Southwest misses Runway

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 10:07:31 AM Busdrvr wrote:

Get over yourself, you need to realize that you are just as susceptable to accidents as anyone else and you shouldn''t be applauding company policies that encourage you to put your pax in harms way. JMHO.



----------------​

There you go with an assumption there. Can you post a link, or if one isn''t available, can you provide a way to verify that Southwest Airlines policy encourages pilots to put a passenger in harms way. Please don''t give me "they are paid by the trip, not the hour" excuse. A few weeks ago MCI had tornadic activity in the area and the fair city of Wichita saw a rare site for them - Red Bellied War Birds touching down at ICT. If it were company policy to encourage putting customers at risk, why were Southwest jets not just opting to "fly around" the buildups and shoot at approach on runway 27?

 

[KCFlyer]

The problem is the 1 in 1000 that makes a bad decision, and i think the company does him no favors in his decision matrix.

The problem Bussie is that this 1 in a thousand pilot exists at every airline...even UAL. Hence the "there but for the Grace of God go I" signature.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 11:12:12 AM KCFlyer wrote:


----------------​

There you go with an assumption there. Can you post a link, or if one isn't available, can you provide a way to verify that Southwest Airlines policy encourages pilots to put a passenger in harms way. Please don't give me "they are paid by the trip, not the hour" excuse.

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

No there you go again . WHY DOES SWA PAY PILOTS BY THE TRIP? Read the book, they do it to "keep the pilots moving" to keep productivity high. But I'd bet you'd say that the professional pilots would never allow themselves to push wx or try to make a really bad approach work because the company policy is GO, GO, GO, but I'd respond that in that case they don't need to play the pay per trip game because SURELY the pilots are professional enough to "keep the airline" moving as efficiently as safely possible without the pay game. As for the SWA jets diverting, I've never said that ALL SWA jets go out seeking thunderstorms to fly through. The problem is the 1 in 1000 that makes a bad decision, and i think the company does him no favors in his decision matrix.

 

[KCFlyer]

See if you recognize this one Bus:



1818 CAM-2 There's lightning coming out of that one.
1819 CAM-1 What?
1821 CAM-2 There's lightning coming out of that one.
1822 CAM-1 Where?
1823 CAM-2 Right ahead of us.
1830 CAM-3 You get the good legs, don't ya?

Uh-oh...he didn't say "Hey Fred, what say we go on around...we're paid by the hour after all. FWIW, my neighbor was good friends with the captain on this flight - he was just one of the unlucky ones...one of those "one in a thousand"

Or this one

18:39:49 US1016: "USAir 1016, I'd appreciate a pirep from the guy in front of us."
18:40:10 FO: "Yep, laying right there this side of the airport, isn't it?"
18:40:14 CAPT: "Well."
18:40:15 FO: "The edge of the rain is, I'd say."
18:40:15 CAPT: "Yeah."
18:40:42 TWR: "USAir 1016, company FK 100 just exited the runway, sir; he said smooth ride."
18:40:48 TWR: "USAir 916, wind is showing 100 at 19."
18:40:56 FO: "One hundred at 19, eh?"
18:40:59 TWR: "USAir 1016, wind now 110 at 21."
18:41:05 CAPT: "Stay heads up."
18:41:06 TWR: "Wind shear alert, northeast boundary winds 190 at 13."
18:41:18 TWR: "Carolina 5211, Charlotte Tower, runway 18R, cleared to land, wind 100 at 20. Wind shear alert, northeast boundary wind 190 at 17."
18:41:32 TWR: "USAir 806, you want to just sit tight for a minute, sir?"
18:41:35 US806: "Yes, sir, we'd like to just sit tight."
18:41:37 TWR: "USAir 797, company aircraft in front of you is going to sit and wait a while, sir. Do you want to go in front of him?"
18:41:43 US797: "No, no, it wouldn't sound like a good plan. We'll, uh, it didn't look like a whole lot to us on the radar taxiing out, so it shouldn't be, uh, shouldn't be too many minutes."
18:41:54 CAPT: "Here comes the wipers."
18:41:56 FO: "All right."

