Southwest KLGA gear collapse.

[cldrvr]

No further details yet, no link.

[Polikarpov]

No news link, but a picture.

(for source reference, twit'ter stream of BobbyAbtahi)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPz154wCcAAKIMa.jpg:large

[LASJayhawk]

Reuters report (very short) Plane lands without front landing gear at New York's LaGuardia Airport: CNN (http://news.yahoo.com/plane-lands-without-front-landing-gear-yorks-laguardia-222437694.html)

Quoting the above link: "A televised image showed no apparent damage to the plane, " :ugh:

[Two's in]

Bit more from the AP

NEW YORK (AP) — Officials say the nose gear of a plane landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport collapsed as the aircraft touched down on the runway. The Federal Aviation Administration says the plane landed safely and no injuries were reportedThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has temporarily closed the airport.The FAA says the Southwest Airlines flight from Nashville landed at 5:45 p.m. Monday and safely came to a stop on the tarmac with the front of the plane pointing down to the ground. The plane, which was carrying 149 passengers and crew, was surrounded with emergency vehicles.Dallas-based Southwest Airlines spokespeople didn't immediately respond to phone and email inquiries.The FAA is investigating. ...

[iceman2160]

737-700, more photos here https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=104563622953080
It looks like the front landing gear didn't come down at all...

[UAVop]

From a friend in the FDNY...

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/601739_397339540377150_1672983937_n.jpg

[obgraham]

OMG! -- she's taking her carryon!

[UAVop]

OMG! -- she's taking her carryon!

Wait, this wasn't a typical landing?? :}

[Halfnut]

http://www.jaunted.com/files/6193/swwheel4.jpg

[juice]

@SpeedofSound

Fair observation. Do people instinctively move away from where they perceive the problem to be located?

[EEngr]

Do people instinctively move away from where they perceive the problem to be located?

Head toward the uphill end. Perhaps its just a learned reaction from the Titanic.
;)

[maxmartin96]

LiveLeak.com - Passenger Captures Moment Landing Gear Collapsed

[SOPS]

And once again pax are walking away with their carry on luggage!!

[thcrozier]

Anyone know how many failures of this type have occurred over the life of the 737 family?

[despegue]

Mostly due to nose wheel first touchdown.
Not saying this is the case here though...

[gcal]

Re: the pax with hand luggage.

It may well be easier to let a pax who insists on taking their hand luggage continue to do so; rather than having it dumped in an aisle as a trip hazard or worse the person attempting to return to their seat.
The people, including the crew, may also be in a degree of shock.

[nitpicker330]

Any reason why they couldn't keep it straight on the runway??

They left the runway and crossed a taxyway......:eek:

[BOAC]

Nosewheel steering a bit dodgy?

[nitpicker330]

Funny one BOAC.:D
Nose gear collapse by itself shouldn't cause the crew to lose directional control.

Lucky there wasn't another Aircraft near...

[BOAC]

Don't know it it helps you, but from Av Herald
" The aircraft stopped on the right hand edge of the runway with the nose at the edge of high speed turn off Q about 1150 meters down the runway". No mention of 'crossing' a taxyway.

[nitpicker330]

Play the video from 12 seconds..... Looks like it left the runway crossed one or more taxyways and stopped..??

Anyway all will be revealed soon enough....

[mross]

Do modern heavies all have differential braking on the main gear? Could this be used to keep the a/c on the intended track (on the ground)? Is this controlled by the foot pedals as in light aircraft? I'm sure a lot of us SLF would like to hear from an ATPL.

[mross]

More likely the Captain decide there was a risk of fire where the fuselage had scraped down the runway and chose to use only the aft slides.

[sleeper]

Do modern heavies all have differential braking on the main gear? Could this
be used to keep the a/c on the intended track (on the ground)? Is this
controlled by the foot pedals as in light aircraft? I'm sure a lot of us SLF
would like to hear from an ATPL.


Yes to all.

Not only modern heavies. I flew Boeings 737 767 777 747. They all had differential braking using ruder peddals.

[sleeper]

More likely the Captain decide there was a risk of fire where the fuselage
had scraped down the runway and chose to use only the aft slides.


No.
See picture: http://www.jaunted.com/files/6193/swwheel4.jpg

[Love_joy]

Re: mross,

Yes, all modern heavies have differential braking to assist in steering the aircraft. On my current type, we are actually able to dispatch with the nose wheel steering inop. Though, if I actually would, and with passengers, is another matter.

That said; in a cross wind large aircraft at low speed have a tendency to weathercock and it can be difficult to control with any finess the direction of travel. Add into this, no nose wheel and a cambered runway.... You get the picture.

[Gogerortot]

From the video you can tell that it went a very long time before they started with the Evacuation C-list. If they performed it at all. From pictures you can see that the GND spoilers are still UP after the PAX had left, which indicates that they didn't perform the Evacuation C-list OR they performed it unsatisfactory as the second item on that list is SpeedBrake lever DOWN, a Captain's item.
You can also see that the flaps isn't in 40 degs, which is the position the FO should place them according to the same Evacuation C-list.

A horrifying situation to be in, and they were all OK. That is what counts. They overall did a good job. :D

[sandos]

First, in interviews people say that nobody knew something was wrong, but on the liveleak video one guy says "and thats the impact" as if expected. Did he know something was off already?

[Mad_Mark]

OMG, they closed the airport temporarily!!! WTF? What a silly move to make, don't they have enough fire cover or runways to keep the place open? :E

MadMark!!! :mad:

[mickjoebill]

Cabin crew make an announcement "ladies and gentlemen we are not there.. please sit down"

Perhaps she did not realise they were in trouble and the "there" she refers to is the gate?


Mickoebill

[wdowell]

The video is a video of the video taken on an ipad, so there's commentary over it.

[Sir George Cayley]

So the CC think that's a normal landing?

Remembering a number of nose wheel or other u/c incidents previously declared I recall News choppers etc expectantly awaiting the 'crash'.

The lack of external coverage suggests to me the was a sudden and loud twang.

SGC

[Cows getting bigger]

Perhaps she did not realise they were in trouble and the "there" she refers to is the gate?

Obviously used to heavy landings. :eek:

[Jack1985]

So the CC think that's a normal landing?

I very much doubt that, the lead Cabin Crew member has to keep order until the Captain has initiated an evacuation procedure.

Also just to ask why were the doors 1L and 2L closed but the left overwing exit opened? Also there seems to have been a delay in opening door 1R but also the right overwing exit was opened plus door 2R meaning for a short-period evacuation was solely through both overwing exits and door 2R, it seems 1R opened with delay. Seems there could have been a problem with the doors although its possible the Cabin Crew deemed the Left side unsafe.

[krautland]

re: pax took their carryon luggage

they read the contract of carriage and realized they would barely get a laptop replaced.

[gcal]

Re evacuation
I know only one person who has been in a full scale emergency evacuation as a passenger and he was the one that initiated it.
The cabin crew did not.
He was seated at an emergency exit and was a long time airline employee. He judged the situation safe and went.
That is exactly what I would do.

[Trackdiamond]

Surely there must have been an unsafe gear indication?? Looks like nose gear doors and assembly did not open) If so why not request appropriate emergency response? Could it have been a hard nose drop during de-rotation?Mysterious...

[Speed of Sound]

Surely there must have been an unsafe gear indication?? Looks like nose gear doors and assembly did not open) If so why not request appropriate emergency response?Mysterious...

If true, then not only is there a question of an unsafe gear indication but how did this occur at one of the US's busiest airports in daylight and good weather, without someone spotting it.

Which runway did it land on? Even coming in over the East River you'd think someone would have seen it! :confused:

[NigelOnDraft]

"after the landing gear unexpectedly fell off the plane"Well, I'm not too sure it's not far off what happened :{

Looking at that video, it seems to me the nose attitude falls in the last few seconds (~0:19?) - about as the aircraft transitions from grass onto hard (taxiway?). Nobody seems to be allowing for the fact that the "off road" and back "on road" excursion may have caused the NLG to fail?

Why the excursion started who knows, but KLM had a similar "off roader" at BCN after a bird took out the NWS cable(s).

[theroadie]

And in the same way that passengers who evacuate with their carry-ons get away with it, the disobedient ones who take videos during landing will escape sanctions. I suppose they rationalize it by claiming their use of forbidden equipment will aid the investigation. What part of TURN FULLY OFF do they not understand?

[TURIN]

From the video you can tell that it went a very long time before they started with the Evacuation C-list. If they performed it at all. From pictures you can see that the GND spoilers are still UP after the PAX had left, which indicates that they didn't perform the Evacuation C-list OR they performed it unsatisfactory as the second item on that list is SpeedBrake lever DOWN, a Captain's item.
You can also see that the flaps isn't in 40 degs, which is the position the FO should place them according to the same Evacuation C-list.



Maybe they had no hydraulics available.

Do they start the APU before landing?

Were the engines shut down first before stowing/positioning flaps and spoilers?

I don't know what SOPs are for a nose wheel collapse but shutting engines down may be high up the list.

[thcrozier]

I can't find a single instance of a down and locked B737 nosegear collapsing on a normal landing without first striking something. Is there one?

Second, the iPad video seems to show a runway excursion. If that's the case, did the nosegear fail after the excursion, which might have been caused by something else, as suggested by Nigel above?

[Finn47]

There´s another video on Flightglobal which seems to indicate there was a wheel rolling on the ground behind the aircraft:

VIDEO: Nose gear on Southwest 737-700 collapses on landing (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-nose-gear-on-southwest-737-700-collapses-on-landing-388566/)

[thcrozier]

Wow, the wheel travelled a long way, a good distance of it seemingly perpendicular to its original direction.

[junebug172]

More likely the Captain decide there was a risk of fire where the fuselage had scraped down the runway and chose to use only the aft slides.


Captain doesn't decide that.

[Machaca]

Stopped between HSE's F & Q:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/SWLGA1_zpsf5b5580b.jpg (http://s337.photobucket.com/user/motidog/media/SWLGA1_zpsf5b5580b.jpg.html)


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/SWLGA2_zps7de8f829.jpg (http://s337.photobucket.com/user/motidog/media/SWLGA2_zps7de8f829.jpg.html)


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/SWLGA5_zps00c6d467.jpg (http://s337.photobucket.com/user/motidog/media/SWLGA5_zps00c6d467.jpg.html)

[Rapid D]

I can't find a single instance of a down and locked B737 nosegear collapsing on a normal landing without first striking something. Is there one?

Here's another nose gear collapse. OAK six years ago:

Southwest flight's gear collapses on landing at Oakland airport - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Southwest-flight-s-gear-collapses-on-landing-at-2573407.php)

Was not a "normal" landing as they had gear/hydraulic issues prior to the landing but at some point they had "three green" - indication of 3 down and locked landing gear in the cockpit - prior to landing. Nose then collapsed after touchdown.

If anyone thinks the crew in LGA had anything other than three green prior to landing they are crazy. The nose gear may very well not have been down. But I would say with 100% certainty that they were indicating down and locked in the cockpit. If not, no way they land at LGA.

[BOAC]

Captain doesn't decide that. - actually, June, he/she might.

[pudljumpr]

Legarbage airport always got my attention on landing. A bad karma day and a hard landing most likely.

[junebug172]

- actually, June, he/she might.


Actually, no. He might give the order to evacuate, but no American carrier I k ow of has a Captain dictating which doors to use. That's a decision our FAs make.

[GearDoor]

Actually, that is a decision that a passenger is capable of making. Also, I would dictate which doors to use during an evacuation, if I felt the need to.

