SWA lands at wrong airport.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a handful of posters who just can't help but defend completely this incident, and the Atlas incident before it. It is the same group defending the same utter lack of airmanship, which makes me ponder two ideas: either they are equally inept and are being defensive, or they perceive the comments by others as an attack on the US as a whole and are being defensive about that instead. There is a paranoid culture within the US which afflicts a great many, though I hasten to add not all, of its people in that any criticism of anything which happens to be American is taken as an attack on everything American, and so any kind of criticism is tantamount to a terror attack. I wonder if this bunker mentality is what is behind this defence of the indefensible, given that the very same individuals are only too pleased to condemn anyone from any other country?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aluminium shuffler
WHO is defending anything? the pilots screwed up and landed at the wrong airport.
IF there are sins in flying, this is one of them.
IT would appear though that a greater sin in flying is killing someone.
OUT of curiosity, would you rather:
a. land at the wrong airport, not kill anyone and have the plane reused the next day.
b. land at the right airport , kill passengers, and destroy the plane.
WHO is defending anything? the pilots screwed up and landed at the wrong airport.
IF there are sins in flying, this is one of them.
IT would appear though that a greater sin in flying is killing someone.
OUT of curiosity, would you rather:
a. land at the wrong airport, not kill anyone and have the plane reused the next day.
b. land at the right airport , kill passengers, and destroy the plane.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that landing at the wrong airport, and stopping just short of a cliff through luck rather than judgement, is OK, and nothing more than a screwup? And are you also saying that any incident that is non-fatal is acceptable.
In direct answer to your incredibly stupid question, I'll give an answer that you were incapable of offering: I expect pilots to land at the correct airport without breaking things, including pax, unless there has been a mechanical failure or diversion that precipitates said incident. That is what professional, competent pilots do. So, of your choices, I'd take the option that doesn't cost lives, but since landing at the right airport is more likely to protect lives than landing at the wrong one, my third option is the better one. Pull your head out!
Everyone makes mistakes, and anyone who disagrees with that is a liar or incredibly inobservant of their own performance, but some errors are of such magnitude to be unforgivable. Mistaking airports in a modern, fully functioning jet is one of them.
In direct answer to your incredibly stupid question, I'll give an answer that you were incapable of offering: I expect pilots to land at the correct airport without breaking things, including pax, unless there has been a mechanical failure or diversion that precipitates said incident. That is what professional, competent pilots do. So, of your choices, I'd take the option that doesn't cost lives, but since landing at the right airport is more likely to protect lives than landing at the wrong one, my third option is the better one. Pull your head out!
Everyone makes mistakes, and anyone who disagrees with that is a liar or incredibly inobservant of their own performance, but some errors are of such magnitude to be unforgivable. Mistaking airports in a modern, fully functioning jet is one of them.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OUT of curiosity, would you rather:
a. land at the wrong airport, not kill anyone and have the plane reused the next day.
b. land at the right airport , kill passengers, and destroy the plane.
a. land at the wrong airport, not kill anyone and have the plane reused the next day.
b. land at the right airport , kill passengers, and destroy the plane.
This discussion is running on many forums, and is split into two similar camps. One thing however, is that these two pilots were experienced and fully trained ATPL. They are not imbiciles. So, why????
There is a stronger set of circumstances underpinning any error like this, and the industry would do well to identify, expose, and then attempt to make right, in a transparemt way. We await the report, and assume it will be drawn up fairly, and hopefully, with some recommendations.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a handful of posters who just can't help but defend completely this incident, and the Atlas incident before it.
It is the same group defending the same utter lack of airmanship, which makes me ponder two ideas: either they are equally inept and are being defensive, or they perceive the comments by others as an attack on the US as a whole and are being defensive about that instead. There is a paranoid culture within the US which afflicts a great many, though I hasten to add not all, of its people in that any criticism of anything which happens to be American is taken as an attack on everything American, and so any kind of criticism is tantamount to a terror attack. I wonder if this bunker mentality is what is behind this defence of the indefensible, given that the very same individuals are only too pleased to condemn anyone from any other country?
