Southwest incident and swiss cheese

[docmirror]

I'm not, just responding to a post (that's how forums work)



I did even though it was rather inane.





Reading comprehension is your weak point, we can clearly see that.

Like previously posted (which you ignore) I offered some factual information on the subject and discussion. You? Just inane diatribe. As usual.

You provided sarcasm, and snark. Zero factual information value.

http://www.awsm.com/4038/butthurt-report-form/

<edit: I added "factual".>

 

[docmirror]

I see many instances on internet forums of men saddled with a SWMBO. My condolences.

Thanks, but it's not so bad. She's online shopping for a plane for me, so I can't complain too much.

 

[MAKG1]

Five unknowns and about 20 questions.

Contribution value: -20.

To understand where Rotor & Wing is coming from, study the Olympic Bomber.

He's right, you're wrong. You're jumping to some really serious conclusions. You MAY be right, or you may be thoroughly wrong. Then, do YOU get terminated, or do you go back in your armchair and do it again?

If you do happen to be right, it's by chance. While that may work in some management circles (certainly not all), it's less than competent.

The "fire first ask questions later" strategy makes sense when people insist on minimum thought, training costs are insignificant, high turnover can be tolerated, and management is a collection of serious pricks.

 

[docmirror]

To understand where Rotor & Wing is coming from, study the Olympic Bomber.

He's right, you're wrong. You're jumping to some really serious conclusions. You MAY be right, or you may be thoroughly wrong. Then, do YOU get terminated, or do you go back in your armchair and do it again?

If you do happen to be right, it's by chance. While that may work in some management circles (certainly not all), it's less than competent.

The "fire first ask questions later" strategy makes sense when people insist on minimum thought, training costs are insignificant, high turnover can be tolerated, and management is a collection of serious pricks.

Well, I seem to be in defense mode, so let me review. Kobra started a thread, wanting to discuss this event. He offered some commentary that he thought might have some investigative value. He even went so far as to invite counter-point, or additional insight. Brad added to that.

Post three, by R&W sought to stifle said discussion, or embarrass the OP with his sarcasm, offering no theory, discussion point, question, or factual info, just snark.

Subsequent to this we got question, after question, after question from R&W. Nothing wrong with asking questions, and it's a good way to gather info for an investigation. But it's a very poor way to discuss the event where the facts are that the plane was working, the airport was working, the pilots were trained to ATP standards.

Does anyone debate the basic points about the plane, the airport and the pilots training? If so, I'm ready to have that debate. So is the OP, and anyone else. However, standing back and being a snark, and offering only questions has very little value in and of itself. These are all questions we want to get answer to. Maybe it'll show I'm way off base. Maybe they didn't have the fuel to go the extra 5 miles. Maybe the airport moved. Maybe the pilots were a pair of rubes from Korea. Maybe pigs are flying.

So, I responded in kind to R&W with my own brand of snark in hopes, ney - dreams that a kindred spirit would see the mistake he made and just maybe apologize for being a female cleansing product toward the OP. So far, no luck. And here we are.

 

[MAKG1]

There is NO VALUE WHATSOEVER to make up a fiction about what happened and then to react to that fiction as though it were fact.

Try googling "straw man argument."

You don't know what happened. You're trying to defend presumption as intelligent discourse. Real intelligent discourse does not presume facts not in evidence.

 

[docmirror]

Good, we're making progress. So, we have one person who is ready to debate the plane being broke, the airport being broke, or the pilots being not ATP rated. Let's hear more. The fact is, they landed at the wrong airport.

Oh - maybe it's just me, but I usually don't counsel people about "intelligent discourse" by shouting at them.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Subsequent to this we got question, after question, after question from R&W. Nothing wrong with asking questions, and it's a good way to gather info for an investigation. But it's a very poor way to discuss the event where the facts are that the plane was working, the airport was working, the pilots were trained to ATP standards.

Where did you get these "facts" from??

Do you know everything on the plane was working? Did you see the maintenance log or the MEL/CDL or NEF list for this airplane? Have you verified the FMS database?

You state "the pilots were trained to ATP standards", so? Have you access to SWA training procedures and SOP's? Have you done any simulator or IOE training with SWA to know their procedures?

