Southwest misses Runway

[WNjetdoc]

KC, doesn''t this turd, "busdrver", seem an awful lot like, "5K", on that other board we visit? They can always find a cloud in a silver lining.

I rarely go over to that board to be honest with ya KC. Tired of reading the garbage.

 

[firstamendment]

Three pages over this event? I would hate to see the amt of theorizing after you really dump a plane. Gez!!

 

[WNrforlife]

----------------
On 6/11/2003 10:49:58 PM firstamendment wrote:

Three pages over this event? I would hate to see the amt of theorizing after you really dump a plane. Gez!!

----------------​

That''s right! All other people that work at the other airlines are just jealous. They need to quit poo-pooing Southwest, and come fill out an application to become part of the Southwest team. A lot of you probably won''t get an interview, but at least you will get to meet the great people at Southwest in the process.

I am so sick and tired of all of these jealous employees from other airlines.
They just need to realize that Southwest will be the only airline in America someday, and just get over it!!

 

[smfav8r]

For all the good SWA folks out there....hey Busdrvr...I remember not to long ago that a UAL aircraft got lost on the runway, in the fog, in PVD......couldn''t own up to the fact that they were lost.....if it hadn''t been for the USAIR 737 listening to the radios (ie. situational awareness).....the death toll might have been pretty high!!

Before you start pointing fingers....look at the problems in your own back-yard!!!!!

 

[kiowa]

Wnrforlife Wow! I haven't heard such arrogance since Frank Borman at Eastern Airlines and they truly were a class airline.

 

[ZMAN777]

Busdrvr,

Hey guy, give it rest! You''re embarassing the rest of us who fly for UAL! Regarding the "incident" I''d be hesitant to point any fingers at any professional aviators before the facts are in. I know probably over 100 former fighter squadron buds of mine who fly for SWA and I can attest to their professionlism and sound judgement.

I''ll give them the benefit of the doubt until it''s proven otherwise. You weren''t there, I wasn''t there, and neither were any of rest who post here. I believe they continued the approach knowing that it could/would be conducted safely. Funny thing about the weather, it has a nasty habit of changing from time to time. All in all not too bad of an outcome. Everyone will learn something about this. Even you! That''s a positive.

Here''s to my pals at SWA! Over the years a remarkable safety record. Good on ya! Keep it up. (Just remember to check six on taxi out!)

Cheers,
Z

 

[Spruance]

I won''t go nearly as far as BusDriver has, but as a 121 line pilot I will say with the firmest conviction that SW guys go when no one else is interested. Case in point, last year we were stuck in BUF where the wind was 230/40G65 peak 80 knots with low level windshear reported at all quadrants of the field. This was all due to a tight winter low coming over the lake. The SW guy in front of us was bugging the tower every ten seconds for the current wind. He finally took off when gust died down to 60! I''m sorry but no airplane should be attempting to fly heavy gusts and low level windshear reports, that''s my policy. Low and behold the only airplane to try and land during this wind was another SW guy, which was pure stupidity in my book. Guess what, the windshear came on at 200 ft and he was off on a go around. Why on earth he even tried it given the conditions is beyond my mentality for the job. Ten minutes later the winds died down and everybody made it in. Was it that frickin'' important to be first. All this being said SW guys are very professional and can probably fly a 737 as well as anybody, but it''s experiences like the one I had in BUF that make me question the mentality of ''just get there.''

 

[AAmech]

----------------
On 6/13/2003 4:12:37 PM Spruance wrote:

All this being said SW guys are very professional and can probably fly a 737 as well as anybody, but it''s experiences like the one I had in BUF that make me question the mentality of ''just get there.''

----------------​

As a non-pilot wannabe type I''ve always felt that WN having a single AC gives their pilots a big experience edge over others. They will spend their entire career becomeing damn good at 737 flying! That being said just from standing outside and watching the Ops at TUL I see WN planes doing things you rarely if ever see other airlines doing. They regularly takeoff and land from the shorter (7300ft) runway 8-26 instead of the 10000ft 18-36. Occasionally you see an AA plane doing it and practically never a DL or UA. Some of those -200 planes look like they''re eating up the entire length, practically rotating on the threshold. When they do takeoff from 18L (furthest from their gates) they taxi at VERY fast speeds. WN pilots are definetly appear more aggressive than the others.

