Fate of ATP pilot landing at wrong runway. A poll

[docmirror]

I have been chastised for opining that the SWA pilots be fired for cause. What say you. I realize we are all human, and I've made plenty of mistakes before as well. I'm not a pro pilot, but would like to get the collective wisdom of the industry. Realizing that this will be skewed because we are mostly all pilots in this forum.

This has nothing to do with the FAA enforcement/actions at all, just the industry.

General Presumptions:
1. Airplane not broke
2. Airport not broke
3. Crew trained, and certified for the job they attained(ATP, major airline, current in type, good medical, etc)

 

[frfly172]

Can't vote ,my choice would be suspended while investigating cause.

 

[Bill]

I have been chastised for opining that the SWA pilots be fired for cause. What say you. I realize we are all human, and I've made plenty of mistakes before as well. I'm not a pro pilot, but would like to get the collective wisdom of the industry. Realizing that this will be skewed because we are mostly all pilots in this forum.

This has nothing to do with the FAA enforcement/actions at all, just the industry.

General Presumptions:
1. Airplane not broke
2. Airport not broke
3. Crew trained, and certified for the job they attained(ATP, major airline, current in type, good medical, etc)

None of the above: I believe they will be:

1. Suspended
2. Investigated
3. If no other past gross operating errors are found, retrained.
4. And returned to service after suspension/training

 

[Cruiser]

It takes one h*ll of a pilot to successfully land a 737 in 3738 feet

 

[poadeleted20]

None of the above: I believe they will be:

1. Suspended
2. Investigated
3. If no other past gross operating errors are found, retrained.
4. And returned to service after suspension/training

I think that's fairly accurate. But #3 will be more like "no gross operating errors in this incident", and getting past #3 will be hard for an air carrier crew that landed at the wrong airport. Not much forgiveness in an industry which by law must deliver "the highest degree of foresight and care humanly possible".

BTW, for "suspended" in step 1, I think we both mean suspended from duty (with pay) by the airline, not having their FAA certificates suspended. That would come only after the investigation is completed and it's determined that they broke some regulations (or at least were "careless/reckless" in their actions) in the process -- which in a Part 121 operation I think is likely. See this old case on point. Here's another, older case on point. And one more, just for grins. You'll notice that in all three cases, the pilots lost their appeals.

 

[FormerHangie]

It takes one h*ll of a pilot to successfully land a 737 in 3738 feet

"A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill. " - attributed to Frank Borman

 

[docmirror]

It takes one h*ll of a pilot to successfully land a 737 in 3738 feet

You consider them great pilots for getting out of an emergency they put themselves into?

hmmmmmm.

 

[MachFly]

It takes one h*ll of a pilot to successfully land a 737 in 3738 feet

Agreed


We can all make a mistake, but correcting that mistake takes some skill.

 

[Everskyward]

How can you even come up with a penalty when you don't exactly know what happened? Everything has been speculation.

 

[Norman]

None of the above: I believe they will be:

1. Suspended
2. Investigated
3. If no other past gross operating errors are found, retrained.
4. And returned to service after suspension/training

And never allowed to go to Branson again.

That said, I'm in Cap'n Ron's camp. Suspend, investigate, go from there.

 

[timwinters]

It takes one h*ll of a pilot to successfully land a 737 in 3738 feet

^that^

And they would make great Alaskan bush pilots.

Not sure they should be allowed to fly with passengers again though.

 

[docmirror]

Why are posters collectively ignoring this statement in the first post? It has not been added to, amended, edited, or otherwise modified.

General Presumptions:
1. Airplane not broke
2. Airport not broke
3. Crew trained, and certified for the job they attained(ATP, major airline, current in type, good medical, etc)

 

[Everskyward]

Why are posters collectively ignoring this statement in the first post? It has not been added to, amended, edited, or otherwise modified.

Who is ignoring it? There are plenty of other factors besides those three.

 

[docmirror]

Who is ignoring it? There are plenty of other factors besides those three.

Well, that's clear. Another person who ignored the OP, and ignored the clarification for the first post.

 

[N747JB]

I spoke to a SouthTran pilot the other day, that's what the Airtran folks call themselves. Anyway, apparently the pilots are suspended with pay subject to investigation, managers received an email not to discuss it with the press and let those involved have their privacy.
My friend told me that it is standard practice at SWA to perform visual approaches with no electronic back up, no localizer, no ILS, no GPS, it's "just a visual approach". I don't know if that figured into the incident or not, but my friend seemed to think if it had been an "Airtran" crew, it would have been pink slips on the spot.
I would bet they are both flying again in a couple months and nothing else will be said or done. Hey, nobody got hurt and no metal was bent.

