Southwest KLGA gear collapse.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HT,
Okay, can see where the "nowhere" dig can from now, soh back in place! So apologies extended.
A2,
Quote:Post 410
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.
You don't know the disposition of the a/c during the approach or what may have transpired on the FD over the last minute or so, but you're pretty adamant that her head should be served up on a platter regardless, so I stand by my comment.
I'd doubt I have anything to learn from you, except the obvious!
Okay, can see where the "nowhere" dig can from now, soh back in place! So apologies extended.
A2,
Quote:Post 410
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.
You don't know the disposition of the a/c during the approach or what may have transpired on the FD over the last minute or so, but you're pretty adamant that her head should be served up on a platter regardless, so I stand by my comment.
I'd doubt I have anything to learn from you, except the obvious!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no, I'm not "calling for her head to be served on a platter" Others were claiming she was being treated unfairly by being fired, and I merely commented that being fired is an entirely predictable outcome when you as flying pilot and PIC crash an airplane.
Are you saying that it's not reasonable to fire a pilot who in the absence of extenuating circumstances like Souix CIty) crashes an airplane?
Last edited by A Squared; 5th Oct 2013 at 13:51.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went back and reviewed what the NTSB had released to the public/press and the videos taken during the crackup.
1...the copilot seemed to have the plane on profile (cvr and fdr)
2. the videos show the nose drop under the captain's control.
Now, all the talk, the off course discussion, can't make up for this recorded fact...the nose wheel hit first and the captain was the pilot flying (handling).
You can ''what if'' all you like...what if the copilot would have made a bad landing...but most of us know that if you are on profile at 400' you will usually have an acceptable landing.
And deer speedbird...you seem off the beam...a bumpy landing is one thing, a landing that breaks the plane is something else. Have you broken the plane as a direct result of your landing? So don't accuse me of hubris...if I broke the plane as badly as the captain in question I figure I'd be looking for a job outside of aviation.
I think a bit of tunnel vision and inexperience at LGA and some sort of fear of shorter (but not really short) runways...lead to the crackup.
I will say this...I've seen few really fine female pilots, many average ones, and some below average that get a huge amount of extra training. I've seen some female pilots hired with 1/4th the time as male pilots and ended up needing to go through training 3x.
It is gender bias in getting hired, perhaps...but the sky is gender neutral and demands skill to stay alive.
What happened at LGA isn't about being a woman, instead, its about the discipline to land properly.
Does anyone think this was a proper landing? And it is really a stretch of the imagination to think that this landing is better than other possible outcomes.
1...the copilot seemed to have the plane on profile (cvr and fdr)
2. the videos show the nose drop under the captain's control.
Now, all the talk, the off course discussion, can't make up for this recorded fact...the nose wheel hit first and the captain was the pilot flying (handling).
You can ''what if'' all you like...what if the copilot would have made a bad landing...but most of us know that if you are on profile at 400' you will usually have an acceptable landing.
And deer speedbird...you seem off the beam...a bumpy landing is one thing, a landing that breaks the plane is something else. Have you broken the plane as a direct result of your landing? So don't accuse me of hubris...if I broke the plane as badly as the captain in question I figure I'd be looking for a job outside of aviation.
I think a bit of tunnel vision and inexperience at LGA and some sort of fear of shorter (but not really short) runways...lead to the crackup.
I will say this...I've seen few really fine female pilots, many average ones, and some below average that get a huge amount of extra training. I've seen some female pilots hired with 1/4th the time as male pilots and ended up needing to go through training 3x.
It is gender bias in getting hired, perhaps...but the sky is gender neutral and demands skill to stay alive.
What happened at LGA isn't about being a woman, instead, its about the discipline to land properly.
Does anyone think this was a proper landing? And it is really a stretch of the imagination to think that this landing is better than other possible outcomes.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 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. "
So pretty much all information available agrees that it was not a wild out of control unstable approach.
And that is confirmed by the FDR Data showing a pitch down just before the nosewheel hit.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A2
Okay, do you know what happened for the a/c to go from 2 nu @ 34' to 3 nd in 4 sec and what occurred for her to assume control and when? I'd say there have been a lot of botched landings over the years without incident due to plain old luck (3 that I know of over the last 4 yrs down my neck of the woods).
