SWA Landing Gear Problem Scares Passengers

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
23,096
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Richard Palm
Home Airfield
Palo Alto (SFO area)
mkosmo said:
The gear wasn't why that happened. The gear started the sequence of events, though...
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. Airliners are so safe normally that crews are not used to anything out of the ordinary, which can cause a distraction, which can lead to disaster.
 
RotorDude said:
That's exactly the point. Airliners are so safe normally that crews are not used to anything out of the ordinary, which can cause a distraction, which can lead to disaster.
Click to expand...

So I guess we are just wasting our time in the simulator every recurrent then.

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
So I guess we are just wasting our time in the simulator every recurrent then.
Bob
Click to expand...

Not at all. Recurrent training greatly improves the odds for success, but simulation is never like the real deal. My suspicion is that adrenaline levels are very different.
 
RotorDude said:
I am well versed in aviation accident history, and would be very worried if we had a landing gear issue on our flight.
Click to expand...

The articles you cited on both of those cases mention that the cockpit crew became focused exclusively on the landing gear problem, to the exclusion of other issues. That reinforces the need to be aware of the relatively benign nature of gear-up landings.

It's also worth noting the following excerpt from your first link:

This last NTSB recommendation following the incident, addressing flightdeck resource management problems, was the genesis for major changes in the way airline crewmembers were trained. This new type of training addressed behavioral management challenges such as poor crew coordination, loss of situational awareness, and judgment errors frequently observed in aviation accidents. It is credited with launching the Crew Resource Management[4] (CRM) revolution in airline training. Within weeks of the NTSB recommendation, NASA held a conference to bring government and industry experts together to examine the potential merits of this training.[5]

United Airlines instituted the industry's first Crew resource management (CRM) for pilots in 1981. The CRM program is now used throughout the world, prompting some to call the United 173 accident one of the most important in aviation history.[6]​

My understanding is that the CRM program has been VERY effective.
 
RotorDude said:
That's exactly the point. Airliners are so safe normally that crews are not used to anything out of the ordinary, which can cause a distraction, which can lead to disaster.
Click to expand...


RotorDude said:
Not at all. Recurrent training greatly improves the odds for success, but simulation is never like the real deal. My suspicion is that adrenaline levels are very different.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what training have you attended that used a simulator?
 
What was good about the SWA incident is what didn't happen. The crew didn't panic, they didn't get distracted, they didn't try to invent new things on the fly. They did what they were trained to do.

Sounds to me like we are getting our money's worth for pilots, inflight crew and training for both.

Glad it came out right. Was it the FO's first trip? ;)
 
Last edited:
I think it is important that the accidents noted above were 40+ years ago... I think we have learned from these, and training has advanced.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Just curious, what training have you attended that used a simulator?
Click to expand...

None loggable for any official aviation training (e.g. none during IFR training), but I did "log" many R-22 hours on FSX before coming near a real helicopter, and lo and behold, when I finally did my first intro ride I was able to hover pretty much from the get-go!
(Autos were another story...)
So I am not knocking sims at all. I know the expensive full-motion FFS level D sims or whatnot do an amazing job of simulating reality, and I have heard trainees come out of a tough sim session dripping with sweat and need time (and perhaps a stiff drink) to recover. But there is still something different when the event is for real and there is no reset button.
Also, I am sure that crews today are far better trained in CRM and therefore less likely to obsess on a leaf while losing sight of the forest. So no doubt we are far safer today on an airliner (at least in the West) than ever, and clearly sims and CRM have a lot to do with it, as much as (if not more than) the improved technology.
 
RotorDude said:
Not at all. Recurrent training greatly improves the odds for success, but simulation is never like the real deal. My suspicion is that adrenaline levels are very different.
Click to expand...

Possibly, or not at all. With hours of fuel on board and with the plane flying well, then what's the hurry? You've got plenty of time to asses the situation and go to the QRH, get a plan formulated and proceed. You could even do some CRM practice by getting dispatch and MX control in the loop. They might even come up with some ideas that you hadn't thought of.

