Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Southwest Nose Gear Collapse LGA

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
THEPRFCT10 said:
What the heck is that supposed to mean? About this incident at least?!

★Sent from my Galaxy S4★
Click to expand...

It's all about the dangerous "Culture" and the belief that you can put
experienced AirTran Captains into the right seat and upgrade
relatively inexperienced first officers at the passengers, and safeties
expense.
 
I know I don't have all te facts but, they reported a "possible nose gear problem" and still landed on a 7000 ft runway surrounded by water!
 
Not according to ATC tapes just played on NBC NY, Fletch. Tower controller sent following plane around and was very excited, talking to crash crews. Didn't sound like a situation where they were expecting a nose gear problem reported from the crew.

But we are all just speculating. Glad nobody was seriously injured.
 
Last edited:
fletch717 said:
I know I don't have all te facts but, they reported a "possible nose gear problem" and still landed on a 7000 ft runway surrounded by water!
Click to expand...

OMG, 7000'. How can anyone land on ONLY 7000'. And anyone who has landed on runway 4 knows the waves crash right against the edge of the runway.
 
uncle bunky said:
OMG, 7000'. How can anyone land on ONLY 7000'. And anyone who has landed on runway 4 knows the waves crash right against the edge of the runway.
Click to expand...

Update at 6:15 p.m.: The FAA issued this statement: ?Southwest Airlines Flight 345, a Boeing 737 arriving at LaGuardia from Nashville, reported possible front landing gear issues before landing. The plane?s nosegear collapsed as the aircraft landed on Runway 4 at 5:45 p.m. EDT. The plane safely came to a stop and no injuries were reported. The FAA is investigating.?



FAA reports the crew reported possible nose gear problems before landing.
If I thought I had gear problems, I'd be looking for the longest runway I could find. Certainly not one that ends with a pier at the end that drops into the bay.
But that's just me.

Btw uncle bunk since you know so much what is the controllability and calculated stopping distance for a 737 with a collapsed nose gear?
 
Last edited:
fletch717 said:
FAA reports the crew reported possible nose gear problems before landing.
If I thought I had gear problems, I'd be looking for the longest runway I could find. Certainly not one that ends with a pier at the end that drops into the bay.
But that's just me.

Btw uncle bunk since you know so much what is the controllability and calculated stopping distance for a 737 with a collapsed nose gear?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess the stopping distance would be somewhat less than having actual rolling wheels on the front.

Good God, it's just only happened, no actual facts have been released, but still the chief SWA hater from AirTran has already whipped out his dick. Nice.

Bubba
 
SWA Bubba said:
Well, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess the stopping distance would be somewhat less than having actual rolling wheels on the front.

Good God, it's just only happened, no actual facts have been released, but still the chief SWA hater from AirTran has already whipped out his dick. Nice.

Bubba
Click to expand...

I didn't mention SWA bubba. it could have been a anybody. I'm just questioning the decision to land a LGA with EWR and SWF so close. Don't be so thin skinned.
 
fletch717 said:
Btw uncle bunk since you know so much what is the controllability and calculated stopping distance for a 737 with a collapsed nose gear?
Click to expand...

Stopping distance is negligible.

We all know they kept going into LGA to hinder DALs operation there. At least he Southwest pax got to their destination.
 
This should be good for at least 5000 posts and the haters are circling the tank already its going to be fun a fun two or three weeks until they get bored and forget what actually happened
 
kwick said:
It's all about the dangerous "Culture" and the belief that you can put
experienced AirTran Captains into the right seat and upgrade
relatively inexperienced first officers at the passengers, and safeties
expense.
Click to expand...

Inexperienced? The FO's that are upgrading right now have been at Southwest longer than the bottom 1/3 of the airtran captains.
 
FAA just retracted their previous statement. They now say the crew didn't report any gear problems prior to landing. Fletch, where is your Jump to Conclusions mat?
 
fletch717 said:
FAA reports the crew reported possible nose gear problems before landing.
If I thought I had gear problems, I'd be looking for the longest runway I could find. Certainly not one that ends with a pier at the end that drops into the bay.
But that's just me.

Btw uncle bunk since you know so much what is the controllability and calculated stopping distance for a 737 with a collapsed nose gear?
Click to expand...

Exact stopping distance; I have no idea, but certainly way less than 7000 feet as proven by this incident. As for controllability I assume you're refering to departing the runway laterally, in which case it is a little disingenuous to say the runway is "surrounded" by water.

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm just not a big fan of second guessing fellow pilots with this little information available. We pilots have enough a$$holes dying to point fingers at us.... the media, lawyers, management, etc. Remember those guys are on "your team" now. Cut them some slack, at least until all the info comes in.
 
Nobody needs to pile on this accident (amount of damage could make it one)......

Could have been anybody.
 
kwick said:
It's all about the dangerous "Culture" and the belief that you can put
experienced AirTran Captains into the right seat and upgrade
relatively inexperienced first officers at the passengers, and safeties
expense.
Click to expand...

Upgrade relatively inexperienced first officers?! My upgrade is going to be a twenty year upgrade!

★Sent from my Galaxy S4★
 
This does explain the irrational-exuberance of pinning the landing gear. ;)

Just kidding (obviously!). Glad no one was seriously injured. Y'all be careful out there.

Regards,
Ty
 
Last edited:
zippy32 said:
FAA just retracted their previous statement. They now say the crew didn't report any gear problems prior to landing. Fletch, where is your Jump to Conclusions mat?
Click to expand...

I was really wondering about that report. The 700 has two separate gear light indicators. As long as there is a green light on either of the systems you are supposed to be good to go. It seems there shouldn't be confusion about the status of the gear, if either system has a green light there shouldn't be a problem.

Thomas Bosco, Acting Director of Aviation for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said: "there was no advance warning of any possible problem before the landing."
 
kwick said:
It's all about the dangerous "Culture" and the belief that you can put
experienced AirTran Captains into the right seat and upgrade
relatively inexperienced first officers at the passengers, and safeties
expense.
Click to expand...

Yea right! lol. We don't have AT hiring practices or requirements. Just saying bud;)
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom