Pilots to blame for Southwest 1455 incident
 

From LA Daily News:

"Reaffirming its earlier preliminary findings, the National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday officially blamed excessive speed and a steep approach angle for the March 5, 2000, mishap that sent a Southwest Airlines jetliner skidding off the end of a rain-slick runway at Burbank Airport.

The board cited Capt. Howard Peterson, who piloted the Boeing 737- 300, and First Officer Jeffrey D. Erwin for coming in too fast and failing to fully engage their brakes upon landing.

It also cited Burbank's federal air traffic controllers for improperly positioning the jet on its approach, thereby giving Peterson no chance to abort his landing and circle around for another attempt.

"A stabilized approach is critical for a safe landing," NTSB Chairman Marion Blakey said in announcing the agency's final verdict on the mishap. "Everyone involved with the system has an important role to play. The controller must establish the aircraft correctly on approach and the flight crew must adhere to stabilized approach criteria."

The jetliner overran the end of Burbank Airport's Runway 8, collided with a metal blast fence and a perimeter wall and came to rest in a city street, Hollywood Way, a few yards from a gas station.

Of the 142 persons on board, two passengers sustained serious injuries and 42 others, including Peterson, were slightly hurt.

The final NTSB report, which largely mirrored an agency fact- finding study released last July, also recommended that all operators of Boeing 737-300 through 500 series jets replace the brackets on hatches that contain inflatable doorway escape slides. In the Burbank incident, the slide on the forward door prematurely inflated inside the aircraft, temporarily blocking the escape route and slowing evacuation of the plane.

Both Peterson and Erwin were fired in 2001 by Southwest, which cited the Burbank incident. The Southwest Airlines Pilot Association protested and Erwin was reinstated. Peterson elected to retire with full benefits rather than fight his dismissal."

Well now...are we really surprised?
Have personally flown into BUR since 1966...a long time, and runway 07 (now 08) has ALWAYS been a "slight" problem...higher than normal landing minimums (due to the power lines that a Flying Tiger Connie found years ago), rather short, and the fence at the end has caught more that one Electra.
On speed, and touchdown at THE proper point...works every time...but some never learn.:(

411a

I really hate myself for rising to your bait, but it's a good thing your perfect isn't it

"some never learn", you arrogant little prat.

No- he's right.

All flight safety is predicated on following SOPs and using good judgement when SOPs don't cover a situation. If you deliberately make a high and fast approach, you have NO EXCUSE if it goes bad and you have an incident- particularly if you had the option to go-around.

Part of being a good pilot is knowing when you can get away with some "individual interpretation" of the SOPs. So, being fast at, say Paris is unlikely to cause you a problem, but being fast at, say London City, will result in tears.

Part of being a mature pilot is taking responsibility, in advance, for your actions- especially when the lives of others depend on it.

In the command-oriented hierarchy of PPRUNE, one assumes that - by definition - the moderator is correct.

At the same time, 411a's calculated tactlessness has its own downsides, here and elsewhere.

Perhaps we could concur that he's 'right' procedurally AND nevertheless, still qualifies as an 'arrogant prat'.

(The best of both worlds.)

Bad assumption! I am but a lower-order moderator, fit only to moderate the company forum- unlike the exalted ones that moderate the "public" fora...;)

Therefore, no inference of correctness should be made, feel free to disagree.

411A is American, tactlessness comes with the territory ;)

Isn't this the incident where, after the plane finally came to rest, the CVR records a crewmember saying something like "well, there goes my career", or is that just a rumor?

Southwest,

Yes indeed, very interesting about the maximum brakes business.
Most pilots never have the opportunity/need for maximum braking and to do so may indeed "feel strange"...as in, almost never used, except RTO...and most pilots don't have these either.
In 37 years of flying professionally, have only used MAX braking one time that I can recall offhand...at the old TPE airport 'round about 1978, shortish and very slippery in the rain, and the good 'ole Boeing 707 anti-skid saved my bacon...just.

411A, I feel sure that most of us (fellow professionals) would welcome your presence considerably more if your comments didn't APPEAR to be frequently condescending, and occasionally self-righteous -for example, "Most pilots never have the opportunity/need for maximum braking and to do so may indeed "feel strange"...as in, almost never used, except RTO...and most pilots don't have these either" and "...but some never learn.:( ".

In fact, in TODAY'S (as in the at least the last 10 years) simulator training, RTO's are regular events - often with a failure of the auto-brakes so as to require manual input. Training - as with simulator integrity - HAS altered, for the better since your halcyon era.