 

[KALB2]

T''was written, "They (WN)regularly takeoff and land from the shorter (7300ft) runway 8-26 instead of the 10000ft 18-36." Well, at KALB WN 737s take off regularly from a 7200 foot runway, as does 95% of airline traffic out of Albany International. RWY 1-19 is the longest of the two runways. Must be long enough to safely allow WN''s non-stop to Las Vegas.

Whats the problem with WN using 8-26 at TUL?

 

[Ch. 12]

All that I can say is that the WN safety record speaks volumes for itself. If the pilots are so crazy at WN, why have they landed EVERYBODY safely in 30+ years. It goes even further to think that because of their historically "short-haul" nature, they have flown more frequencies than most long-haul majors during this same time span. I feel much safer landing in 60+ wind gust with an experienced, level-headed WN pilot than landing in cloudless, windless conditions with an eternally angry-at-the-world pilot such as busdriver.

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 12:27:39 PM ITRADE wrote:

----------------
On 6/16/2003 12:24:48 PM Ch. 12 wrote:


3 people with minor injuries is an excellent safety record in my books.  By "safely", I meant that there have been no fatalities and only minor injuries in their history.  Numbers that are quite significant, don''t you think?

----------------​

Methinks you SERIOUSLY underestimate the extent of the injuries and damage.

From the NTSB report:

"Of the 142 persons on board, 2 passengers sustained serious injuries; 41 passengers and the captain sustained minor injuries"

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the flight crew''s excessive airspeed and flightpath angle during the approach and landing and its failure to abort the approach when stabilized approach criteria were not met. Contributing to the accident was the controller''s positioning of the airplane in such a manner as to leave no safe options for the flight crew other than a go-around maneuver."

Not to mention the fact that the aircraft was written off.

----------------​

My apologies in that I took the numbers from the actual news articles that were plenty immediately after the incident and not the NTSB numbers from 2 years later.

Since you are versed in the NTSB reports, please get back to my main point of overall safety and do a comparative look at all US majors incidents and accidents and let me know what you find. Looking across the board, I still say that I will fly WN hands down if safety was the only factor in my decision. The fact that you and bus have to drive and drive your points on two INCIDENTS when the rest of the industry has far more frequent incidents and accidents per frequency just baffles me. If you read into the numbers so much, line them up to the other carriers and see what you get and who you would fly.

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 12:24:48 PM Ch. 12 wrote:


3 people with minor injuries is an excellent safety record in my books. By "safely", I meant that there have been no fatalities and only minor injuries in their history. Numbers that are quite significant, don't you think?

----------------​

Methinks you SERIOUSLY underestimate the extent of the injuries and damage.

From the NTSB report:

"Of the 142 persons on board, 2 passengers sustained serious injuries; 41 passengers and the captain sustained minor injuries"

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the flight crew's excessive airspeed and flightpath angle during the approach and landing and its failure to abort the approach when stabilized approach criteria were not met. Contributing to the accident was the controller's positioning of the airplane in such a manner as to leave no safe options for the flight crew other than a go-around maneuver."

Not to mention the fact that the aircraft was written off.

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 11:53:14 AM Ch. 12 wrote:



All that I can say is that the WN safety record speaks volumes for itself. If the pilots are so crazy at WN, why have they landed EVERYBODY safely in 30+ years.


----------------​

Some people in Burbank might disagree with that assessment.

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 1253 PM ITRADE wrote:

----------------
On 6/16/2003 11:53:14 AM Ch. 12 wrote:



All that I can say is that the WN safety record speaks volumes for itself.  If the pilots are so crazy at WN, why have they landed EVERYBODY safely in 30+ years. 


----------------​

Some people in Burbank might disagree with that assessment.

----------------​

3 people with minor injuries is an excellent safety record in my books. By "safely", I meant that there have been no fatalities and only minor injuries in their history. Numbers that are quite significant, don''t you think?

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 12:41:02 PM Ch. 12 wrote:


----------------​

I''m not debating the comparison of various airlines. I am simply replying to your statement where you said, "why have they landed EVERYBODY safely ...." Clearly, not an accurate statement.