG since launch) to save time and gas. Sorry I didn't update the fact that you are now using more of the capability of the NG.

 

SWA made a conscious choice many many years ago to save a ton of money by not embracing the technology many other airlines were using. It was a very smart choice and it did in fact save millions upon millions of dollars. At the time SWA was a relatively small airline serving a fairly small portion of the U.S. Fuel was extremely cheap and SWA did very little long haul flying. The auto-throttle mechanisms were cannibalized from the 300 fleet and sold on the open market. VNAV was disabled. Autobrakes were not used etc. These tools were simply not needed for the up and down Texas two step type of flying that was done at the time. Not only did the parts that were sold make money for the company, they saved a fortune in maintenance costs for not having to maintain equipment that was not necessary in their short haul operation.

Fast forward many years and the cost of fuel and a completely different route structure made these tools valuable for a now expensive commodity, fuel. SWA began using these fuel saving tools as they became necessary to a now very different type of flying being done by the company. Again it was the outside the box thinking that paid huge dividends. The plan did in fact save a lot of money for the type of flying that was done and worked very well for many years.

I have no idea what you are talking about on the safety front. SWA has an industry leading fatigue policy (excused from the flight with pay and no carpet dance guaranteed) and utilizes all other common safety practices standard at other carriers, ASAP-FDAP etc. The SWA safety record is exemplary, feel free to look up the statistical data at your leisure.

 

I'll be the first to admit that our flight ops leadership at times feels they are legends in their own minds. Is yours really any better about that?

Actually, we started using VNAV in 2010 and as any SWA flight attendant will tell you, the rides on the descent (and climb) most certainly did NOT get smoother! V/S and CWS pitch may seem like anachronisms to many, but in reasonably competent hands they absolutely provide a smoother ride than George chasing the airspeed.

The other fact is that many around here just love to engage in tired old stereotypes. Kind of like how uptight all those double-breasted u-boat commanders seem to be.

 

+1 for Smokey23

 

Ok, I gotta agree with that one.

Delta guys should not be bragging about the VNAV on our 737s.
When it comes to VNAV descents, the Smiths FMS on Delta 737NGs is a piece of junk.
It does OK in climbs or down low at low speeds (ie -- approaches). But in a descent from cruise it never seems to get it right. It is highly likely to overspeed the airplane, overshoot the crossing restriction or get 20 knots slow. (or all three)
The Honeywell VNAV on our 757s and 767s is far superior.

 

I agree with you on the Smiths/Honeywell comparison. HW uses an algorithm to predict winds, Smiths uses last input. One thing that helps is descending a little early, say 10 NM.

What do you put in for "Forecast Winds" on the decent page? Anything reasonably close will forestall a VNAV Disconnect. I jumpsat on CAL NG years ago, and they were sent via ACARS pretty accurate Forecast Winds before descent, and it was pretty damn precise. I've put relatively old and inaccurate winds in and it's better than nothing.