The fact is, the training kicks in and you have to get busy but not hurry. It's that simple. Piece of cake, really.
 
Bobcat1 said:
Possibly, or not at all. With hours of fuel on board and with the plane flying well, then what's the hurry? You've got plenty of time to asses the situation and go to the QRH, get a plan formulated and proceed. You could even do some CRM practice by getting dispatch and MX control in the loop. They might even come up with some ideas that you hadn't thought of.

The fact is, the training kicks in and you have to get busy but not hurry. It's that simple. Piece of cake, really.
Click to expand...

I think that, based on actual events, in that kind of situation the culprit is not high adrenaline but deviation from the normal routine and various distractions. A typical problem in the past was that everyone wanted to work on solving the discrepancy, to the point of forgetting to fly the plane, or notice some important indication.
Nowadays, crews are trained to always have one member focus on flying the airplane, and various indications like autopilot disengaged have aural warnings to reduce the chance of being missed. Still, anytime your normal routine changes, there is a chance for something to go wrong. Hopefully, with CRM and smart technology, even if that does happen it will be caught in time.
 
Last edited:
Just need to chuckle here, although accidents are not a laughing matter ... Point is we have a general aviation forum who is questioning the training and safety record of a major airline.

There is NO comparison to what most people do here to what airline guys do on a daily basis. It's not even close.
 
When I was young I drove a semi for a guy. He would tell me when to leave and every place I was to fuel and stop for the night. Exactly how many miles to run and how much fuel he expected me to use. I had to report twice daily by pay phone as we didn't have cell phones. Worked 70 hrs per week for very little pay, considering. Home 2 nights a week. I learned a lot from this man and he was a basis for success in my own trucking company years later. This is what I always thought being in the airlines would be like, so, I never cared to try that field. However, I am a pretty good driver :)
 
GlennAB1 said:
Almost never fatal.... that should make everybody feel better.
Click to expand...

I may have worded it poorly, but the fact is that as emergencies go, a gear up landing is a very low risk one.

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Yikes-Ive-Gotta-Land-Gear-Up-224564-1.html

"Even though you’re dealing with an emergency, there’s very good news about this particular one—the data shows that a gear up landing is an incredibly low risk event. I’ve been unable to find a report of a gear up landing of a civilian airplane built since World War II in which anyone was hurt or killed—so long as the pilot didn’t shut down the engine(s) and attempt to glide in (that foolishness has killed people). That doesn’t mean that no one has been hurt or killed, I just haven’t been able to find evidence of it. Military airplanes, with their belly scoops and other interesting protuberances don’t have such a good record."​
 
Palmpilot said:
I may have worded it poorly, but the fact is that as emergencies go, a gear up landing is a very low risk one.

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Yikes-Ive-Gotta-Land-Gear-Up-224564-1.html

"Even though you’re dealing with an emergency, there’s very good news about this particular one—the data shows that a gear up landing is an incredibly low risk event. I’ve been unable to find a report of a gear up landing of a civilian airplane built since World War II in which anyone was hurt or killed—so long as the pilot didn’t shut down the engine(s) and attempt to glide in (that foolishness has killed people). That doesn’t mean that no one has been hurt or killed, I just haven’t been able to find evidence of it. Military airplanes, with their belly scoops and other interesting protuberances don’t have such a good record."​
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, what would worry me as a passenger is not the gear up landing per se, but the "emergency mode" thinking of the crew that may lead to distractions and mistakes, as per the two large fatality airline accidents I linked to. But yes, modern (western) crews are better trained and equipped, so hopefully the good recent stats will prevail.
 
RotorDude said:
As I mentioned above, what would worry me as a passenger is not the gear up landing per se, but the "emergency mode" thinking of the crew that may lead to distractions and mistakes, as per the two large fatality airline accidents I linked to. But yes, modern (western) crews are better trained and equipped, so hopefully the good recent stats will prevail.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that that problem (if it still exists) would be helped by knowing that it's a low-risk emergency.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top