Southwest Captain Reduced Power Before NYC Crash Landing

[Jwscud]

AirRabbit - specifically regarding thrust levers, you suggest that if they require advancing late in the landing a go around should be initiated. I have flown plenty of approaches where a late positive addition of thrust was simply required to arrest the rate of descent very late in a landing rather than due to a condition that would require an immediate go around.

As ever though, we are simply talking about appropriate control inputs at the appropriate time to achieve the demanded flight path.

[glendalegoon]

jwscud

I agree with you about throttle movement. Many times at airports with great stands of trees (which blank the natural wind), I will give a bit of throttle to decrease descent rate below 100'.

I never thought of going around, just a bump of power to compensate and everything worked out fine.

[peekay4]

I would wonder if the instructor who trained this pilot was ever aware of his tendencies to “rivet” his attention to one particular reference … apparently to the exclusion of all the others that should remain an active part of his scan?

The FO said the PAPI was his primary reference during approach; he did not say it was his only reference. He stated that his crosschecks were the PAPI, the runway, and the airspeed. He said he also referred the glideslope every 3 to 4 crosschecks. (Ref: NTSB Interview Summaries, pp. 17-18).

The FO was an instructor himself, w/ 22 years in the USAF flying F-15C and F-117s. He was a T-38 chief evaluator until he retired and joined SWA. At the time of the accident he had 1,200 hrs at SWA.

People make mistakes; One would hope someone with his flight experience has the basics of flying (and landing) down pat.

[flyingchanges]

The factors that makes up an understanding of airplane landings includes both the airspeed (based on 1.3Vs increased by any wind/gust factor), where the 30% increase in this speed is gradually reduced to “zero” by reaching the threshold, while maintaining the other adjustments

What? Are you suggesting a 30 knot reduction from VAPP at the threshold.

[Capn Bloggs]

I agree with you about throttle movement. Many times at airports with great stands of trees (which blank the natural wind), I will give a bit of throttle to decrease descent rate below 100'.

I never thought of going around, just a bump of power to compensate and everything worked out fine.

You could just pull the stick back a bit to maintain flight to the aimpoint...

[bubbers44]

Sometimes just a pitch adjustment might work but other days you could save a lot of money by just adding some power to maintain airspeed so you can still taxi to parking after impact.

[JW411]

A burst of power when needed always worked for me and I didn't break anything in 55 years.

[IcePack]

Well said JW11. Same for me 42 years.
I'm afraid pilots are no longer taught to fly the bl&@dy aeroplane onto the rwy. & keep controlling it till stop. My last few years watching co-pilots flare & wait letting the aeroplane wander off on it's own was entertaining to say the least. No wonder some teach Go-Around instead of fly the -- thing.
IMHO it is why so many are crashing. In this case it would appear no one even had their hands on the controls. Guess HR are employing customer relation people instead of pilots.
Rant over

[silverstrata]

Captainblogs.

You could just pull the stick back a bit to maintain flight to the aimpoint...

Eh?? I hope you are SLF, Captainblogs, rather than in control of an aircraft.

Have you never heard of the 'clutching hand'? (The trees scenario, described by Glendalegoon).

Have you never heard of the old aviation addage - that you pull back on the stick to go up, and pull back a bit more to go down... ? Never heard of that?

Or perhaps you are in the same school as Air France pilots, who opine "I am pulling back as hard as I can, but she is still going down" ... ? Do you follow the French school of theory of flight?

Please review the standard graphs detailing angle of attack, lift and drag. There are many aircraft, including the 737 with the 40o flap setting, where pulling back at ref speed results in a change of body angle, but no reduction in sink rate.

If you don't comprehend this, and don't know that the clutching hand refers to, please stay away from aircraft.

[CHfour]

Quote:
Captainblogs.

You could just pull the stick back a bit to maintain flight to the aimpoint...
Eh?? I hope you are SLF, Captainblogs, rather than in control of an aircraft.

Have you never heard of the 'clutching hand'? (The trees scenario, described by Glendalegoon).

Have you never heard of the old aviation addage - that you pull back on the stick to go up, and pull back a bit more to go down... ? Never heard of that?

Or perhaps you are in the same school as Air France pilots, who opine "I am pulling back as hard as I can, but she is still going down" ... ? Do you follow the French school of theory of flight?

Please review the standard graphs detailing angle of attack, lift and drag. There are many aircraft, including the 737 with the 40o flap setting, where pulling back at ref speed results in a change of body angle, but no reduction in sink rate.

If you don't comprehend this, and don't know that the clutching hand refers to, please stay away from aircraft.

Silver.

A bit harsh there I think. Depending on the thrust setting and speed at the time (not power BTW) a gentle increase in back pressure is often enough. Sounds like a hyper active, twitchy captain who insists on flying the aircraft through the effo. I feel that he would have achieved a perfectly satisfactory landing if she'd just left him alone. If she felt the landing was not safely assured she should have called for a go around. Interfering with the controls without a proper handover is never acceptable.

