Southwest KLGA gear collapse.
A comment in Flying e-magazine today ........The airline determined that the captain, who had flown for Southwest for 13 years, took control of the airplane from the first officer at about 400 feet on the approach in violation of company procedures..........
??? What's this all about ?? Is it a violation of Company procedures to take over control if the co-pilot is not doing the job properly and maybe about to kill you !!
I know nothing of the circumstances causing the change of control, if indeed it did happen, so I repeat ........ what's this all about, did the Captain take over control just for the fun of it ?
??? What's this all about ?? Is it a violation of Company procedures to take over control if the co-pilot is not doing the job properly and maybe about to kill you !!
I know nothing of the circumstances causing the change of control, if indeed it did happen, so I repeat ........ what's this all about, did the Captain take over control just for the fun of it ?
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 3rd Oct 2013 at 21:44.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bogota, Colombia
Age: 34
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it means, although not written, is that she violated company procedures by not making a missed approach, since she took control below 1000ft( at least in this part of the world) she should have executed a go around.
There is a reason why she took over , maybe an unstable approach comes to mind.
Just my 2 cents,
There is a reason why she took over , maybe an unstable approach comes to mind.
Just my 2 cents,
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A captain should always be tuned into what the FO is doing and once I took over when the FO went to idle power at 50 ft to not put the gear through the wing because he was also slow. Adding power and flaring was very easy so going around made no sense. SOP's sometimes require procedures that make no sense but we didn't have one for that. Come to think of it we had very few SOP's until the big guys bought us.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a violation of Company procedures to take over control if the co-pilot is not doing the job properly and maybe about to kill you !!.
There is a chance if the copilot maintained control of the aircraft they wouldn't have crash-landed. Isn't it an ultimate irony - the intrepid captain takes over at 400 ft and she can't even land the damn thing!
Last edited by olasek; 4th Oct 2013 at 06:25.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, we don't, but she took over for some reason. The fact that she pushed the nose over after taking over indicates she thought he was going to land too long. Not saying he was, just that the evidence seems to point to her thinking that.
PW127=B
SOP's to go around rather than try to retrieve a less than perfect approach at low level makes sense, thank you.
( not saying it was less than perfect, just questioning the reported SOP not to take over at 400 ft.)
I often used to tell the co-pilot, established, in the slot, stable, trimmed, everything on target - " do nothing, only you can fcuk it up now ! "
SOP's to go around rather than try to retrieve a less than perfect approach at low level makes sense, thank you.
( not saying it was less than perfect, just questioning the reported SOP not to take over at 400 ft.)
I often used to tell the co-pilot, established, in the slot, stable, trimmed, everything on target - " do nothing, only you can fcuk it up now ! "
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how nearly everyone wants to assume that the FO was doing his job and the CA has to prove she was doing hers. Gee I wonder why that is?
pw127-b, how can you violate a SOP which isn't written.
How does the company get away with the fact that a CA had to take over in the first place, were the conditions difficult? Any FO CTL shouldn't be there unless they can handle whatever limits a company sets for a FO's landing. I haven't flown for an airline yet that has an SOP for a low lvl takeover.
pw127-b, how can you violate a SOP which isn't written.
How does the company get away with the fact that a CA had to take over in the first place, were the conditions difficult? Any FO CTL shouldn't be there unless they can handle whatever limits a company sets for a FO's landing. I haven't flown for an airline yet that has an SOP for a low lvl takeover.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, nobody has assumed that at all, not anyone and certainly not "nearly everyone". The fact that you're making such absurd claims that are so obviously contradicted by the thread suggests you have some sort of an agenda driving your comments.
Well, actually, given that her job is, in part, to keep the airplane from crashing, it's pretty much indisputable that she *wasn't* doing her job. She was the handling pilot from 400 ft AGL to the impact crater. Doesn't matter how badly the FO may screwed up prior to her taking over, driving the nose strut into the avionics bay is all on her.
Well, actually, given that her job is, in part, to keep the airplane from crashing, it's pretty much indisputable that she *wasn't* doing her job. She was the handling pilot from 400 ft AGL to the impact crater. Doesn't matter how badly the FO may screwed up prior to her taking over, driving the nose strut into the avionics bay is all on her.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the captain had taken over the plane and made a normal landing, we wouldn't even know what happened.
but she didn't.
she made a crappy landing...
crappy landings can occur for many reasons...but mainly because the pilot is crappy.
but she didn't.
she made a crappy landing...
crappy landings can occur for many reasons...but mainly because the pilot is crappy.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually
The FO may have been making just as crappy if not worse of a landing.
For all we know the CA saved them from the drink.
Obviously a GA would have been best - but it seems very possible the FO hacked it up the app/landing to begin with. So they both made mistakes.
She gets fired.
He gets more training.
RIght-O!
For all we know the CA saved them from the drink.