Analyses of accident causes, followed by solutions of "what they should have done" statements, derived after weeks of discussion groups pouring over something that occurred within minutes (at best) is OBVIOUS to ALL- even aviation columnists and private pilots!
Note the statement quoted by Southwest reads, “Furthermore, had the accident flight crew applied maximum manual brakes immediately upon touchdown, the airplane would likely have stopped before impacting the blast fence, the Board found.”.

What fragile egos you guys have. 411's comments really get you going even when quite reasonable. Tell us Kapt M, do pilots ever make mistakes or is it always the fault of 'the suits' 'beancounters' society or anyone else who doesn't walk on water.

This captain is not noted for good judgement. He crossed the picket line at Wien Air Alaska in 1977 and United in 1988. Other than that he's a great guy...

Seriph

If you think that pilots all believe they can 'walk on water' and never make mistakes, you must work with a sad bunch of people.

When we do make mistakes we certainly pay for them, unlike the others you mention.

411a does make valid points, but this '...some never learn' attitude is patronising and arrogant. He then goes on to confess that the '.....good 'ole Boeing 707 anti-skid saved my bacon...just.'

I would suggest that the 'grace of God' was the only difference on that day, but he has certainly not been humbled by the event.

While we're on the subject I agree that he is careful not to engage in personal insults - instead he insults whole groups of people - which is nice.:rolleyes:

Why is everyone so delicate and sensitive round here? ..big bunch of daisies the lot of you!

411A is forthright, direct and speaks sense - no need to pussyfoot around if you have something to say. Keep posting, 411A.

Raw data you're a jerk......as usual...pilots fired, atc screw-up.."retrained" and keeps his job to do it again and again...operated many sectors there in heavy t.p.'s, and got the same treatment....complaints unheeded

I too see no problem with 411's comments.I am glad they reinstated Erwin,and my deepest sympathies go to the skipper.
He,like a lot of us,probably thought he could have used skill to overcome a bad judgement.WE all do that from time to time I guess.He just caught out.Sad end to a career.

Sorry to hear that, Airbubba - re "crossing the line". :(

You raise an interesting point, Seriph. Can "suits", "beanies", and other non-flight staff be causitive factors in accidents? This is a subject I had intended raising with my current employer, as I believe that EVERYONE who has contact with operating crew may be directly - or indirectly - implicated in some of the critical decision-making processes a crew is faced with on occasions.

Just as the "suits" and "beanies" are (directly) involved with the lives and futures of the employees of Enron, World com. and Xerox, pilots are often seen as being responsible for the reputation of the companies for whom they fly - when they make the WRONG decision.
The difference being a pilot's decision in such cases is almost always one made on the "spur of the moment", whereas the cases quoted above were apparently PRE-MEDITATED, and designed to gain the maximum financial benefit for the individual - at the expense of the majority!

Kaptin M, I made a critical remark to one of your postings on a different subject, but your last paragraph here, is spot on. Well said.

OTOH...the good Kaptin M is again....WRONG.
I wonder what his problem is with....on speed and at THE proper touchdown point.?
Does he NOT practice that very same technique with every landing...or is he one of those guys that floats half way down the runway?;)
When was the last time YOU used MAX braking, my good Kaptin M, Sir? Not in the simulator.....but, ah..on the runway?

Wondered how long Kapt (lenin) M would take to bring Enron et al onto the scene. Proves everything of course, run of the runway and it's the suits fault, despite our hero making snap decisions, obviously not prepared to accept responsibility when he gets is wrong though.

Where do you think I am wrong (again), 411? What is YOUR definition of "proper touchdown point", ? Please allow us all the benefit of your experience.
The last time I used max braking for real? About 4 months ago, (on an RTO in Nagoya). :)
So if it's a "competition" for recency, I'd say you run a very poor second with your 707 in TPE account. :(

Seriph, ENRON, WORLD COM and XEROX, were cited as the latest, recent EXAMPLES of the way in which "suits and beanies" (the words YOU chose) are able to have a disastrous effect on not only employees, but shareholders and other companies as well - yet NOT taking PERSONAL (and usually PROFESSIONAL) RESPONSIBILITY, as pilots are forced to do ANYTIME even a slight incident, such as that under discussion, occurs. Pilots do NOT have the same "soft" (gutless) choices that so many of the "suits and beanies" opt for when it is their turn to face the music!

Do other ground staff (attempt to) influence a pilot's decision? Sometimes - perhaps.