Pure Speculation.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27505
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
So I might recently have been talking to a person who might or might not work for an airline who might or might not have knowledge of the recent nose landing of SWA flight 345.
Hemingway, this person might have suggested that the PM captain of flight 345 might have screwed up big time and grabbed the controls from the PF FO right at the last minute and pushed the nose over out of the flare because she thought the situation looked wrong. This might or might not have led the pilots fighting over the controls which might have led to the nose gear striking the runway ahead of the mains. Anyone else maybe heard anything?
BTW, this reporter is brilliant. She actually reported that mains should touch first.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579035231353396714.html

August 26,2013

Excerpt:

"The captain of Southwest Flight 345, arriving from Nashville, took the unusual step of taking over the controls during the last 400 feet of the descent, and investigators are now trying to determine if she throttled back the engines prematurely. The plane switched to a nose-down position in the final four seconds of flight.

The NTSB has said it found no airplane malfunctions that could have caused the botched landing, though investigators haven't yet disclosed their conclusions.

The FAA said it is "supporting the NTSB and examining our areas of responsibility to determine if any near-term action is necessary to ensure safe operations," but a spokeswoman declined to elaborate. Also on Sunday, a Southwest spokeswoman declined to comment on the specifics of the probe but said its quality hasn't been hurt."

And more of the same from the 21st:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...79027442368326028.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

"Seconds before the botched landing of a Southwest Airlines Inc. jet last month at New York's La Guardia Airport, the captain was concerned about touching down too far along the runway and may have throttled back the engines prematurely, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The National Transportation Safety Board previously said the captain, in an unusual move, abruptly took over control at an altitude of about 400 feet. But the probe's latest focus appears to provide the strongest explanation yet for why she opted to suddenly take over from the first officer, and how a routine approach turned into a high-profile crash that temporarily closed the airport.

The nose of the plane pitched down during the last four seconds of the approach, when it should have remained slightly raised.

When the plane landed, the top of the landing gear, with only the right axle still attached, penetrated up through the floor of the bay, into an area holding electronic systems that help with operation and navigation of the plane.

Investigators have found no engine or other airplane malfunctions to account for the maneuver.

The NTSB, is particularly interested in the captain's flight-control commands and her interaction with the first officer during the final 100 feet of the descent before the crash.

The safety board hasn't turned up any training problems or deficiencies in the employment history of the captain, a 13-year veteran who has more that 8,000 hours flying in Boeing 737s.

The captain had landed only once before at La Guardia, according to the safety board. The first officer had about 1,100 hours of experience flying 737 jets and had flown into the airport six times previously in 2013, the NTSB has said.

The probe has been delayed partly because the pilots weren't interviewed until about a week after the accident.

The investigation is further complicated by the fact that both the captain and first officer filed reports about what happened under the airline's nonpunitive, voluntary safety-reporting system, according to people familiar with the details. Specifics from such reports normally are off limits to federal air-safety officials and particularly regulators.

The crew was making a visual approach, had turned off automated flight-control systems at the proper time, and also was relying on an instrument-landing system as a backup.

A major question remains why the captain, once she became concerned about the safety of the approach so close to the ground, didn't follow industrywide guidance to abandon the descent and climb away from the field.

Transferring control during the descent's final phase, by itself, may have posed procedural and teamwork challenges. There's no indication of cockpit disputes, but independent safety experts said the first officer could have been startled by the change of plans barely a few seconds before touchdown".
 
Last edited:
A few years ago, when I flew as a passenger a lot more more than I do now, I noticed that SW pilots always bring the engines back to idle in or just before the flare, but on Delta and US Air 737's, they kept a little power in until firmly on the ground. If that's the way SW usually flies the plane, you would think they'd be used to correcting any sort of nose-down tendencies.
 
That would be scary if this turns out to be true. After watching the onboard video there seems to be a fairly normal approach and then the last few seconds turns ugly. Your so called contact that you may have spoken to knowledge of the accident seems to fit the video.
 
A few years ago, when I flew as a passenger a lot more more than I do now, I noticed that SW pilots always bring the engines back to idle in or just before the flare, but on Delta and US Air 737's, they kept a little power in until firmly on the ground. If that's the way SW usually flies the plane, you would think they'd be used to correcting any sort of nose-down tendencies.

I've never flown a 737, but my jet doesn't drop the nose when you bring the thrust levers to idle right before (or as) you touch down (instead, it drops the nose a few seconds later, sometimes with dramatic effect).
 
You're dangerous!

iceman-volleyball-scene-med.jpg
 
I've also never seen the A320, 737, 757 or E175 drop out of the sky when the power comes back in the flare.

But I'm also a terrible pilot.
 
That would be scary if this turns out to be true. After watching the onboard video there seems to be a fairly normal approach and then the last few seconds turns ugly. Your so called contact that you may have spoken to knowledge of the accident seems to fit the video.

Oh, its true. Dont yah know? JC speculated the cause of the Asiana crash until it actually became the likely cause (youre welcome NTSB) as well as other numerous incidents. I dont see why this one is any different. Case closed ;):sarcasm:
 
I know one thing: The Captain is Always Right.

Bah! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh I've been to the "Big Brown Desk(tm)", trust me, "Well, he's the captain!" doesn't account for jack when you're sitting there with your union reps, the chief pilot and your airlines POI from the FAA CMO.

Suffice to say, if you've got a PIC type, the FAA sees "captain's authority" in an entirely different light when he screws up.
 
Back
Top