Southwest misses Runway

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 10:57:21 PM Busdrvr wrote:

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,
----------------​

As a matter of fact, you know how notoriously slow those thunderstorms move. Why I''ll betcha that while bussie was over MCI heading for Denver, dispactch might have sent him a message vua ACARS about thunderstorms over DIA that they noticed on that radar right in front of them and he right then just diverted to ICT...just to be on the safe side.

BTW buss...next trip to DFW, let me know. I know some guys in SWA dispatch I''ll call up and have them show you around the place. They''ve got radar and computer screens and everything. And you thought all they had was the Weather Channel.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 10:02:21 PM IFLYA9 wrote:

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

----------------​

He should have told you "Rudder rolls the wings of a swept wing fighter at high angles of attack like you can''t believe, but should be used VERY sparingly in a commercial airliner (full deflection for 4 seconds!!!), and our training dept shouldn''t be teaching it as procedure since it''s contrary to the guidance from Boeing and Airbus" That advice might have served you better. Any other Helpers?

 

[tbags]

Busdrvr, Please explain your point re: being paid by the "trip" vs. hourly. I work under the WN F/A contract and we have provisions for overschedule (padding) and overfly (holding etc.). If you divert, do you get paid to sit at a gate in a city other than your planned destination? I am curious as how trip pay relates to the "GO,GO,GO"/ Cowboy attitude. I can''t believe the Pilot contract is worse. I also know it is better with duty time rigs etc.

Just my 2 cents,
Chris

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 3:03:30 AM tbags wrote:

Busdrvr, Please explain your point re: being paid by the "trip" vs. hourly. I work under the WN F/A contract and we have provisions for overschedule (padding) and overfly (holding etc.). If you divert, do you get paid to sit at a gate in a city other than your planned destination? I am curious as how trip pay relates to the "GO,GO,GO"/ Cowboy attitude. I can't believe the Pilot contract is worse. I also know it is better with duty time rigs etc.

Just my 2 cents,
Chris

----------------​

ASk the LUV pilots for the specifics, but the basics are they are paid for the "trip" which can be roughly translated to hours. If they are "late", ie their "block to block" time is over schedule, they fly the first 15 minutes "for free" (or is it 14 or 16 minutes, luv pilots feel free to correct my admitted inaccuracy), then the clock starts running. I'm not making this up (or the rational behind it). Old Lamar came up with it himself. So if they fly 16 minutes over schedule (assuming 15 minutes free), they would get one minute of extra pay. SWA has a rather large number of pilots who pick up open time (don't you pay first year guys at the second year rate for picked up time?), so if you "log" a flight 16 minutes late you not only get a whooping one minute of pay, you also just reduced the amount of open time you can pick up by 16 minutes (due to FAA max). It puts an incentive to hurry up (as well as use other means of "logging" the lowest block to block time possible). as a matter of fact, "logging" less than scheduled will free up the pilot for even MORE extra flying. Can we trust them to accurately log what the watch says even though it may potentially cost them money? Sure. But why can't SWA trust it's hourly workers to log in with a pencil instead of a time clock?

As far as rigs for the F/A's, don't you guys stay pretty much with the same pilots for a trip? seems like that would give you much of the pilot rigs by default. Good luck on the contract, you guys deserve better than the industry bottom.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 3:22:22 AM Busdrvr wrote:
Good luck on the contract, you guys deserve better than the industry bottom.


----------------​

Is industry bottom what a furloughed UAL FA is making?

 

[mga707]

----------------
On 5/31/2003 10:57:21 PM Busdrvr wrote:

Uh, because the tower couldn''t see the accident due to HEAVY RAIN!

----------------​

I would think that the fact that it was dark at the time (a bit before 10 PM) might have had something to do with the tower''s inability to get a visual fix on the situation.
But then, I''m not the all-knowing one here...

 

[Elivs Lives]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 3:22:22 AM Busdrvr wrote:



>>ASk the LUV pilots for the specifics, but the basics are they are paid for the "trip" which can be roughly translated to hours.

A trip is exactly equal to the distance between HOU and DAL of 243 miles. Anything over 243 miles is paid at a tenth of a trip per 40 mile increment. We are paid basically for how far we fly, not how fast or SLOW(remember the summer of fun in 2000 at the airline flying blue and grey machines?)