Yes, I think it's wrong to terminate a pilot as a result of an accident prior to a full report being handed down and in that sense the crew member is being denied natural justice. Why not keep the crew suspended until findings of fact are made by the NTSB. It gives off the appearance of SWA being Judge and Jury, which to me smacks of them wanting to overtly blame the CA in a public manner while possibly diverting attention from their training standards. I find it amazing that something that is only vaguely discussed and not very often required and I've never seen any guidance/training etc on this, not in 15000+ hrs and 20 odd yrs. How can she have the time with the airline and the time as PIC and suddenly be incompetent. Has the CA been proved to have been negligent or did she mishandle a never trained for event. If the PIC is not competent then back to being a FO, if she should have never been promoted to PIC that is a standards issue and sacking a crew member is an attempt to hide that fact.
By the way, a lot can go wrong from 400' to touchdown as was demonstrated in this accident. This should be a wake up call for all captains and especially so training depts.
Yes, I think it's wrong to terminate a pilot as a result of an accident prior to a full report being handed down and in that sense the crew member is being denied natural justice. Why not keep the crew suspended until findings of fact are made by the NTSB. It gives off the appearance of SWA being Judge and Jury, which to me smacks of them wanting to overtly blame the CA in a public manner while possibly diverting attention from their training standards. I find it amazing that something that is only vaguely discussed and not very often required and I've never seen any guidance/training etc on this, not in 15000+ hrs and 20 odd yrs. How can she have the time with the airline and the time as PIC and suddenly be incompetent. Has the CA been proved to have been negligent or did she mishandle a never trained for event. If the PIC is not competent then back to being a FO, if she should have never been promoted to PIC that is a standards issue and sacking a crew member is an attempt to hide that fact.
By the way, a lot can go wrong from 400' to touchdown as was demonstrated in this accident. This should be a wake up call for all captains and especially so training depts.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain took control between 400 and 200 feet. Everyone has been conspicuously silent about *why* she took over, but by the crew's own testimony the FO was on speed, on course and on glideslope. So that does leave the question of why she tool over control at 400 feet or lower when the approach was stabilized on speed and on glide, doesn't it?
If you have some evidence the rest of us haven't seen which indicates that the outcome was not her fault nor could she have prevented it, then by all means, post it so we can all see. But in the absence of that, all the facts so far point to her screwing up and crashing the airplane with no extenuating circumstances. What do you have that contradicts that? Please post it.
By information I don't mean "might haves " and "we don't knows ", I mean facts. Lets hear them.
Last edited by A Squared; 5th Oct 2013 at 15:07.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared:
Correct. Same for the FAA.
The airline is under no obligation to wait for the NTSB process to be completed. They have their own internal processes, and there is no indication that those have not been completed. WHat do you think the airline has been doing in the 2+ months between the accident and the firing?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A2
I don't get you! Not one question of why? It would appear it's indisputable that she didn't correct the nd attitude, but was that the result of a bounced landing which turned to ****. Why would she take over? You seem to accept that she took over for no reason and then somehow flew the nose into the rwy, maybe she did, but how do you jump to that conclusion. Did the NTSB state she took over between 200-400' or is it just prune-fact?
What evidence do I have? What do you have: at 34' 2 nu, 4 sec later 3 nd, it's alleged that the pic took over somewhere between 200-400', you don't know why and then you call these bits of data "facts" as if they prove a point, which they may or may not as you don't if anything else took place and have strung them together to jump to a conclusion. This is a rumour network, I get that, but you have taken it too far in wanting to hang her, and yes, you did. Did SWA sack the captain at Midway? So, what else is it you know that we don't?
Your MO is to make bits of data, what you call facts, into a narrative without effectively knowing the context of those bits of data.
As to the company's process, don't make me laugh. You don't think their interests come into play there.