[JPJP]

junebug172 - Actually, no. He might give the order to evacuate, but no American carrier I k ow of has a Captain dictating which doors to use. That's a decision our FAs make.


Apparently your knowledge of all American carriers isn't quite as exhaustive as you thought.

The Captain will order the evacuation including a command that specifies the exits to be used. For example "All Exits" or "Left Side Only" etc. The flight deck crew may have knowledge of a threat or potential threat that the Flight attendants haven't been made aware of. Obviously, the Flight Attendants will then assess their exits.

[flyingchanges]

This American carrier no longer restricts the exits the cabin crew will use...

[Cathay Boy]

Must be a malfunction to landing gear lights, as it reported the landing gear down and locked when it reality it's probably down but not locked, and as a result when the plane landed the front landing gear snap off.

Had there been an indicator light issue, the crew would of definitely try to fix it first (the CVR will tell if that is the case), and even if they are low on fuel, the flight crew will notify ATC that they need assistance because of abnormality with landing gear indicator. So far, no report that ATC received such request.

[STRAFE EM]

Cmon guys...you really think they would have went to LGA with a KNOWN GEAR issue with Newark and JFK right there? Low on gas or not!!!!

[lomapaseo]

I keep hearing that the gear rotated backwards and was driven up into the electrical bay.

Is that a direction that coincides with an unlocked gear or a hard nose down on a locked gear?

I still can't figure out why the wheel itself came off? I suppose there might even be the possibility that the gear was down and locked and that the wheel was the first thing that let go allowing the strut itself to dig in, but that doesn't match my visuals of other aircraft landings where the nose wheel just swivels away in a shower of sparks but doesn't collapse.

[VFD]

Pictures floating around of the nose gear up in the EE bay with the axle broken which is why the wheel was following the airplane.

Looking like a high sink rate landing at least maybe a wheel barrow.

You can assume for what that is worth, but short of a downburst looks like lack of a flair trying to hit the markers on a short runway.

[junebug172]

The Captain will order the evacuation including a command that specifies the exits to be used. For example "All Exits" or "Left Side Only" etc. The flight deck crew may have knowledge of a threat or potential threat that the Flight attendants haven't been made aware of. Obviously, the Flight Attendants will then assess their exits.

Carrier?

Why would the Captain dictate specific exits only to have the FAs make the call in the end.

Our FOM has the Captain making the evacuate command a d that's it.

[LASJayhawk]

Gear, meet avionics. Looks like it hit pretty hard.

http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r745/LASJayhawk/SW737_zps855914d8.jpg (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/LASJayhawk/media/SW737_zps855914d8.jpg.html)

[JPJP]

The video of the flair and landing has surfaced. The video was taken from an over wing seat looking forward. It did appear to be quite a 'firm' arrival. Whether the front gear failed immediately is hard to tell.... The amateur film maker had his phone knocked out of his hand at touchdown.

Regarding this little gem ....... I'm speechless:


Must be a malfunction to landing gear lights, as it reported the landing gear down and locked when it reality it's probably down but not locked, and as a result when the plane landed the front landing gear snap off.

[JPJP]

junebug172 -Our FOM has the Captain making the evacuate command a d that's it.

Excellent. Then you'll realize that not all carriers in the U.S. do everything in the same way. Which was my point.

If you fly the 737NG or fly for Southwest then I'm all ears. Since you don't do either, lets continue with the thread.

[Flap62]

GCal


He was seated at an emergency exit and was a long time airline employee. He judged the situation safe and went.
That is exactly what I would do.

He is an idiot and so are you.

You do not have all the information. In the LGA instance was there any need for a full emergency evac? Where was the immediate danger to life? Just because a gear has failed doesn't necessarily mean it's a trauma. No fire? No structural deformation? Wait it out and let the professionals do their job.

[rmiller774]

Why would passengers be positioned to slide from way up near the tail of the aircraft, maybe 25' above ground, rather than from the slide near the nose which appears to be only 6' above ground? I wonder if some injuries resulted from using that high slide?

[Solar]

Flap62
Whilst you may be correct remember a lot of the people that died on the Piper Alpha did so because they waited on instructions to evacuate. Every situation is obviously different but the captain may not always be the person who has full knowledge of what is happening at the back.
Rig workers are now told, follow the training but use your initiative.

[md80fanatic]

Dailymail has this video from the cabin ... landing knocked the camera out of the man's hand so it probably was a bit firm.

News Distribution Network - Shared Video (http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=wpix_localnews&VID=24966508)

Beware ... a lot of fluff before and after the actual cabin scene.

[StormyKnight]

To me it looks like from the video
1. It doesn't appear to be landing down the runway but at an angle
2. It appears to land on the nose wheel - no flare

Thoughts?

[love2fly98]

I agree, looks like they hit the nose first...

[subsonicsubic]

Watching that clip from my armchair :cool: the angle of the engine cowling appears consistent with a nose low arrival.

[ManaAdaSystem]

I thought only Koreans didn't know how to land jet aircraft?
I have always been told to land my 737 on the main wheels first, and that means the nose of the aircraft is angled a few degrees up, not down.

[Cathay Boy]

Just 737s? First Asiana pilots lost track of their speed, now Southwest pilots tried to land nose down, what's going on to the world of aviation?

[Speed of Sound]

Watching that clip from my armchair the angle of the engine cowling appears consistent with a nose low arrival.

I'm not sure you can tell from that video.

I've just looked at six 737 landings videoed from a similar seat (youtube has loads) and none of them looked any more pitched up or down than the video above and they all landed on all six wheels.

[Cows getting bigger]

Six wheels? Did I teach you? I would have preferred four followed sometime later by the front two. :)

[Speed of Sound]

I would have preferred four followed sometime later by the front two.

My maths teacher taught me four plus two makes six! :)

[gcal]

Flaps 62
The only idiotic thing would be to sit and wait when you have a clear view and can see it is safe.
Pilots may not be fully aware of what is going on behind them. I would say that is fairly certain in the Asiana crash.
The cabin crew may be in a state of shock, or physically unable to do what they are trained to - injured in some way perhaps or missing as once again in the Asiana crash.
Why wait when you can see it is safe? Why not use your own initiative? Remember the man I mentioned was a long time airline employee who was familiar with the aircraft and the emergency exits; and in the particular case the airport.
He made a judgement call based on his knowledge and it was correct.

[Capn Bloggs]

Looked like a bunt just before touchdown to me...

[sitigeltfel]

looks like lack of a flair trying to hit the markers on a short runway.

Yes, a lack of flair can lead to misjudged flare. ;)

[Cows getting bigger]

To quote bubbers44 from the Asiana thread

We make our pilots fly properly so why let pilots from other countries with poor skills risk our airliners safety? I might be a bigot but I am asking a question about US airport safety and why we compromise safety because other countries don't have our standards. Shut them down into the US, we did before.

Surely this accident can't have occurred because of poor standards or piloting skills?

:}

[Finn47]

According to the NTSB, the nose gear went up into the electronics bay, see photo:

NTSB: Nose gear penetrated Southwest 737 electronics bay (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ntsb-nose-gear-penetrated-southwest-737-electronics-bay-388626/)

[rpetersson]

Wow - must have been a nose first landing. Gear does not simply collapse into the electronicsbay....

[DaveReidUK]

According to the NTSB, the nose gear went up into the electronics bay, see photo:You mean like the photo in Post #59?

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519707-southwest-klga-gear-collapse-3.html#post7956851

[spooky3]

I think it was a reverse tailstrike

[Hotel Tango]

Flap62

If I'm involved in an accident where the aircraft integrity is compromised and I see any sign of fire I'm out of there PRONTO. You can stay and burn if you want to. The video clearly shows signs of flames from the fuselage scraping the runway. How am I (or the crew for that matter) to know that it is or isn't still burning when the aircraft comes to a stop. As it wasn't an expected emergency there are no emergency appliances at hand to assess the situation. I'm not waiting to find out. When I fly I follow the safety briefings and then I make my own personal safety briefing. One thing many unnecessarily fatal aircraft fire incidents have taught me is: "don't hang around"!

Edited from "or" to "and" (which was my intended meaning).

[BOAC]

HT - I take it you would not mind evacuating into a running engine then?

[Volume]

You can stay and burn if you want toUnfortunately it is not that easy. By opening the emergency exit you may just allow fire to get into the cabin, so because you open it and are out quickly, somebody else will burn. You decide, you do not ask him if he wants to! People running around the aircraft will also slow down emergency vehicles entering the best position for firefighting. This may also mean that those who got out quickly will kill those that are at the end of the row.
I am quite sure of what I will do in such a case, which will be a panic reaction and no fully thought through decision, I will be out asap as well. But I may have to live with with the consequences ever after. I may not like to read the full NTSB report...

[Lord Spandex Masher]

How am I (or the crew for that matter) to know that it is or isn't still burning when the aircraft comes to a stop.

Well the pilots would be gathering information from, ATC, the fire service, possibly other aircraft and the cabin crew. This allows them to make the most informed decision that is possible - the reason that sometimes a delayed instruction to evacuate is sometimes apparent.

You just make up your own procedures and then you're just going to do one without any of that gouge? As Volume says you might just end up killing everybody else.

[Hotel Tango]

Being ATC myself I'm well aware of what ATC may or may not be able to see. I would also catergorically say that I wouldn't rely on what a guy in a cab possibly miles away can see. Well, survival, like it or not, comes down to the individual. You can all wait like sheep if you want. BOAC don't be a silly billy, I know when an engine is running. Why do you retired pilots think that ALL pax are dumb and inexperienced? I'd like to see you just sit there and wait it out. Just the way pilots and CC have to make a judgement, so does a passenger. There are plenty of examples out there of WRONG judgements made by FD crew. LSM, as I mentioned, in this instance the fire service is not there and may not be there for a minute or more. That can also be the difference between life and death. There is no 100% full proof procedure like it or not. One makes a judgement taking into account the circumstances and one executes one's plan of action. Some of you alude to the fact that my actions may kill others. I would certainly hope not. However, I would counter that with the strong argument that the inaction of either myself or others may kill me!

[Flap62]

gcal and Hotel Tango.

Other posters have since pointed out the flaws in you "every man for himself" policy.

gcal, if the aircraft comes to a halt and your friend could see it was safe, why would they get out? So from a tiny window you can see everything? So the pilots and all the experienced cabin crew (who are also trained to make an assessment and initiate an evacuation in certain circumstances) know less than your "aviation expert" do they? A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Hotel Tango, you say if you swap signs of fire you'd initiate an evac on your own. A high speed stop will cause a great amount of smoke from the gear, perhaps a few flames. Going to get out? Say an engine's burning. That doesn't mean there's any real threat to the cabin, even though it might look spectacular it's isolated. Blow a slide with your tiny situational awareness and you could be sending people down slides into running engines. Also the aircraft now can't move. The pilot may have been about to reposition the aircraft so that fire was blown away from the cabin, you've just stopped him from doing that. Fire might now be a threat to the cabin when there was no need and as has been pointed out, the doors are now open allowing it in. But then again, as you're an expert you'll know all this!

[Speed of Sound]

Why wait when you can see it is safe? Why not use your own initiative?

I would counter that with the strong argument that the inaction of either myself or others may kill me!

Every serious study in the last thirty years (and probably more!) shows that a managed evacuation is more efficient, and leads to less overall injuries than a free for all.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

HT, ok, but there were no signs of fire on the video were there, sparking yes but no fire. If I'd been the pilot of Southwest and asked you as ATC what you could see and you'd told me I was on fire I'd be pretty miffed to find out it was only sparks.