>>If they are "late", ie their "block to block" time is over schedule, they fly the first 15 minutes "for free" (or is it 14 or 16 minutes, luv pilots feel free to correct my admitted inaccuracy), then the clock starts running. I''m not making this up (or the rational behind it).

From section 4.G.2. of the SWAPA/SWA contract, "In addition to the non-standard trip adjustment contained herein, pilots will be paid, where applicable, an additional overfly premium component for flights which operate in excess of scheduled block time. Such premium will apply to each flight segment and will be paid at the rate of one-tenth (0.1) trip for each five minutes which a flight operates in excess of such flight''s scheduled block time, truncated to the nearest five minutes, excluding, however, the first seven minutes which such flight segment is in excess of the schedule." Because we are paid by the trip rather than the hour, this provision allows protection of the pilot group against any unrealistic block to block times. I never thought of it as flying for "free", but rather a give and take for a productive work force pretty much kicking everybody''s asses.


>>Old Lamar came up with it himself.

Lamar told you that?

>>So if they fly 16 minutes over schedule (assuming 15 minutes free), they would get one minute of extra pay.

Wrong. If we overfly by 12 minutes, we get an additional tenth of a trip. Let''s pick a fifth year captain at a current rate of $123.71. That twelve minute delay just earned him another 12 bucks. If he''s 17 minutes late, he just got .2 trips, or 24 bucks. So, if your gonna be ten late at the gate, wouldn''t you rather be twelve late? If you''re gonna be 15 late at the gate, wouldn''t you wanna be 17 late?

>>SWA has a rather large number of pilots who pick up open time (don''t you pay first year guys at the second year rate for picked up time?), so if you "log" a flight 16 minutes late you not only get a whooping one minute of pay, you also just reduced the amount of open time you can pick up by 16 minutes (due to FAA max).

Yes we have large number of pilots that continue to grow each month. How many pick up open time is not known to me. I pick up once a quarter or so or when skeds calls me in a bind. Yes, first year guys get paid second year pay for open time. I''m not sure of the point of this statement other than first year guys get a 40% pay raise to fly open time. Sounds good to me. The 16 minutes of block time for one minute of pay arguement is wrong for reason already explained. While the 16 minutes of extra block time does count toward FAA flight time limits, I ''ve never seen any open time with 16 minutes of block.


>>It puts an incentive to hurry up (as well as use other means of "logging" the lowest block to block time possible). as a matter of fact, "logging" less than scheduled will free up the pilot for even MORE extra flying.

I suppose this is within the realm of reality, but at what costs? I suppose that there could be pilots that want to fly 30 hours every week and 100 every month, and then lie about flight times in order to achieve that end. Ooops. Now their out of time in October and can''t fly November or Decemeber due to the 1000 hr/yr rule. Bust my ass, lie about flight times, 22 nights a month on the road then LOOSE two months pay? Maybe they were going to retire in November anyway? Having the obvious advantage of actually working here, I think you can drop the max flight time, open time whores conspiracy theory.

>>Can we trust them to accurately log what the watch says even though it may potentially cost them money? Sure.

So you trust us to keep time, but you don''t... I''m confused.

>>But why can''t SWA trust it''s hourly workers to log in with a pencil instead of a time clock?

I think they can. You''ll have to ask someone from Ground Ops.

>>As far as rigs for the F/A''s, don''t you guys stay pretty much with the same pilots for a trip? seems like that would give you much of the pilot rigs by default. Good luck on the contract, you guys deserve better than the industry bottom.

No. Flight Attendants have completely different rigs than the pilots. But you are right, they do deserve a better contract.


----------------​

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 8:36:40 AM KCFlyer wrote:



----------------​

Is industry bottom what a furloughed UAL FA is making?

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

Actually, just about all of them have been called back. SWA F/A''s, based on work performed, deserve to be the BEST paid in the industry, period. You shouldn''t keep expecting them to subsidize your vacation travel.

 

[Busdrvr]

"Lamar told you that?"

Yep, Weez old buddies. (Actually, isn''t it in "Nuts"?)


"That twelve minute delay just earned him another 12 bucks. If he''s 17 minutes late, he just got .2 trips, or 24 bucks. So, if your gonna be ten late at the gate, wouldn''t you rather be twelve late?"