What evidence do I have? What do you have: at 34' 2 nu, 4 sec later 3 nd, it's alleged that the pic took over somewhere between 200-400', you don't know why and then you call these bits of data "facts" as if they prove a point, which they may or may not as you don't if anything else took place and have strung them together to jump to a conclusion. This is a rumour network, I get that, but you have taken it too far in wanting to hang her, and yes, you did. Did SWA sack the captain at Midway? So, what else is it you know that we don't?
Your MO is to make bits of data, what you call facts, into a narrative without effectively knowing the context of those bits of data.
As to the company's process, don't make me laugh. You don't think their interests come into play there.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I wonder why she took over at low level when by the crew's own testimony the approach was stable, on speed and on glide. If you know why that is, pleas post your information.
No, it was not the result of a bounced landing. There is a video posted earlier in this thread which very clearly shows the plane descending and hitting nosewheel first. Besides, even if it *were* the result of a bounced landing, (it wasn't) that would have been *her* bounced landing. Have you already forgotten that she took over control of the plane at 200-400 feet AGL?
Nope, didn't say that. I have no idea why she took over, but given that the approach was (once again) stable, on speed and on glide, it is odd that she took over.
Really, you're trying to suggest there's some question that she flew the nosewheel into the runway? Have you seen the video? It shows the plane hitting the runway nosewheel first. By her own testimony, as reported by the NTSB. If she didn't fly the nosewheel into the runway, who did?
Uhhh, That's from the NTSB. One of the problems here is that you are *grossly* ignorant about what information had been released publicly. This is a case in point.
Like I've said before, I'm not trying to hang her, not demanding her head on a platter. I am merely responding to previous claims that firing was an unreasonable response to crashing an airplane and that it was being done because she was a woman.
Nope, didn't say that. I have no idea why she took over, but given that the approach was (once again) stable, on speed and on glide, it is odd that she took over.
Really, you're trying to suggest there's some question that she flew the nosewheel into the runway? Have you seen the video? It shows the plane hitting the runway nosewheel first. By her own testimony, as reported by the NTSB. If she didn't fly the nosewheel into the runway, who did?
Like I've said before, I'm not trying to hang her, not demanding her head on a platter. I am merely responding to previous claims that firing was an unreasonable response to crashing an airplane and that it was being done because she was a woman.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mic Dundee:
Taking a break from comparing the size of our appendages in flying aircraft...the scenario I possibly see is this:
Lets suppose this captain was a thorn in the side of not only who flew with her, but also the the company. Lets say she was disruptive to the general operating philosophy of Southwest Airlines and perhaps not the ace of the base. Then this accident occurs. The company decides there is finally justification to terminate her employment. They consult with the union (who also recognizes the issues that exist between her and the membership who they are tasked to protect) and the union agrees in a way that curbs their heated objections to a member being terminated.
We don't yet know the details of the CVR. Normally, the captain would fly FO for a predetermined period after an accident of this sort, but considering possible work history, ability and general negative waves...she's terminated. Sounds like a logical scenario to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactusbusdrvr
If she gets fired it's because there were many issues leading up to this point.
Circle gets the square.
Originally Posted by cactusbusdrvr
If she gets fired it's because there were many issues leading up to this point.
Circle gets the square.
Lets suppose this captain was a thorn in the side of not only who flew with her, but also the the company. Lets say she was disruptive to the general operating philosophy of Southwest Airlines and perhaps not the ace of the base. Then this accident occurs. The company decides there is finally justification to terminate her employment. They consult with the union (who also recognizes the issues that exist between her and the membership who they are tasked to protect) and the union agrees in a way that curbs their heated objections to a member being terminated.
We don't yet know the details of the CVR. Normally, the captain would fly FO for a predetermined period after an accident of this sort, but considering possible work history, ability and general negative waves...she's terminated. Sounds like a logical scenario to me.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
demons...I blame demons of the mind.
suddenly feeling (without real rational information) that the plane is going to go off the end of the runway and the only thing to do is get it on the ground.
we've seen some ''mind'' things out there.
gender...nothing to do with it, so drop it except for pronouns.
finding out the WHY ? interesting and if the NTSB comes up with the probable cause as: Airplane elevator design flawed, and the whole fleet is grounded, then the pilot might get her job back.