I don't think anyone was being nationalistic or paranoid until you came along and wrote this nonsense. In fact, the posts attacking these guys earlier that I was complaining about were from Americans (or so they say). I hope you're not making assumptions about where I'm from because I guarantee you'd be surprised. These are anonymous forums and a lot of people don't put their true location and nationality in their profiles.
I actually find it quite disturbing that so many so called professional pilots are so quick to condemn their colleagues without a trial. Sure it's embarrassing when stuff like this happens but this witch hunt attitude won't help.
Are you saying that landing at the wrong airport, and stopping just short of a cliff through luck rather than judgement, is OK, and nothing more than a screwup? And are you also saying that any incident that is non-fatal is acceptable.
It seems to me these forums are a place disgruntled and bitter old pilots go to try and get even with all those seemingly more successful people who've wronged them their whole lives....pathetic.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aluminum and maxred
BOTH of you have used the word stupid regarding my question.
Aluminum, you mention luck about avoiding the cliff.
FIRST I ask moderators to evaluate your post for possible removal (not banning though).
Second, Aluminum, how much luck was involved in not killing more people at San Francisco? Asiana basically hit the seawall or so close to it as to rip the gear off or destroy the gear. A seawall in my view is about the same as a cliff.
IF a UNITED AIRLINES (USA) 777 had crashed in the same way at KSFO as Asiana did, I would offer the identical criticism and so would every pilot here.
Contrary to your PIers Morgan like attitude, the nationality of the pilots does not matter. Airplanes don't care where you were born in order to fly them well, but the keyword is WELL.
BOTH of you have used the word stupid regarding my question.
Aluminum, you mention luck about avoiding the cliff.
FIRST I ask moderators to evaluate your post for possible removal (not banning though).
Second, Aluminum, how much luck was involved in not killing more people at San Francisco? Asiana basically hit the seawall or so close to it as to rip the gear off or destroy the gear. A seawall in my view is about the same as a cliff.
IF a UNITED AIRLINES (USA) 777 had crashed in the same way at KSFO as Asiana did, I would offer the identical criticism and so would every pilot here.
Contrary to your PIers Morgan like attitude, the nationality of the pilots does not matter. Airplanes don't care where you were born in order to fly them well, but the keyword is WELL.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sehr interessant
This thread of late seems to be plagued by a deficit of listening. Of this, I mean that there simply is no actual - actual - actual disagreement between those who cite the lack of injuries or fatalities (true); the CLEARLY ERRONEOUS nature of a wrong airport landing (true); the need to understand precisely which slice of Swiss cheese the hole appeared in (or slices) (true); what the exact x-axis, y-axis co-ordinates are for the hole or holes (true); whether changes still spreading and reverberating through civil air transport (like Magenta line stuff) in their statistical central tendency will exacerbate the causes (once they are identified to an NTSB probable cause standard) (true); and those who advocate thought process expenditure on irrelevancies, redundancies, or repetitions. For example, were either of the pilots going commando (true), or wearing magenta-lined drawers (false)?
Thread Starter
I was waiting for someone to start shouting nationalism, its the one constant of pprune. I would defend with the same vigor and counter with the same enthusiasm your airline if I was familiar with it had they landed at the wrong airport. Now put the international politics away.
Focus in on the event.
Focus in on the event.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: London
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nitpicker - I and many others agree with you sentiments. lifeafteraviation and bloggs (who seems to have caved) are seemingly on another planet.
lifeafteraviation - you have been asked your pedigree - on what basis are you preaching - what is your experience?
At least you seem to be coming round to the fact that this cannot just be "classed" as a simple mistake.
lifeafteraviation - you have been asked your pedigree - on what basis are you preaching - what is your experience?
At least you seem to be coming round to the fact that this cannot just be "classed" as a simple mistake.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
Sadly, I must report that Piers Morgan is alive and well working on CNN and often calling anything he disagrees with: INCREDIBLY STUPID.