NO, you got paid 60 bucks an hour for that 12 minutes (or less than half the hourly rate) Even at 17 minutes late, he gets no where near the normal "hourly" rate. The point is, the company would rather him "log" on time so he can be used for those minutes somewhere else, and they make it worth his while to do a little pencil magic by paying him about 100 bucks an hour more.

In any case, thanks for attempting to explain some of the contract complexities. it can definately be a challenge (like the history of the world in 100 words or less)

 

[Elivs Lives]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 7:35:17 PM Busdrvr wrote:

"Lamar told you that?"

>>Yep, Weez old buddies. (Actually, isn''t it in "Nuts"?)

Tell him I said hello. I don''t know if it''s "Nut''s" or not. I haven''t read that book.

>>NO, you got paid 60 bucks an hour for that 12 minutes (or less than half the hourly rate) Even at 17 minutes late, he gets no where near the normal "hourly" rate. The point is, the company would rather him "log" on time so he can be used for those minutes somewhere else, and they make it worth his while to do a little pencil magic by paying him about 100 bucks an hour more.

We get paid by the trip, not by the hour. I don''t know why that''s so hard for you to grasp.

What if we''re early to the gate, i.e. underfly the block time? Do I log on time, or do I log as is? Is the only time to log "on time" is when I''m late? It''s so confusing. I can lie about being fifteen minutes earlier than I really am or can take the underfly honestly and THEN pick up this wonderful open time? Maybe the open time situation is better at UAL (leaner staffing and all that), but there isn''t much open time to worry about in my domicile. Certainly nothing that cheating 15 minutes a day or even a leg would make worthwhile. It''s just so much easier to call it like it is, rather than try to trick the system. In an average month (i.e. no vacation or training), I fly about 96 trips and block about 77 hours of flight time. I got plenty of time to pick up without screwing with the system OR my integrity. The bid packages show the same thing. For June, my domicile line average was 92 trips and 76 hard hours (that''s a thirty day month and the block time is SCHEDULED block). That''s 24 hours a month or 6 hours a week to fly this wonderful open time WITHOUT considering underfly or your incessant pencil whipping of the flight times. Your arguement doesn''t make sense. To me, I mean.

I''m not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but if you are implying that this accident was caused by SWA pilots getting paid by the trip rather than the hour, I think you are deluded. But perhaps the CVR will reveal otherwise; "Weather looks really bad. Too bad we''re paid by the trip instead of by the hour like the United professionals. If we were paid by the hour, we wouldn''t run off the side of the runway when we land. Oh well, flaps 40."

>>In any case, thanks for attempting to explain some of the contract complexities. it can definately be a challenge (like the history of the world in 100 words or less)

Just doing my job, ma''am.

----------------​

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 9:27:53 PM Elivs Lives wrote:

----------------
On 6/1/2003 7:35:17 PM Busdrvr wrote:

"What if we''re early to the gate, i.e. underfly the block time? Do I log on time, or do I log as is? Is the only time to log "on time" is when I''m late? It''s so confusing."

You log the min you can get away with. Pays the same (and allows more open pick up) and helps reduce MX costs and F/A costs (sorry gals).



"I''m not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but if you are implying that this accident was caused by SWA pilots getting paid by the trip rather than the hour, I think you are deluded."


You are deluded if you think SWA''s system is not built around you guys getting the maximum possible use out of all your jets and people. Your pay system was designed to encourage it. you don''t ACARS report despite your acerion that a bunch of your jets are equipped (you telling me it''s more efficient to have a pilot, who would otherwise be doing pilot duties, making a call to another warm body, when for under 10 cents per message the jet will report exact times?) Come on now. Was the accident "caused by the "hurry up" attitude? Probably not. Was it likely a secondary factor? I think so. What about Burbank? Why did he feel the need to get a hopeless approach on the ground? I wonder when Dominoes drivers were involved in multiple accidents back in the days of "30 minutes or free" if those accidents were the result of the negative implications of being late or was it just that those drivers were so commited to getting you your pizza hot? How did the courts find? Do you really think SWA is immune to lawsuits over the current "trends"?


