Southwest KLGA gear collapse.

[Airbubba]

Here's an earlier discussion of the nosewheel landing technique from another thread here on PPRuNe:

On January 11, when IndiGo Airlines’ flight 6E 333 had a bumpy touchdown at Goa International Airport, it was a close brush with disaster for over 100 passengers aboard the A 320. The woman pilot in command landed the plane on its fragile nose wheel — an erroneous manoeuvre that could have even led to the flying machine disintegrating and catching fire.

Alarmingly, an inquiry conducted later by the Director General of Civil Aviation ( DGCA) revealed that on 15 to 20 earlier occasions, Captain Parminder Kaur Gulati landed the aircraft at an angle indicating that the nose wheel may have touched the tarmac first. This is unheard of in aviation circles. Aircraft normally land on the main landing gear ( MLG), comprising the two sets of rear wheels. After these bigger — and sturdier — wheels touch the runway, the speed of the plane is reduced. This is followed by the already opened nose landing gear ( NLG) — the smaller front wheel just below the cockpit of the aircraft — coming in contact with the surface.

http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far...ose-wheel.html

A followup article on the pilot mentioned above:

Grounded pilot held for forgery

[bubbers44]

iriv, I don't think you really meant SWA pilots would plow into a runway nose first to save time. They as I understand are like most airlines and get paid for what they fly or what the segment is worth whichever is more. They learned from our airline of 737's how to be efficient but we didn't get to pick up an extra trip because we actually blocked less time. I don't think they do either.

[jriv]

Of course SWA pilots get to pick up extra if they come in under block!!! That's why they're always in such a GD hurry!

If you disagree, please explain why they are always asking for shortcuts. OFTEN coming in fast and high. ALWAYS make Z off 24R is LAX. Etc...

Burbank, MDW, now this. Plus all of the MANY examples we have all seen that have been egregiously unstabilized approaches. I have NEVER seen a SW aircraft go around.

[Capn Bloggs]

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.

I still disagree. Fair enough going high to slow down before the ILS (jet energy management 101) but pulling up off the GS (even if only to "level") to slow down, given you'd already be at Idle, is IMO not a good idea, regardless of what you think might happen later. Better to be fast and on the GS/PAPI than high and on-speed and poking the nose down to get back on it at low level.

[bubbers44]

My airline, Aircal, flew efficiently and they followed our style of flying. We did it to be efficient but not to pick up another trip. We rarely went around because we planned our approaches properly. We prided ourselves into planning an idle approach from top of descent to 1,000 ft with no speed brakes and no added power. We did it 90% of the time because it was a fun game.

Asian airlines wouldn't have a clue how to do that and we had no GPS or FMS. Only DME and guessing at the winds because we had no GS readout. Times have changed and pilot skills have changed. Looking out the window doesn't seem in some pilots scan now days obviously.

[Cows getting bigger]

Can one presume that this is indicative of the Aircal style of flying before the company ceased trading in 1987?

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-12.pdf

[Etud_lAvia]

Cows, an interesting (if snarky) post.

Per the NTSB report linked by Cows Getting Bigger:

"To further compound the situation, when the captain of ACL336 recognized the diminishing separation, he reduced the power to flight idle on both engines to slow the aircraft rather than maintain enough thrust to the go-around point so that immediate thrust responses would be available. This was in direct conflict with company procedures, which call for stabilized approaches for all landings."

"Even if the throttles had been immediately advanced, it would have taken about 6 to 8 seconds for the engines to spool up and develop power to go-around since the captain had reduced the throttles to flight idle."

However, if I read the report correctly, the lengthy delay of the captain (PF) in responding to the ATC go-around was a more important factor in the accident than slowing the engines to flight idle.

[Cows getting bigger]

Sorry for the snarkyness. My point is that we all get things wrong and to purvey an attitude that "we are better than them" completely contradicts one of the fundamentals of modern flight safety thinking.

[bubbers44]

I flew with Don in the same aircraft a few days before the crash. I also knew the captain of the aborting fllight. The Western 737 that delayed clearing 19R expeditiously caused a delay in take off and Don not wanting to go around set up the final peg in the sequence of events. AA bought us in 87 so that is why we closed as did PSA when US Airways bought them.

I agree that crash was caused by an over agressive captain trying to make something work that ended up unworkable because of the abort but all in all we had some very proficient pilots who knew what they were doing. Nobody got hired there with under 5,000 hrs and PIC jet time of at least 1,000 hrs. A few exceptions were made when the Electras were retired to let FE's get qualified for the right seat with required pilot ratings.

Southwest had the same requirements as we did, I am sure because moving to the left seat was a short time and they needed experience to get hired. Automation was primitive then but some of the airlines today are using automation to hire inexperienced pilots and relying on automation to make things work. Not being able to handle a visual approach was unheard of then.

[flarepilot]

we are a bit off course here.

fellow pilots:


There are considerable differences between the ASIANA CRASH at San Francisco and the Southwest accident at LGA.

Shall we review the differences?

Asiana...deaths involved

SWA....no deaths.


Asiana...plane is obviously a total wreck and will never fly again.

Southwest...Airplane is substantially intact, a decision to repair will be forthcoming.


Removal of aircraft at San Francisco required CRANES.

Removal of aircraft at LGA required heavy duty tug.