If you'd been on board an aircraft which dinged the wingtip on landing, lots of sparks, smoke and leaking fuel would you evacuate then?

I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to understand your mindset. Might help me to prevent people popping doors and chutes unecessarily in the future.

[sitigeltfel]

A good example of CC initiating an evacuation when communications have broken down......

RJ engine fire on start up, Edinburgh airport. (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Avro%20146-RJ100,%20G-CFAE%2001-07.pdf)

‘Any unusual or abnormal occurrence, either
visual, e.g. refuelling truck fire, cabin fire, engine
fire, smoke in the cabin, etc, or audible, e.g., noise,
vibrations, etc, on any part of the aircraft, internal
or external, must be reported to the Captain.
However should a Crew Member become aware
of a situation which is clearly catastrophic they
should initiate an evacuation. He/She shall alert
all Crew Members by verbal communication,
passenger address, interphone or loud hailer and
immediately proceed with an evacuation as soon
as the aircraft has stopped.’
‘The good judgement of cabin crew is imperative
in order to evaluate the situation before initiating
an evacuation.
‘Unless there is immediate danger Cabin Crew
should wait 15 seconds.
This period of time
allows the Flight Crew to perform shut down
checks and establish whether an evacuation is
required. If no flight deck command is received
after 15 seconds the SCCM (Purser) should
investigate by either calling on the interphone or
visiting the flight deck.’
‘Emergency conditions, which would require
Cabin Crew to initiate evacuation, include:
1.
A self-sustaining aircraft fire
2.
Dense smoke in the cabin
3.
An extreme and unusual aircraft attitude
4.
Any time the passengers are in immediate
danger
5.
Unusual sounds prior to stopping (loud
scraping or tearing of the aircraft
structure)Experience + common sense = lives saved.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

If there had been a PA from the flight deck saying something like "cabin crew standby, ladies and gentlemen stay seated", for example, what would you have done then?

[filejw]

Spooke 3....me thinks you are not far off. Pure speculation but if you look at one of the videos taken from inside a/c at touchdown the wing gives an impression of being bit nose low.

[Hotel Tango]

LSM, since the moderator has seen fit to remove a number of posts, I fear that the debate has possibly lost some of its context. In answer to my mindset, it's complicated. If the crew announced we have a nosewheel gear failure and will be making an emergency landing, I would know that the fire and emergency crews would be in position and immediately be able to assess the situation. I'm confident that in such a scenario I would sit tight and await instructions. In a case such as this particular SWA accident, it is an unforeseen situation. There was evidence of fire (sparking if you wish) as confirmed on the video. The tower could be some way away and not be able to see a small fire in the wheel well. The 'crash' button will only just have been activated and the emergency services may take anything up to 5 minutes to reach the scene. I think that it would take a great deal of sang froid to sit there for more than perhaps 10 - 20 seconds without positive information from the crew. I haven't had time to review the SWA cabin video a second time, but did I not hear one of the CC make a PA to the effect that pax should sit down "beacuse we haven't got there yet"? I take it she was refering to the gate. Had she not realised the aircraft had, for a better word, crashed? I appreciate the training you all get in your job (btw my wife is ex CC), as we do in ours. However, it doesn't preclude highly trained well-intentioned individuals making mistakes or being slow - possibly from shock or injury - in taking the necessary action. I believe that there is only a very short window of "compliance" in most of us before personal survival instincts kick in. Bottom line, is that it is difficult for any of us, trained and untrained, to know for certain how we would react in a real scenario. It will come down to individuals' judgement on the day. My argument is that, yes I could indeed make the wrong judgement, but despite all the training in the world, so could the professionals - as has been the case in a number of past accidents.

[Lonewolf_50]

I thought only Koreans didn't know how to land jet aircraft?
Can we for once give this "it must be the nationality" noise a rest?
I have always been told to land my 737 on the main wheels first, and that means the nose of the aircraft is angled a few degrees up, not down.
One hopes that all pilots are likewise taught. (hmm, never flew a tail dragger, I'd need to review the standard techniques on that).
Yes, a lack of flair can lead to misjudged flare.
A few posts back, someone mentioned what looked like a "bunt" in the end game before touch down. If that's what happened, what was being "corrected for" right before touchdown? :confused:

[Speed of Sound]

My argument is that, yes I could indeed make the wrong judgement, but despite all the training in the world, so could the professionals - as has been the case in a number of past accidents.

At the risk of being controversial I would suggest that the trained professionals are much less likely to make a mistake than you are.

SOPs are not alway right in all circumstances, but they are the result of many hundreds of hours of research and examination of every conceivable option. They are then modified by years of real time and real life incidents which increase our understanding.

They trump your ten seconds of ":mad:! I need to get off! Do I do it now or wait for a sign?"

[Lord Spandex Masher]

think that it would take a great deal of sang froid to sit there for more than perhaps 10 - 20 seconds without positive information from the crew

You might have missed my other post which asked -

If there had been a PA from the flight deck saying something like "cabin crew standby, ladies and gentlemen stay seated", for example, what would you have done then?


Not sure if this happened or not but would that have been enough to quell your instinct to do a runner, at least for more than twenty seconds or so?

[canyonblue]

By opening the emergency exit you may just allow fire to get into the cabin, so because you open it and are out quickly, somebody else will burn.

Very true. Just think MDW in winter when the provisioners open the rear door and the cabin gets a nice blast of Arctic air, the venturi effect would drag a fire into the cabin.

[lincman]

Looking at the angle of incidence in the video on page 12, the aircraft looks like it hit the runway at a good nose-down angle. This is borne out by noting the angle when the aircraft comes to a stop – it looks about the same angle. Moreover, in the video, the aircraft does not appear to flare. It hit the runway so hard, it knocked the camera out of the pax’s hands. Then there is the lone nose wheel/tire (or maybe just the tire ) rolling behind the aircraft. I have been involved with other types where the NLG hit the runway first, and where the nose wheels broke off or the axle broke – releasing the nosewheels. This incident must have hit so hard, it also broke the nose leg (or pushed it up into the fuselage). Some of the fire could have been from the damping fluid (oil) in the NLG strut.

[Speed of Sound]

Moreover, in the video, the aircraft does not appear to flare.

Nor does it in at least half a dozen youtube videos of normal 737 landings filmed from over-wing seats.

I agree that the cause of this accident was most likely a hard, nose-first landing but I can't see how anyone can say this for sure from the video.

[Hotel Tango]

SoS, in theory one would think so, I agree. But it's not 100% guaranteed and, as I said, there comes a moment when self preservation kicks in. With a hundred plus pax on board there will be many different reactions. Some may sit meekly (in shock) waiting to be told what to do, some may bolt for the exits and some may try and appraise the situation and act, in their mindset, accordingly. Interestingly I just asked my wife (ex CC) what she would do in the SWA scenario. Her initial reply was "go immediately for the nearest exit". Within a few seconds she backtracked (training must have kicked in) and decided that she would await crew instructions. I found that interesting, but I'm no psychoanalyst.

[Hotel Tango]

LSM, certainly it would, although I recognise that the FD may have other priorities on their mind before making a PA. In the meantime I have reviewed the SWA video (on page 1) and the first PA announcement, which is from the CC is "Ladies and gentlemen, we are not there, you need to take your seats". She clearly was either not aware of the situation or, being in shock due to the unexpected aspect of the occurence, reverted to standard PA used when approaching the gate and pax start to get up. I'm sure she was a well trained professional. As I said, we don't really know how we would react in a real scenario.

[paull]

Not sure on who's wording it is but
...in the event of an accident AND only when instructed to do so.....

Firstly, the first bit is what sticks in your mind, not the bit after the AND.
Secondly, the first is irrelevant, better would be "If instructed by the crew to open the exit...."

I have a horrible feeling that when I am next to an over-wing exit I will probably have that door open and thrown out a.s.a.p. Whether I would actually get out is secondary.

Of course, I can't be sure, it has never happened, but I doubt I am an extreme case. I am wired to act in an emergency and 2000-3000 safety briefings is not likely to change that, though a few actual practice events probably would. You guys get to train this stuff, we do not. What if you were just told what to do in the case of an engine failure but never actually got to practice one?

[Speed of Sound]

SoS, in theory one would think so, I agree. But it's not 100% guaranteed and, as I said, there comes a moment when self preservation kicks in.

No, but it is probably somewhere between 85% and 100% and that is good enough for me. If the cabin was intact, there was no smoke or signs of fire and we had come to a complete stop, I would certainly give both the flight crew and cabin crew time to assess the situation before rushing in a mad panic to the nearest exit, even if we were on water.

[mross]

As a pax I recall being asked if I speak English and if I feel capable of opening the over wing door. I was also asked to read the safety sheet. I don't recall ever being briefed to wait until instructed by CC before opening the door. I'm sure the safety sheet said, 'check outside for fire / hazards before opening'. I would wait for guidance from CC but I wouldn't wait long!

[Speed of Sound]

I would wait for guidance from CC but I wouldn't wait long!

Lucky you weren't on the Quantas A380 then, as the #1 engine was still producing significant thrust for at least an hour after landing! :eek:

[ManaAdaSystem]

Can you please discuss evacuation procedures and blablabla somewhere else? There are pages full of nothing related to pilots landing nosewheel first with a 737!

[Hotel Tango]

SoS, keep it within context. The QANTAS A380 didn't crash. It was a planned emergency landing with both crew and pax well prepared and briefed for it.

[LASJayhawk]

I have read that the aircraft came out of "inspection" on July 18th. Anyone else see this? If true it would be "interesting" to know it the gear was out during the work.

[BOAC]

Where is the supposed 'fire' people are describing?

[patkinson]

I remember the port main gear fell out over puchong in malaysia due to an incorrectly sized gland nut fitted to the main oleo strut.The a/c..a B737-200 made a perfect landing ..the crew had 3 greens so were unaware till touchdown!
Boeing along with other a/c types have a litany of problems which manifest themselves over time as the a/c type ages..and the occasional lapse in maintainence and equipt fails !!!

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, sure as f*** no Boeing nosegear ever got stuffed up into the equipment bay without severe provocation - and that ain't by anything less than 'mishandling". Boeing nosegears are built like the proverbial brick outhouses.

This wans't a passive "structural failure" for sure, tho it seems more then likely to be an induced one...

[junebug172]

If you fly the 737NG or fly for Southwest then I'm all ears. Since you don't do either, lets continue with the thread.

Excellent. If you go back to my post, I stated indirectly that SWA Captains don't make that call. I didn't source my reference but it was from a SWA Captain.

So, no , I don't fly for SWA, but I do fly for a major and know many SWA pilots.

All ears now?

Lets continue with this thread.

[junebug172]

I agree that the cause of this accident was most likely a hard, nose-first landing but I can't see how anyone can say this for sure from the video.

That's waaaaayyy too premature of a conclusion. What about the maintenance that was performed on it prior to that accident? Could that have been a factor? There is precedence of wheels coming off sans hard landings.

[ExSp33db1rd]

What about the maintenance that was performed on it prior to that
accident?

Sure, the most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come from a "routine", time-dictated, maintenance programme ! They may not have been "broke" but were "fixed" - regardless, and without in any way blaming any engineers, they are human like the rest of us and make mistakes - sometimes.

Not saying, but it could well have been a factor.

Remember the "spacer" that was allegedly (?) left out of the French Concorde wheel following maintenance just before the fatal crash ?

[MPN11]

Bad call, I know ... In the context of the Asiana "whoops", was this a visual approach in manual?