----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 11:27:43 PM Busdrvr wrote:

You are deluded if you think SWA''s system is not built around you guys getting the maximum possible use out of all your jets and people. Your pay system was designed to encourage it. you don''t ACARS report despite your acerion that a bunch of your jets are equipped (you telling me it''s more efficient to have a pilot, who would otherwise be doing pilot duties, making a call to another warm body, when for under 10 cents per message the jet will report exact times?) Come on now. Was the accident "caused by the "hurry up" attitude? Probably not. Was it likely a secondary factor? I think so. What about Burbank? Why did he feel the need to get a hopeless approach on the ground? I wonder when Dominoes drivers were involved in multiple accidents back in the days of "30 minutes or free" if those accidents were the result of the negative implications of being late or was it just that those drivers were so commited to getting you your pizza hot? How did the courts find? Do you really think SWA is immune to lawsuits over the current "trends"?


----------------​

Buss - I have read a lot of posts over on the UAL board about how UAL is number one in the ontime department. Use caution, because in trying to remain number one in on time (since ACARS never lies) might cause you and your brethren to drop some of that vaunted caution in the name of maintaining on time. Your grasping at straws to deride your competiton never ceases to amaze me.
​

 

[Elivs Lives]

----------------
On 6/1/2003 11:27:43 PM Busdrvr wrote:


"What if we''re early to the gate, i.e. underfly the block time? Do I log on time, or do I log as is? Is the only time to log "on time" is when I''m late? It''s so confusing."

>>You log the min you can get away with. Pays the same (and allows more open pick up) and helps reduce MX costs and F/A costs (sorry gals).

OK. So I should ALWAYS log the minimum I can "get away with"... I guess with all those superior piloting skills they train into you at UAL, they do so at the expense of integrity. I don''t know why just lying about about flight times bothers me. Perhaps our personal views and ethics are different? Perhaps you WOULD lie if given the chance? How does logging the "minimum I can get away with" reduce maintenance costs? What parts of the SWA Aircraft Maintenance Management Program are timed items and what are "on condition" items? See, I thought we replaced things when they broke or no longer performed to set specifications, i.e., on condition. Maybe, in addition to knowing what happened on rollout from AMA the other night, you know the SWA mx program as well? Now you''re saying that we (SWA pilots) lie about flight times: to further our own goals (pick up that juicy open time so I can fly on my days off); to effect aircraft maintenance (a BIG no-no in Uncle Sam''s eyes); and to cheat the hardest working Flight Attendants in the industry. Dude, what did we ever do to you other than NOT hire you? You make some pretty impressive accusations given only your mouth to back it up. By the way, this might be hard for you to understand, but FA''s are paid BY THE TRIP. Not by the hour, BY THE TRIP. And they''re not all gals.


"I''m not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but if you are implying that this accident was caused by SWA pilots getting paid by the trip rather than the hour, I think you are deluded."


>>You are deluded if you think SWA''s system is not built around you guys getting the maximum possible use out of all your jets and people. Your pay system was designed to encourage it.

No, you''re deluded. I freely admit that SWA is an efficient airline. That means efficient and productive use of assets and personnel.

>>you don''t ACARS report despite your acerion that a bunch of your jets are equipped (you telling me it''s more efficient to have a pilot, who would otherwise be doing pilot duties, making a call to another warm body, when for under 10 cents per message the jet will report exact times?) Come on now.

I have NO idea how UAL runs their flightdecks. I can tell you how SWA runs theirs. Maybe your airplanes are steam-fired and the FO has to spend the takeoff and climbout stoking the furnace (ENGINE ROOM ANSWERS ALL AHEAD FULL, CAPTAIN!), but between the two of us, we can usually find the ten seconds it takes to say, "LA, 123 times 05 and 15, nice job!" At ten cents a message, we just saved $280 for the company per day. I know $280 isn''t much of a savings when your outgo is greater than your income by, pick whatever astronomical figure UAL is using this month, but we believe these things add up. Efficient, yes. Cost effective, yes. The way UAL does it? No.

>>Was the accident "caused by the "hurry up" attitude? Probably not.

Make up your mind.

>>Was it likely a secondary factor? I think so.

Of course you do. Without any other information you THINK an alledged "hurry up attitude" contributed to accident. You don''t have a part-time gig at the New York Times, do you? Let''s get some facts before we start the hanging.

>>What about Burbank? Why did he feel the need to get a hopeless approach on the ground?