The NTSB determined the probable cause to be the flight crew's decision to continue an approach into weather conducive to a microburst, the crew's failure to recognize a wind shear situation in a timely manner, its failure to establish and maintain the attitude and thrust necessary to escape the wind shear, and the lack of real-time adverse weather and wind shear hazard information dissemination from air traffic control.
------------

In reading THAT report, it sure looked like the pilots didn't get a helluva a lot of information that might have made them opt for abandoning the approach, and he had those magic words "he reported a smooth ride" from the aircraft in front of him. Perhaps we should have heard the "Hey Fred, lets take it around, we're paid by the hour after all". Sometimes even the best find themselves in a situation that they wished they weren't in...rather easy to do as you're approaching an airport at a couple hundred miles an hour.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 11:36:03 AM KCFlyer wrote:


  The problem is the 1 in 1000 that makes a bad decision, and i think the company does him no favors in his decision matrix.

The problem Bussie is that this 1 in a thousand pilot exists at every airline...even UAL.  Hence the "there but for the Grace of  God go I" signature.

----------------​

That 1 in 1000 at UAL, DAL, or U would say "He Fred, what''s the freaken hurry, lets hold a while so that buildup moves off or we can divert to Midland, after all we get paid by the hour"

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/30/2003 11:32:45 PM N421LV wrote:


"Be honest. You know as well as I that we could wake up tomorrow morning and see the news blazing about a horrible fatal airline accident involving ANY major airline. Is it likely? Hardly. We both know that EVERY major airline does a VERY good job of training their people and operating their fleets. But as long as humans are involved, accidents will happen."

I AGREE. EVERY AIRLINE IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. The question is what steps are YOUR company willing to take to mitigate that risk.

"1) Crew Fatigue - from those unproductive duty days (read: lots of sit time) mixed with a Wx or Mx delay. But this is rarely an issue at SWA because with our productive schedules we are either flying or at the hotel."


SWA fly''s significantly more hours per flying day and likely has approx the same duty time than pilots at other airlines. They don''t waste time dueing traditionally pilot duties like walk arounds. They don''t waste time getting out of the seat to go have lunch (hypoglycemic by chance?) or up to ops to relax or take a power nap. You guys must be MUCH more refreshed. ALPA made an attempt recently to make flying time limits a little more rational by limiting flight time by the number of legs, ie 8 leg day may be limited to only 6 hours (vs 8) while a 2 leg day would stay at 8. The SWA guys blew a gasket. THEY contend that the high ops tempo of an 8 leg day makes them MORE rested and resfreshed at the end of the day (contrary to every expert). But how often do you guys bre4ak even the 8 hour rule? Lets see, your up to a point that your last leg from Midland would put you at 8:03 and there is no ACARS paper trail, hmm, what to do, what to do.....

"2) Currency - from that guy sitting reserve who actually got called out to fly a trip (first time he''s had to fly in months)."

Those days are over my friend.

"But this is rarely an issue at SWA because we operate with far less manning per aircraft, so even our reserves typically fly several trips each month."

Got mine, pull up the ladder. Less jobs, but who cares right? In the future that will mean a bigger pilot surplus and more guys willing to undercut YOUR pay, and the cycle continues.

"3) Lack of Time in Type - from the captain who upgrades (or more likely these days, downgrades) into an aircraft he has never flown before, then gets paired with an F/O in the same situation. But this a non-issue at SWA because we only operate one aircraft type."

Not likely with only 5 fleet typs and biases (some folks WILL NOT fly FiFi). but in any case, UAL will not pair an inexperienced Capt with an inexperienced F/O (or vice versa). we have rules. We hire pilots, not 737 typed guys. But you do bring up an interesting training point. How long is your initial training for a guy off the street? How long is your Capt upgrade training? How many sims in each? MUCH shorter than the other airlines isn''t it. how many dif 737 types are you allowed to fly? are all the jets in the same type configured identically?