I know, but if there is linkage it needs to be explored and not put in a file called SWAwhatever.

[Finn47]

US NTSB safety regulators launched an investigation into the collapse of the front landing gear on a Southwest Airlines plane shortly after it touched down at New York's LaGuardia Airport on Monday evening.
The National Transportation Safety Board said the Boeing 737 skidded 2,175 feet on its nose after the front gear collapsed backwards into the fuselage, damaging avionics and electronics. Nine people out of 150 passengers and crew on board suffered minor injuries, the NTSB said.
The agency had been considering not investigating the incident further, but decided on Tuesday it required further scrutiny.
NTSB Investigates Southwest's LaGuardia Landing (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1374665777.html)

[Sky Wave]

Sorry to drag this back to the evacuation, but WTF.

Very few things in aviation should be rushed and the decision to evacuation is a case in point.

On the 737 checklist items include the engines being switched off, the speedbrakes being stowed and the flaps set to 40 in order to aid the evacuation. Initiating an evacuation before these steps have been taken are likely to cause injury or death.

If passengers initiate an evacuation they are doing it with very little information, very little situational awareness and most likely whilst in shock with adrenalin pumping. Once an evacuation has started it cannot be stopped, people will get injured.

The rear slide angle and the wing at flap 30 with an unusual nose attitude must have injured people during the evac.

Only a few weeks ago in the Asiana incident someone was run over and killed by a fire vehicle in broad daylight further demonstrating that the aircraft can often be the safest place to be.

If there's a fire or smoke in the cabin, I would agree get the hell out of there and if the pilots didn't know what the situation was they'd soon switch the engines off when the doors are flung open, but a few sparks outside as the aircraft slows to a halt, get grip of yourself and let those with all the information make the decision.

[Coagie]

If you just have to get out, and you just can't stand it, in the absence of smoke, fire, or crew instructions, count to 20. One one thousand, two one thousand, etc., then open the door and exit. Maybe this will give the crew enough time to finish their checklist?

[filejw]

FYI....An account from a pilot viewing landing from a nearby cockpit. The flair was high then they pushed the nose over contacting the R/W nose gear first and hard enough that the gear disappeared into the wheel well.

[Speed of Sound]

That's waaaaayyy too premature of a conclusion

hence my use of the phrase 'most likely'. ;)

The gear not only folded but went through the floor of the equipment bay. That would have taken some force. If the wheel had fallen off you would have had a scene not unlike the Jet Blue 90 rotated nose gear landing at LAX, where we saw lots of sparks but the gear stayed attached.

If the gear had dug into the tarmac it would have folded or eventually broken off. It is a comparatively light structure and I doubt it would have had the inertia to be flung up through the floor above.

The only thing that doesn't fit this theory is that the wheel appears to be spinning as it crosses the grass which suggests it was in contact with the ground with weight on it long enough to 'spin up' which seems to preclude an instantaneous failure on contact.

Having said that, at over 100 knots, it needs less than a second's contact with the tarmac to achieve a reasonably high rotational speed. Once the axle shatters, the load is removed from the wheel and it will continue to spin for some time.

[awblain]

If you smash the front landing gear into the ground, and the wheel is wrenched off its axle, then it's still moving at the same speed as the wreckage, and will quickly spin up to roll off only a little slower than the wreckage.

If it's not wrenched off its axle, then the energy that would have spun it up (and then some) will be dumped into the broken bearings.

Seeing rolling debris eventually overtake the bulk of the wreckage is par for the course.

[junebug172]

Friend just forwarded this to me:

Guys, here is a comment from another message board from a crew member on a taxiway with a front row seat of what happened:

"Here is what I saw. We were on taxiway B short of CY abeam the
AA hanger. We were around 2000 ft from the runway end and had a
complete view of the first 2000 ft of the runway. WN seemed high
crossing the threshold and was around 20-30 ft above the 1000ft
marker when they flared and ballooned even higher. At this point
the three of us thought he was going around until he pushed the
nose over. I will admit it was such a hard pushover that even
before he hit the ground at the 1500 ft marker, nose gear first
(barley before the underside of the AC nose hit I yelled Holy
S**t. I believe after the pushover someone tried to get the nose
back up but it was a lost cause. The fact the AC stayed in one
piece is amazing. The nose gear looked like it was on a shock
disappearing back into the wheel well. The left engine hit first
and the AC started sliding left. It was pure luck that no one
was hurt, as the area it came to a stop in had a few minutes
earlier been full of AC taxiing."

[Capn Bloggs]

I agree that the cause of this accident was most likely a hard, nose-first landing but I can't see how anyone can say this for sure from the video.
Watch the start of this video closely. The bunt is quite obvious.

yBqQ5TCB-jQ

[junebug172]

That it is.

[bubbers44]

Landing on the nose gear was not good. It is not designed for initial touchdown. Everybody knows a 737 can not land on the nose gear and not break off. It is not designed for that. We all know that so never did.

[bubbers44]

Both pilots screwed up by letting it happen. They will have a lot explaining to do.

[fotoguzzi]

"The FAA said the flight 'reported possible front landing gear issues before landing.'"

Southwest Plane Hauled from LaGuardia Runway After Landing Gear Collapse | NBC New York (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Southwest-Flight-Landing-Gear-Collapse-LaGuardia-Injuries-NTSB-Boeing-Investigation-216561131.html)

[md80fanatic]

The world has gone mad ... I think I'll consider driving this holiday season. :ooh:

[nitpicker330]

Well there you have it.

They can run but they can't hide.

Seems its not only Indian A320's that land nose wheel first then.. :eek:

Like I said before-------lucky they didn't hit another Aircraft.......:(

[YRP]

Okay, I'm sure there are important flight safety issues here, evacuation, training, magenta mirage, etc. But so far we are all missing something critical...

Someone has _got_ to teach that guy how to download a video from his tablet rather than videotaping the tablet playing the video. :ugh:

[StormyKnight]

Someone has _got_ to teach that guy how to download a video from his tablet rather than videotaping the tablet playing the video. :ugh:

This rumor is correct :ok:

[HundredPercentPlease]

The rear slide angle and the wing at flap 30 with an unusual nose attitude must have injured people during the evac.

You might want to give consideration to the possibility that with the electronic gizzards of the aircraft pierced by the landing gear, some systems and devices may not have remained responsive to their controls.

[Massey1Bravo]

Go to 0:24

xPEnLGg2-ec

[Volume]

Boeing nosegears are built like the proverbial brick outhouses.You may discuss that in depth with the mechanics which repair all the cracks in 747 nose landing gear bays and the surrounding frames... For the gear itself you may be right, but we still need to learn which structural members did fail on the Southwest.

[Speed of Sound]

Is main gear wheel speed recorded on the DFDR of a 737?

If so it should be fairly straightforward to find out which end came down first.

[bsieker]

As we also learned in Asiana 214 News briefings, landing gear assemblies are frangible. They are designed to break in specific places when overstressed to avoid more excessive damage to surrounding structures. In the case of the 777 the main landing gear shearing off probably saved fuel tank integrity and prevented a fuel-fed fire.

In this case I'm not sure how the wheel itself could roll along as it is seen in the one video, when the gear strut was pushed up into the avionics bay. To me the bouncing wheel seemed bigger than a nosewheel (but I agree it is hard to judge without any reference), but in the photos of the aircraft at rest one can see all 4 main gear wheels attached.

Question for 737-7xx pilots: what is the clearance of the engine nacelles with the nose gear completely collapsed? I looked at some drawings of the (slightly longer) -800 and it seems to be very little (if any). So given the shorter length and some compression of the main landing gear on "touchdown" I assume the answer is "less than zero", i. e. the nacelles are expected to scrape in this case.

Would one expect engine damage from scraping the front portion of the nacelle like that or would the air inlet just deform and protect the engine proper?


Bernd

[Speed of Sound]

In this case I'm not sure how the wheel itself could roll along as it is seen in the one video, when the gear strut was pushed up into the avionics bay.

I'd say either the axle broke on impact, releasing the wheel then or as it folded into the wheel well, the wheel would be the first part of the gear to contact the floor above (and the fastest) and would have come off then.

I'd say the smart money is on it becoming detached on impact as it is much more likely to have become trapped in the well once the nose was down.

[LASJayhawk]

FWIW: if you go back to the picture of the E1 rack (front of the avionics bay)

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519707-southwest-klga-gear-collapse-3.html#post7956851

On the top row the 4th box over (1st box is silver with blue label) is the Flap/Slat electronics unit. On the 2nd row the 1st box is the anti-skid/ auto brake box.

Quite possible after being impaled by the nose gear these systems were not operating correctly. May be why the plane went off the runway and why the evacuation checklist appears not to have been completed.

[Speed of Sound]

The agency had been considering not investigating the incident further, but decided on Tuesday it required further scrutiny. The accident occurred at 5:45 pm local time as Southwest's Flight 345 arrived at LaGuardia from Nashville.

Am I the only one staggered by the above statement? :eek:

[Carbon Bootprint]

Am I the only one staggered by the above statement?
No, you're not, SoS. I too found it extremely puzzling. Since it wasn't a quote and not directly attributed to an NTSB source, I put it down to potential journo misinterpretation or fantasy. Hopefully that's just not wishful thinking. :sad:

[junebug172]

What was the source? I haven't come across anything that remotely hints at no investigation. The CVR and DFDR are already in DC.

[DaveReidUK]

"The NTSB deployed an investigator to LaGuardia shortly after the accident to coordinate the on-scene activities and document the airplane's damage".

Press Release July 23, 2013 (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130723b.html)

[Speed of Sound]

The quote is from here

NTSB Investigates Southwest's LaGuardia Landing (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1374665777.html)

[Zeffy]

Not worthy of the dramatic gasping.

The very early and perhaps limited information may have indicated that this was not an accident per the definitions embodied in NTSB 830.2 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=94025eb9cf7c6177744fd5a6fb022f00&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:7.1.4.1.12.1.1.2&idno=49)
Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Obviously as additional details were revealed, NTSB acted promptly and appropriately.

[Speed of Sound]

Obviously as additional details were revealed, NTSB acted promptly and appropriately.

What additional details were revealed? :confused:

[DaveReidUK]

Obviously as additional details were revealed, NTSB acted promptly and appropriately.Quite so. I suspect that any (alleged) NTSB indecision lasted only as long as the aircraft's progression, showering sparks, along the runway.

As soon as it became clear (from the liberated nosewheel) that we weren't looking at a simple NLG hangup, the Go-Team's phones would have been ringing.

[fotoguzzi]

[Not a pilot:] As soon as it was revealed that the gear had failed with no prior warning, it might have been worth an investigation. From previous comments, it would be unusual to begin with positive gear indicator lights and end up dragging the nacelles down the runway.

[airman1900]

Recent tweets (beginning about 21:45 UTC July 25) from the NTSB:


NTSB releases investigative update from the7/22 Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700 landing at New York’s LaGuardia Airport.

Evidence from video & other sources consistent with nose gear making contact with runway before main gear of SWA 737.

The SWA flight data recorder on the airplane recorded 1000 parameters & 27 hours of data, including entire flight from Nashville to NY.

Flaps on SWA 737-700 were set from 30 to 40 degrees about 56 seconds prior to touchdown at LGA.

SWA: Altitude was 32 feet, airspeed was 134 knots, and pitch attitude was 2 degrees nose-up 4 seconds prior to touchdown. All approx.

At touchdown at LGA, the SWA 737's airspeed was approximately 133 knots and the aircraft was pitched down approximately 3 degrees.

After touchdown at LaGuardia, the Southwest 737-700 came to a stop within approximately 19 seconds.