Well, now you''re talking about something in which the facts ARE known. We know a great deal about that approach and have learned many things. Maybe UAL teaches it in their CRL course as an example of what could never happen to a UAL crew becuase UAL training is so much better, the procedures are better, and the pilots are better, and the airline is better. Why did he push a bad approach, land halfway down a 6000'' runway 40 knots fast, crash through a blast fence at 30 knots, cross a busy highway, and stop just short of gas station, injuring several (including himself) and destroying his career AND an airplane? Well, you see, there was this turn that paid 2.9 TRIPS and if he saved 10 minutes in the air and then pencil whipped another 5, he might be legal for it. A lot things create the accident chain, any one of which can be broken. This is a textbook example of that and glaring examples of when it could have been broken.

>>I wonder when Dominoes drivers were involved in multiple accidents back in the days of "30 minutes or free" if those accidents were the result of the negative implications of being late or was it just that those drivers were so commited to getting you your pizza hot?

I wonder how an "experienced" First Officer flying a 747 looses an engine on takeoff and does everything within his inept abilities to crash the thing, manages to clear San Bruno Mountain (a testament to the folks in Renton rather than Denver) by the distance one could hit with a rock. I wonder how a crew can get so busy troubleshooting a problem, they run out gas and glide to screeching halt in Portland. You wonder about pizza, I wonder about airplanes.

>>How did the courts find?

I have no idea.

>>Do you really think SWA is immune to lawsuits over the current "trends"?

After the "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" case, I don''t think anyone is immune from lawsuits regarding anything.

----------------​

 

[ITRADE]

Here''s the NTSB Preliminary:


NTSB Identification: FTW03FA160
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of Southwest Airlines Company
Accident occurred Saturday, May 24, 2003 in Amarillo, TX
Aircraft: Boeing 737-300, registration: N343SW
Injuries: 68 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 24, 2003, approximately 2136:37 central daylight time, a Boeing 737-300 transport airplane, N343SW, operating as Southwest Flight 2066, sustained substantial damage upon impact with the runway lights following a loss of control during the landing on runway 04 at the Amarillo International Airport (AMA), Amarillo, Texas. (All times in this report are central daylight time, based on a 24-hour clock). The airplane was registered to and operated by Southwest Airlines Company, Dallas, Texas. The scheduled domestic passenger/cargo flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. The 5 crewmembers and 63 passengers were not injured. Night meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed. The flight originated at the MCCarran International Airport (LAS), Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1945.

According to the company and the flight crew, the first office was the pilot flying (PF) on the flight from LAS to AMA, and the captain was the non-flying pilot (PNF). The flight crew reported that the takeoff/initial climb from LAS, the en route phase of flight, and the clearance for the instrument landing system (ILS) at the destination airport were routine.

At 2127:00, the PNF made initial contact with the Amarillo Approach Control controller and reported the flight descending to 11,000 feet msl.

At 2127:04, the flight crew was advised by the controller to expect the Runway 04 approach at AMA.

At 2132:44, the flight was cleared for the ILS Runway 04 approach and cleared to land.

At 2133:00, the flight crew reported that the flight was at the edge of a thunderstorm.

At 2133:19, the controller briefed the flight crew on the cloud layers, visibility 10, winds 240 variable to 290 at 5 knots with thunderstorm and light rain at the airport.

At 2133:52, the flight crew reported that the airport was in sight but the visibility was starting to deteriorate.

At 2134:45, the controller reported to the flight crew the wind shifting from 220 degrees at 9 knots.

On written statements, the flight crew reported that the aircraft touched down firm, with no perceptible drift, and the thrust reverses deployed. The airplane inadvertently drifted to the left with both flight crewmembers applying control inputs in an attempt to keep the airplane on the runway. The airplane departed the left side of runway 04. Subsequently, the airplane was steered back onto the runway, where it came to rest. The flight crew performed the emergency checklist, assessed the situation, and the captain informed the passengers to remain seated. The airplane was deplaned utilizing the air stairs without further incident.

At 2135, the AMA weather observation: Wind variable at 6 knots, visibility 3 miles, heavy thunderstorm and rain, scattered clouds at 1,700 feet agl, broken clouds at 4,800 feet agl, overcast layer at 7,000 feet agl, temperature 18 degrees Celsius, dew point 15 degrees Celsius; remarks; wind shifted at 2107, thunderstorm began at 2057, rain began at 2058, and the barometric pressure rising rapidly.

