SWA Landing gear collapse at LGA

PhilosopherPilot said:
That being said, since the investigators said the flaps were in motion 56 seconds prior to landing, then they certainly weren't configured early.
Click to expand...
How do you know? Lets say for arguments sake they were traveling at 130mph. At that rate they are doing roughly 200 ft/sec. That would mean they were about 2 1/4 miles out if they were following a 3 degree glide would put them at above 600 ft AGL. I don't know if they are part of the stable at 500 club or not but it would be perfectly SOP if they were. I know that is a little too much speculative but it makes for a good argument. As someone said earlier in the thread there seems to be an issue with them and shorter runways. Maybe being stable at 1000 could help but then again it's LGA. Unless you're landing on 22 or 4 there is no shot in hell you are "stable" in that parameter. It will be interesting once the final come out on this.
 
So, quick question for the folks out there flying 121... based on what I'm seeing here in this thread and MSM reports, making any configuration change (another notch of flaps, for example) even 56 seconds away from touchdown is considered an unstable approach? Just getting clarification. I could understand it being considered unstable if, say, you didn't have gear or ANY flaps down. But I wouldn't think that putting in that final notch of flaps a minute away from touchdown would be that big of a deal. Thanks in advance for the edumacation.

For the lulz:
 
Stabilized approach means that you are in your final landing configuration at a set altitude above the touch down zone. At my company that is 1000ft AGL. Some companies are 500ft. That being said a minute before touchdown is not necessarily considered unstable so long as you fit the pre described criteria. Is that clear as mud?
 
amorris311 said:
Stabilized approach means that you are in your final landing configuration at a set altitude above the touch down zone. At my company that is 1000ft AGL. Some companies are 500ft. That being said a minute before touchdown is not necessarily considered unstable so long as you fit the pre described criteria. Is that clear as mud?
Click to expand...

Got it. Being configured at a set altitude makes way more sense to me than being configured at a set time or distance. Is this is standard descent profile into LGA? Seems like even at 60 seconds, they would still have some room for configuration.
 
SteveCostello said:
Got it. Being configured at a set altitude makes way more sense to me than being configured at a set time or distance. Is this is standard descent profile into LGA? Seems like even at 60 seconds, they would still have some room for configuration.
Click to expand...
LGA is not the bar standard for configuration. The runway in which they landed though is a straight in so my argument loses steam. If they were doing the circle to 13 or the expressway to 31 I could see them use that as an issue. Landing 4 though there shouldn't be any reason for instability and continue the approach.
 
amorris311 said:
. Maybe being stable at 1000 could help but then again it's LGA. Unless you're landing on 22 or 4 there is no shot in hell you are "stable" in that parameter. It will be interesting once the final come out on this.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you are saying that as my company's policy was be stabilized at 1000' on both VFR and IFR approaches....meaning configured and on speed which was not that difficult to do into LGA including Rwy 31 provided you began configuring as you turned downwind.
 
I guess I see where it is confusing. For runways 4/22 they are typically straight in just like every other stretch of pavement. In my opinion there should be no reason not to be stable landing on either runway according to how my company defines stable approach. The expressway can be done in a stable manner but turning while decending fully configured and rolling wings level 200 ft AGL does not fit the description for "stable" approach.
 
SteveCostello said:
So, quick question for the folks out there flying 121... based on what I'm seeing here in this thread and MSM reports, making any configuration change (another notch of flaps, for example) even 56 seconds away from touchdown is considered an unstable approach? Just getting clarification. I could understand it being considered unstable if, say, you didn't have gear or ANY flaps down. But I wouldn't think that putting in that final notch of flaps a minute away from touchdown would be that big of a deal. Thanks in advance for the edumacation.
Click to expand...
The Brasilia is to be stabilized (final flaps, gear down, checklist done, on speed, on a manageable glidepath, spooled up) at 500' AGL; the Arr Jay is 1000' I believe.

On flaps 45 approaches and landings, the profile has us selecting the last notch at 700' - they should be down to 45 from 25 at 500'.
For the lulz:
Click to expand...


Freight is great! :D
 
amorris311 said:
How do you know? Lets say for arguments sake they were traveling at 130mph. At that rate they are doing roughly 200 ft/sec. That would mean they were about 2 1/4 miles out if they were following a 3 degree glide would put them at above 600 ft AGL. I don't know if they are part of the stable at 500 club or not but it would be perfectly SOP if they were. I know that is a little too much speculative but it makes for a good argument. As someone said earlier in the thread there seems to be an issue with them and shorter runways. Maybe being stable at 1000 could help but then again it's LGA. Unless you're landing on 22 or 4 there is no shot in hell you are "stable" in that parameter. It will be interesting once the final come out on this.
Click to expand...

Early. Early as in, before the FAF, which for most approaches is more than 56 seconds.
 
SurferLucas said:
Y'all that fly the 73, I have a question for you...is Flaps 40 a standard landing config? In all my times riding the JS on the 73 (various operators), it seems that 30 deg flaps is the SOP for the 737 (30-30-Green light).

Can't say I ever recall seeing a Flaps 40 landing in a 737.
Click to expand...

Standard is flaps 30 autobrakes 3 at my place. As a side note (and to give a little background of the SWA culture) we have lower flap speed limits than the hard Boeing limits. SWA, from what I was told does not have those lower speed limits. Those lower speed limits help with wear and tear mechanically and helps with more stabilized approaches.

I looked at the numbers today, with dry conditions, the difference between flaps 30 and 40 with various autobrake settings is a few hundred feet, at most.
 
Seggy said:
Standard is flaps 30 autobrakes 3

I looked at the numbers today, with dry conditions, the difference between flaps 30 and 40 with various autobrake settings is a few hundred feet, at most.
Click to expand...
Yea but if you cross over 13/31 you aren't doing it right. Duhhh everyone knows that. :)
 
Seggy said:
Standard is flaps 30 autobrakes 3 at my place. As a side note (and to give a little background of the SWA culture) we have lower flap speed limits than the hard Boeing limits. SWA, from what I was told does not have those lower speed limits. Those lower speed limits help with wear and tear mechanically and helps with more stabilized approaches.

I looked at the numbers today, with dry conditions, the difference between flaps 30 and 40 with various autobrake settings is a few hundred feet, at most.
Click to expand...
I think it was NWA who put a bolt in the flap lever tracks and prohibited people from landing the 727 at Flaps 40 a ways back. Difference was "meh."
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I think it was NWA who put a bolt in the flap lever tracks and prohibited people from landing the 727 at Flaps 40 a ways back. Difference was "meh."
Click to expand...

Also our autolands are mandatory flaps 40.
 
amorris311 said:
LGA is not the bar standard for configuration. The runway in which they landed though is a straight in so my argument loses steam. If they were doing the circle to 13 or the expressway to 31 I could see them use that as an issue. Landing 4 though there shouldn't be any reason for instability and continue the approach.
Click to expand...


Came in about a month ago at 11PM and had a 40kt tailwind at the marker and broke out AT minimums. Everyone else behind us diverted; we were the last ones in. 180knots groundspeed at 1000' :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top