NTSB info on SWA at LGA crash

[waveflyer]

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

Feel free nasty-
I'll just respond a lot later

(Ie: what bubba said

 

[av8tordude23]

Here's a question that no one is asking....

At some point on the approach before 400ft, the Captain may have had some concerns as to the quality of the approach, but instead of taking control at 400ft, why not just announce "GO AROUND"? This simple command, which is written in every SOP at every airline, forces the PF to execute a go around without questions!

 

[ProFracPilot]

Here's a question that no one is asking....

At some point on the approach before 400ft, the Captain may have had some concerns as to the quality of the approach, but instead of taking control at 400ft, why not just announce "GO AROUND"? This simple command, which is written in every SOP at every airline, forces the PF to execute a go around without questions!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is THE question begging an answer. Unless the airplane is on fire or a glider, one wonders why either pilot would attempt to salvage an unstabilized approach at 400'.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is THE question begging an answer. Unless the airplane is on fire or a glider, one wonders why either pilot would attempt to salvage an unstabilized approach at 400'.

Read the facts! The airplane held for 15 minutes! Was it planned? Was the WX expected? Was the thought of fuel levels an issue? Don't speculate till we have all the facts! Leave this to the professionals to investigate!!! This can happen to any one of us...

 

[johnsonrod]

NTSB info on SWA at LGA crash

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130806.html

That is JetBlue crazy!!!!

When can we hear the tapes?

 

[ackattacker]

Capt takes the aircraft at 400' AGL? Hmmmmm.

At my airline, SOP is that a go around is mandatory if a transfer of control is required below 500' except in cases of pilot incapacitation. Not sure what SWA policy is.

 

[av8tordude23]

Read the facts! The airplane held for 15 minutes! Was it planned? Was the WX expected? Was the thought of fuel levels an issue? Don't speculate till we have all the facts! Leave this to the professionals to investigate!!! This can happen to any one of us...

WX was not a factor in this accident (the many videos proves this). And even if it was the case (such as wind shear), why not execute a Go-Around? Why take control of the aircraft at 400ft? 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.

What is a fact here is procedures were not followed to prevent this accident. All airline procedures, in their own language, dictate that for any reason a safe landing becomes questionable, a Go-Around MUST be executed. At 400ft, facts indicates that the Captain assume control of the aircraft approx 400ft from touch down. His action clearly points to the fact a safe landing became questionable!

Don't make excuses for bad decisions!

 

[CRJ puppy]

WX was not a factor in this accident (the many videos proves this). And even if it was the case (such as wind shear), why not execute a Go-Around? Why take control of the aircraft at 400ft? 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.

What is a fact here is procedures were not followed to prevent this accident. All airline procedures, in their own language, dictate that for any reason a safe landing becomes questionable, a Go-Around MUST be executed. At 400ft, facts indicates that the Captain assume control of the aircraft approx 400ft from touch down. His action clearly points to the fact a safe landing became questionable!

Don't make excuses for bad decisions!

Guys. Reread the NTSB summary linked in the OP's post. It CLEARLY states that the incident aircraft was ON SPEED, ON COURSE and ON GLIDESLOPE UNTIL 200-400'. So obviously STABILZED. Therefore, if the capt took control at 400' then it sure sounds like HE destabilized and trashed the appch, not the FO!

So then the question becomes, why did the capt take control of a perfectly stabilized appch at 400'?!?!?!

 

[av8tordude23]

Guys. Reread the NTSB summary linked in the OP's post. It CLEARLY states that the incident aircraft was ON SPEED, ON COURSE and ON GLIDESLOPE UNTIL 200-400'. So obviously STABILZED. Therefore, if the capt took control at 400' then it sure sounds like HE destabilized and trashed the appch, not the FO!

So then the question becomes, why did the capt take control of a perfectly stabilized appch at 400'?!?!?!

Hmmmm....If one has to take control of an aircraft for any reason at such a low altitude, would it not be prudently safe to decide a Go-Around would be the safe and best course of action in preventing and avoiding an accident? Previous aviation accidents all show cases where accidents in the landing phase could have been avoided if the pilot just simply execute a Go-Around. Just saying...

 

[Golden Falcon]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is THE question begging an answer. Unless the airplane is on fire or a glider, one wonders why either pilot would attempt to salvage an unstabilized approach at 400'.

perhaps an encounter with severe wx in the missed approach path