"4) Over-reliance on Automation - from the crew that spends more time pushing buttons and watching meters than flying the aircraft. But this is rarely an issue at SWA because we are one of the few airlines that believes the pilot needs to remain in the loop...hence no auto-throttles, auto-land, or "Gear-Up, Autopilot-On""

This has got to be one of the most comical statement I''ve seen in a while. MOST airlines (and the AF) have real problems with you operating the AP without the AT engaged (or Vice-versa, except FiFi). As a matter of fact, thats the EXACT situation that CAUSED that AA A300 to depart controlled flight and nearly rip the tail off (USAToday 27 May). The first thing you should do if you are task saturated is to get the automation up and going!! I wonder if the Capt on that AMA incident had put on the AP AND AT if he would have been able to look over at the FO and say, "Hey Bob, what do you think of those thunderstorms" "How have they been moving". Of course, in route he could have fired off a quick message on ACARS to dispatch like "Whats the TSRA picture at AMA"? He could have even prited up a few doppler pictures on the ACARS printer that would have illustrated the movement of the cells. (I know, I''ve done all those things). I''ve said it before, and I''ll say it again, SWA is one of the best, if not the best when it comes to pilot stick and rudder profficiency, but if a basic stick and rudder airplane and crew was all you wanted, you''d be flying a stearman to AMA. SWA "deactivated" the AT (still works with the right size pencil right?) and autoland features ONLY to save money. To say a jet is safer without those features is beyond lunacy. In other words, they compromised safety (however minimally) to save a buck (but everybody does it to some extent, or you''d be flying around in 4 engine tanks carrying a parachute, and we''d never fly in any weather)


----------------​

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 12:46:40 PM Elivs Lives wrote:


"What was the current ATIS? No, not the one on the FAA report (after the fact), but the one the pilots received via the radio. Who was flying? What was the status of the aircraft? Was it late? Any MELs? PWS working? How about the weather radar? Was this crew terminating in AMA or were they going on to Big D or STL? What was the approach like? Was it rough or smooth? What was the wind doing? Was it light or strong, steady or gusty? I had a chief pilot tell me the ATIS sequence that these fellas had received and believe me, it was extremely ordinary."

How wide is the runway? what was the speed when they departed? Where was the cell when they were on a 5 mile final (traveling at 120 mph toward the runway, I wonder how far a cell could move). RADAR, PWS? Would SWA dispatch a jet into an area of thunderstorms with an inoperable WX radar? (I''m really wondering, if they would, then things are MUCH worse than I''d ever imagined) What does whether or not they were terminating have to do with it? I guess if they were terminating they may have been fatigued? whats your point? I''ll ask one more time, IS IT EVER OK TO LAND AT AN AIRPORT WITH A SEVERE TSTORM OVERHEAD, REGARDLESS OF THE ATIS? EVER? (a quick question on ACARS to dispatch would prob have been useful, but I guess they were too busy listening to the ATIS freq copying things down.) So I guess you''ve got one guy listening intently to the ATIS while the other guy "handflies" (since you guys think that''s better than AP/AT) monitors the radar and tales the primary radio. You''re right, you guys do it the "right way". Forget I (or anyone else) would have the nerve to call anything you do into question. you are above reproach.

So you want all who read you to believe that SWA, AS A COMPANY, as a matter of business and operations, encourages their pilots to fly into TRWs, ignore weather radars, disregard the Predictive Wind Shear and press on because we are "paid by the trip".

Maybe you like talking so much because you enjoy that funny vibration you get between your ears, but you don''t make sense. How does getting paid by distance flown differ from time flown? Other than the so-called "majors" pay by the hour (reason enough right there for me to leary). Surely someone of your supposed level of experince knows people here. Didn''t they tell you that when we divert or hold or delay for weather, we get paid for that time?