Obviously a GA would have been best - but it seems very possible the FO hacked it up the app/landing to begin with. So they both made mistakes.
She gets fired.
He gets more training.
RIght-O!
crappy landings can occur for many reasons...but mainly because the pilot is crappy.
May The Force Be With You
The word Hubris comes to mind.
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 4th Oct 2013 at 22:59.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FO didn't make the landing, she did. She had full control and landed on the nose wheel. The FO may have been unstabilized or something but she crashed. I guess we will never know because it was a female cpt.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing the details of this accident, using a hypothetical similar scenario, it is best to look at the actions independently.
FO screws up the approach. Well, we pretty much all have at some point in our career if we look back far enough. Is that enough reason to be fired these days? Likely not. The FO can be written up by the captain and perhaps more training required or as happened in our cases long ago, we learned our lesson. Maybe he gets a letter on file for not having suggested a go around from his portion of the unstable approach.
Captain takes over from a screwed up approach at 400 feet. Well done. Now what do you do. I suspect the SOP for the unstable approach is to go around. If you continue and trash the aircraft, expect to get fired. Or jail time in some countries unfortunately. Or a funeral potentially for some.
Somebody said, "The fact that she pushed the nose over after taking over indicates she thought he was going to land too long. Not saying he was, just that the evidence seems to point to her thinking that". That is definitely reason to be fired based on the outcome of our hypothetical scenario. If there is no accident, perhaps the data monitoring will result in a downgrade or retraining.
FO screws up the approach. Well, we pretty much all have at some point in our career if we look back far enough. Is that enough reason to be fired these days? Likely not. The FO can be written up by the captain and perhaps more training required or as happened in our cases long ago, we learned our lesson. Maybe he gets a letter on file for not having suggested a go around from his portion of the unstable approach.
Captain takes over from a screwed up approach at 400 feet. Well done. Now what do you do. I suspect the SOP for the unstable approach is to go around. If you continue and trash the aircraft, expect to get fired. Or jail time in some countries unfortunately. Or a funeral potentially for some.
Somebody said, "The fact that she pushed the nose over after taking over indicates she thought he was going to land too long. Not saying he was, just that the evidence seems to point to her thinking that". That is definitely reason to be fired based on the outcome of our hypothetical scenario. If there is no accident, perhaps the data monitoring will result in a downgrade or retraining.
Last edited by JammedStab; 5th Oct 2013 at 01:13.
"The fact that she pushed the nose over after taking over indicates she thought he was going to land too long. Not saying he was, just that the evidence seems to point to her thinking that". That is definitely reason to be fired based on the outcome of our hypothetical scenario.
You should be fired for taking over and landing in the box? A bit harsh, methinks. If you break it, then different story, but...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you're saying is that if, after 500ft (or insert altitude XXX) the FO looks like he/she is going to land long, you must do a Go Around. What if you had to get in?
You should be fired for taking over and landing in the box? A bit harsh, methinks. If you break it, then different story, but...
You should be fired for taking over and landing in the box? A bit harsh, methinks. If you break it, then different story, but...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I took over at LAX at 50 feet I should have been fired if I couldn't do a recovery properly. That is why we are captains. We are responsible for safety of flight. Taking over at 50 ft is quite easy if you know how to fly. I had an autopilot on an MD80 go out of control and disconnect with a 200 ft ceiling and we were at 300 ft so just readjusted everything, broke out and landed. The captain is always responsible so just fly the F airplane. That is what you get paid for. It shouldn't be that hard.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some amusing stuff here
I had to take the 737 from my copilot after he had done a perfectly stable apch. He bounced and froze...did nothing to recover and I mean he BOUNCED!!!!!
I took it from him, added power, landed and then gave it back to him to handle the rollout.
speedbird I said: MAINLY...I am sure even Charles Lindbergh made a crappy landing, but in this LGA situation...the captain made a good landing...not a great one, but good as people walked away...a great landing is one in which you can use the plane again without major mx.
speedbird...hubris...interesting choice of words...but pal, listen...I didn't break the nosewheel off a 737 and close NY's airport.
IF the plane was not stable, they should have gone around
IF the captain decided to attempt to make good the apch and landing, she failed.
I had to take the 737 from my copilot after he had done a perfectly stable apch. He bounced and froze...did nothing to recover and I mean he BOUNCED!!!!!
I took it from him, added power, landed and then gave it back to him to handle the rollout.
speedbird I said: MAINLY...I am sure even Charles Lindbergh made a crappy landing, but in this LGA situation...the captain made a good landing...not a great one, but good as people walked away...a great landing is one in which you can use the plane again without major mx.
speedbird...hubris...interesting choice of words...but pal, listen...I didn't break the nosewheel off a 737 and close NY's airport.
IF the plane was not stable, they should have gone around
IF the captain decided to attempt to make good the apch and landing, she failed.