 

[Everskyward]

Well, that's clear. Another person who ignored the OP, and ignored the clarification for the first post.

What clarification? You listed three conditions and are asking people to make a judgement about penalty but you are upset when people are saying there is not enough information?

 

[olasek]

We can all make a mistake, but correcting that mistake takes some skill.

I fail to see any "corrective" actions in this case.
Successful landing is not a corrective action.
If they were on short final, spotted wrong runway markings/wrong environment, recognized the error and aborted landing then I would call it a correction of an error.

standard practice at SWA to perform visual approaches with no electronic back up, no localizer, no ILS, no GPS, it's "just a visual approach".

It is one thing not to "use" those tools for approach it is another to use the as a backup for situational awareness. I doubt there is a prohibition to use such help if available. I doubt SWA pilots can't verify their position on their MFDs when on final approach or attempting to land.

Hey, nobody got hurt and no metal was bent.

well, there were many incidents in which nobody got hurt, nothing was bent but ultimately pilots got fired.

 

[write-stuff]

I'd choose non of the above. After the investigation, if he is found at fault I'll swag that the FAA will give him a suspension and the airline will fire him. After he gets his ticket back he'll end up flying corporate jets somewhere.

 

[docmirror]

I fail to see any "corrective" actions in this case..

Bing
Go

Once on the ground at the wrong airport, they got off the plane, and have already been suspended by the airline. The only thing I want to know from the collected wisdom is do they get their job back at SWA, or some other carrier that takes my kids to gramma's house for xmas.

 

[MachFly]

I fail to see any "corrective" actions in this case.
Successful landing is not a corrective action.
If they were on short final, spotted wrong runway markings/wrong environment, recognized the error and aborted landing then I would call it a correction of an error.

They corrected the mistake by making a good short field landing, if they were planning for their usual 7000ft runway (or whatever) they would have been a permanent landmark at the end of the runway.

If they identified it as a wrong field on the short final (as you said) it's too late for them to go around. How long does it take to spool up those engines on the 37? 10, 20 seconds? That's a very long time, especially if you consider the speed they were going.

 

[Rex Kramer]

Assuming no willful misconduct, option C, get a warning and a sit down, some retraining, and let it go. They go back to the line.

The didn't hurt anyone (by pure luck). I bet they're less likely now to do something like that than the average pilot out there.

 

[N801BH]

.....If they identified it as a wrong field on the short final (as you said) it's too late for them to go around. How long does it take to spool up those engines on the 37? 10, 20 seconds? That's a very long time, especially if you consider the speed they were going.

I "think" they can spool up alot faster then 10 seconds.. my guess is they can get go around power in less then 4 seconds... Those motors spool up darn fast... IMHO..

 

[olasek]

If they identified it as a wrong field on the short final (as you said) it's too late for them to go around.

No, not even close. There are operational examples of jetliners going around quite late, so late that their wheels inadvertently touched the runway. Also, at about 200' AGL runway markings would be already very well visible, plenty of time for go-around even if you are a slow thinker.

 

[ClimbnSink]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGw02Kzu5I
I don't care, as their penalty will be more PR then reality based. I could see firing them or retraining. We don't know if they regular pilots that goofed or screwballs that finally got noticed. What are the chances of them doing it again?

 

[RotorAndWing]

If they identified it as a wrong field on the short final (as you said) it's too late for them to go around. How long does it take to spool up those engines on the 37? 10, 20 seconds? That's a very long time, especially if you consider the speed they were going.

The engines are already spooled up. Thrust is maintained all the way down till about 20 feet or so. With flaps down, gear down (landing configuration) it requires about 50 to 70% thrust (depending upon airframe, weight, altitude, temp, etc) to maintain glide path.

We do go arounds (sim) from DH all the way down to main gear touch down in the A320 and it's a non event. You are committed to the landing once ground spoilers deploy.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What if the investigation shows flaws in SWA procedures (such as visual approach) or something such as a database error is uncovered, or a human factors event (fatigue, stress, etc) is a contributing factor?

 

[SoloEqs]

They don't need any training on landings -- in fact, they did one heck of a job with this one!