That these pilots departed the runway AFTER a normal approach AND touchdown is a matter of fact. It did happen. It could''ve happened to me. From what I''ve heard, the plane will be totalled. That''s expensive and certainly regrettable. I am so thankful that we didn''t have any injuries. And as the person who admitted to flying into TWO thunderstorms "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)", I would hope that you of all people would realize the dynamic nature in which ALL pilots operate. You remember the "glass house" story?

Thanks for your "heartfelt" concern about our little airline, but Spanky was right. You''ve got much bigger things to worry about than the pay rigs, pilot credentials and training at Southwest. Maybe you could start by going to the airport on your days off and push wheelchairs? Just a thought. It might just help YOUR company and might make you feel better about yourself.

Well, the kids just got home from the party, better see who had the most fun!

----------------​

 

[Elivs Lives]

Busrider, everytime I read one of your invective-filled, vitriol-fuming, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou diatribes meekly pretemding to be a "post" I alway think two things: you must be fun to fly with, and thank Heavens I got hired here. I know not why you carry on as you do, nor do I really care, but the wife and kids are at birthday party and I''ve got some time to kill, so maybe I can help you work through the pain and you can become a loving, caring, human type being.

You, armed with only the fact that an airplane departed the side of a runway, have concluded that these pilots made a bad decision. I think there is more to the story and if you could lower your blood pressure and stop trying to turn this into a "all SWA pilots wear spurs and cowboy hats" and discuss this as the "professional" you so often and haughtily call yourself, you''d realize it too.

What was the current ATIS? No, not the one on the FAA report (after the fact), but the one the pilots received via the radio. Who was flying? What was the status of the aircraft? Was it late? Any MELs? PWS working? How about the weather radar? Was this crew terminating in AMA or were they going on to Big D or STL? What was the approach like? Was it rough or smooth? What was the wind doing? Was it light or strong, steady or gusty? I had a chief pilot tell me the ATIS sequence that these fellas had received and believe me, it was extremely ordinary.

So you want all who read you to believe that SWA, AS A COMPANY, as a matter of business and operations, encourages their pilots to fly into TRWs, ignore weather radars, disregard the Predictive Wind Shear and press on because we are "paid by the trip".

Maybe you like talking so much because you enjoy that funny vibration you get between your ears, but you don''t make sense. How does getting paid by distance flown differ from time flown? Other than the so-called "majors" pay by the hour (reason enough right there for me to leary). Surely someone of your supposed level of experince knows people here. Didn''t they tell you that when we divert or hold or delay for weather, we get paid for that time?

That these pilots departed the runway AFTER a normal approach AND touchdown is a matter of fact. It did happen. It could''ve happened to me. From what I''ve heard, the plane will be totalled. That''s expensive and certainly regrettable. I am so thankful that we didn''t have any injuries. And as the person who admitted to flying into TWO thunderstorms "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)", I would hope that you of all people would realize the dynamic nature in which ALL pilots operate. You remember the "glass house" story?

Thanks for your "heartfelt" concern about our little airline, but Spanky was right. You''ve got much bigger things to worry about than the pay rigs, pilot credentials and training at Southwest. Maybe you could start by going to the airport on your days off and push wheelchairs? Just a thought. It might just help YOUR company and might make you feel better about yourself.

Well, the kids just got home from the party, better see who had the most fun!

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 1:23:58 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 5/31/2003 1:08:40 PM Busdrvr wrote:

Funny thing KC, in aviation, most companies try to learn from the mistakes and accidents of others, while some folks insist on waiting till they make them themselves.

----------------​

NOt to pick on Delta here Bussie, but they apparently got so focused on not landing in wind shear conditions that they skimmed over the part about departing in a 727 with the slats stowed.  Not to worry though, they addressed that issue in 1989.    I sincerely hope UAL or yourself is not involved in an incident.  I assure you, I will not be popping on the boards to say "I told you so".   I only offer up my signature for your consideration.

