SWA LGA Captain Fired

[FLYLOW22]

I disagree, it really is a pilot problem. Pilots need to make complaints to professional standards if there is a question of safety of flight. The problem with high avoidance bid captains is often a personality problem. I really don't want management anywhere near correcting personality deficiencies because it is at best a very subjective matter.

If pro standards receives enough complaints about a pilot deviating from company procedures or FAR's then there should be a process set in place to correct those deficiencies or THEN recommend disciplinary action.

I have flown with several pilots way up the avoidance bid list (I have never used avoidance feature when bidding) in many cases I found them to be just fine individuals to fly with. They may not be the most brilliant conversationalists or in some cases display a less than optimal attitude or demeanor but in my experience their flying skills are not what has placed them near the pinnacle of the avoidance bid list.

Professional standards won't touch pilot ability and skill... Unprofessional behavior, yes.

 

[scoreboardII]

As sucky as the 709 ride is for the FO, the company is not going to put him into a sim unless they think he WILL pass. Imagine what happens to the company training program if he fails?

 

[Golden Falcon]

Chicago and Burbank were accidents......this was willful disregard of procedures.....a conscious choice.

I shouldn't speculate though until the investigation is complete. Did the FAA revoke her license or give a 709 ride? Good question which may leave her high and dry for the company having no choice.

Burbank?? hmmm think that was a highly unstable approach as well wasn't it?

 

[737tanker]

Was the captain from the Burbank overrun fired?

He was, however SWAPA got his job back with the provision that he immediately turn in a letter of resignation. I guess it somehow looks better to say "I quit" instead of saying "I was fired".

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Burbank?? hmmm think that was a highly unstable approach as well wasn't it?

Yes, but SWA's stabilized approach definitions were pretty vague and didn't give explicit instructions when to go around. "Idle thrust" was considered "spooled."

 

[Golden Falcon]

Yes, but SWA's stabilized approach definitions were pretty vague and didn't give explicit instructions when to go around. "Idle thrust" was considered "spooled."

descent angle was calculate at 6deg wasn't the speed over the threshold quite high as well??.touched down 183kts..One shouldn't need a book to tell them when an approach should be thrown away..

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

wasn't the speed over the threshold quite high as well??...One shouldn't need a book to tell them when an approach should be thrown away..

182kts at touchdown. Flaps went to 40 during the rollout.

Continuation bias, high workload, desensitization to unstablized approaches with previous successful outcomes. . .

That's why you do need a book. You can't evaluate as well when you're under pressure, but you can quickly identify 10kts or Flaps 40 or 1000fpm. It's green or red, and with conservative numbers you'll make the runway.

 

[MINIME]

A person with bullying syndrome or micromanagement syndrome; at best, becomes a huge distraction, at worst, can help cause serious mistakes. These people do not belong in a cockpit.

It is essentially what is wrong with other cultures in the cockpit. The CA is not a leader, he/she is a dictator. I'm not trying to give FOs a free pass, personalities exist on both seats.

Bottom line, if a person cannot leave their personal problems, attitude, or biases at the door, they don't belong in a safety/stress filled cockpit.

If the assumptions about this particular CA are accurate, then I feel for the FO. His/her career is staring them on the face, presumably because of the short comings of others. "Others," because the system failed them. Pilots that can't work well with others should be helped, or dealt with at the earliest signs. It should not be our job to have to stand up to a person that has personality problems. Doing so only serves to put your airplane in a dangerous zone while the two of you are chicken fighting.

I say these types need to be given a "code red." See how many of you know what that is...

 

[nordo_2]

Professional standards won't touch pilot ability and skill... Unprofessional behavior, yes.

Pro-standards is a joke for either pilot skill or unprofessional behavior. Pro standards will not annotate any derogatory information on any pilot. No pilot union will bare witness against a pilot it represents.

The offending pilot may be politely approached and asked to cease and desist. If the pilot gaffe's it off. That's it, the pro standards intervention ends there.

Pro standards is like CRM training. Pilots that utilize good CRM don't need it, and pilots that need it won't use it.

 

[THEPRFCT10]

Yes, but SWA's stabilized approach definitions were pretty vague and didn't give explicit instructions when to go around. "Idle thrust" was considered "spooled."

Uh, not quite. SWA stabilized approach criteria: @1000': 1. Final landing configuration 2. Target speed range of +- 10 & 3. Appropriate decent path.... However, just found out that the criteria is changing.... again!

 

[rudder]

Uh, not quite. SWA stabilized approach criteria: @1000': 1. Final landing configuration 2. Target speed range of +- 10 & 3. Appropriate decent path.... However, just found out that the criteria is changing.... again!

Having a standard does not mean anything unless it is being adhered to. Any company with a clearly defined stable approach imperative should have a significant number of go-around reports based on circumstantial inability to fully meet the criteria. And that is a sign that the standard is being adhered to. No jeopardy - full compliance.

 

[vixin]

Uh, not quite. SWA stabilized approach criteria: @1000': 1. Final landing configuration 2. Target speed range of +- 10 & 3. Appropriate decent path.... However, just found out that the criteria is changing.... again!
__________________

I think they were talking about back when the BUR incident happened not LGA. I am glad to see we have so many airlines that have done everything right and perfect. Who do you guys fly for? Shall we dredge up your companies hard times?

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I think they were talking about back when the BUR incident happened not LGA. I am glad to see we have so many airlines that have done everything right and perfect. Who do you guys fly for? Shall we dredge up your companies hard times?

We should "dredge up" every mistake. Not in a malicious manner, but so we don't fall for the same tricks weather or ATC or gremlins throw at us.

 

[vixin]

Agree with that, probably not on a public forum though.

 

[Tripower455]

I think they were talking about back when the BUR incident happened not LGA.

FWIW, It was spooled and stabilized by 500' or go around at the time of the Burbank deal. They weren't even close.

 

[tankerhead]

FWIW, It was spooled and stabilized by 500' or go around at the time of the Burbank deal. They weren't even close.

Probably had enough energy at 500' to crank out an idle-power 360.

 

[Tripower455]

Probably had enough energy at 500' to crank out an idle-power 360.

Definitely!

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

FWIW, It was spooled and stabilized by 500' or go around at the time of the Burbank deal. They weren't even close.

I only have excerpts, but from what I'm reading, it was "should be stabilized" and High Idle was considered "spooled."

Was there a "or go around"?

"IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE 'SLOT' YOU ARE NOT PREPARED FOR A NORMAL LANDING."

No order to go around there, either.

The ICAO definitions are pretty strict and clear.

An approach that becomes unstabilized below 1,000 ft above ​

airport elevation in IMC or below 500 ft above airport elevation​

in VMC requires an immediate go-around

 

[waveflyer]

I say these types need to be given a "code red." See how many of you know what that is...

In what form would this code red look like?

You know since we aren't in barracks

I like the idea, just got to flesh this thing out

 

[Tripower455]

I only have excerpts, but from what I'm reading, it was "should be stabilized" and High Idle was considered "spooled."

Was there a "or go around"?

"IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE 'SLOT' YOU ARE NOT PREPARED FOR A NORMAL LANDING."

No order to go around there, either.

The ICAO definitions are pretty strict and clear.

Not sure what you're asking, but from the time I got hired in the mid '90's until it changed after BUR, the book said stabilized and spooled at 500' or go around. No gray area that I can remember.

Not that anything written in the book would've made a difference in the BUR deal, since there were, IIRC, 15 procedural errors made before impact.