NTSB info on SWA at LGA crash

[PBRstreetgang]

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

Won't save you from landing on a taxiway......

 

[Holy Shiite]

Serious lack of airmanship here. Landing on the nosegear means they were probably way over ref speed. If not then it was a controlled crash into the ground with no flare.

CVR will be very telling in this case. Sure sounds like this captain was widely hated and she has very poor flying skills. Thank God nobody was killed. HS

 

[Britpilot]

Won't save you from landing on a taxiway......

Well played.:beer:

 

[Whine Lover]

"As for your low fuel level theory, although I unequivocally disagree, it still does not explain the necessity for the Captain to assume control of the aircraft at 400ft instead of making the command decision to call for a Go-Around. "

Really? Always?

That would be a cool to watch....Let's say you're down to 2800 lbs in a 737 and not "stabilized" for whatever reason... you're going around?

Okay...." News at 11 "



YKW

 

[av8tordude23]

"As for your low fuel level theory, although I unequivocally disagree, it still does not explain the necessity for the Captain to assume control of the aircraft at 400ft instead of making the command decision to call for a Go-Around. "

Really? Always?

That would be a cool to watch....Let's say you're down to 2800 lbs in a 737 and not "stabilized" for whatever reason... you're going around?

Okay...." News at 11 "



YKW

If, as a Captain, you manage to fly an aircraft to a critical low fuel state situation and you opted to continue to your destination instead of diverting to an alternate, then some serious questions needs to be raised about your Captain leadership ability! Under IFR, you must have enough fuel to fly to your destination (and alternate if applicable), PLUS 45 minutes. If you have not seriously considered diverting once you reach 45 mins fuel remaining situation, then it clearly speaks volumes of your decisions making skills or lack there of.

Secondly, in this SWA accident, the Captain never reported Min Fuel or Critical Fuel (which the latter would trigger an automatic emergency ATC handling).

Thirdly, if this was a low fuel situation as you described it (which facts do not support your theory), why take the controls at such a low altitude? Evidently the FO managed to fly and stabilized the aircraft, with precision and pose, all the way down to the point the Captain took controls of the aircraft. Therefore there is absolutely no sound justification for the Captain to assume control of the aircraft!

 

[waveflyer]

That's a lot of EXCLAMATION points!!!!!



Very sound argument against a hypothetical-
Final findings will give everyone plenty of chances to dissect everything in context- until then- again- knock yourself out, but you're mostly pissing in the wind

 

[Whine Lover]

If, as a Captain, you manage to fly an aircraft to a critical low fuel state situation and you opted to continue to your destination instead of diverting to an alternate, then some serious questions needs to be raised about your Captain leadership ability! Under IFR, you must have enough fuel to fly to your destination (and alternate if applicable), PLUS 45 minutes. If you have not seriously considered diverting once you reach 45 mins fuel remaining situation, then it clearly speaks volumes of your decisions making skills or lack there of.

Secondly, in this SWA accident, the Captain never reported Min Fuel or Critical Fuel (which the latter would trigger an automatic emergency ATC handling).

Thirdly, if this was a low fuel situation as you described it (which facts do not support your theory), why take the controls at such a low altitude? Evidently the FO managed to fly and stabilized the aircraft, with precision and pose, all the way down to the point the Captain took controls of the aircraft. Therefore there is absolutely no sound justification for the Captain to assume control of the aircraft!

Wow. Slow down Cowboy...

( The above proves here, once again, Pilots are functionally Illiterate...)

Your diatribe is another unnecessary overkill to a perceived threat to your supposed intelligence... I never came up with any "Theory" .

YOU stated the Absolute...."We Go-Around when the Manual/GOM/ Procedures "Call for IT"."

Sometimes things ain't like Grandma wanted 'em...Capiche?

Sometimes, a little "Common Sense" would be good too. Eh?

There are Reading Comprehension Courses online...available to anyone, no matter what their means.

Although, Common Sense, really can't be taught.



Have a Good Life....And Good LUCK.

YKW

 

[dollacrackho]

Do you think the FO is going to put Misty Buttons on his avoid list after this?

 

[ackattacker]

Just curious if you guys do Cat II approaches and how you handle them.

Yes, Cat II and III Autoland. Captain is always PF for those.

Same rules apply. In case of pilot incapacitation, the safest course is to continue the autoland and this is specifically allowed.

Any other reasons I can imagine for transfer of control (to the FO!) below 500' would require a go-around.

 

[av8tordude23]

YOU stated the Absolute...."We Go-Around when the Manual/GOM/ Procedures "Call for IT"."

Hmmm...I think I said that?!?

All airline procedures, in their own language, dictate that for any reason a safe landing becomes questionable, a Go-Around MUST be executed

So if a landing becomes unsafe, will still attempt a landing?

( The above proves here, once again, Pilots are functionally Illiterate...)

There are Reading Comprehension Courses online...available to anyone, no matter what their means.

Although, Common Sense, really can't be taught.
[/QUOTE

I guess you must be speaking from personal experience?


Have a Good Life....And Good LUCK.

 

[Ty Webb]

Most pilots eventually recognize that the weakest sticks are usually the ones that harp on the obvious and/or the minutiae.

 

[Tripower455]

Most pilots eventually recognize that the weakest sticks are usually the ones that harp on the obvious and/or the minutiae.

Exactly.... And often they end up in a management position, where they can foist their "techniques" on the rest of us as procedure.

 

[scoreboardII]

Heh, you said foist.

 

[redflyer65]

Most pilots eventually recognize that the weakest sticks are usually the ones that harp on the obvious and/or the minutiae.

Spot on Ty.

 

[madjack]

Be interesting to see if Gary pays her to go away (as was Herb 's solution in the past for chronic weak/problem pilots)

 

[Grandpa +65]

A similar accident happened at the Gibraltar International Airport. On 22 May 2002, a Monarch Boeing 757-200 (Registration G-MONC) suffered structural damage to the forward fuselage in the area of the nose landing gear during landing at Gibraltar while operating a flight from Luton. The captain had used an incorrect landing technique, applying full nose-down elevator. This control input resulted in a high pitch-down rate at nose-wheel touchdown, exceeding the design limits, before the aircraft's nose-wheel had touched the ground. There were no injuries

 

[waveflyer]

Most pilots eventually recognize that the weakest sticks are usually the ones that harp on the obvious and/or the minutiae.

Exactly- same ones are the control freaks

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Where's the best pilot?

If you have a 1-5 scale on Stick and Rudder and 1-5 scale on SOP, where is the best spot?

1 on SOP and 5 on stick and rudder? I flew with a bunch of guys like that in Alaska. Fun, but uncomfortable sometimes.

I flew in Asia with a bunch of guys who would be 1 on Stick and Rudder and 5 on SOP, not fun.

I'd rather work with a decent stick who tries to follow SOPs. Not greaser on every landing, and can't quote page by page from the manuals, but knows the big stuff.

Don't set up a false dichotomy in thinking that we can't try to be good at both.

 

[fletch717]

The best pilot is the one with the big watch.....right Ty?

 

[jonjuan]

Testing 1. 2. 3. 4. ......