----------------​

Yep, the TO warning horn failed on said DAL jet. Coincidentally, Luv RECENTLY changed before taxi procedures due to a rash of attempted flap up TO''s that were, luckily (if you like living on luck), saved by the very same horn.

 

[Busdrvr]

Funny thing KC, in aviation, most companies try to learn from the mistakes and accidents of others, while some folks insist on waiting till they make them themselves.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 1:08:40 PM Busdrvr wrote:

Funny thing KC, in aviation, most companies try to learn from the mistakes and accidents of others, while some folks insist on waiting till they make them themselves.

----------------​

NOt to pick on Delta here Bussie, but they apparently got so focused on not landing in wind shear conditions that they skimmed over the part about departing in a 727 with the slats stowed. Not to worry though, they addressed that issue in 1989. I sincerely hope UAL or yourself is not involved in an incident. I assure you, I will not be popping on the boards to say "I told you so". I only offer up my signature for your consideration.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 1:29:22 PM Busdrvr wrote:

Yep, the TO warning horn failed on said DAL jet. Coincidentally, Luv RECENTLY changed before taxi procedures due to a rash of attempted flap up TO's that were, luckily (if you like living on luck), saved by the very same horn.

----------------​

Thank heavens there was a faulty horn to blame. Guess it didn't get chalked up as "pilot error" then, did it???? Wait a second...cause number one of the accident was "THE CAPTAIN AND FIRST OFFICER'S INADEQUATE COCKPIT DISCIPLINE WHICH RESULTED IN THE FLIGHTCREW'S ATTEMPT TO TAKEOFF WITHOUT THE WING FLAPS AND SLATS PROPERLY CONFIGURED;"
How'd that happen??? And low and behold - you just cited that LUV changed taxi procedures - prior to picking one up out of the dirt. I thought they were all cowboys who flew by the seat of their pants there. And here they made a change. Positivly proactive, don't you think?

Bottom line bus, the reason I point a lot of this out is that in most every incident, the #1 probable cause is "pilot error". You might have diverted 300 times in a year, but that one time you thought things were clear enough to have a go at it and the approach goes to hell in a handbasket is the one time that it'll get listed as "pilot error". Or does the NTSB look at the pilots past history of diverts to determine whether or not to place the fault for a particular accident on his shoulders.

BTW - are you familiar with the dating habits of FA's...that crew apparently was. As I said...there but for the grace of God go I...

 

[Elivs Lives]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 1:07:13 PM Busdrvr wrote:

How wide is the runway? what was the speed when they departed? Where was the cell when they were on a 5 mile final (traveling at 120 mph toward the runway, I wonder how far a cell could move). RADAR, PWS? Would SWA dispatch a jet into an area of thunderstorms with an inoperable WX radar? (I''m really wondering, if they would, then things are MUCH worse than I''d ever imagined) What does whether or not they were terminating have to do with it? I guess if they were terminating they may have been fatigued? whats your point? I''ll ask one more time, IS IT EVER OK TO LAND AT AN AIRPORT WITH A SEVERE TSTORM OVERHEAD, REGARDLESS OF THE ATIS? EVER? (a quick question on ACARS to dispatch would prob have been useful, but I guess they were too busy listening to the ATIS freq copying things down.) So I guess you''ve got one guy listening intently to the ATIS while the other guy "handflies" (since you guys think that''s better than AP/AT) monitors the radar and tales the primary radio. You''re right, you guys do it the "right way". Forget I (or anyone else) would have the nerve to call anything you do into question. you are above reproach.

