NTSB info on SWA at LGA crash

[Full of LUV]

Well, from what I have gleaned here...

1) The Captain really knew how to bid. I've been told many times on this forum you make staggering sums over there, yet only had to fly 2600 hrs in six years to do it. Pretty awesome
2) The Captain was a she, or possible a he-she, but not a he
3) He/she was high avoidance, 2nd highest in the base? wow He/she must have been really fugly, or smelly, or not a good pilot/overbearing/disliked unicorns
4) The approach was stable, on speed/profile till 400 ft when he/she took over, and things went to hell.

As far as LGA approaches go, it does not get any easier than a straight-in to RNWY 4. I imagine he/she's gonna have some splainin to do.

Maybe she actually likes kittens, therefor not a perfect fit at SWA.....

 

[av8tordude23]

Rumor is that the FO wanted to go around and the Captain did not. Last time I checked your supposed to be stabilized by 1000'agl not 400'. Also heard the final flap setting was 58 seconds prior to impact. If true, that alone would would fit the definition of unstabilized.

Take caution with rumors you spread. If true, it would be considered Gross Negligence on both pilots. Considering if there was a loss of life, it would be considered Criminal Negligence.

 

[funnyman12]

My source is a very good source, but ya never know.

 

[Ty Webb]

Take caution with rumors you spread. If true, it would be considered Gross Negligence on both pilots. Considering if there was a loss of life, it would be considered Criminal Negligence.

Oh boy . . . Gotta love the Crew Room Lawyers.

I don't know about SWA's requirements, but at AAI, up until a few years ago, we were only required to be stabilized by 500' AGL.

58 seconds, at a ref of 130KIAS and a 10 knot headwind would be around 600' ft AGL. Hardly gross negligence or a mandatory go-around.

Criminal Negligence? Get over yourself. :laugh:

 

[av8tordude23]

Oh boy . . . Gotta love the Crew Room Lawyers.

I don't know about SWA's requirements, but at AAI, up until a few years ago, we were only required to be stabilized by 500' AGL.

58 seconds, at a ref of 130KIAS and a 10 knot headwind would be around 600' ft AGL. Hardly gross negligence or a mandatory go-around.

Criminal Negligence? Get over yourself. :laugh:

Well...this accident was not a AAI flight, but in fact a SWA flight! That being said, I only suggested that one should not spread rumors until its proven to be factual.

As for Criminal Negligence...Many countries have brought criminal charges against pilots for negligent conduct. Although rare in the US, don't pretend that it can't or won't happen...

A perfect example...

http://www.northwesternda.org/news/...hter-charge-new-year’s-day-plane-crash-orange

 

[Flyer1015]

Has the NTSB tweeted anything on this one?

 

[lowtimedriver]

Sometimes $hit just happens.

 

[nordo_2]

My guess is when the final report comes out, there might be at least some mention of he/she's personnel record. Can't wait to read this one: i.e., long list of FOs who refused to fly with he/she.

 

[humveedriver]

My guess is when the final report comes out, there might be at least some mention of he/she's personnel record. Can't wait to read this one: i.e., long list of FOs who refused to fly with he/she.

Yeah. If that's true, I don't see how it's going to help. While an avoidance bid makes perfect sense to us, the travelling public may not be so understanding, when everyone has a certain someone on their list. Sorta begs either remedial training, a transfer to a desk job or an invitation to work somewhere else.

 

[j41driver]

I don't know about SWA's requirements, but at AAI, up until a few years ago, we were only required to be stabilized by 500' AGL.

I was hired about 8 yrs ago and it was 1000' then...

 

[General Lee]

See, there is the problem RIGHT THERE. Where was the "Wind Check" call? Crews should ask every 300 feet to be safe! We all know that...


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[cl65capt]

General, of your 18,000 plus posts that may well be the funniest. Well played!

 

[Ty Webb]

I was hired about 8 yrs ago and it was 1000' then...

It was 1000' IMC, 500' on a visual when I checked out on the 737 in late 2004. I thought it changed around 2007. Perhaps it was earlier.

Regardless of when it changed, 600' may be sloppy, but it's hardly a criminal act. Hell, for a while, ATC in ATL was telling us to maintain 200KIAS to the marker on Rwy 28, which is 1674' AGL. Even Chuck Norris would have a hard time being stabilized and spooled up" by 1000'.

Sporty, yes. Criminal, no.

 

[atldc9]

I was hired about 8 yrs ago and it was 1000' then...

It was 1000' since before 2000. In 2008, there was talk of changing to 500' on visual approaches, but flt op's squashed it.

 

[DCAA320]

Yes, God forbid anyone trashes a SWA pilot like they did with the Asiana crash.

Dude, don't you know, SWA has the best (safest) pilots in the world.

 

[ron burgundy]

Rumor is that the FO wanted to go around and the Captain did not. Last time I checked your supposed to be stabilized by 1000'agl not 400'. Also heard the final flap setting was 58 seconds prior to impact. If true, that alone would would fit the definition of unstabilized.

True.. as far the stabilized approach aspect...however, if you can't adapt to a (in all reality) a minor config. change 1 min. prior to touchdown..you might be operating on a very thin margin of error to begin with. Assuming,everything else remains unchanged from the marker inbound all the way down to the runway. Who knows. Stuff happens at the most inopportune times.

 

[wood pecker]

Isn't an avoidance list a liability waiting to happen?

 

[slaquer5]

Isn't an avoidance list a liability waiting to happen?

No

SWA is not the only airline that has it . Most have it . I know DAL has it .

 

[flyboyike]

See, there is the problem RIGHT THERE. Where was the "Wind Check" call? Crews should ask every 300 feet to be safe! We all know that...


Bye Bye---General Lee

Classic!

 

[wood pecker]

So if something happened much worse and the word got out nobody wanted to work with that person, I would bet an ambulance chaser would pursue that avenue. Maybe I am wrong.