A cockpit voice recorder group will convene tomorrow at NTSB laboratories in DC to transcribe the relevant portion of the flight.

[Capn Bloggs]

When will the riff raff of the world learn to hold their cameras STEADY during crash landings?? :}

[WillFlyForCheese]

Southwest said in a statement that the landing scenario the NTSB describes from video and other sources "is not in accordance with our operating procedures."

From: Southwest jet hit runway nose first, investigators say - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/travel/southwest-laguardia/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Well - that's good to know . . .

[lomapaseo]

That latest video was more like a hard landing compared to the earlier video pages back in this thread.

I'm beginning to think that using a shakey camera to copy from a shakey phone cancels out some of the violence.

[thcrozier]

Look at the pavement edge compared to the frame just before impact. You can clearly see the pitch angle changing downward, and at a fairly rapid rate. Too bad the window itself is so out of focus you can't see any marks on it to use as reference points, although some optical genius might be able to find and enhance some...

[RobertS975]

There was "substantial Damage" incurred when the nose gear strut penetrated upwards into the avionics bay as the well circulated photograph has depicted. Not saying that the NTSB has to spend months on this, but it should qualify as an accident for the NTSB.

Also, the presence of injuries also weighs into their definitions.

[ytpete]

Not to revive the "when to start your own evac" debate, but I just wanted to point out it's worth considering the effect of Asiana being fresh in pax's memory. Most everyone in the general public has seen footage of the burned out fuselage, and I bet many on this SWA flight were thinking "I'm getting outta here before that part." Granted Asiana took a while to look like that, and there's no comparing that fire to this incident, but it doesn't have to be rational -- a vivid mental image has a lot of power.

Just to illustrate that, in post #124's video you can hear people shouting "we need to open the doors" almost the instant the aircraft stops moving. Both there and in post #149 you hear the CC immediately telling people to stay seated, but then you hear "no no no" and "we gotta get out" -- and in the second video people start shouting about smoke (maybe only visible out the windows, who knows)... easy to see how a herd mentality takes over at that point.

Anyway, I wonder if the reaction would have been different had this been before Asiana (or many month/years afterward).

[Capn Bloggs]

in post #124's video you can hear people shouting "we need to open the doors" almost the instant the aircraft stops moving. Both there and in post #149 you hear the CC immediately telling people to stay seated, but then you hear "no no no" and "we gotta get out" --
... highlighting the need for the pilots to get on the PA ASAP and say something! Even an alert to the Flight Attendants will placate the uneducated masses that they are not about to be left to their own devices.

Sure, this would be as close as you could get to a "surprise" event, but you have to be ready to spout out that PA under any conditions. The pax and your FAs are relying on it.

[Cows getting bigger]

An interesting HF discussion point. Going back a couple of generations and people would blindly follow the instructions of the crew. The 21st century citizen is far less likely to be a follower (we see this in all aspects of life) and is more likely to make a clear decision about their own actions. It would be interesting to ask the CC as to their views upon how much influence they had/could have had over the evacuation.

[ironbutt57]

From previous comments, it would be unusual to begin with positive gear indicator lights and end up dragging the nacelles down the runway

absolutely correct, however seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT, it suggests structural failure of some gear components, caused by???

[Volume]

Here is another video of the landing:The more videos I see the less I like to call this a landing :ouch:

[Speed of Sound]

absolutely correct, however seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT,

Are you sure it failed AFT?

[NSEU]

When will the riff raff of the world learn to hold their cameras STEADY during crash landings??

Perhaps we should ask when will the riff raff learn to "turn off all electronic devices for landing" (or isn't a mobile phone with camera an electronic device?)

[DIBO]

... highlighting the need for the pilots to get on the PA ASAP and say something!with the smashed up avionics bay, were cockpit comms/PA still operational??In the cabin PA was still possible, but maybe this wasn't the case for the captain...

[nitpicker330]

The avionics bay on the 737 is behind the nose gear, so yes it's safe to say the nose gear collapsed in an aft direction!!

Ouch.....

[nitpicker330]

Yes is the FAA going to fine these people for NOT turning off their devices????

Double standards....

[Speed of Sound]

Ouch.....

Ouch indeed!

No wonder the wheel detached! :sad:

[Lonewolf_50]

When will the riff raff of the world learn to hold their cameras STEADY during crash landings??
Perhaps, since it is a manual control task, they don't get enough training to get it right. ;)
Perhaps we should ask when will the riff raff learn to "turn off all
electronic devices for landing" (or isn't a mobile phone with camera an
electronic device?)
/sarcasm on
Obviously, the use of this electronic device negatively influenced the landing, which is why one is supposed to have them off until the PA announcement is made that they can be turned back on.
/sarcasm off
:rolleyes:

Volume makes a good point: a landing is the end of a controlled flight maneuver intended to bring the aircraft to the ground safely. Was the impact with the ground controlled? IF not, is it a landing?

On the other hand, any landing you can walk away from ... :eek:

[Speed of Sound]

a landing is the end of a controlled flight maneuver intended to bring the aircraft to the ground safely. Was the impact with the ground controlled? IF not, is it a landing?

If the PF had uncompromised pitch control then yes, it was controlled even if looking back they may have preferred to have done it differently. :rolleyes:

[Mark in CA]

Experienced a similar landing, though with less dramatic results, in San Diego many years ago in a DC-9. PF floated it, then dipped the nose to get it onto the short runway, which we then hit somewhat hard. As we taxied off the runway, the CC announced, "Now that we have successfully attacked Lindbergh Field, please enjoy your stay in San Diego."

[Coagie]

Experienced a similar landing, though with less dramatic results, in San Diego many years ago in a DC-9. PF floated it, then dipped the nose to get it onto the short runway, which we then hit somewhat hard. As we taxied off the runway, the CC announced, "Now that we have successfully attacked Lindbergh Field, please enjoy your stay in San Diego."As we've seen, in the case of the Southwest 737 KLGA nose gear incident, and the Asiana 777 SFO incident, modern aircraft are pretty tough, but I think, testing their limits, should be kept to the testing phases of the development, certification, and subsequent changes to the aircraft in question, and not done while laden with passengers!

[ImbracableCrunk]

Ironbutt57 wrote:

absolutely correct, however seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT, it suggests structural failure of some gear components, caused by???

How about the airplane's -3deg attitude at touchdown and high rate of descent?

[SLFguy]

A better view


Go to 0:24

The most horrific part of this story is at 0:58

[Ian W]

It is interesting comparing the lack of comment on visual landing prowess in this thread with the comments on visual landing prowess in the thread of OZ214 at SFO. :confused:

[bartonflyer]

Surely you're not insinuating that the comments might be different were the pilot Korean say?

[Lonewolf_50]

Ian, the failure mode was different. In one, an approach was never stable, and it was realized (too late) that they need to Go Around. High ROD, nose high. Calling that a landing seems to me a mistake.

In this one, an approach came a cropper in the flare.

Whether or not it was stable up to that point we'll need to find out from the NTSB. If it wasn't stable, then the two events are at least similar in root cause. This one, as SpeedofSound points out, looks to have been a landing ~ a poor one, but a landing nonetheless.

If the 737 was on a stable approach, then the two occasions don't compare very well -- though one does wonder, if the approach was stable up to the flare, why things went pearshaped in the flare. :confused: Hopefully NTSB has some info on that.

The rate of info spread, given that it wasn't quite as horrific an impact with the ground as 214, is understandably less pressing.

[GarageYears]

Flaps setting was changed at T minus 56 seconds from 30 degrees to 40 according to the NTSB, is that normal in a stabilized approach on a 737?

[lakedude]

...seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT, it suggests structural failure of some gear components, caused by???Caused by landing nose first, evidently.

See the post @ 152:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519707-southwest-klga-gear-collapse-8.html#post7960658

[pattern_is_full]

Flaps setting was changed at T minus 56 seconds from 30 degrees to 40 according to the NTSB, is that normal in a stabilized approach on a 737?

It might be a tad low and late, but I wouldn't think really outside the envelope.

Approximately passing WARIN - 860 feet and 2.5 miles from threshold, assuming 135 kts.

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/LGA/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+04/png/1

I stand to be corrected by a current 737 driver.

4 seconds before touchdown they were 134 kts, flaps 40, pitch up 2 degrees. Which seems fine. It just appears* they flared a bit high - over-corrected - planted the nose.

*videos, NTSC numbers, pilot eyewitness on ground.

[Jwscud]

Late-ish selection of F40 is not unusual - the limit speed is only 162kts. Doing sums it appears they were fully configured by 500' so would have met the criteria in that respect. Speed sounds in the right ballpark too, though normal pitch angle is about +0 on a 3° slope with F40.

[mrangar]

Is there a SWA culture of slamming the plane down? Or are there some other American cowboy cultural attributes at play here?:rolleyes:
No one needs to answer - I'm just being sarcastic given the amount of drivel about Asians generated in the Asiana thread.

It appears there is a fundamental problem with hand-flying the plane that appears to be increasing in frequency and it appears that the Americans, from whose tail the sun shines, are nor exempt.

[pipersam]

Latest video from another passenger:

LiveLeak.com - Southwest Airlines B737 crash caught on tape by passenger

[tinrabbit]

I don't see any flare at all in that video, it's flown into the runway rather than onto. I'm trying to picture how any pilot neglects to flare but my imagination fails me.

[mickjoebill]

My transcription of the passenger video.

Some of the dialogue is not clear and is open to interpretation.

Unless noted otherwise, all comments are apparently from adult passengers.
(CC) denotes face to face cabin crew
There is one obvious public address announcement.
(!) indicates urgency.


Video timecode reference
0.08 sound of child humming
0.10 sound of impact
0.20 "crash"
0.29 sound of impact stops
0.31 "are you alright"?
0.32 "get out"
0.32 "oh my god"
0.36 scream
0.36 "stay seated, please remain seated" (CC)
0.39 "seat belt"
0.40 "stay in your seat!" (CC)
0.41 "Oh my god"
0.41 "Alright"
0.42 "ladies and gentlemen we are not there, you need to take your seat, take your seat" (PA announcement)
0.51 "..scared out of my mind.. but"
0.53 "oh my god" child
0.56 "oh my god"
0.56 "..listen, just to make the plane jerk.."
1.08 "Did your legs bend?"(laughs)
1.12 "We gotta get out"
1.13 "I want these kids.. off"
1.17 "all the way across" (laughs)
1.19 "There is smoke here, there is smoke here!"
1.22 "I'm not super..mam"
1.24 "Oh my (expletive) Lord"
1.27 "smoke here"
1.30 "I need to get ..coming to me and get these doors..happening(?)" (UNKOWN)
1.31 "Just get my crutches!"
1.32 "We are not at the gate" (CC)
1.35 "smoke here (angry)
1.36 "but there is smoke here!"
1.37 "Calm down, remain..hold on!" (CC)

Video cuts then resumes

Loud drumming sound of fire hose spraying fuselage.
1.45 "keep the doors closed for right now.. they'll tell us in about 5 minutes" (CC)
1.48 "arm the right doors"
1.50 sound of coughing
1.51 "smoke"

ENDS

[bubbers44]

B737's are designed to land on the main gear and gently lower the nose gear. She didn't do that so we will see what the report says.

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm trying to picture how any pilot neglects to flare but my imagination fails me.
Do you actually fly big aeroplanes?

[dba7]

After reading 80+ pages earlier about how Asiana pilots can't fly, I find it ironic to list these facts.


==SWA
Short haul route.
Working during normal business hour.
Not in training of any kind.
Normal condition at airport, with all landing guidance systems working.