Stall warning/stick shaker activated for Asiana.

Normal airspeed during SWA approach.


AT this very moment we do not know why the captain of the SWA plane took over to make the landing.

AT this moment we DO NOT KNOW why the PILOT IN COMMAND (check pilot) DID NOT TAKEOVER the Asiana plane.

AS far as landing aids, sufficient landing aids were available at both airports , so many
as a matter of fact that no other plane had any problems landing.

While it may not matter, southwest airlines has not killed a passenger while landing a plane. (midway, a death occured to an innocent on the ground)

Asiana has killed more than one actual passenger.


Asiana appears to be mamouth incompetence.


Southwest...well, I think this belongs in the realm of jetblue nut job, or overconfidence . Or fear of running off the end of the runway. Mind you, I probably wouldn't hire either pilot of either plane...but at LGA...I'd have stood a better chance of not being injured as a passenger than at SFO where virtually everyone was injured.



Political Correctness can be fine on the Oprah Winfrey show, but we should check Political Correctness in the luggage compartment as we enter the cockpit to do our duty to keep everyone safe. The right answer, the safe answer should over rule other considerations. just thinking...the only thing these two situations have in common, both pilots are thinking, GEE, IF I HAD GONE AROUND, I would be sleeping alot better now.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by jriv

ALWAYS make Z off 24R is LAX. Etc...

I guess I'm left scratching my head why the ability the consistently make a hi-speed turnoff 4700 feet down the runway is a bad thing. I come from a place where the runways most destinations are 6000 ft or less, and yeah, there's 2 airlines operating 737s into them. I would imagine being slowed enough to make a hi-speed turnoff by 4700 ft (78 percent of available runway) would be considered a minimum level of competency at those operators

[Cows getting bigger]

flarepilot, I wouldn't argue with much of what you said. For completeness:

At least one of the Asiana fatalities appears to have had external input from the crash rescue teams.

I think there are many similarities and in some respects agree with bubbers44 - perfectly serviceable aircraft have been mis-handled by crew. It is too easy to close the book there but the reality is that in both accidents (there is no difference from an investigative perspective) the system has failed, not just one individual.

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but most pilots don't set out to have a bad day.

[lomapaseo]

Let's see what the expert review from the NTSB has to say about the pilot handling vs. level of difficulty before we compare accidents du jour

comparisons like the one above directed at:

fellow pilots

are worthless in their comparisons between investigation findings that are not yet in evidence.

I don't give much notice at what others think are causal factors or blame but do give a lot of thought to corrective actions that are practical.

[Junkflyer]

The SWA captain appears to have made a poor decision in not initiating a go-around. The Asiana crew seems like they were not flying the plane, but just along for the ride. Descending through 500 feet with the engines unspooled (not to mention low and slow)should never happen in a transport category jet particularly a widebody.

[flarepilot]

what makes an expert?

Interesting that we await expert review. But indeed, what is an expert? I daresay that any jet captain on this forum has what it takes to be called an expert.

And those of us who have landed at either or both SFO and LGA have enough to qualify above some others.

[Murexway]

"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."

13 years at Southwest and never had made a landing at LGA? Both times in there as Captain the landing was given to the copilot? Seems rather strange.

I'm now retired, but I had some very nice MD-80 landings at LGA - along with many I'd like to forget After I "touched"down on 31 one morning, my FO asked if he should advise the tower that we had just lowered the field elevation at LGA.......

But you gotta make landings at LGA (and all the other fun spots) if you're ever going to get experience. It's great to give the FO's all the LGA landings, but only if you, yourself, have the experience to begin with.

[jriv]

A squared:

I guess I'm left scratching my head why the ability the consistently make a hi-speed turnoff 4700 feet down the runway is a bad thing. I come from a place where the runways most destinations are 6000 ft or less, and yeah, there's 2 airlines operating 737s into them. I would imagine being slowed enough to make a hi-speed turnoff by 4700 ft (78 percent of available runway) would be considered a minimum level of competency at those operators

Oops, I meant Y. The reverse high-speed. So they are slowed all the way down to 5 knots or so to make the 130 degree turn.

I make it often, but if there's a tailwind, or I''m heavy, sometimes I miss it. I have NEVER seen SW miss it. Then when they taxi back to the gate it's at 30 or 40 knots.

Am I really the only person who sees that the way they get paid has created a culture of rushing? And that this culture has directly impacted their safety record?

[galaxy flyer]

jriv

In 40+ years, SWA has only had one hull loss, I believe, not sure about MDW overrun. One fatality, that was at MDW. So they have a safety record problem? Compared to AA (LIT, KIN, JFK hull losses), Pinnacle (2 losses), every other US carrier; their record is better. Not a SW dude, but those are the facts.

GF

[bubbers44]

I will always fly on SWA. I flew for the competition but will always fly on them with no hesitation.

[Gerz]

Pay

JRIV,

What is the colour of the sky on your planet? Last time I checked most every airline guy gets payed based on block time.

Does WN have a culture of speed, sure it does.

Does AA have a culture of 5kt taxi, sure it does.

How about we talk about UA's 747-400 that missed Mt San Bruno by 50ft.

I'd match WN's safety record with any other carrier's.

Feel free to hate WN, just don't try and do so under the false colour of SAFETY.