Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Southwest Captain Reduced Power Before NYC Crash Landing

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Southwest Captain Reduced Power Before NYC Crash Landing

Old 9th Nov 2014, 01:12
  #61 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KLGA has had more than its share of air carrier accidents over the years.

I flew in and out of there more times than I care to remember. Mostly on the 727 but later in my carrier quite a few times on the L-1011.

Day VFR, dry conditions, it was a "piece of cake" for those who knew the airport.

I had many other days (nights) than that. I could write a book on "Le Garbage Pit."

My only close call was on ILS Rwy 4 in a driving rain (not TRW) when the front passed as we were in the flare. The tower didn't say crap. I really got on the T/Rs and brakes and missed going off the pier into the water by perhaps 500 feet.

Then, there was the night the 13 ILS failed over and over.

Garbage Pit!!!!
aterpster is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 03:13
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree that from a Brit perspective of "You invented it, but WE perfected it", very bureaucratic attitude towards aviation that US radio phraseology is atrocious. However, this is usually a strictly domestic phenomenon. We understand each other. I have noticed that American and North American pilots rarely if ever, use US phraseology when flying outside of North America. I will even make a broad and possibly offensive statement and say that the Francophones are the worst. They aren't even using the standard LANGUAGE, let alone phraseology. Additionally, and I've mentioned this before, I regularly "translate" for UK and Commonwealth pilots in Africa and the sand box. Is my RT the best? Far from it, but I can help out my fellow aviator on the airwaves, whether it be a relay or "translation", I will. Sorry if I offend you by saying "Kennedy, $&@?€% 1234 is outa 25-oh for 35-oh, good mornin'"....
As for the incident in LGA, this is a challenging airport and airspace at times, and flaps 40 on a 73 at anything above ref +10 is gonna give u a level, if not nose down attitude, and it flies almost like it's in the region of reverse command, pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. Big wing, big flaps, big drag. Get in ground effect and it will float. As for the automation....it would have probably been more effort than benefit, ie a distraction. A visual is a visual and often times at last minute. You have to be a stick and rudder kind of pilot for about 50% of the approaches in the US when the wx is vfr. Even at major airports. Sounds like the Captain got tunnel vision or "get-there-itis". You should never have to force a 73 on the ground or chop the power above 20'. Also, something that must be considered, narrow and short runway equals visual illusion of being high.
4runner is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 03:24
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE]I also wonder how I landed for years at LGA without a HUD, or without breaking off the landing gear[QUOTE]

LGA doesn't require anything more than our trusty 727's had. We never needed them and briefing every possible outcome wasn't done either. We never tried landing with no one with their hands on the yoke though. That sounds pretty tricky.

Last edited by bubbers44; 9th Nov 2014 at 03:26. Reason: spelling
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 04:34
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bubblers...you didn't have full automation and vnav into LGA??? Clearly you are a yank cowboy with zero standard RT phraseology....Unsafe to say the least...you should have built a visual approach into the FMC, briefed 4 missed approach scenarios, then briefed a JFK diversion as well as the arrival and finally Newark, all in nauseating detail, including both ILS and Localizer as well as LDA minimums and procedures. I'm laying on the bull$@&t pretty thick btw Skipper.
4runner is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 08:30
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4runner
PPRuNeUser0182 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 12:37
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
captjns

to me, the visual approach to runway 13 at LGA was the highlight of a month of flying. as you know, the winds don't favor 13 that often. the view over central park and the hudson river were just wonderful.

I'm sure you remember the Delta guy who creamed his gear off on such an approach.

I realize any of us could screw up anything. But with discipline and practiced stick , rudder, and judgement skills we managed to carry on.

so dear captjns, and bubbers, those were great days. And I blame human resources and other things which keep good pilots out of the cockpit and put marginal pilots into the cockpit.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 13:33
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 57
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would consider the need to take the airplane below 1,000' as an automatic go around. Switching PF and PNF roles would definitely be "unstable" in my book.
flyingchanges is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 13:57
  #68 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
glendalegoon:


I'm sure you remember the Delta guy who creamed his gear off on such an approach.
By "such an approach" in the context of your message I presume you mean a visual (?)

He was flying the ILS 13 in lousy weather; low ceiling and minimum RVR. The ILS was offset in those days. As a result of that accident the ILS 13 is no longer offset.

Remember the US Air that ended up mired in the approach lights?
aterpster is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 14:42
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Aterpster - I understand the 727 can stop on a dime but the L1011 must have been quite a challenge?
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 15:33
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aterpster

that delta guy was wearing a special kind of contact lens for both near and far vision, called , I think, monovision. This was part of the problem.

Yes , offset. but low is low.

USAIR is not relevant as it was a takeoff accident, not a landing accident. I also remember a Continental MD80 teetering on the end of the runway dike on a 13 takeoff.