The problem wasn't the landing, it was figuring out WHERE to land. That's a different issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem, I think, in going around would not be thrust, but clearway. The airport involved was not surveyed for go-arounds from below DH by aircraft that big. There could easily be obstructions and other issues involved when you suddenly realize you don't know where you are and you have no idea what the correct missed approach or obstacle departure procedures are. At that point, the chance of running off the far end at low speed is probably far preferable to the risk of hitting something hard at climb speed.

 

[Doggtyred]

So didn't someone post in one of the threads on this subject that the FAA is likely to suspend the tickets of the responsible airmen for 6 months? They gave a reference… Why isn't that an option in the poll?

 

[Henning]

What if the investigation shows flaws in SWA procedures (such as visual approach) or something such as a database error is uncovered, or a human factors event (fatigue, stress, etc) is a contributing factor?

That's what I was trying to point out in the other thread, airlines don't have much support data for visual procedures.

 

[poadeleted20]

They don't need any training on landings -- in fact, they did one heck of a job with this one!

The problem wasn't the landing, it was figuring out WHERE to land. That's a different issue.

...and the cases on point suggest the FAA is not particularly forgiving of this error made by a 2-person Part 121 crew.

 

[Everskyward]

So didn't someone post in one of the threads on this subject that the FAA is likely to suspend the tickets of the responsible airmen for 6 months? They gave a reference… Why isn't that an option in the poll?

Probably because the OP wrote this in his first post.

This has nothing to do with the FAA enforcement/actions at all, just the industry.

 

[Cruiser]

You consider them great pilots for getting out of an emergency they put themselves into?

hmmmmmm.

No, those are NOT my words, those are yours. I never said that.

What is your point anyway? You don't think these two pilots have enough attention already?
Why did you start this gossip?

 

[RotorAndWing]

That's what I was trying to point out in the other thread, airlines don't have much support data for visual procedures.

Huh? That's a broad statement without fact.

My current carrier operates into several VFR only airports. We have procedures in place to validate the information, configure the PFD and ND and PF/PNF duties. The A319/320 will draw a runway centerline 5 miles out to the "CF" (center final) and give a 3* glide path to the runway. The runway MUST be verified in the FMS and the arrival approach must be briefed and verified by both crewmembers. Our carrier also has special charts we carry into the VFR only airports.

And we use Airbus procedures right from the FCTM and the FCOM, as do the majority of operators. While I was the APM on Boeing 757/767 Boeing also had their standard procedures as well as company.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So didn't someone post in one of the threads on this subject that the FAA is likely to suspend the tickets of the responsible airmen for 6 months? They gave a reference… Why isn't that an option in the poll?

The "textbook" (Order 2150.3B) is 6 months. However in air carrier (Part 121) the FAA will most likely defer the punishment/retraining/suspension to the carrier to take care of. Typically all of this is negotiated between the carrier and FAA.

If the carrier uncovers problems (let's say training and SOP) then the carrier submits to the FAA how they will fix the problem, suspend the airman, retrain them and reinstate, etc.

The FAA wants the carrier to admit to the problem and come up with a way to fix it and improve safety.

 

[docmirror]

No, those are NOT my words, those are yours. I never said that.

What is your point anyway? You don't think these two pilots have enough attention already?
Why did you start this gossip?

Meh. OK. For future reference; "one H*ll of a pilot" <> "great pilot". My bad.

I have no point, I do think these two pilots have sufficient attention, and I started this gossip to pi** you off, since apparently I now work for/answer to you too.

Where's my paycheck.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, those are NOT my words, those are yours. I never said that.

What is your point anyway? You don't think these two pilots have enough attention already?
Why did you start this gossip?

His "point" is he wants blood and sacrifice. Never mind facts and who cares about finding the answers, just screw the pilots over and move on.

Sad.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I have no point,

Yep......

 

[docmirror]

Yep......

Hey it's Mr Pot, calling for Mr kettle!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The problem, I think, in going around would not be thrust, but clearway. The airport involved was not surveyed for go-arounds from below DH by aircraft that big. There could easily be obstructions and other issues involved when you suddenly realize you don't know where you are and you have no idea what the correct missed approach or obstacle departure procedures are. At that point, the chance of running off the far end at low speed is probably far preferable to the risk of hitting something hard at climb speed.

That is an interesting thought process, sitting at your desk with time to think about it. In the heat of the battle, I bet if they realized at 25 feet that they were at the wrong place, they would have cobbed the throttles and gone around.