Does anyone debate the basic points about the plane, the airport and the pilots training?

You mean this:

We need to know the following:

Aircraft make and model? I realize it was a B-737 but which variant? How was the aircraft equipped?

Any MEL/CDL items in effect at the time of the flight?

SWA procedures for approach at night (visual)?

Duties of PF/PNF during approach (SWA procedures)?

Briefing. Was there an approach briefing detailing the arrival and approach? Where fixes identified, verified on the chart as well as the FMS? Was the NAV accuracy verified on the FMS? What is the maximum drift allowed? Where the Navaids hard tuned or where they auto tuned? Was the airport diagram referenced in the briefing pertaining to approach lighting, landing aids and exiting the runway? How were the respective ND's and PFD's configured for the approach?

FMS database? Who is the supplier of the database? What charts (EFB ) are being used in the cockpit?

ATC. What altitude does radar coverage go down to? Does the tower at Branson have a scope? Did any controllers notice the aircraft was off course? Was the crew asked to verify position?

Human Factors? How long had the crew been on duty? Was this their first?second?third?forth? sector of the day and what day was the trip sequence in (first, second, third, forth?) How much sleep did the crew have in the previous 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours? Was there a change in their schedules? Recency of flight (day or night) into this airport for either crewmember?

What do the Captain and FO's training records look like? Any problem areas?

Any other carriers or SWA had previous problems with this airport in the past? Ongoing issues?

This is just a small sampling of questions just to begin the process. I don't think anyone here (unless someone from the FAA or NTSB working the investigation) has these answers yet.

If so, I'm ready to have that debate. So is the OP, and anyone else.

No you're not. I posed several questions that need answering to proceed and you have labeled them "little value". So since they are such "little value" please post for us how you would approach this investigation, the questions you would be asking.

However, standing back and being a snark, and offering only questions has very little value in and of itself.

Perhaps it's because you have no understanding of the questions. I realize you're an amateur pilot and this is way above you, but one cannot water down the investigation to a private pilot level and achieve any meaningful results.

These are all questions we want to get answer to.

You haven't demonstrated that yet.

So, I responded in kind to R&W with my own brand of snark in hopes, ney - dreams that a kindred spirit would see the mistake he made and just maybe apologize for being a female cleansing product toward the OP. So far, no luck. And here we are.

You dislike the message and messenger. Anything I offer you will disregard because it doesn't meet your view.

I offered factual information based upon my background and experience, you only offer inane diatribes and a desire to destroy both of those pilot's careers without due process or a complete investigation.

 

[docmirror]

Jinx.

You wrote "inane diatribe" twice. Does that make it twice as inane, or a double diatribe? Diatribes? Diatribic? Diatriberous?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Jinx.

You wrote "inane diatribe" twice. Does that make it twice as inane, or a double diatribe? Diatribes? Diatribic? Diatriberous?

Translation: I cannot offer any real discussion on subject here so I will start attacking your writing, spelling and sentence structure.

 

[docmirror]

I'm begging you, lighten up Francis, you will live a lot longer. Also, it would benefit if you stop obsessing with me and my posts. It's rather troubling that you see the need to work yourself into a lather about your job, and your history, and your credentials, etc. Whom are you trying to convince with all your officiousness? This is a web board, I'm an amateur pilot, and you think that makes a bit of difference to most people here?

Why the need to belittle someone else who starts a thread about this incident and show them up? Would a pro investigator do that? You ask a bunch of questions, and poo-poo my armchair comments, right or wrong, but do you offer an alternative viewpoint for discussion or make an educated guess from your vast amassed history?

I've seen your type thousands of time. Full of themselves and their role in the community, but really never providing much of actual value to anything. At least Ron provides reg interpretation and look-ups. Critics who never have built anything, or done anything, but are quick to elevate themselves to Righteous levels of Indignation when someone else without letters provides opinion and editorial comment for consumption.