I was always more concerned about takeoffs at LGA than landings.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 15:47
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doors - sometimes a/c reputations aren't in alignment with the actual performance


Max landing weight, S.L., runway length required(nearest 100') -


757-200W 4700'
767-300W 5000'
727-200 5200'
777-200 5200'
777-300 5700'




I doubt many people would expect the 767-300 to outperform, and the 777-200 to match, the 727's landing performance.


The 1011 was probably similar to the 727 as the difference between the best and worst performer is within 500' of the 727's performance.

Last edited by misd-agin; 9th Nov 2014 at 15:48. Reason: added last sentence
misd-agin is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 16:48
  #72 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doors:

Aterpster - I understand the 727 can stop on a dime but the L1011 must have been quite a challenge?
We were weight limited and all three T/Rs had to be operative, so it wasn't any worse than the 727-200.

Taxiing in and around the terminal was more challenging.
aterpster is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 18:04
  #73 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And I blame human resources and other things which keep good pilots out of the cockpit and put marginal pilots into the cockpit.
This. This is the elephant in the room, in a couple of crashes lately.
Huck is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 19:03
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks for the replies - I am guessing though that most aircraft, the 737-700 included, can stop within around 2000ft if the brakes are hit hard on a dry runway?
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 20:20
  #75 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,540
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
Yes, stopping distance is different than landing distance..
TowerDog is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 22:16
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Reality check, and not a popular one. Flying is safer now than it was back in the day.

Micro viewpoints here while the macro is what's important. Always room for improvement but that improvement may come via more automation and less pilot manipulation of the controls.

I don't like it, but I try to keep my eye on the ball.
West Coast is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 23:17
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy Read The Audio Transcript

The NTSB's late October interim report (cited in the second thread post) includes the CVR transcript. It IS WORTH reading.
While I'm absolutely NOT a driver of flashy jets, I know my way around the ATC system and I've had to read far too many of these transcripts. Sorry to say it, but this one truly does not read (or sound) like a pair of professionals.
Thanks to external reports, this on e of the few cases in which we know what "Personnel Action" was taken following the accident event: The Cpt. was dismissed (as in FIRED!) and the FO ordered to take additional training. Frankly, I was not impressed by the professional performance of either one - and the FO is fortunate in that he apparently retained his job.
I recognize that cockpit communication included a great deal of non-verbal communication in addition to what we hear and read. In this case, the close attention to details, especially during the critical, sterile period below FL100 does not seem to be present. I reads like it was lightly and fluffy rather than 110% business details, not quite what one would expect during a weather-relevant approach to LGA or any other NY area airport.
From other details I also must conclude that Madame Captain should have executed a G/A someplace between 1000' and 500' and was simply not paying close enough attention to the PM's responsibilities, perhaps also trying to be a second PF in the process. Stuff happens, but this crew, on this approach just makes me .
Since I am NOT a Big Flashy Jet driver, I expect the usual flames and I'll take them. The general attitude in this cockpit is simply different from most others and, IMO, something less than what is expected.
No Fly Zone is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 23:40
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"weather relevant approach"


It was a nice day. Slight tailwind on approach. Some deviations on the arrival, some of which might be a hundred miles, or farther, from the airport. Happens all the time for the pilots of the 'Big Flashy Jets' that you seem to dislike.


From the NTSB -


METAR KLGA 222151Z 04008KT 7SM FEW030 SCT050 BKN075 0VC130 25/22 A2985
misd-agin is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 11:34
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,471
Received 84 Likes on 49 Posts
No Fly: I too read the whole CVR transcript before commenting, and I agree with your assessment.

I have bad days myself - everyone does - but at least we properly brief the approach. If one of us is having that bad day, the other pilot will step up their game a couple of notches to make sure everything gets done and stays the right way up. This crew made me very very nervous with their apparent lack of professionalism.

As for the Wx, it sounded to me that there were significant Cu build ups which the crew variously wanted to avoid or assumed that ATC could see on their radar.

The use of "slick" non standard radio and cockpit calls might make some pilots think they are good pilots, but it really doesn't - it only gives a false impression of it.

You have to be a good pilot to be a good pilot !

Last edited by Uplinker; 10th Nov 2014 at 11:52.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 12:17
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ref Post #21 by Pagan Angel....

I've never heard of this ' wish to avoid ' option in bidding systems - I suppose because I've never worked in a company large enough to need / merit / have bidding systems....

At our place, we just know who doesn't get on with who and try to avoid pairing them whenever that's possible....

But it's got me thinking....

Is this normal for all companies with bidding systems, to have this ' avoid ' option ?

And can Capts bid to avoid specific F/O's ? That could really screw someone's career....

And I wonder what happens for companies with larger crew numbers than us but who don't have a bidding / avoid system - think the famous ' You're my bitch now ' incident at FlyBe a couple of years ago....Not too sure FlyBe had a bidding system in place at the time, but that particular crew appears to have been a marriage made in hell....
Hussar 54 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.