Southwest misses Runway

[whaledriver]

SWA...Flying in the Nude and T-storms don''t mix!!!

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 6:56:15 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Gosh...as of 6:55 CDT there are some pretty nasty storms over ORD, although the airport does not show being closed.   Of course, all the UAL flights diverted to DSM, right bussie???

----------------​

If I need to know what to do when one of "Rancher Dave's" cows wanders onto I-70, then you'll be the first person I'll call, but when it comes to aviation issues (especially those that originate behind the grey door) you really on't kn ow what you're talking about (although I'm impressed you figured out the METAR). TS's are prob th single worst weather event pilots EVER deal with, but in most cases, they don't last long or stay in the same place. When they are OVER ORD, we (they) DO suspend operations. I've sat on the ramp for OVER two hours for TS's and, YES, I have diverted for TS's (deciding on 5 mile final that I didn't like the way things were comming together). It's funny though, I said months ago something like this would happen (and will again) but it still doesn't sink in to you. Would it EVER be OK to YOU for the flight crew of an airplane YOU or YOUR family was on to be attempting top land in a DRIVING thunderstorm?



Ignorance is Bliss

 

[AAG2000]

So it turns out it was not a -300, but an even newer -700. Ouch.

 

[KCFlyer]

Gosh...as of 6:55 CDT there are some pretty nasty storms over ORD, although the airport does not show being closed. Of course, all the UAL flights diverted to DSM, right bussie???

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 3:07:43 AM tbags wrote:

I think it was 434 or 432! I did know,, but after posting in yahoo have forgotten. I mistakenly posted to only the original poster via private email. If you are a memeber, I''m sure you can figure it out via the posts. I am sure it was a -300 with 4 as the first tail #.

----------------​

not according to the FAA''s prelim report:


IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: SWA2066 Make/Model: B737 Description: 737-700, BBJ, C-40
Date: 05/25/2003 Time: 0239

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: AMARILLO State: TX Country: US

DESCRIPTION
THE AIRCRAFT WAS CLEARED TO LAND ON RUNWAY 4. COMMUNICATIONS WERE LOST AND
RAIN OBSCURED THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE TOWER. THE AIRCRAFT NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED
ON RUNWAY 4 NEAR TAXIWAY A. AMARILLO, TX.

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: Y
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: Y
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: AMA METAR 0240Z 11007G18KT 1SM +TSRA BR FEW004 BKN017 OVC055 17/15 A3005
RMK WSHFT 0207 TSB 0157 RAB 0158 P0046

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Landing Operation: Air Carrier

Departed: UNK Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: (AMA) AMARILLO, TX Flt Plan: IFR Wx Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: AMA TOWER
Last Clearance: CLEARED TO LAND

FAA FSDO: LUBBOCK, TX (SW13) Entry date: 05/27/2003



I think I understand what all that other stuff means, but what does "1SM +TSRA" next to "METAR" mean?



Ignorance is Bliss

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 6:17:49 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 5/28/2003 5:55:58 PM Busdrvr wrote:


I think I understand what all that other stuff means, but what does "1SM +TSRA" next to "METAR" mean?



Ignorance is Bliss


----------------​

It means a thunderstorm and visibility of 1 statute mile.   Oh, if only they were paid more.....

----------------​

IMPOSSIBLE!! I know of no airlines that allow thier pilots to land in thunderstorms! But yet they were "heros" and did a "great job". My issues with SWA don''t revolve around pay (they are paid more than UAL 737 crew members), it has been about the apparent willingness to push things too far, like landing too fast, ignoring microburst and windshear warning, and generally doing whatever it takes to keep the schedule going and insure a profit. I''ll take a crew who diverts instead ANY DAY.


Ignorance is Bliss

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 6:27:39 PM Busdrvr wrote:

I''ll take a crew who diverts instead ANY DAY.


Ignorance is Bliss


----------------​

YOu won''t have to worry about taht bussie - UAL doesn''t serve Amarillo.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 5:55:58 PM Busdrvr wrote:


I think I understand what all that other stuff means, but what does "1SM +TSRA" next to "METAR" mean?



Ignorance is Bliss


----------------​

It means a thunderstorm and visibility of 1 statute mile. Oh, if only they were paid more.....

 

[kiowa]

diversion is always an option. perhaps even stop in Burbank for some gas.

sorry, that was rude, but noone should be landing in heavy thunderstorms with my family on board.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 7:00:05 PM Busdrvr wrote:

I''ve sat on the ramp for OVER two hours for TS''s and, YES, I have diverted for TS''s (deciding on 5 mile final that I didn''t like the way things were comming together

----------------​

But what about the UAL pilot directly in front or behind you....did they all divert, as your post would seem to indicate? You might have called off the approach. Where''s the guarantee that the guy in the plane behind you would do the same?

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 824 PM KCFlyer wrote:



----------------​

But what about the UAL pilot directly in front or behind you....did they all divert, as your post would seem to indicate?  You might have called off the approach.  Where''s the guarantee that the guy in the plane behind you would do the same?

----------------


Actually, YES they did. I first started an approach to 9R (I think). I was "the last" with a gap between me and another jet, so maybe it wasn''t an issue for them. Then attmpted an approach to 22R? TWO UAL jets in front of me went around and the airport was closed for about 30 minutes. I WILL give you the use of your quote on this one though. I don''t think there is a experienced pilot alive who hasn''t had at least one VERY bad life altering experience with a Thunderstorm (I''ve had two, that divert and one enroute). They ARE often hard to judge and they CAN lead to poor decisions (especially when the guy in front of you made it in). I honestly don''t know what they teach at SWA pilot school, my impressions are from what I''ve seen. I personally see a trend.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 9:03:51 PM N421LV wrote:

Busdriver, were you also as quick to second-guess those "reckless" AA pilots involved in the LIT accident?

----------------​

Actually YES!!! I don''t think I was on this board then. As a matter of fact, from what I know (whats been reported), the LIT incident was MUCH worse. But if you want a discussion on the AMR pilot group, you could start on the AMR board with the article in today''s "USA Today". I dare you!!

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/28/2003 824 PM KCFlyer wrote:

You might have called off the approach.  Where''s the guarantee that the guy in the plane behind you would do the same?

----------------​

With all due respect, that''s one of the things that differentiates a pilot and a professional. I don''t give a rats what the guy behind me does. I''M responsible for the safety of MY pax (and my own little pink butt). I will NOT base my decision on whether or not a SWA guy will press forward during a microburst warning behind me. It''s ironic that that was EXACTLY a scenario that we were talked to at CLR school at UAL. We were told that we WOULD see guys from SWA pressing on after we made the decision to divert, and told in no uncertain terms that our judgement would NEVER be questioned.

 

[N421LV]

Busdriver, were you also as quick to second-guess those "reckless" AA pilots involved in the LIT accident?

 

[tbags]

the A/C # started with a 4. I was mistaken if I said it was a -300. Once all the 700 #''s were used we started with 4 as the first # for -700 A/C. I stand corrected!
Chris