At 2140, the AMA weather observation: Wind 110 degrees at 7 knots gusts 18 knots variable from 070 degrees to 150 degrees, visibility 1 statute mile, heavy thunderstorm and rain, clouds few at 400 feet agl, broken clouds at 1,700 feet agl, overcast layer at 5,500 feet agl, temperature 17 degrees Celsius, dew point 15 degrees Celsius, and the altimeter 30.05 inches of Mercury.

The FAA inspectors and Southwest maintenance team, who responded to the accident site, found the nose landing gear collapsed aft into the forward navigation/electronics bay. The structural damage extended from airplane fuselage station 259 through 360. The integrity of the pressure bulkhead was compromised.

 

[tbags]

NTSB Identification: FTW03FA160
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of Southwest
Airlines Company
Accident occurred Saturday, May 24, 2003 in Amarillo, TX
Aircraft: Boeing 737-300, registration: N343SW
Injuries: 68 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On May 24, 2003, approximately 2136:37 central daylight time, a
Boeing 737-300 transport airplane, N343SW, operating as Southwest
Flight 2066, sustained substantial damage upon impact with the runway
lights following a loss of control during the landing on runway 04 at
the Amarillo International Airport (AMA), Amarillo, Texas. (All times
in this report are central daylight time, based on a 24-hour clock).
The airplane was registered to and operated by Southwest Airlines
Company, Dallas, Texas. The scheduled domestic passenger/cargo flight
was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. The 5
crewmembers and 63 passengers were not injured. Night meteorological
conditions prevailed for the flight, and an instrument flight rules
(IFR) flight plan had been filed. The flight originated at the
MCCarran International Airport (LAS), Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1945.

According to the company and the flight crew, the first office was
the pilot flying (PF) on the flight from LAS to AMA, and the captain
was the non-flying pilot (PNF). The flight crew reported that the
takeoff/initial climb from LAS, the en route phase of flight, and the
clearance for the instrument landing system (ILS) at the destination
airport were routine.

At 2127:00, the PNF made initial contact with the Amarillo Approach
Control controller and reported the flight descending to 11,000 feet
msl.

At 2127:04, the flight crew was advised by the controller to expect
the Runway 04 approach at AMA.

At 2132:44, the flight was cleared for the ILS Runway 04 approach and
cleared to land.

At 2133:00, the flight crew reported that the flight was at the edge
of a thunderstorm.

At 2133:19, the controller briefed the flight crew on the cloud
layers, visibility 10, winds 240 variable to 290 at 5 knots with
thunderstorm and light rain at the airport.

At 2133:52, the flight crew reported that the airport was in sight
but the visibility was starting to deteriorate.

At 2134:45, the controller reported to the flight crew the wind
shifting from 220 degrees at 9 knots.

On written statements, the flight crew reported that the aircraft
touched down firm, with no perceptible drift, and the thrust reverses
deployed. The airplane inadvertently drifted to the left with both
flight crewmembers applying control inputs in an attempt to keep the
airplane on the runway. The airplane departed the left side of runway
04. Subsequently, the airplane was steered back onto the runway,
where it came to rest. The flight crew performed the emergency
checklist, assessed the situation, and the captain informed the
passengers to remain seated. The airplane was deplaned utilizing the
air stairs without further incident.

At 2135, the AMA weather observation: Wind variable at 6 knots,
visibility 3 miles, heavy thunderstorm and rain, scattered clouds at
1,700 feet agl, broken clouds at 4,800 feet agl, overcast layer at
7,000 feet agl, temperature 18 degrees Celsius, dew point 15 degrees
Celsius; remarks; wind shifted at 2107, thunderstorm began at 2057,
rain began at 2058, and the barometric pressure rising rapidly.

At 2140, the AMA weather observation: Wind 110 degrees at 7 knots
gusts 18 knots variable from 070 degrees to 150 degrees, visibility 1
statute mile, heavy thunderstorm and rain, clouds few at 400 feet
agl, broken clouds at 1,700 feet agl, overcast layer at 5,500 feet
agl, temperature 17 degrees Celsius, dew point 15 degrees Celsius,
and the altimeter 30.05 inches of Mercury.

The FAA inspectors and Southwest maintenance team, who responded to
the accident site, found the nose landing gear collapsed aft into the
forward navigation/electronics bay. The structural damage extended
from airplane fuselage station 259 through 360. The integrity of the
pressure bulkhead was compromised.