AA Jamaica UPDATE: Jamaican Investigator claims poor landing

[G. Costanza]

Wow hows the view up there?

Karma is a bitch, good luck.

Well, I have many years of flying out of MDW and many years of refusing to land with any tailwind at all. I have taken delays via holding until they would start landing into the wind on a dry runway. I have been punished with takeoff delays because I wanted to takeoff into the wind at MDW. I made those calls before SW's accident at MDW. Call me crazy, just my thing.

 

[G. Costanza]

What's more safe -

1. Landing on a short, snow covered runway with a tailwind and 1500 feet of stopping margin?

or

2. Landing heavy into the wind on a dry runway with 200 feet of stopping margin?



Gup

Nice question. What does your PDC say? I know how to make calls without it.

 

[BushwickBill]

Couldn't agree more!

I think landing with a tailwind at MDW was crazy and was a huge factor. But, most SW guys I've talked with say "well our PDC says we Can Do it".

I like the big picture thinking,

- tailwind

- short runway

- snow covered

Just Don't Do it.

Just be happy it wasn't you this time homie. Easier said than done.

I haven't had the pleasure of listening to a Jamaican ATIS but I hope to one day. I'm sure it is fairly island style down there brah!

Yes good to review. Yes good to remember to have good SA. Back seat drive? NO. Not even for the snow cover mishap.

Sun Valley last week was epic you couldn't even walk across the ramp. No worries if you keep it in mind but I wouldn't second guess someone who had a mishap because of it. I didn't laugh at people who fell on the ramp. I also wouldn't get on a soapbox if someone slid off the runway.

I brought my insulated snow boots from sunny CA so I didn't bruise my backside or get cold feet. There wasn't a NOTAM that the GA ramp was frozen solid. However if you thought about and had good SA you would prepare for it.

I didn't go up to pilots on the ramp and say: "GEE WIZ don't you wish you brought some INSULATED BOOTS? Man that bag looks heavy! Wow dude where are you from, Florida? Look at your shoes. HAHAHA."

Then again I didn't have the internet to hide behind...

 

[GuppyWN]

Nice question. What does your PDC say? I know how to make calls without it.

Why don't you answer the question Costanza?

I'll tell you what our onboard computer says - both are acceptable and legal.

What's your answer?

Gup

 

[igneousy2]

At the time of the MDW accident Boeing at the FAA got together and agreed to change how landiing numbers are published,

Big problem...nobody told any of the pilots (not just SWA)

the crew thought they were lookng at "old school numbers" (i.e. no reverse, plus 30% margin, etc.), but haha, the numbers they were looking at INCLUDED reverse and hardly any stopping margin...so when the books says 7,212 (or whatever) they REALLY meant 7,212. If you think you are looking at "old school" numbers you know that getting on the brakes is numero uno priority...reverse is extra...

in fact, when I first hired on I was TAUGHT to NOT to be in such a hurry to get the reversers out because of the control problems they can cause on slippery runway if they don't spool up just right. The thinking was...If you are looking at "old school" numbers it shouldn't matter because you don't NEED reverse to stop...this is not the case with the numbers given to pilots of 737 NG's....and maybe more importantly, you do not have as large of a margin for stopping as you might think.

As far as the HUD..if you don't hit the fixed distance marker within 1/2 knot of your target airspeed you are doing something wrong.

 

[slaquer5]

Well, I have many years of flying out of MDW and many years of refusing to land with any tailwind at all. I have taken delays via holding until they would start landing into the wind on a dry runway. I have been punished with takeoff delays because I wanted to takeoff into the wind at MDW. I made those calls before SW's accident at MDW. Call me crazy, just my thing.

OK crazy, I also have alot of years flying out of MDW ( over 22 YRS ) and I am sure way more take off and landings as you.

I will ask one more time. ( SO HOW IS THE VIEW UP THERE ? )

 

[G. Costanza]

Why don't you answer the question Costanza?

I'll tell you what our onboard computer says - both are acceptable and legal.

What's your answer?