==Asiana
10+ route
Working at 4AM body clock.
In 'training'
Part of landing guidance system down.





Happy 60th Anniversary of Cease Fire Agreement of the bloody Korean war btw.

[junebug172]

Fatigue wasn't a factor in this accident which, by your post, you understand. And there was no training going on as well, which you understand.

What's your point?

Ever been in a car accident when your well rested and the traffic lights are all operating with only you in the car? It happens. It did here as well.

The holes in the cheese lined up and the accident happened. Anytime you mix a human element into the system, you introduce the possibility of errors.

[deSitter]

Good Lord, that's possibly the worst landing ever. Even the morons at SFO have a couple of valid excuses. Can anyone fly an airplane these days? What's the aviation system administrator's background here?

[fenland787]

Anytime you mix a human element into the system, you introduce the possibility of errorsHmmm...profound comment...what a shame that systems are also designed by humans.

[fotoguzzi]

[Not a pilot:] In the case of the hard landing short of the runway, the pilots fared poorly at something they don't do very often that would be thought an innate skill.

In the case of the hard landing on the runway, the pilots flared poorly at something they do every day that would be thought an innate skill.

[junebug172]

They didn't flare. They were trying to plant it on because they were unstable and going long. Hence the nose-down movement.

[55Jay]

I watch a lot of videos of latin/S. American pilots and FOs landing manually as a matter of routine.

On The Wing - YouTube

Look at the CAPT thumbs up his FO when he let him perform the landing near end of the video.... and the big smile the FO gives at that moment. Passing down the skills and taking a risk to grow the next generation of stick and rudder guys? That's leadership IMO.

[dba7]

junebug172
Fatigue wasn't a factor in this accident which, by your post, you understand. And there was no training going on as well, which you understand.

What's your point?

Ever been in a car accident when your well rested and the traffic lights are all operating with only you in the car? It happens. It did here as well.

The holes in the cheese lined up and the accident happened. Anytime you mix a human element into the system, you introduce the possibility of errors.

My point is an American pilot working in a perfection condition (plane, airport, time of day, not tired) still failed to perform a simple function as a pilot.


There were about 80+ pages under the Asiana thread where people were mocking how the Asiana pilots don't know how to fly.

That's my point.

[deSitter]

It's clear from the visible horizon in the video that the plane actually pitched down and was negative with respect to the horizon just before "landing".

[Speed of Sound]

http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a481/SoS57/LGA2_zps2997c825.jpg (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/SoS57/media/LGA2_zps2997c825.jpg.html)

(*Marked by yellow X)

[Jet Jockey A4]

IMHO the Asiana one was an accident waiting to happen somewhere in the approach phase from what we have learned so far.

I'm not sure we have as many details about the approach phase of the Southwest one yet; meaning how the actual approach was conducted (stable/unstable, high or low on the path, high or low on the speed).

One thing is for sure they made it to the runway and in the last phase of the flight (flare) something went wrong.

You people have never had a bad landing? Misjudge your height? Brain fart at the wrong time?

Perhaps people should wait until they have more details of the approach phase before they make a statement.

[aviatorhi]

That's my point.

Your point is taken, but there were a few of us in the Asiana thread who were saying CMLs of any nationality or origin don't know how to fly. Now that they are taking over cockpits at a much faster rate expect to see more and more of these pointless accidents/incidents.

[Sqwak7700]

It looks to me like an attempt at reducing the float, but taken with way too much energy still left in the aircraft, and done way too strong.

On many airliners you will find pilots will slightly reduce the back pressure on the elevator at the end of the flare. This helps to compensate for the increased aerodynamic performance from ground effect as well as softening the touchdown by actually raising the main gear slightly (well, not really raising them - but reducing their rate of closure to the ground).

This technique is very effective, but you do have to time it right and you can't do it in isolation. For example, if you end up with a bunch of extra energy in the flare (ie, a bit fast), then this could lead you to touchdown on the nose. By the same token, if you end up a bit slow when you begin the flare, you could end up making the touchdown a bit harder than it already will be from being slow.

Poor landing technique is actually quite common. The problem really comes out now with the current push in the industry to reduce runway overruns. So many airlines are focusing on landing in the aiming point and touchdown zone, that a lot of pilots are really nervous about floating a bit. I'm not saying you should hold off your landings to achieve smoothness, but you need to evaluate all the factors. You aim to land at the aiming point or just past it, but if landing distance is not an issue, there is no need to force the aircraft on if you arrive over the threshold with a bit too much energy. If landing distance is an issue, then simply do a go-around.

I guess what I'm saying is, flaring is important. Just as important as not floating past the touchdown zone. We don't want to eradicate runway overruns only to replace them with smoking holes at the aiming points. That is simply just changing the location of the wreck, it is not improving safety.

[junebug172]

Look at the CAPT thumbs up his FO when he let him perform the landing near end of the video.... and the big smile the FO gives at that moment. Passing down the skills and taking a risk to grow the next generation of stick and rudder guys? That's leadership IMO.

You got all that from just watching the video?

[junebug172]

In the case of the hard landing on the runway, the pilots flared poorly at something they do every day that would be thought an innate skill.


People drive cars everyday, right? Still have lots of accidents don't you think? You would think driving would be innate, no?

[ukpilotinca]

One passenger's account of the incident.

The Crash Landing of Southwest 345 | Nick Bradbury (http://nickbradbury.com/2013/07/28/the-crash-landing-of-southwest-345/)

Very surprised to read that SWA appears to have no plan for how to handle such an event.

[Glider Gal]

Well this guy followed instructions and left the carryons on the plane.

SWA returned them to him the following day --- minus a Macbook pro, apple tv, and lightning cable.

This isn't going to help getting people to leave their stuff. :sad:

[Lookleft]

Very surprised to read that SWA appears to have no plan for how to handle
such an event.


Very surprising considering that this is the third time they have an aircraft with its nose unsupported by a nosewheel on a runway!

[Mark in CA]

Is there a SWA culture of slamming the plane down? Or are there some other American cowboy cultural attributes at play here?
Back in the day, it was jokingly a matter of whether the pilot had been Navy or Air Force.

[joee]

Even Naval Aviation emphasized not landing on the nose gear, especially the T-28.
I've flown on Southwest quite a few times as a passenger and absolutely love them. As a pilot I noted they are rather quick in the taxi arena, but then I'd delay my final configuration as long as practicable during CAVU conditions in order to save fuel so I'm hardly above criticism.

[junebug172]

Is there a SWA culture of slamming the plane down? Or are there some other American cowboy cultural attributes at play here?


Why would anyone purposefully slam a plane down? People usually remember the landing after a flight, especially the rough ones. No pilot is purposefully going to plant an aircraft unless its for operational reasons.

As for cowboys, they can be. Those guys are paid to get from block to block as quickly as possible. They're not paid to go around, taxi slowly, are take the long way home. Some guys really push the limits and those that don't are chastised by the other pilot. The bang out lots of flights, push themselves hard, and push their airplanes hard.

[theroadie]

Also surprising was Nick Bradbury's report that a law enforcement officer requested that he stop taking videos when he was outside the plane. There is no justification for that unless the person is located in a way that interferes with rescue personnel.

[RAT 5]

Floating? Never push: never keep pulling back and increasing the angle of attack: better to drop a wing and nudge a main wheel onto the ground and activate the spoilers, works for me: or G/A. It's not the first and not the last, sadly. I believe it happened to a B767 at Newark around 1998?
The scariest thing I ever saw, sat at the holding point LTN RW26, was a BAE146 (which has no TR's) floating, pushing, landing on the nose wheel, bouncing back on to the main-wheels, bouncing back onto the nose wheel (which has no brakes) bouncing back onto the main wheels etc. etc. It stopped before the end, just, and there was an agricultural aroma in the air.
Much is taught about how not to get into the poo: perhaps some more should be taught about how to escape from the more common poo traps.

[mickjoebill]

Also surprising was Nick Bradbury's report that a law enforcement officer requested that he stop taking videos when he was outside the plane. There is no justification for that unless the person is located in a way that interferes with rescue personnel.

Agreed, such video is highly useful for training and a personal record of your reaction can be of value in a court case.

More to the point it seems likely that there was something better for the policeman to do than harass passengers.

It is not unusual in a serious emergency for police to go into "law enforcement" mode when they should be in "serve and protect" mode. Police airwings are not immune either.

[ExSp33db1rd]

This isn't going to help getting people to leave their stuff

I always travel in a 'uniform' now, i.e. a large-pocketted "safari" shirt, which carries most of the stuff that I consider indispensible, can't 'wear' my computer of course, but apart from that anything in the overhead locker is just 'stuff' - and can be replaced.

I may look like a dork, but what the hell, everything I own is a tool, not a fashion statement - who cares.

[NSEU]

Quote:
Perhaps we should ask when will the riff raff learn to "turn off all
electronic devices for landing" (or isn't a mobile phone with camera an
electronic device?)

/sarcasm on
Obviously, the use of this electronic device negatively influenced the landing, which is why one is supposed to have them off until the PA announcement is made that they can be turned back on.
/sarcasm off :rolleyes:

I wasn't implying that it was a factor in *this* accident (neither was the guy before me who prompted my comment). It was just a general safety comment. In general, we can do quite well without cameras and phones flying around the cabin during accidents, and we can brace ourselves more easily and more quickly in an accident when required to do so without one hand holding onto these devices.

[Lookleft]

Those guys are paid to get from block to block as quickly as possible.
They're not paid to go around, taxi slowly, are take the long way home. Some guys really push the limits and those that don't are chastised by the other pilot. The bang out lots of flights, push themselves hard, and push their
airplanes hard.


So we can expect to see this sort of thing from SWA more often? I take it that go-arounds are for wimps and pudknockers and that real pilots get it on the ground first time every time. Its good to see that the lessons from the past 30 years only need to be taught in classrooms and not applied to line operations.:(

[Tanker]

Those guys are paid to get from block to block as quickly as possible. They're not paid to go around, taxi slowly, are take the long way home
Wrong! At SWA they get paid extra for every minute that they over block starting at 5 minutes past block time. Also go arounds are encouraged. If not configured, on speed, and stabilized at 1000 ft then the PM is supposed to tell the PF to go around. IF LGA was pilot error then it was due to the crew not following procedures. However the full NTSB report is not even close to being out so the exact cause is unknown at this time.

[bubbers44]

SWA pilots fly a lot of trips per day so most do not make basic errors like landing on the nose gear. She did but do not put all down because of one incident. I will fly on them anytime.

[Lookleft]

so most do not make basic errors like landing on the nose gear.


MOST I would have thought at that level of operation NONE make basic errors like landing on the nose wheel. BTW how do you know it was a she?

[Mark in CA]

Perhaps this is why some people insist on grabbing their carry-on items when evacuating a plane:

The Crash Landing of Southwest 345 | Nick Bradbury (http://nickbradbury.com/2013/07/28/the-crash-landing-of-southwest-345/)

The next day Southwest delivered our bags to our hotel but my carry-on wasn’t among them. It arrived a day later – without my MacBook Pro. That, along with an Apple TV and a Lightning cable, had been stolen from my bag. Southwest has agreed to reimburse me for these items once I provide proof that I purchased them (no problem, I have receipts). They claim the items weren’t stolen but were more likely “misplaced” by someone sent on board to retrieve carry-on bags.