Putting other down doesn't elevate you. It's beneath you, and that's why I gave back what you offered up. So far all you've done is ask a bunch of questions. You won't ever go out on a limb, take a risk, shoot for the moon. Play it safe, don't stick out, don't speak out, don't make waves, go along and get along. A flawless 'crat, doing flawless 'crat-speak.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm begging you, lighten up Francis, you will live a lot longer. Also, it would benefit if you stop obsessing with me and my posts. It's rather troubling that you see the need to work yourself into a lather about your job, and your history, and your credentials, etc. Whom are you trying to convince with all your officiousness? This is a web board, I'm an amateur pilot, and you think that makes a bit of difference to most people here?

Why the need to belittle someone else who starts a thread about this incident and show them up? Would a pro investigator do that? You ask a bunch of questions, and poo-poo my armchair comments, right or wrong, but do you offer an alternative viewpoint for discussion or make an educated guess from your vast amassed history?

I've seen your type thousands of time. Full of themselves and their role in the community, but really never providing much of actual value to anything. At least Ron provides reg interpretation and look-ups. Critics who never have built anything, or done anything, but are quick to elevate themselves to Righteous levels of Indignation when someone else without letters provides opinion and editorial comment for consumption.

Putting other down doesn't elevate you. It's beneath you, and that's why I gave back what you offered up. So far all you've done is ask a bunch of questions. You won't ever go out on a limb, take a risk, shoot for the moon. Play it safe, don't stick out, don't speak out, don't make waves, go along and get along. A flawless 'crat, doing flawless 'crat-speak.

Keep impressing yourself with your faux knowledge.

 

[docmirror]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL5mAbwUYpM

 

[kontiki]

I'm really amazed at this for a lot of the obvious reasons. I wonder what their touchdown point was on that short runway.

 

[Aztec Driver]

In order to do an analysis you have to start with facts, not speculation. Speculation will only skew the results.

We need to know the following:

For the purposes of discussion, I believe most of these "facts not in evidence" can be reasonably guessed.

Aircraft make and model? I realize it was a B-737 but which variant? How was the aircraft equipped?

Irrelevant. How many airliners are not equipped for a visual approach? How many airliners used commonly in passenger carrying operations do not have some kind of instrumentation backup for approaches of some kind?

Any MEL/CDL items in effect at the time of the flight?

While not necessarily irrelevant, certainly those items cannot prevent a visual approach, or they would not be on the MEL. Might make it more difficult, but not impossible.

SWA procedures for approach at night (visual)?

While this is an important question, you, yourself, have noted the SOP at most of the airlines are backup with approach guidance on visual. One can "reasonably" conclude that, since it is in the name of safety, those procedures are pretty much standard in the industry.

Duties of PF/PNF during approach (SWA procedures)?

Again, an important question, but once again, you can pretty much bank on the SOP being the same or nearly so as you have in your procedures.

Briefing. Was there an approach briefing detailing the arrival and approach? Where fixes identified, verified on the chart as well as the FMS?Was the NAV accuracy verified on the FMS? What is the maximum drift allowed? Where the Navaids hard tuned or where they auto tuned? Was the airport diagram referenced in the briefing pertaining to approach lighting, landing aids and exiting the runway? How were the respective ND's and PFD's configured for the approach?

If not, then we have pilot error.

ATC. What altitude does radar coverage go down to? Does the tower at Branson have a scope? Did any controllers notice the aircraft was off course? Was the crew asked to verify position?

Although certainly a help, it is not ATC"s resposibilty to fly and land the aircraft.

Human Factors? How long had the crew been on duty? Was this their first?second?third?forth? sector of the day and what day was the trip sequence in (first, second, third, forth?) How much sleep did the crew have in the previous 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours? Was there a change in their schedules? Recency of flight (day or night) into this airport for either crewmember?

Certainly agree on these, but it does not absolve the pilot of making the errors.

What do the Captain and FO's training records look like? Any problem areas?

These, again, are pilot problems. Yes, if there were problems in their training, it should have been dealt with, but does not absolve them of responsibility. (for purposes of discussion, not punishment.)

Any other carriers or SWA had previous problems with this airport in the past? Ongoing issues?

Even if so, There were plenty of ways to insure success in the flight that were not availed upon.

This is just a small sampling of questions just to begin the process. I don't think anyone here (unless someone from the FAA or NTSB working the investigation) has these answers yet.

