SWA LGA Captain Fired

[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.