[Lonewolf_50]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519707-southwest-klga-gear-collapse-10.html#post7965086

Squawk 7700's post is well worth reading, and pondering.
Possible "unintended outcomes" of FOQA programs? Standard human reaction, I'd guess.
Organizational point of emphasis: "We have to stop doing X."
Human response: "OK, I'll start doing Y since it reduces the odds of doing X ..."
Or are there some other American cowboy cultural attributes at play here?
Is there some inherent British or European stupidity that induces posts like this, or was it just one person and a brain not firing on all cylinders at the time the "submit reply" button was selected?
Even Naval Aviation emphasized not landing on the nose gear, especially the T-28.
Indeed. Nothing like 48" (52.5 at the sea level stop) of manifold pressure during a dawn launch. :ok:

[wozzo]

[URL]Is there some inherent British or European stupidity that induces posts like this, (...)?

I think it was more the general stereotyping and racism going on in the SFO related threads which induced this failed attempt at sarcasm.

[junebug172]

Wrong! At SWA they get paid extra for every minute that they over block starting at 5 minutes past block time. Also go arounds are encouraged. If not configured, on speed, and stabilized at 1000 ft then the PM is supposed to tell the PF to go around. IF LGA was pilot error then it was due to the crew not following procedures. However the full NTSB report is not even close to being out so the exact cause is unknown at this time.

Incorrect. They're paid by the trip which is a flat rate. Delays mean they dilute their efficiency and pay. They're incentivized to get from block to block quickly which is why they're always in a hurry.

As for their 1000' gate - if they went around every time they were unstable, they'd be late more often than on time.

Would you like me to pull my references directly from their contract?

[junebug172]

So we can expect to see this sort of thing from SWA more often? I take it that go-arounds are for wimps and pudknockers and that real pilots get it on the ground first time every time. Its good to see that the lessons from the past 30 years only need to be taught in classrooms and not applied to line operations.

No, GAs aren't for wimps. No one thinks that. But GAs take up time and, if you're being paid a flat rate, don't make you money. They push it.

Add to that their 25 minute turns. Any hiccup during the day rolls the delay to the last few legs so you've got guys trying to make up time as well.

[junebug172]

SWA pilots fly a lot of trips per day so most do not make basic errors like landing on the nose gear. She did but do not put all down because of one incident. I will fly on them anytime.

Man, you guys think pilots don't misjudge landings? Maybe he thought he was closer to the runway and was trying to force it on. Stuff happens. Accidents happen.

Infielders who've fielded 1000s of grounders still muff the routine ball. You guys get into car accidents and you guys drive over the speed limit. These are humans you're talking about.

[bubbers44]

Pilots also know the nose gear will not support the entire weight of the landing so we make sure the main gear touches down first.
She landed on the nose gear so will have to justify it.

[JPJP]

Wrong! At SWA they get paid extra for every minute that they over block starting at 5 minutes past block time. Also go arounds are encouraged. If not configured, on speed, and stabilized at 1000 ft then the PM is supposed to tell the PF to go around. IF LGA was pilot error then it was due to the crew not following procedures. However the full NTSB report is not even close to being out so the exact cause is unknown at this time.

You're right.


junebug172 -Incorrect.

You're wrong.

Yes SWA pilots are paid on the basis of Trip length (a specific number of miles). The faster those miles are covered, the less time they spend flying for the same number of dollars per trip (TFP). The SWAPA contract also contains extra pay that adjusts for holding and ground time beyond the blocked leg (sector) time. Ironically, this was introduced with airports like La Guardia in mind.

junebug172- As for their 1000' gate - if they went around every time they were unstable, they'd be late more often than on time.

You're embarrassing yourself ..... again, with stereotypes, industry gossip and hyperbole. Every airline has their 10%. That includes Southwest.

junebug172 - Would you like me to pull my references directly from their contract?

Yes. Yes I would. Please include the section and paragraphs that deal with compensation for delays.

[Tanker]

Incorrect. They're paid by the trip which is a flat rate. Delays mean they dilute their efficiency and pay. They're incentivized to get from block to block quickly which is why they're always in a hurry.
Would you like me to pull my references directly from their contract?
junebug172
I've been flying as a pilot for SWA for over 18 years so I know how I get paid! Yes we get what is called TFP (Trip for Pay) which is based on the mileage between cities, but there is a formula that increases the TFP for long hauls. As I said we always got paid extra if we fly over the scheduled block, which under the current CBA starts at 5 minutes over block. As an example I did a 4 day last week where I had 4 legs that overflew the block by a total of 76 minutes and I got paid 1.2 TFP. BTW TFP is leg specific so if we underfly a leg we get what that leg was scheduled for and don't give back any overfly pay from another leg. So our pay is not diluted if we go over scheduled block. But then I may be wrong since you have reference to our CBA and I've only been living it for 18 years.

[bubbers44]

TANKER, EX AIRCAL here. When you started you watched our Ca. B737 operation work and how we did 20 minute turns. You improved it and we came to your airline to see what you did to improve ours. Two outstanding airlines and everybody knew how to fly an airplane. Wish it were that way now 30 years later with most airlines but it isn't. Sorry about your bad press about LGA but you have a great airline so keep doing what you are doing. We got bought by a major airline so couldn't do it any more. You still can. Good luck.

[West Coast]

No one is immune, just watched Lufthansa bounce a 747 landing at KDEN , impressively high bounce followed wisely by a go around.

[Lookleft]

followed wisely by a go around.


This seems to be the missing ingredient in SWA latest accident as well as the one in Chicago and the one in Burbank. From what Tanker has stated it doesn't seem that money is the motivation to push a bad situation so it must be something else. Is there a culture amongst some of the pilots that considers unstable approaches to be acceptable? Is there a culture amongst the F/O's that they can't speak up? The discussion on the Asiana thread was dominated by the assertion that Asian carriers are lacking in the basic airmanship skills yet with SWA it is a case of "oh well that was unlucky at least no one got hurt". Once can be considered unlucky, twice is concerning but a third one suggests a trend.

[misd-agin]

LH 446. FRA-DEN. Took 20 minutes to the second landing.

Flight Track Log ? DLH446 ? 31-Jul-2013 ? EDDF / FRA - KDEN ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH446/history/20130731/1140Z/EDDF/KDEN/tracklog)

[mickjoebill]

Perhaps this is why some people insist on grabbing their carry-on items when evacuating a plane:

The Crash Landing of Southwest 345 | Nick Bradbury

Some passengers will have a compelling reason to open an overhead bin after an accident...a female voice is recorded in the crash video saying "just get my crutches"

[junebug172]

I've been flying as a pilot for SWA for over 18 years so I know how I get paid! Yes we get what is called TFP (Trip for Pay) which is based on the mileage between cities, but there is a formula that increases the TFP for long hauls. As I said we always got paid extra if we fly over the scheduled block, which under the current CBA starts at 5 minutes over block. As an example I did a 4 day last week where I had 4 legs that overflew the block by a total of 76 minutes and I got paid 1.2 TFP. BTW TFP is leg specific so if we underfly a leg we get what that leg was scheduled for and don't give back any overfly pay from another leg. So our pay is not diluted if we go over scheduled block. But then I may be wrong since you have reference to our CBA and I've only been living it for 18 years.

So then, why the hurry?

[bubbers44]

BUR might have been a failure to go around but continue but this was just a very bad landing so being in a hurry wasn't a factor in my opinion.

[PJ2]

Lonewolf_50;
Squawk 7700's post is well worth reading, and pondering.
Possible "unintended outcomes" of FOQA programs? Standard human reaction, I'd guess.
Organizational point of emphasis: "We have to stop doing X."
Human response: "OK, I'll start doing Y since it reduces the odds of doing X ..." Yes, it's a possible outcome, especially at some airlines in Asia where FDM Programs are used to fine or otherwise punish crews for "foqa transgressions" instead of using the data as intended, for learning and proactive risk reduction.

I think in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe it is reasonable to expect or at least hope that most carriers do not engage in such uses of safety information and crews accept the intended role of FOQA, and hopefully change operational behaviour rationally, in order to reduce events. It is one of the reasons why FOQA event thresholds should never be published.

In any case, FOQA events normally bracket SOPs and operational factors so that reasonable upper and lower limits are made visible. So "long landings" would also have "short landings", (t/d prior to 1000' from the threshold, etc).

I can't explain the justification for continuing a non-stabilized approach but when it happens, even with severely non-stable approaches, the justifications and the lack of a go-around haven't materially changed for as long as I've been doing data work, (1986 - present).

The margins rapidly narrow more quickly than many would assume or realize, and here they did so with unfortunate results again. Approach speeds (no wind) eat runway at around 200fps.

Why there was no go-around is obviously the first question to ask. Sometimes it's just a mistake and that happens. But along with that question, the pressures and/or perceptions which energize the decision to continue need to be examined at all levels - cockpit to Flt Ops to the CEOs office.

[Halfnut]

NTSB: Captain took over Southwest Airlines flight just before landing at New York LaGuardia | Airline Biz Blog (http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/ntsb-captain-took-over-southwest-airlines-flight-just-before-landing-at-new-york-laguardia.html/)

NTSB: Captain took over Southwest Airlines flight just before landing at New York LaGuardia

By Terry Maxon

[email protected]

1:45 pm on August 6, 2013

The National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday that the captain took over from the first officer just before the Southwest Airlines flight landed at New York LaGuardia Airport and wound up sliding on its nose down the runway.

In its second update on the July 22 accident at LaGuardia, the NTSB said the first officer was the pilot flying and the captain was monitoring as Southwest Flight 345 approached LaGuardia.

SWA 345 proceeded on the approach when at a point below 400 feet, there was an exchange of control of the airplane and the captain became the flying pilot and made the landing, the NTSB said.

It said the flight had an 11-knot (about 12.7 mph) tailwind below 1,000 feet altitude, but an 11-knot headwind at the runway.

The NTSB said the captain had worked at Southwest for nearly 13 years, six as a captain. The first officer started at the Dallas-based airline about 18 months ago.

The agency previously said that it appears the Boeing 737-700 had landed on its nose gear first. That gear collapsed and caused the airplane to skid down the runway on its nose.

At this point in the investigation, no mechanical anomalies or malfunctions have been found, the NTSB said in Tuesdays update. A preliminary examination of the nose gear indicated that it failed due to stress overload.

Keep reading for the entire NTSB report.

WASHINGTON In its continuing investigation of the July 22 accident in which Southwest Airlines flight 345, a B-737-700, landed hard at New Yorks LaGuardia Airport (LGA), the National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information:

- The captain has been with Southwest for almost 13 years and has been a captain for six of those years. The captain has over 12,000 total flight hours, over 7,000 of which are as pilot-in-command. In 737s, the captain has over 7,900 hours, with more than 2,600 as the pilot-in-command.

- The first officer has been with Southwest for about 18 months. The pilot has about 5,200 total flight hours, with 4,000 of those as pilot-in-command. In 737s, the first officer has about 1,100 hours, none of which are as the pilot-in-command.

- This was the first trip the flight crew had flown together and it was the second leg of the trip. The first officer had previous operational experience at LGA, including six flights in 2013. The captain reported having flown into LGA twice, including the accident flight, serving as the pilot monitoring for both flights.

- The en route phase of the flight, which originated in Nashville, was characterized by the flight crew as routine. On approach into LGA, the first officer was the pilot flying and the captain was the pilot monitoring. SWA 345 was cleared for the ILS Runway 04 approach.

- The weather in the New York area caused the accident flight to enter a holding pattern for about 15 minutes. The crew reported that they saw the airport from about 5-10 miles out and that the airplane was on speed, course and glideslope down to about 200-400 feet.