For purposes of discussion only, One has enough facts to come to a reasonable conclusion of the events. It can, obviously, be changed as other facts come to light.

The facts that we have are:
They were flying an airliner full of passengers at night.
They landed at the wrong airport.

While we do not know for a fact that they had all kinds of whizbang devices to help them, we an "reasonably" infer that they had the equipment needed to get the job done properly, but either did not use it, or mistuned it.

All of that said, I do not believe the incident rises to the level of firing unless we find out other damning problems with their attitude or conduct. Those are the pieces of information we need to make an informed decision regarding their punishment.

 

[Norman]

I'm amused by the conversation. Life at the bottom of the pecking order must be tough; especially when you're wrong.

 

[RotorAndWing]

For purposes of discussion only, One has enough facts to come to a reasonable conclusion of the events. It can, obviously, be changed as other facts come to light.

The facts that we have are:
They were flying an airliner full of passengers at night.
They landed at the wrong airport.

While we do not know for a fact that they had all kinds of whizbang devices to help them, we an "reasonably" infer that they had the equipment needed to get the job done properly, but either did not use it, or mistuned it.

All of that said, I do not believe the incident rises to the level of firing unless we find out other damning problems with their attitude or conduct. Those are the pieces of information we need to make an informed decision regarding their punishment.

In order to do an analysis you have to start with facts, not speculation. Speculation will only skew the results.

We need to know the following:

For the purposes of discussion, I believe most of these "facts not in evidence" can be reasonably guessed.

Aircraft make and model? I realize it was a B-737 but which variant? How was the aircraft equipped?

Irrelevant. How many airliners are not equipped for a visual approach? How many airliners used commonly in passenger carrying operations do not have some kind of instrumentation backup for approaches of some kind?

Not irrelevant. Depending upon model and equipment (FMS, EFIS, etc) and how that equipment is configured for the approach plays into the equation. If it's a new generation then there are procedures and SOP's to configure for a visual versus a classic model which will be to set up the HSI and VOR/ILS as a backup.

Any MEL/CDL items in effect at the time of the flight?

While not necessarily irrelevant, certainly those items cannot prevent a visual approach, or they would not be on the MEL. Might make it more difficult, but not impossible.

While they cannot prevent a visual approach having a piece of inop equipment certainly can contribute to the incident.

SWA procedures for approach at night (visual)?

While this is an important question, you, yourself, have noted the SOP at most of the airlines are backup with approach guidance on visual. One can "reasonably" conclude that, since it is in the name of safety, those procedures are pretty much standard in the industry.

And I don't have their SOP for this procedure. It may uncover a flaw by reviewing the procedure. Again, a piece of the puzzle.

Duties of PF/PNF during approach (SWA procedures)?

Again, an important question, but once again, you can pretty much bank on the SOP being the same or nearly so as you have in your procedures.

Maybe, maybe not. That's why it should be looked at, and if not a contributing factor then move to the next item.


Briefing. Was there an approach briefing detailing the arrival and approach? Where fixes identified, verified on the chart as well as the FMS?Was the NAV accuracy verified on the FMS? What is the maximum drift allowed? Where the Navaids hard tuned or where they auto tuned? Was the airport diagram referenced in the briefing pertaining to approach lighting, landing aids and exiting the runway? How were the respective ND's and PFD's configured for the approach?

If not, then we have pilot error.

Granted. That's why it has to be investigated.

ATC. What altitude does radar coverage go down to? Does the tower at Branson have a scope? Did any controllers notice the aircraft was off course? Was the crew asked to verify position?

Although certainly a help, it is not ATC"s resposibilty to fly and land the aircraft.

No dispute there, but maybe a lapse at ATC? Perhaps a "contributing factor?

Human Factors? How long had the crew been on duty? Was this their first?second?third?forth? sector of the day and what day was the trip sequence in (first, second, third, forth?) How much sleep did the crew have in the previous 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours? Was there a change in their schedules? Recency of flight (day or night) into this airport for either crewmember?

Certainly agree on these, but it does not absolve the pilot of making the errors.

No, but it may provide valuable data to prevent a similar event from happening in the future. We are learning more and more about human factors in aviation every day.