But we all know that it is unlikely.
I've been around flying a very long time. I've seen people go subtly nuts. Or suddenly lack concentration.
I've seen people who have their mind in a different place than the pointy end of the plane.
IF I were the boss pilot at southwest I would have asked the copilot what happened and I would ask the captain what happened...at different times.
the copilot would probably say- I was on profile and everything was fine.
and the captain would say...I got scared and wanted to get on the ground fast...thought we were floating too long...was ''commited'' to landing.
desert 185...the captain would not fly copilot for a time if she was incompetent on the job...or there was suspicion something wasn't right.
suddenly feeling (without real rational information) that the plane is going to go off the end of the runway and the only thing to do is get it on the ground.
we've seen some ''mind'' things out there.
gender...nothing to do with it, so drop it except for pronouns.
finding out the WHY ? interesting and if the NTSB comes up with the probable cause as: Airplane elevator design flawed, and the whole fleet is grounded, then the pilot might get her job back.
But we all know that it is unlikely.
I've been around flying a very long time. I've seen people go subtly nuts. Or suddenly lack concentration.
I've seen people who have their mind in a different place than the pointy end of the plane.
IF I were the boss pilot at southwest I would have asked the copilot what happened and I would ask the captain what happened...at different times.
the copilot would probably say- I was on profile and everything was fine.
and the captain would say...I got scared and wanted to get on the ground fast...thought we were floating too long...was ''commited'' to landing.
desert 185...the captain would not fly copilot for a time if she was incompetent on the job...or there was suspicion something wasn't right.
Last edited by flarepilot; 5th Oct 2013 at 18:30.
Farepilot
Sorry to upset you, not really intended, but I read into your comment a very strong suggestion that you weren't, and never would be, a crappy pilot and I'm sure you're not (most likely ) but S**t happens to the best of us, the crappy and the competent.
No, I never broke an aircraft whilst employed as a result of a landing, but I had a few break by themselves that caused me problems !
Since retirement I broke a homebuilt entirely due to my inputs - I was lucky, there was a handy field just off the threshold. ( maybe not entirely due to my inputs, Mr. VW had something to do with it, but ! could have handled it in a better manner ! )
Never say never was my message.
Kiss and make up ??
........So don't accuse me of hubris...if I broke the plane as badly as the captain in question I figure I'd be looking for a job outside of aviation.
No, I never broke an aircraft whilst employed as a result of a landing, but I had a few break by themselves that caused me problems !
Since retirement I broke a homebuilt entirely due to my inputs - I was lucky, there was a handy field just off the threshold. ( maybe not entirely due to my inputs, Mr. VW had something to do with it, but ! could have handled it in a better manner ! )
Never say never was my message.
Kiss and make up ??
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 5th Oct 2013 at 19:50.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flarepilot:
"desert 185...the captain would not fly copilot for a time if she was incompetent on the job...or there was suspicion something wasn't right."
Which is why she was fired. There is probably more to this than just LGA.
"desert 185...the captain would not fly copilot for a time if she was incompetent on the job...or there was suspicion something wasn't right."
Which is why she was fired. There is probably more to this than just LGA.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superq7:
"Quick question to the pilots on here. Do you think the lady involved will ever get a job as a pilot again ?"
By my standards for employment and based on the content of this thread, no. To be fair, I would listen (face to face) to her version of the circumstances, though.
"Quick question to the pilots on here. Do you think the lady involved will ever get a job as a pilot again ?"
By my standards for employment and based on the content of this thread, no. To be fair, I would listen (face to face) to her version of the circumstances, though.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sight picture...
so, you are on course and glideslope , right on speed and sink and IT DOESN'T Look right
and you are seeing for the first time that the runway over runs into the water
you have a visceral fear...and really you are over your head
and you force the plane on the ground before it is ready to land
yup...
so, you are on course and glideslope , right on speed and sink and IT DOESN'T Look right
and you are seeing for the first time that the runway over runs into the water
you have a visceral fear...and really you are over your head
and you force the plane on the ground before it is ready to land
yup...