[glendalegoon]

wait a second please!~


I described the blanking effect of a stand of trees and that adding power (briefly, just a quick shot) could help.

funny thing is I have never heard of the CLUTCHING HAND ( did read a book called, "THE GRIPPING HAND" once). Perhaps the clutching hand is sort of an advisory circular title...maybe I learned before it was written...gosh am I getting old!!!!

ICE PACK...I think you have something here. I have noticed that many pilots get the plane close to the ground and then just sort of give up and hope for the best.

but I have also noticed the same thing on takeoff. get going fast enough and give up completely on directional control and just sort of jump into the air. And hope for the best.


I had the great luck as a youngster to see ROBERT A BOB HOOVER perform with his SHRIKE COMMANDER at the RENO AIR RACES...I mean 50 years ago or so. Watching the way that man MADE THE PLANE GO WHERE HE WANTED IT TO, AND KNOWING WHERE HE WANTED IT TO GO impressed the heck out of me.

It took time, but I figured out how to do it (within the limits imposed by wingtip or engine pod clearance) and practice it as well as I can. Hoover had a high wing plane and could do amazing things, 737s not so much.

RULE ONE IN FLYING,,,know where you want the plane to go and know how to get it there and YOU DON"T STOP FLYING THE PLANE UNTIL THE PARKING BRAKE IS SET and chocks are in.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Jwscud

AirRabbit - specifically regarding thrust levers, you suggest that if they require advancing late in the landing a go around should be initiated. I have flown plenty of approaches where a late positive addition of thrust was simply required to arrest the rate of descent very late in a landing rather than due to a condition that would require an immediate go around.

Hi Jwscud – of course, you are correct – and I wouldn’t negatively critique an experienced pilot for making the kind of adjustment you describe – however, in the initial training for landings – I try to instill in the student that power advancement once the flare is well underway or has been established is “go-around neighborhood.” I find that such an understanding reduces the tendency to “take a stab at something/anything.” Once landings are really “learned,” any “fine tuning” with additional power in this area – which is almost always a ROD “adjustment” – is better understood and used only when it is necessary. Perhaps the most difficult aspect to grasp and achieve regularly (until sufficiently practiced) is “elevator back pressure” vs “raising the nose position.”

With the power being reduced and the attitude being maintained – the airspeed will decrease and will tend to bring the nose down – requiring a counter action of increasing elevator back pressure – BUT not to the point that it raises the nose position. In those cases where I’ve seen power added to either adjust ROD or adjust the rate of airspeed reduction while flaring, is usually, but not always, due to an overly aggressive initiation of the elevator back pressure to initiate the flare … the nose starts up, and as the power is either being reduced or is already at “idle,” the rate of descent begins to increase. Because I’ve stressed not getting the nose higher than what is necessary to maintain level flight – the pilot is left with the only option of adding power. Unfortunately, and particularly with the very “new” folks, adding power almost always means either an increase in airspeed or a leveling off (if not a brief climb) – and leveling off with added power means a longer landing and/or gaining altitude – neither of which, at this point, is necessarily needed or wanted, and could become dangerous.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I see the scientists are out in force again.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by peekay4

(AirRabbit Comment)
I would wonder if the instructor who trained this pilot was ever aware of his tendencies to “rivet” his attention to one particular reference … apparently to the exclusion of all the others that should remain an active part of his scan?

(peekay4 Comment)
The FO said the PAPI was his primary reference during approach; he did not say it was his only reference. He stated that his crosschecks were the PAPI, the runway, and the airspeed. He said he also referred the glideslope every 3 to 4 crosschecks. (Ref: NTSB Interview Summaries, pp. 17-18).

The FO was an instructor himself, w/ 22 years in the USAF flying F-15C and F-117s. He was a T-38 chief evaluator until he retired and joined SWA. At the time of the accident he had 1,200 hrs at SWA.

People make mistakes; One would hope someone with his flight experience has the basics of flying (and landing) down pat.

I don’t know the gentleman myself … only what has been reported. I also agree that it would seem logical that any pilot with the experience you indicate was had by this pilot, would, indeed, mean that he “has the basics of flying (and landing) down pat.” But, and with all due respect to this particular gentleman (and I say that knowing what kind of pressure anyone is under during an accident investigation – and I have no desire to impugn his character, professionalism, or competency), it still sounds a “bit off” to say that he was using the VGSI as his “primary” reference during the approach – particularly in that the glide path information provided by the VGSI at LaGuardia Runway 04 is not “coincident” with the ILS glide slope. In fact, as the ILS Glide Slope transmitter is located 1102 feet from the threshold, and provides a 3.00 degree glide slope, an “on glide slope’ indication over the runway threshold would be at a height of 57 feet, 9 inches; and the elevation according to an “on visual glide slope” indication of the VGSI at the same location over the runway threshold, is reported to be 76 feet.

