NTSB info on SWA at LGA crash

[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

 

[av8tordude23]

perhaps an encounter with severe wx in the missed approach path

C'mon....Seriously?!?!?!?!

Severe weather that close to the airport MANDATES the decision not to even land at the airport let alone attempt an approach! Remember DL 191 landing at DFW?

 

[HalinTexas]

If the captain was nervous about this airport, he must really hate MDW and the River Vis in DCA.

Anyone know when the A/P was disconnected?

 

[ragman]

Based on a reported 11 kt tailwind below 1000' and a 11 knot headwind on the runway, the aircraft would have experienced a significant increase in ias and would go high on glide path at the point where wind shift occurred if it was a shear rather than a gradual change. If that's what happened, "go-around" rather than "I've got it" would have been the correct call. We'll see what the NTSB comes up with.

 

[Golden Falcon]

C'mon....Seriously?!?!?!?!

Severe weather that close to the airport MANDATES the decision not to even land at the airport let alone attempt an approach! Remember DL 191 landing at DFW?

i remember 191 I had departed earlier in the day, they encountered weather on final, mandates and realistically are two different animals.... more details will emerge

 

[Capn Butthead]

All I've got to say is tops at something....avoidance bid. I think we've got to wait and see what her rationale was taking a plane at 400 feet that was stabilized and on speed. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB has to say about her actions or what actually was said and done.

 

[av8tordude23]

All I've got to say is tops at something....avoidance bid. I think we've got to wait and see what her rationale was taking a plane at 400 feet that was stabilized and on speed. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB has to say about her actions or what actually was said and done.

I don't think it wasn't necessary to point out the sex of the Captain. Its irrelevant!! Eventually some idiot will start making male chauvinistic comments. What should be relevant discussion are the decisions and actions the crew took as a cohesive unit. We can all learn from other pilots mistakes therefore keeping us, our families, and the people who entrust their lives in us safe!

 

[Juniority]

All I've got to say is tops at something....avoidance bid. I think we've got to wait and see what her rationale was taking a plane at 400 feet that was stabilized and on speed. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB has to say about her actions or what actually was said and done.

The NTSB report says that the winds went from a 10 knot tail to a 10 knot headwind during the approach. If for some reason you aren't situationally aware of the effect that this would have on the aircraft it might seem that your FO keeps "getting fast" or even "getting fast and high on glideslope".

I think there's a good chance that she was actually given the aircraft control rather than the case being that she took control of it.

If she (the capt) was riding the controls excessively in her role as the pilot monitoring the situation may have progressed to the point where the pilot flying (the FO) could no longer determine what were his inputs vs. her inputs vs. the weather or wake turb. He may have "opted out" of the situation by handing the whole thing over to her.

 

[jonjuan]

Maybe the FO was a Kernal and thought he was still in the f-14 and tried pulling the ejection handle and nothing happened.

 

[Capn Butthead]

Not my intent to point out if its a male or female. I've flown with more than my fair share of dudes who were bad. As a FO I question her taking the control at 400ft...If you don't like it then go around. Being a member of the avoidance group though should give you insights on the type of person you're dealing with. And are there FOs that are the same way? Sure....and according to the NTSB the aircraft was on Path and on Speed until just above the numbers (when the captain took control).

 

[pianoman]

Can some explain "being a member of the avoidance group"? Is it a formal thing or just someone a lot of folks bid around?