Southwest Accident May Be Indicative of Carrier-Specific Problem

[TAZ MAN]

I was speaking out of my, er...digestive track here...edited for flamebating.

What are you trying to accomplish here??

 

[Dennis Miller]

matt1.1
Join Date: Dec 10, 2005

These clowns need to be cast aside. UAL78, Eagleflip, please get rid of the "come latelys". You have no experience flying an airplane, so why post here? How do I know? I've read your posts, all 6 of them and it shows.

 

[Spooky 1]

.

Well maybe I am getting a different slant on your expertise. Maybe you are actually a SWA pilot since you seem to know so much about how they operate. Come on, please give us a hint Are you SWA, DAL, Alaska, or AA. You seem to know so much................maybe you are the SWA POI. One thing for sure, you sir are a complete Dick Head.

 

[jball2]

Matt1.1- You have no tact, no credibility, and no clue as to how SWA teaches, and NO CLASS! You are offensive and need to leave. Moderator- penalty box please!

 

[sf260pilot]

Boeingman, I suggest you read the accident investigation before misrepresenting the facts about young pilots. That accident involved two GE engines that failed to restart and a QRH that did not provide the necessary airspeed guidance for a successful restart. Nice try, old timer but again your MEMORY has failed or you are just distorting the facts and talking out your a$$.

I suggest you take a look at that investigation to see if the aircraft could even climb that high given the conditions..i.e. ISA. And again SPORT! After a more experienced aviator flamed both engines, I believe that they would have immediately declared an emergency, not have worried about their jobs at that moment and lie to ATC. They didn't say anything about dual flame-out from FL410 until it was too late for any help from ATC.

 

[WOXOF]

I suspect that Matt 1.1 was turned down by Southwest Airlines.

 

[regionaltard]

...I've always liked a slight duck under at 500 feet (fighter tech on ILS to land 500 down) when VMC....

Why would you pass up an opportunity to practice, in good weather, the technique you'll use to handle the tough chances?

 

[SWA/FO]

Matt 1.1 = LOSER. I would like to use my favorite word, but then I would get in trouble again..:angryfire

 

[ScoobyDoo]

I have some trouble with the available landing distance on a snow covered runway. It looked like 4780 feet, or something close to that number, available for landing with the glideslope. Can some of you 737 guys shed some light as to whether that is enough distance on a contaminated runway?

 

[Mach 80]

Scooby,

You ask too general a question. Of course that CAN be long enough, but the final answer depends on the wind, weight of the aircraft, runway slope, temperature, pressure altitude, and braking action of the runway.

No airline just "wings it" or takes a WAG onto a runway like that or any other runway for that matter. The data is all put in a computer or chase charts for a final answer. If an airliner attempts to land on a runway, you can rest assured something told them they could. The important thing is that accurate information is entered into the equation.

 

[SWA/FO]

If an airliner attempts to land on a runway, you can rest assured something told them they could. The important thing is that accurate information is entered into the equation.

This might be the best post in this thread.

 

[Guitar rocker]

What do y'all think of this:

Flew into Huntington one night with a very young 727 FDX captain. Short runway, bad wx. very low vis. He flat out told me, "okay, bra, I'm gonna fly this ILS one dot low the whole way down. It'll put us exactly where I wanna be on the runway." Sounded good to me. The dude flew a great approach exactly like he said he was gonna fly it, and we landed about 1000' feet down and stopped in plenty o' time. I liked it, since most military pilots like to land in the first 500' anyway. How do my civvie bros feel about something like the approach above? Just curious.

Magnum...you REALLY have to ask this? Are you kidding? Let me ask YOU a simple question. Lets say a Fed was giving you guys a route check, would you have let the captain fly it like he said or would you have spoken up?

 

[satpak77]

Magnum...you REALLY have to ask this? Are you kidding? Let me ask YOU a simple question. Lets say a Fed was giving you guys a route check, would you have let the captain fly it like he said or would you have spoken up?

if the Fed was onboard and it was hard IMC, and the crew purposely flew it like that, they all would be violated

In his post, his young Captain says "it will put me right where I want to be on the runway"

I suppose that Captain himself has flight-checked the "one-dot low" scenario into that particular airport, that runway, under those conditions. I wonder if the Captain knew for certain what terrain clearance his new technique provided.

I doubt Magnum flew it like that on his interview sim ride either....

(or maybe he did, we all just learned "the trick" to passing the FDX interview)

 

[Guitar rocker]

Boeingman, I suggest you read the accident investigation before misrepresenting the facts about young pilots. That accident involved two GE engines that failed to restart and a QRH that did not provide the necessary airspeed guidance for a successful restart. Nice try, old timer but again your MEMORY has failed or you are just distorting the facts and talking out your a$$.

.

Matt1.1, What actually got them to the point that required them to use the QRH for a dual engine flameout was the fact that they were too slow at that altitude for the given weight and the airflow was disrupted into the engines causing them to flameout. Instead of bagging on Boeing man, perhaps YOU need to have a little more respect for him and his experience and others like him, regardless of age. Dont you get it matt, we are all human and we all make mistakes. Mistakes dont just happen to older pilots as you seem to think. Step back into reality kid!

 

[Guitar rocker]

if the Fed was onboard and it was hard IMC, and the crew purposely flew it like that, they all would be violated

In his post, his young Captain says "it will put me right where I want to be on the runway"

I suppose that Captain himself has flight-checked the "one-dot low" scenario into that particular airport, that runway, under those conditions. I wonder if the Captain knew for certain what terrain clearance his new technique provided.

I doubt Magnum flew it like that on his interview sim ride either....

(or maybe he did, we all just learned "the trick" to passing the FDX interview)

Yup, they would have all gotten nailed.

 

[satpak77]

Yup, they would have all gotten nailed.

especially in todays age of CRM and "we are all in it together" etc etc

 

[mystere]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but performance numbers are not based on using thrust reversers, correct? It was my understanding that the reversers are an added bonus when stopping the aircraft.

 

[Mach 80]

Interesting, from another board:

Every aircraft that departs with Type IV on the wings loses that fluid when or shortly before they rotate, and usually at MDW with about 2,000-1,500 feet of runway remaining. The Type IV fluid is almost like a thin jelly with the idea that whatever precip you get on the fluid will come off with the fluid at rotation leaving you with a clean wing. This leaves the last ¼ to 1/3 of the runway with a bunch of slippery de-ice fluid on it. BTW, I'm not sure what happened to the SWA plane during the approach & landing phase, but there is no way that the fluid could have helped in the deceleration phase. Just food for thought guys, something to think about... I just hope the NTSB considers this, too...!!!

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

On the 700 the tr's are figured in to the performance numbers, the 300/500 they are not

 

[AKlimey]

So, If I fly an ILS one dot low does it take me to the one dot low antenna? Now I'm no engineer but I could have sworn the glide slope signals all came from all came from the same antenna...

But Magnum what do I know, as you pointed out before I only have three posts, so I must be an idiot.