SWA LGA Captain Fired

[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.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

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.

If "idle" is considered spooled, how is that not gray? Is it 35% or 56%? Or About 62%?

And the quotes I have don't tell you to go around, they just say, "should" be stabilized. "Should" and "shall" are totally different in FAA land, and the point is that it isn't explicit.

My question is, did the book say "go around"? That might be what you would have done, but that doesn't mean it was in the book.

 

[Tripower455]

If "idle" is considered spooled, how is that not gray? Is it 35% or 56%? Or About 62%?

And the quotes I have don't tell you to go around, they just say, "should" be stabilized. "Should" and "shall" are totally different in FAA land, and the point is that it isn't explicit.

My question is, did the book say "go around"? That might be what you would have done, but that doesn't mean it was in the book.

The book said go around, but since they ignored 14 other procedures that were also in the book, the point is moot in this case.

I can't recall if it said should or shall. It's been well over a decade since we used that book and it really doesn't matter in the BUR case. An ATP shouldn't need the book to tell him when a go around is required, IMHO.

I can say without reservation is that in those days, we were given much more discretion and allowed to use our judgment more freely than we can now.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

The book said go around, but since they ignored 14 other procedures that were also in the book, the point is moot in this case.

I can't recall if it said should or shall. It's been well over a decade since we used that book and it really doesn't matter in the BUR case. An ATP shouldn't need the book to tell him when a go around is required, IMHO.

I can say without reservation is that in those days, we were given much more discretion and allowed to use our judgment more freely than we can now.

I'm pretty just regurgitating what I read in

http://www.amazon.com/The-Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Operations/dp/0754649644

It has a chapter on this accident and it tries to understand why they made the error. Good read. Get the paperback.

 

[Tripower455]

I'm pretty just regurgitating what I read in

http://www.amazon.com/The-Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Operations/dp/0754649644

It has a chapter on this accident and it tries to understand why they made the error. Good read. Get the paperback.

Thanks for the rec, I just ordered it. A used paperback...

 

[Kharma Police]

Thanks for the rec, I just ordered it. A used paperback...

Really?, Over $110.00 dollars for the hard cover edition? I think the author obviously doesn't understand, The Limits of the Cheapness of Pilots.

 

[Tripower455]

Really?, Over $110.00 dollars for the hard cover edition? I think the author obviously doesn't understand, The Limits of the Cheapness of Pilots.

It must not have been written with pilots in mind!

I order a lot of books from Amazon, and every so often, you'll see prices like that, but normally on niche, out of print books. As far as I can tell, this book is still in print.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Must be angling for use in college courses with those prices.

 

[Tripower455]

Must be angling for use in college courses with those prices.

Good call. Probably required for an ERAU course or something, hence the price.

 

[JCJ]

New paperback edition only $37.

 

[densoo]

The Limits of the Cheapness of Pilots.

by Lee V Noetip and Pic U Penney. Read it. Nice plot, but main characters were two dimensional.