Gup

I was a MDW based B727-200 and B737-800 PIC for 5 years before SW’s accident at Midway.
I made some simple rules about operating out of MDW when acting as PIC to keep things conservatively safe.
My first rule and a major bone of contention was that I would not land with a tailwind at Midway.
I delayed my passengers in holding while SW planes landed with 10kt tailwinds, getting their pax to the gate on time. I didn’t want to delay my folks anymore than you guys but I always thought it was critical to safely operating out of MDW. Chicago ATC didn’t want to turn the airport around when the majority of airplanes namely SW would except a 10 kt tailwind all day long.
I always shook my head in frustration and bewilderment that it seemed that a majority of SW guys didn’t have a problem landing with a tailwind at MDW, and how nice it could be if we all just get on the same page and not do the tailwind landing thing.
I tactfully asked you guys how you can land and takeoff with a tailwind at MDW and the majority reply was that your onboard computer says you can do it.
I had landing data in book form and it said I could do it half the time too, but I didn’t
I’m not a perfect aviator and make mistakes with the best of them, but like I say I had some real frustration with the way you guys operate because it personally affected me. I didn’t say “I told you so” after the accident, but with enough time past now, I feel I have ever right to say my peace here.

This is not a debate for me, just a personal experience. I’m not in the airline biz or based in MDW anymore so I really don’t care how you operate your SW planes.
With all that said, I still think you guys in general operate a great airline. Your safety record is pretty damn impressive and I know you have some of the best sticks in the industry.
Good luck to all of us and stay safe out there.




"OK crazy, I also have alot of years flying out of MDW ( over 22 YRS ) and I am sure way more take off and landings as you."

"I will ask one more time. ( SO HOW IS THE VIEW UP THERE ? )"

Yes, the view is good, (over 21 years here) Thank you.
Crazy, out.

 

[GuppyWN]

Thanks for the straight up answer.

As you WELL know, Southwest pilots do not control runway flow at Midway. We've had lots and lots of guys divert because of winds and ATC really doesn't care - as long as ORD is landing into the wind. A bunch of diverts is not going to get you a headwind 100% of the time in MDW.

1248 changed the way most of us look at data mainly because we didn't know a few things about what we were seeing. The onboard results now are very conservative. If it shows me legal to land - I will land.

Gup

 

[waka]

Knowing how foreign "investigators" tend to come up with stuff, I'll wait to pas judgment when the NTSB official report comes out. Remember the Brazilian "investigation" on the Gol/Legacy midair?

Disclaimer: I am not attempting to sugarcoat anything - if those guys indeed screwed up and landed long with a tailwind, that's where the blame will fall.

Last I checked, Brazil and Jamaica are completely separate countries. Can you cite any cases in which Jamaican accident investigators demonstrated that they are somehow less competent than NTSB investigators? Do you have something better than "well, they're foreign"?

I put more trust in preliminary accident reports by foreigners than I would put in some speculator posting a pilot forum.

 

[saltyworks]

Costanza, who did you fly metro and 99 for?

 

[waveflyer]

Most accidents at the majors happen when the PIC is flying.

Probably because a lot of airlines require the captain to land if conditions are not ideal. Making approaches close to minimums or winds beyond a certain limit or special airports make it the captains landing.

which is a really dumb policy based on ego

 

[bubbers44]

How could it be ego if SOP's require it? Just heard the first 2800 ft at Kingston was natamed closed on Dec 22. Anybody know how to check past notams?

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

How could it be ego if SOP's require it?

For a more extreme example that still proves the point:

How could forcing riders to the back of the bus be racism, if laws require it?

Just heard the first 2800 ft at Kingston was natamed closed on Dec 22. Anybody know how to check past notams?

That's very interesting. Where did you hear that?

 

[bubbers44]

I found that on the 25th R30 was displaced making 2440 meters, 8000 ft available because of the 737 obstacle. Probably what got somebody confused.