- The crew reported that below 1,000 feet, the tailwind was about 11 knots. They also reported that the wind on the runway was a headwind of about 11 knots.

- SWA 345 proceeded on the approach when at a point below 400 feet, there was an exchange of control of the airplane and the captain became the flying pilot and made the landing.

- The jetliner touched down on the runway nose first followed by the collapse of the nose gear; the airplane was substantially damaged.

At this point in the investigation, no mechanical anomalies or malfunctions have been found. A preliminary examination of the nose gear indicated that it failed due to stress overload.

Investigators have collected five videos showing various aspects of the crash landing. The team will be analyzing these recordings in the coming months.

Parties to the investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Southwest Airlines, and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association.

This is a factual update only and no interviews are being conducted.

Further investigative updates will be issued as events warrant. Follow the investigation on Twitter at @NTSB, or on our website at ntsb.gov.

[Capn Bloggs]

Would seem that this approach became unstable below 1000 feet.
What do you base that statement on?

Parties to the investigation are ... and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association.
I'm impressed. :D

[flarepilot]

now, an 11 knot tailwind changing to an 11 knot headwind is interesting...but it is increasing performance, no?

but perhaps the PIC felt something was coming up that the FO didn't understand...or perhaps the PIC misunderstood.

There are two captains and a few other pilots that would have loved to do go arounds in the last month...SFO and LGA ...and the go arounds aren't tough at either.


at 400 feet, things would have to be going wrong to make me want to switch who was flying the plane. I've taken over for a copilot who bounced a 737 and wasn't reacting, it just doesn't make sense.

I heard the acknowledgement of landing clearance on the RT, on a US news report. Not that it matters, but the voice sounded female.

Does anyone know the genders involved?

[MurphyWasRight]

at 400 feet, things would have to be going wrong to make me want to switch who was flying the plane. I've taken over for a copilot who bounced a 737 and wasn't reacting, it just doesn't make sense.


If things are bad enough to warrant a change of control at 400 would that not be a strong indication of an unstable approach?

BTW: I am not a pilot, this is a real question and not meant as a snarky comment.

[flarepilot]

Not necessarily, the criteria for a stable approach may have been met...and that is why I think the change of control is sort of odd. my thought is the PIC/captain somehow felt the shear between 11 knots tailwind to 11 knots headwind might have been dangerous....now I don't think it was mind you...it is an increasing performance shear not a decreasing performance shear.

I also read the captain had only been to LGA twice and neither time had actually landed the plane there. Twice I can understand... that's scheduling...but I sure would want to do the landing for the experience.

Landing on runway 4 isn't the hardest landing at LGA...indeed it may be the easiest.

[Petercwelch]

Do most professional pilots consider a go around a failure? One would think that in a situation where a problem exists (eg. Hand over of control at 400 feet, concern in SF about speed too slow, can't see the runway, Lion Air) that go around would/should be essentially AUTOMATIC. Am I wrong or are such performances during approach so common in the real world that there would be huge numbers of go arounds? Just asking.

[bubbers44]

400 ft seems kind of high to take over unless his approach was way high and needed immediate correction. My FO landing at Kingston one day kept floating so I said land now or go around. He landed but I didn't touch anything.

[aterpster]

flarepilot:

Landing on runway 4 isn't the hardest landing at LGA...indeed it may be the easiest.

Runway 22 is much better.

[clicker]

Flarepilot,

Why ask about the gender. As far as I'm concerned is should make no difference. There's good and bad on both sides IMHO.

[theroadie]

All I can think of for relevancy is a female is less likely to have carrier-landing experience, so the slam-it-down instinct (if it was ever carried into commercial flying) is less likely to be present?

[flarepilot]

why am I asking about the gender? I ask simply because I heard a female voice acknowledge landing clearance...seemingly above 400', and the changeover in control happened at 400'...

knowing the gender would confirm to me, slightly anyway, who was flying the plane and who was working the radio.

the point about carrier landings is a good one...but it isn't what I was looking for.

Lga is not that short a runway...not as demanding as SNA, or DCA or MDW...actually quite civilized.

political correctness can be carried a bit too far.

if someone knows, great...if no one knows, it will eventually come out.

having flown with both genders, I just don't seem to remember too many crashes with women at the controls...I can think of one...but not too many others.

the dynamic in the cockpit is an interesting one...and people are imperfect...the dynamic between two men is one thing...two women another and a man and a woman...is yet another...

aterpster...I've landed on all the runways at lga...I do see your point about 22...but if you go off the end of runway 4 you are in the water, if you are off the end of 22 you are in a major roadway with lots of cars. best not to hit other people.

also, 22 on a visual day has a bit of an offset for noise abatement...4 doesn't...31 , you follow the long island expressway...actually a bit of fun and 13, almost never used gives you the best view of central park and is my favorite.

the thing that makes me wonder is the method of transfer of control...and if it was done as many, ''books'' say...could it have been a momentary transfer of control and suddenly NO ONE was flying the plane at the flare?

[Capn Bloggs]

My FO landing at Kingston one day kept floating so I said land now or go around. He landed but I didn't touch anything.
In this case, maybe it was the FO who said "land now or go around"! :D :E

[Desert185]

Received this today:

"Heard the Captain (she) was on all the FO's do not pair list (no one wanted to fly with her). Also, an American Airlines pilot was in the jumpseat. He sustained a back injury."

One thing that stood out for me (because I wouldn't do the same) was that this was her second time to LGA (after thirteen years with the company?) and still had not planned to make the landing.

[bubbers44]

Taking over an aircraft from an FO is humiliating so I felt there was time to let him fix it but time was running out and gave him a last chance to not have to take control. He responded so would do it again.
Captains all have their comfort zones and this was in mine but soon to not be. In 23,000 hrs only went around once because the FO turned base too soon at SAN. I was on the blind side to the airport. Captains who micro manage their FO soon lose them because they are trying to read your mind, not fly the plane.
Wx go arounds or flights I was not PIC are not included along with aircraft on runways, buffalo and wind reversal making landing illegal.

[767200ER]

Bubba: Captains who micro manage their FO soon lose them because they are trying to read your mind, not fly the plane.
This should be on the cover of every command upgrade book in every airline around the world. It should be part of the emergency briefing and should float around the L1 window, maybe even play in the left seat headset every hour as a reminder :)...


Guys & gals, My home base airport is plagued with frequent wind-shear that will hammer you anywhere between 1000 down to as low as 50 feet. Tailwind becoming headwind or the other way around.

11 knots tail to 11 knots headwind is an energy gain or positive shear of 22 knots. which will cause the aeroplane to accelerate towards flap blow-back speed, and depending on the severity of the shear can accelerate quite rapidly with a large positive trend vector and this will tend to balloon the aircraft above the glide slope.
Technically it is now a de-stabilised approach, but the way i and other based crews have managed the energy gain is to close the thrust levers, raise the nose to avoid further acceleration, then once the speed is under control, together with the lower ground speed, increase the rate of descent to recapture the glide.
Sometimes it works, but sometimes the shear is too strong to get back to a stabilised approach, so the answer is of course a go around.

If the FO in this accident flight did the initial steps, but wasn't regaining the glide in time, the captain should have called a go around and allow her to fly the procedure, then elect to fly the next approach himself if he thought her performance was really that bad.
Taking control of a none life threatening situation (400 feet agl????) he removed his capacity to effectively manage the situation, which i think he may have done a better job of rather than being somewhat egoist and trying to salvage something he may have seen becoming more and more unachievable. (press on itis? saving face?) to touch down on the nose wheel, would suggest approaching high on the glide, if it was onto a limited runway the natural instinct is to avoid flaring which could lead to a long landing and subsequent possible overrun.
Less paperwork would need filling here if at any point prior to touchdown the crew had chosen to go around, first, even before taking over control. I fully appreciate he was within his rights as the commander to do so, but his command prowess should have led his fingers to rest lightly touching the black buttons as that 4 whites became 3 whites and the touchdown markers got lower and lower in the window.

To cut to the chase, i dont think the FO being on a dont pair with list nor that she is female had anything to do with this accident. Accident stats, especially on the NG put the handling pilot in most fatal crashes... as the Captain. No idea what kind of conversation they were having from the handover of control.. but from 400 feet. thats 24 seconds thinking time coming down at 1000 fpm.

I may also be completely wrong, but thats just my own 0.02

[Capn Bloggs]

the way i and other based crews have managed the energy gain is to close the thrust levers, raise the nose to avoid further acceleration, then once the speed is under control, together with the lower ground speed, increase the rate of descent to recapture the glide.

Say what? Pull yourself off the glidepath to get the speed back? The worst thing you could do. Stay on the slope and assess the speed. If you stay too fast at Idle, so be it, Go Around. On speed and now with a completely messed-up approach slope/path, close to the runway, is not a good place to be.

Staying tightly/aggressively on the slope is the quickest way to pick up that you're getting a dose of windshear. Raising (and lowering) the nose to compensate for speed errors merely hides it for longer.

[flarepilot]

I must disagree with the views of one our colleagues...I do think the do not fly list does help us understand what was going on in the cockpit...and to correct 767200er, I think the girl was the captain and the boy was the copilot...please correct me if I am misunderstanding.


if someone is on everyone's list...it means this person just might be the most demanding and finest pilot on the line...or , more likely...a weak sister (gender doesn't matter , its just a phrase).

if they gained 11 knots on the ASI, it was still a manageable situation. I don't think they gained much of anything...I do think someone screwed up, was looking at the wrong spot or hadn't landed at such a short runway in a long time...

And 7000' of runway isn't that short.

even if this plane landed halfway down the runway (not good form), the thing would have stopped before the end. using the radome as a wheel brake substitute is not a good idea.

Remember that JETBLUE pilot who went a little ape? Wondering...do they check bloodsugar on post accident blood tests?

[767200ER]

Raising the nose momentarily by a couple of degrees (read level flight, not a climb) is entirely dependant on the severity of the shear and where it occurs
while it does increase the glide deviation, and seems counter-intuitive, its energy management 101, if you're above path in descent because of atc(energy gain in this case), you slow down while level and then accelerate to recapture your profile once you can descend, (lower groundspeed in this case) so you can still lose enough feet per mile to recapture the glide as opposed to being high and fast. this is done knowing:

A- the wind you have on the ND is trending towards the reported surface wind which means it wont normally swing round again.

B- pireps give you some clue as to where you can expect the shear, and so you know if its at 1000 feet you have time to correct, if its at 200 feet and is not severe, you can manage it, probably without having to raise the nose at all just reduce thrust

C- If you cant recover it... just go around.

[bubbers44]

I had an approach into TGU one day with a check airman riding jump seat planning to check pilots landing there. We were told we had a 30knot headwind so told him we would hold approach profile and when the updraft causes a 20knot increase because of the hill on final we would land because the ground speed was normal. It happened and he never came back. Sometimes you should stay on glide slope. We didn't have one so keep your profile:.l

[cactusbusdrvr]

We have a no fly list under our contract. People that have a lot of no flys are people with issues. Professional standards (a union committee member) generally spend most of their time dealing with these people. I don't know anything about this captain, but having dealt with problem children in the past I would say that some of the holes in the cheese were lined up beforehand.

Comparing this to Asiana is valid. Discussion of culture is relevant because both carriers have had a large number incidents on a proportionate basis. I am sure SWA has taken steps to be more standard but they still rush all the time. I was holding in the alleyway at LAX yesterday and a SWA jet careened from Echo taxiway on to Delta. There was an obvious side load put on the gear, he had to be doing over 20kts in the turn. Both the F/O and I simultaneously said "holy sh##".