What do the Captain and FO's training records look like? Any problem areas?

These, again, are pilot problems. Yes, if there were problems in their training, it should have been dealt with, but does not absolve them of responsibility. (for purposes of discussion, not punishment.)

I think where people are misunderstanding here is the investigation purpose isn't solely to "punish" the pilots. The investigation is of a problem that may or may not be pilot error. The investigation may uncover numerous items in the chain that broke leading up to the event. Much valuable information may be gleaned from this that will better promote safety in the future. And like many accidents the real parts of the chain may surprise people.

Any other carriers or SWA had previous problems with this airport in the past? Ongoing issues?

Even if so, There were plenty of ways to insure success in the flight that were not availed upon.

So if there are some ongoing issues there shouldn't this be used as a way to fix the problem?

This is just a small sampling of questions just to begin the process. I don't think anyone here (unless someone from the FAA or NTSB working the investigation) has these answers yet.



Bottom line is something bad happened that could have been catastrophic. Some events took place that shouldn't have and they need to be discovered. Pilot error? I don't know, and neither does anyone else here until the investigation plays out.

If it comes down to pilot error by a crew that simply shortcut company SOP's then SWA has a problem and they will have to work it out with the FAA and make some revisions to training and SOP. The pilots will have to deal with what is dealt them.

 

[TMetzinger]

To understand where Rotor & Wing is coming from, study the Olympic Bomber.

.

good point.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Doggtyred]

You state "the pilots were trained to ATP standards", so? Have you access to SWA training procedures and SOP's? Have you done any simulator or IOE training with SWA to know their procedures?this:

Southwest may not provide the training, but the pilots were trained and examined to such a standard at least once in their careers.

May I submit in evidence the current certification requirements for hiring by Southwest Airlines, from their website. And its been this way for at least 15 years, when I first looked into their requirements.

"Southwest Airlines Pilot Application Requirements
Certificates/Ratings: U.S. FAA Airline Transport Pilot Certificate. Unrestricted U.S. Type Rating on a B-737 not required for interview, but required for employment1. "B-737 CIRC.APCH.-VMC ONLY" limitation is accepted."

http://www.southwest.com/html/about-southwest/careers/positions/pilots.html

I get that he is an amateur… Hell.. I get that I am an amateur when it comes to professional flying issues and accident investigation… I respect your knowledge and experience and have for a long time, but in your zeal to remind him of his amateur status lets not get hung up on pedantic nits that undermine your overall argument.

 

[Becky]

I am picking up from this discussion some question as to whether or not we have pilot error. I would have thought that pilot error would be the one thing we are certain we have in this incident.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am picking up from this discussion some question as to whether or not we have pilot error. I would have thought that pilot error would be the one thing we are certain we have in this incident.

What we are CERTAIN of right now is that a Southwest Airlines airplane landed at the wrong airport.

What is UNCERTAIN as of right now is WHY it happened and what the circumstances are that lead up to it.

 

[JGoodish]

What we are CERTAIN of right now is that a Southwest Airlines airplane landed at the wrong airport.

What is UNCERTAIN as of right now is WHY it happened and what the circumstances are that lead up to it.

That's absolutely right. The airplane could have taken control from the pilots and diverted to the wrong airport on its own. If you think about it, that's probably what happened, because the landing was so well executed that it couldn't possibly have been done by a human flight crew.

The reality is that WHY it happened has nothing to do with who's responsible for the operation of the flight, up to and including selection of and landing at the wrong airport. The flight crew is always responsible for the decisions that they make, regardless of why they make them. Good judgment is critically important in aviation, and so any evidence of a lapse in good judgment should be seriously reviewed. Landing at the wrong airport would certainly qualify as evidence of such a lapse.

With that being said, if this particular situation was an honest error or confusion, and procedures were followed, especially since no metal was bent and no one was hurt, I'm not sure that harsh judgment is warranted. People make mistakes, there will always be deficiencies, and there will always be opportunities for improvement. Not everything is a justifiable media circus or reason for legislative action. Southwest has an excellent safety record, and they didn't build that record over four decades without competent flight crews and strong procedures.


JKG