As an “after-the-fact” onlooker, it would seem that if the PF was using the VGSI as a “primary” vertical reference, and was, indeed “on that glide slope,” the airplane would have crossed the runway threshold at 76 feet and would have been 18 feet 3 inches above the “on glide path” indication of the ILS. I don’t intend to have this get into a Mathematics/Geometry lesson, so I’ll let the mathematicians in the group determine what those kinds of numbers actually mean. Additionally, if the PM (pilot monitoring – the Captain) was indeed “looking through the HUD system (on which I would presume was displayed the ILS localizer and glide slope information) would it be beyond reason that the Captain recognized that the airplane was “high,” over the threshold of Runway 04, some 7001 plus feet short of the East River, at whatever airspeed at that time. Is it possible that the PF could have completed the approach at his then-current rate of descent, flared, touched down, reversed the engines, and stopped safely on the runway? Where on that runway would the touch down have occurred? How much braking would have been required? If you were the Captain, what would you have done? My sense is that at least some of you would say “I wouldn’t have let it get that far…”

[Old Boeing Driver]

Flaps 40

I flew the 737-200/300 for thousands of hours. We rarely made anything but flaps 40 landings without any problems.


On this approach, the captain was flying the HUD and the FO was visual. She was an admitted HUD addict, and didn't look outside enough until it was too late.


Had she pulled back on the yoke a bit when she closed the power, it would have banged on the runway in typical SWAL fashion. Maybe a bit firmer.


They both just quit flying the plane, although the FO was ordered off the controls.


I have never heard of the “Clutching Hand” either.

[glendalegoon]

I am getting the feeling that some people have not had enough exposure to different ways of thinking about flying.

So much talk of pitch attitude (certainly you dont want to land on the nose wheel or tail skid). But really, its all about rate of descent (somewhere between 0fpm and 500 fpm (maybe 600) at touchdown, in the touchdown zone ( near the 1000' fixed distance marker or so)

I realize that some very big planes require a method of teaching a novice pilot who really never gets to fly much on those super long hauls. I realize he may only get a couple of landings a month (if lucky).

but certainly a southwest pilot , with many legs should be able to FLY and not just set a pitch attitude, cut the throttles at a certain radar altitude and hope for the best


try to learn to fly boys, mainly from the old guys...

and if you can't pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time, maybe you shouldn't be a pilot. a great deal of things are happening and you have to wiggle the rudder, move the ailerons and elevator all at the same time...and even move the throttles.

I'm glad I know how to play the drumset too...always doing four different things....

I hope some of you get this and understand.

[iceman50]

Old Boeing Driver

She was an admitted HUD addict, and didn't look outside enough until it was too late.

HUD = Head Up Display = looking OUTSIDE!!!

[Hotel Charlie]

admitted HUD addict

Kinda says it all, don't you think!?

[silverstrata]

Glendalegoon:

I described the blanking effect of a stand of trees and that adding power (briefly, just a quick shot) could help. Funny thing is I have never heard of the CLUTCHING HAND...

Yet you managed to describe it perfectly. It is called the 'clutching hand', because it feels like some outside force is dragging you downwards. See "Clutching Hands" on p119, and then look at page 120, right hand column:

http://www.lakesgc.co.uk/mainwebpage...umn%201951.pdf

This is the trouble with modern aviation. So much that was learned, understood and mastered, way back in the 1930s, goes completely over the heads of many modern aviators. They like to wear the gold bars, the mirrored sunglasses, press a few buttons and smile at the No2, but know sweet FA about flying. They pull back on the stick for four minutes, with the engines at full power and the nose pointing at the stars, and still cannot work out why they are descending.

Just don't fly Air France, until all their pilots have done a two-week gliding course.

Glendalegoon:

But really, its all about rate of descent (somewhere between 0fpm and 500 fpm (maybe 600) at touchdown, in the touchdown zone ( near the 1000' fixed distance marker or so)

Without wishing this to sound like collusion, you are spot on again, Glendaledoon. I have never ever looked at pitch attitude in the flare, especially as there is precious little nose to gauge it by on a modern jet.

It all comes down to descent rate and runway perception, with which I can generally judge the wheel height to the nearest 20 cm. If you cannot judge the sink rate and your 'immersion' into the runway (as opposed to being 'above' the runway), you are in for some hard landings.

[silverstrata]

Iceman

HUD = Head Up Display = looking OUTSIDE!!!

Even my C152 had a HUD. Yes, honest, a HUD on a C152 !!

Some people choose to call this new innovation 'The Real World'. But I would recommend you taking a look at it one day, as it is a very realistic HUD display ……