----------------​

Seems like as someone with all the answers, you have a lot of questions. To answer your rhetorical question, "Is it ever OK to land at an airport with a severe thunderstorm overhead, regardless of the ATIS, ever?" well sure it is. You ever been on fire? Out of gas? I know that these two weren''t on fire or out of gas and I also don''t know that there was a thunderstorm DIRECTLY OVER THE FIELD. You want to speak in absolutes, and you should know better when it comes to flying SOMEONE ELSE''S AIRPLANE.

As for the ACARS remark, you again prove you know very little about how we operate. Believe it or not, we have many airplanes with ACARS and to pin your hopes on a typed message to dispatch while you''re inside the marker seems futile at best and dangerous at worst. You let dispatch make all the tough calls for you? I thought you got the big bucks to make those important decisions. Perhaps they teach typing in Denver at the schoolhouse when we''re in the sim?

You have the right to call anything you wish into question. And I have the right to call you on it if I feel you''re missing the boat. I would''ve hoped for a more "professional" response from someone ''visiting'' the Southwest forum. If you don''t think something like the AMA incident can happen to you, you are a fool. And that''s the kind of pilot that worries me.

 

[IFLYA9]

Elvis,
Don''t let the Bus'' Monday morning quarterbacking get to you.
An old retired Captain here at AA used to have the best
saying: " Ain''t no one can fly the airplane like the guy
that ain''t flying the airplane" That pretty much sums things
up!

IFLYA9

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 7:25:01 PM Elivs Lives wrote:


"Seems like as someone with all the answers, you have a lot of questions. To answer your rhetorical question, "Is it ever OK to land at an airport with a severe thunderstorm overhead, regardless of the ATIS, ever?" well sure it is. You ever been on fire? Out of gas?"

I''ll give you those two. A T-38 holds a little over an hour worth of gas. How about a 737? You guys go to fields with T-storms and no extra gas? I guess he musta been on fire then. I guess he got the added bonus of of heavy rain to put it out.


"I know that these two weren''t on fire or out of gas and I also don''t know that there was a thunderstorm DIRECTLY OVER THE FIELD. You want to speak in absolutes, and you should know better when it comes to flying SOMEONE ELSE''S AIRPLANE."

Uh, because the tower couldn''t see the accident due to HEAVY RAIN! Maybe you can find a doppler image from the same time to prove me wrong. heavy rain just doesn''t just fall out of clear sky''s. Your argument is getting silly.

"As for the ACARS remark, you again prove you know very little about how we operate. Believe it or not, we have many airplanes with ACARS and to pin your hopes on a typed message to dispatch while you''re inside the marker seems futile at best and dangerous at worst."

My point was that ENROUTE those questions should have been asked. YOU apparently think that showing up to a field and only then figuring out the situation. I''ve had dispatch (you know, the guys with the doppler in front of them, watching things develope) send me notes HOURS before arrival, but I guess a CB popping up on the 80 mile screen is a better solution. YOU are the one that thinks the FO should be monitoring the ATIS freq in terminal area just in case they throw in a Microburst or windshear warning.


"You let dispatch make all the tough calls for you? I thought you got the big bucks to make those important decisions. Perhaps they teach typing in Denver at the schoolhouse when we''re in the sim?"

No, the big bucks make decisions based on ALL the information. Any ADDITIONAL information is good. You just aren''t willing to pay for it.

"You have the right to call anything you wish into question. And I have the right to call you on it if I feel you''re missing the boat. I would''ve hoped for a more "professional" response from someone ''visiting'' the Southwest forum."

THIS IS NOT THE SWA FORUM. you don''t own it. This is the USAVIATION Forum. They allow people interested in aviation topics to post. They subdivid the forum into differant topics of interest. You are just as much a "visitor" as I am.

"If you don''t think something like the AMA incident can happen to you, you are a fool. And that''s the kind of pilot that worries me."

I won''t happen to me if I''m unwilling to land in a thunderstorm, just as Burbank CAN NOT happen to me if I am unwilling to leave 500 ft unless I''m configured, on speed, and on profile.

----------------​