Oh SWA…how many is this?

SurferLucas

SurferLucas

Southern Gentleman
Cliff Notes:
- Early ass departure
- took off on closed runway with ops vehicle on it
- didn’t appear to be on CTAF

(Side note, why are runway closure NOTAMs seemingly listed after all the BS ones about runway markings/unlit towers that are miles away?)

onemileatatime.com

Southwest Boeing 737 Takes Off From Closed Runway

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 took off from a closed runway, all while not communicating on the air traffic control frequency.
onemileatatime.com onemileatatime.com
 
Ooof... Gonna have to wait and see what the NTSB says about that one.
Article sited the dutch roll as an "incident" and implied it was unforced. It turned out to be a mechanical failure that led to it, and really the pilots did a great job of mitigating the issue. Dutch rolls are scary. Just ask the Russians.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgfkGiHhxs
 
SurferLucas said:
Cliff Notes:
- Early ass departure
- took off on closed runway with ops vehicle on it
- didn’t appear to be on CTAF

(Side note, why are runway closure NOTAMs seemingly listed after all the BS ones about runway markings/unlit towers that are miles away?)

onemileatatime.com

Southwest Boeing 737 Takes Off From Closed Runway

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 took off from a closed runway, all while not communicating on the air traffic control frequency.
onemileatatime.com onemileatatime.com
Click to expand...

Understandable that they would use the longer of the two runways. Aside from not being on CTAF, another question is why the crew was unable to see a vehicle on the runway downfield when taking the runway for takeoff, or during the commencement of the roll when they’d be looking down there? Assuming an airport ops vehicle would have overhead code lights on for visibility when on the runway, did it? 11/29 is only about a mile and a quarter long.
 
MikeD said:
Understandable that they would use the longer of the two runways. Aside from not being on CTAF, another question is why the crew was unable to see a vehicle on the runway downfield when taking the runway for takeoff, or during the commencement of the roll when they’d be looking down there? Assuming an airport ops vehicle would have overhead code lights on for visibility when on the runway, did it? 11/29 is only about a mile and a quarter long.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of holes in the cheese here. I'll be interested to know if the Ops folks moved out of the way and that's what prohibited a disaster.
 
Murdoughnut said:
There's a lot of holes in the cheese here. I'll be interested to know if the Ops folks moved out of the way and that's what prohibited a disaster.
Click to expand...

Am not sure of that detail. Could have been that, or could have been the ops truck was sufficiently downfield that the 737 took off well prior to them?

Regards the NOTAMS issue, if you look at the current NOTAMS for KPWM, the vast majority of them relate to the RW 11/29 closure, such as the closure itself, and related items such as lighting for same runway being out of service as well as related instrument approaches being out of service.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
NOTAM format. Just a bunch of garbage. Straight from the NTSB.




How about simple, plain English. Runway - closed until 545am - do not takeoff until afterwards.
Click to expand...

The. NOTAMS were clear on this one. The bulk of the NOTAMS for this field directly relating to the runway closure.
 
I’m curious about the dispatch paperwork (not pointing any fingers). Do your shops include runway analysis or performance numbers for runways that are unavailable at the planned departure time?
 
As bad as this sounds I’m waiting for more details on this. SWA is the flavor of the week so of course anything that happens is going make the news.

I agree with @Cherokee_Cruiser though, the NOTAM format system is garbage. As someone who’s flying a pax or cargo jet I don’t need to know about the tower that’s 5mi from the airport at 200’ :rolleyes: Meanwhile a runway closure is buried somewhere in a mountain of useless NOTAMS.
 
phill1174 said:
I agree with @Cherokee_Cruiser though, the NOTAM format system is garbage. As someone who’s flying a pax or cargo jet I don’t need to know about the tower that’s 5mi from the airport at 200’ :rolleyes: Meanwhile a runway closure is buried somewhere in a mountain of useless NOTAMS.
Click to expand...

And as a helo guy, I care less about closed runways. But do care about stuff attached to the ground that I could potentially hit, especially near an airfield where I’d be low level or doing some sort of low level op to or from off airport areas.

Remember, NOTAMS are for everyone in aviation. Not just for one segment. What’s unimportant to one segment, may be very important to another.
 
NOTAMs aside, one would think the runway closure would be on the ATIS, assuming they listened to it. And not broadcasting on the CTAF?? I know, glass houses and all. But wtf…
 
A couple of years ago there was a big move to fix NOTAMS. I was really looking forward to format changes and the super important NOTAMS no longer being buried on page 17 of a 24 page briefing packet.

The big improvement: it’s now called Notice To Air Missions, not Notice To Airmen anymore.

Really I was only upset with myself for believing that anything in aviation would actually improve.
 
MikeD said:
And as a helo guy, I care less about closed runways. But do care about stuff attached to the ground that I could potentially hit, especially near an airfield where I’d be low level or doing some sort of low level op to or from off airport areas.

Remember, NOTAMS are for everyone in aviation. Not just for one segment. What’s unimportant to one segment, may be very important to another.
Click to expand...



My argument isn’t the content, but the format.



As for content, I do feel NOTAMS should be updated to reflect 121 relevancy. And only within a reasonable expectation of time for the NOTAM versus when I take off/land. Eg, flight departs at 9am, I don’t need to know any of the midnight to 6 am NOTAMS (which in LAX are a LOT).
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
As for content, I do feel NOTAMS should be updated to reflect 121 relevancy. And only within a reasonable expectation of time for the NOTAM versus when I take off/land. Eg, flight departs at 9am, I don’t need to know any of the midnight to 6 am NOTAMS (which in LAX are a LOT).
Click to expand...

I agree. But I think there is some prohibition to airline dispatch personnel doing this. Not sure if some kind of liability or what.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yeah, but again 2406250545 is not a helpful format whatsoever.

Pure, simple English needed badly :)
Click to expand...
It's fine if you're used to reading them. NOTAMs suck mostly because there are just too damn many of them. Anyone operating in Fukuoka Oceanic knows the pain. It's also quite annoying to have NOTAMs issued for events that happen next week.

Unpopular opinion: I'm looking forward to the US adopting the ICAO standard NOTAM format. It will alleviate a lot of confusion.
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
A couple of years ago there was a big move to fix NOTAMS. I was really looking forward to format changes and the super important NOTAMS no longer being buried on page 17 of a 24 page briefing packet.

The big improvement: it’s now called Notice To Air Missions, not Notice To Airmen anymore.

Really I was only upset with myself for believing that anything in aviation would actually improve.
Click to expand...
The big change will be adopting the ICAO standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top