IS this a reverse punishment lend lease? IF so please take him back and feed him to the corgis.
Sadly, I must report that Piers Morgan is alive and well working on CNN and often calling anything he disagrees with: INCREDIBLY STUPID.
IS this a reverse punishment lend lease? IF so please take him back and feed him to the corgis.
Thread Starter
I know nothing of his "pedigree" but it really doesn't matter. I've always disliked determining credibility based on the number of type ratings one has. Judge what he says on the merits of the argument which I, a mid range airline guy (3 types if you must know) happen to agree with.
As you've indicated, you have made up you're mind, given that, it shouldn't make a difference what his background is.
As you've indicated, you have made up you're mind, given that, it shouldn't make a difference what his background is.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: London
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West coast ... Simply following his lead...if you look back through the posts he judged and queried mine and others on their perceived legitimacy and not on their comments.
You agree with him that this was simply a mistake which by implication is forgivable, as opposed to negiligence which is not?
It has been stated many times the only reason people did not die was luck.
The majority of short, mid, long timers (ie pilots) agree that this was a huge screw up. The mystery has been taken out of it by the pilots admittering their error. I just can not see how their position is defendable yet he defends them.
You agree with him that this was simply a mistake which by implication is forgivable, as opposed to negiligence which is not?
It has been stated many times the only reason people did not die was luck.
The majority of short, mid, long timers (ie pilots) agree that this was a huge screw up. The mystery has been taken out of it by the pilots admittering their error. I just can not see how their position is defendable yet he defends them.
Last edited by Utrinque; 24th Jan 2014 at 21:54.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting silly - time, maybe, for the mods to lock the thread until a report comes out.
We are all agreed that the pilots screwed up - what we need to know is the sequence of factors which led to the mistake, there will be lessons to be learned in there.
We are all agreed that the pilots screwed up - what we need to know is the sequence of factors which led to the mistake, there will be lessons to be learned in there.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: RIGHT SIDE OF GOD
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the lessons I learnt early on, in my own little career (and thankfully well in time), was to be thorough in doing briefings.Whenever I neglected that aspect, I made mistakes.So even if I was not the one flying a particular sector, I would make sure that all aspects of the briefing had been covered.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SWA guys don't get paid by the hour, they get paid by the mile,
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you talking about me? 
I'm not posting details on my background here...that would defeat the purpose of being anonymous. I don't preach. I don't discuss anything as an expert beyond my extensive experience and when I don't know, I will say so. Besides, we are arguing about subject matter that is not really so much technical as ethical.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm not posting details on my background here...that would defeat the purpose of being anonymous. I don't preach. I don't discuss anything as an expert beyond my extensive experience and when I don't know, I will say so. Besides, we are arguing about subject matter that is not really so much technical as ethical.
This is getting silly - time, maybe, for the mods to lock the thread until a report comes out.
Thread Starter
Utrinque
Dunno about what back and forth you have going on with life after aviation, but his logic is sound. A mistake was made, lessons must be learned. I'm not going to put it in the terms you choose. The hang 'em high days are in the past.
What I'm not going to do is crucify the crew. I'm not going to crucify the airline. What I hope to do is learn from it.
A bit too much drama for me. Yes, it has been stated many times about luck. Repeating something many times only makes you the loudest voice in the crowd, it doesn't mean you're right. The max effort braking was the reason no one died, not luck.
Dunno about what back and forth you have going on with life after aviation, but his logic is sound. A mistake was made, lessons must be learned. I'm not going to put it in the terms you choose. The hang 'em high days are in the past.
What I'm not going to do is crucify the crew. I'm not going to crucify the airline. What I hope to do is learn from it.
A bit too much drama for me. Yes, it has been stated many times about luck. Repeating something many times only makes you the loudest voice in the crowd, it doesn't mean you're right. The max effort braking was the reason no one died, not luck.