 

[humveedriver]

which is a really dumb policy based on ego

I respectfully disagree. Each operator defines when the CA/PIC must perform the TO and Landing, and includes the caveat at the PIC's discretion. If you think it has more to do with ego, as opposed to liability, I encourage you to take another look at your position on the matter. Put simply; Something goes wrong under questionable conditions, FO flying, thats one more decision to explain to NTSB/FAA. At this stage of the game we all know how to fly airplanes, and we should know how the game is played.

 

[Captain X]

If it shows me legal to land - I will land.

Even if your gut or prior experience put the safety of doing such in doubt?

Legal does not always necessarily equal safe.

This is the exact "group think" mentality some posters are trying to get at.

We've all seen aircraft after aircraft land long or hot when a field is running approaches with a tailwind. At my domicile it takes 3 go-arounds, or crews not accepting the tailwind before they flip the field. The majority of pilots don't do it because it is "inconvenient." You think the crews don't control the flow, but in reality we really do.

We've also all seen company or OAL aircraft depart into nasty weather or after reported windshear alerts because waiting was "inconvenient."

We've all seen the time-lapse videos of DFW or MEM arrivals and how crews continually try to "beat" weather to the point where they eventually put themselves in a position of penetrating a cell in close proximity to the ground that they would normally avoid by 10-20 miles enroute. Just because the Lear went through the rainshower on short ahead of us doesn't necessarily mean we'll make it through with our L-1011.

Ultimately, it comes down to the PIC of the aircraft to determine what is safe and how the operation is carried out. And it comes down to the SIC to keep the PIC honest.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Even if your gut or prior experience put the safety of doing such in doubt?

Legal does not always necessarily equal safe.

This is the exact "group think" mentality some posters are trying to get at.

One should always trust their gut feelings. They're more refined than our own rational ability to reason and see something we don't necessarily see consciously.

Our internal instincts kept us alive for far longer than our cognitive abilities of reasoning have, which are often faulty and suspect due to contamination or misinterpretation of stimuli or information. Quite often your mind "lies" (for lack of a better word) to you. Deceives you. This is what lies behind mistakes such as those which manifest themselves from say, fatigue. Yes, your mind plays tricks on you.

Our perceptions are much more limited in this sense. We only know what we've retrived and processed mentally. Outside of this realm of thought lies much extraneous information which is going unprocessed due to the inherent limitations of our consicous mind. The short-term memory has a finite ability or capacity to hold information and must choose between what gets presented and what is left out. Think of it as a Powerpoint-like widdling down of data. We can't register all the available information and process it rationally fast enough or with enough integrity when compared to the internal instincts at hand.

 

[bubbers44]

I never landed because I thought I was better than the FO but if SOP says you have to do it, you do it. You aren't doing the FO any favors by letting he or she do landings when he or she isn't allowed to, you just put both of you in jeopardy for not following SOP. I was almost ready to let my favorite pilot land at our most difficult airport because he had a house there and had landed there more than me when one of our guys flew through a fence too low and both pilots got in a lot of trouble. It isn't worth it to help the FO's ego. You also put him or her in jeopardy.

 

[Microclimates]

I never landed because I thought I was better than the FO but if SOP says you have to do it, you do it. You aren't doing the FO any favors by letting he or she do landings when he or she isn't allowed to, you just put both of you in jeopardy for not following SOP. I was almost ready to let my favorite pilot land at our most difficult airport because he had a house there and had landed there more than me when one of our guys flew through a fence too low and both pilots got in a lot of trouble. It isn't worth it to help the FO's ego. You also put him or her in jeopardy.

As an FO I completely agree... I can see how it can be a bit awkward for a captain who trusts (thank god) the FO they are flying with to take over the controls when conditions are beyond the SOP limitations for SICs, but it truly is no favor to anybody in that flight deck to violate SOP for what-- crosswind ego? considering the burger king wages involved from my perspective, it's hardly worth risking the job to show that 'i can handle it' which i know i can...

 

[bubbers44]

I know you can too. But if anything goes wrong the voice recorder will know who landed. Now both of you are in trouble if the captain was the only one allowed to land. Why risk it.