Southwest vs. the FAA

[RedBelly]

PCL,

Respecfully, you sound like a 14 year old know-it-all who has got 30 hours of flying time. Are you really that blinded by your vitriolic hate of Southwest Airlines?

Nope. Not in my opinion, anyway. It happens because of the culture that is fostered by management and the training department. Checkairmen encourage this activity.

Really? Check Airman are encouraging this? How many SWA check airman do you know?

Once the cockpit door closes, most airlines are 95% the same.

MX issues are a fact of life in the airline industry. The only question is which airline is going to get fined next.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1985/10/28/66543/index.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEED81130F932A25751C0A961948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6D71139F935A15752C1A964958260

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/255048_faa10.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2002_August_22/ai_90627047

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

not checking the weight vs altitude chart

Are you aware that NTSB interviews after the accident demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of Pinnacle pilots had never used those charts, and had never been trained in their use? I can't remember whether you were at Pinnacle prior to the accident, but the training culture there was abysmal at best.

It's still different than what you were aluding to. Taxiing fast doesn't necessarily mean that they have a dangerous safety culture as you are implying.

No, it's simply a symptom that's very easy to see on a day to day basis.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Are you really that blinded by your vitriolic hate of Southwest Airlines?

Vitriolic hate? That's a little bit overboard. I'm not a big fan of your airline, but I don't have a "vitriolic hate" towards it.

Really? Check Airman are encouraging this? How many SWA check airman do you know?

SWA has hired a lot of Pinnacle Captains over the past few years. Many of them are friends. I've heard plenty of stories.

Once the cockpit door closes, most airlines are 95% the same.

Do 95% not use autothrottles, autobrakes, and autoland in CAT II/III conditions? I consider those to be safety items. Do 95% run off of a runway in BUR because they were in such a frickin' hurry (as usual) that they touched down without even being fully configured?

 

[greaper007]

My Dad has been a pilot at Southwest since '81 so I'm a little biased. However, compare Southwest's safety record to ANY other airline in the industry. They are still one of the safest airlines in the world.

Bash SWA all you want, but they are not or have never been a bottom feeding company. They have the highest paid Pilot's, Flight Attendants and Mechanics. They simply were able to operate effectively in the deregulation environment when other carriers weren't.

 

[RedBelly]

SWA has hired a lot of Pinnacle Captains over the past few years. Many of them are friends. I've heard plenty of stories.

Do 95% not use autothrottles, autobrakes, and autoland in CAT II/III conditions? I consider those to be safety items. Do 95% run off of a runway in BUR because they were in such a frickin' hurry (as usual) that they touched down without even being fully configured?

Care to share any of those stories. I have heard many "stories" from friends at other airlines too. Do you really think that Check Airmen go around encouraging guys to taxi fast and to put on-time performance over safety? Think about how stupid that sounds.

Autothrottles.. in the works.
Autobrakes.. we use them.
Autoland.. that is why we have a HUD... it is no more safe or unsafe than Autoland, just different.

As far as BUR goes... the best thing that anyone of us can do is to understand that accidents happen and to try and learn as much as we can from them. If all you have learned from BUR is that SWA pilot are in a hurry, than you have missed a golden opportunity to learn something.

If you are perfect, than I salute you. Otherwise, may I suggest you check out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/major.asp

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Care to share any of those stories. I have heard many "stories" from friends at other airlines too. Do you really think that Check Airmen go around encouraging guys to taxi fast and to put on-time performance over safety? Think about how stupid that sounds.

I think the problem is that they don't consider it to be unsafe. They've been in that culture for so long that it just seems normal. Do you deny that your pilots taxi much faster than the pilots at other major airlines?

Autothrottles.. in the works.
Autobrakes.. we use them.
Autoland.. that is why we have a HUD... it is no more safe or unsafe than Autoland, just different.

Glad that you're getting the autothrottes. Definitely an improvement for safety. As for the autobrakes, a misunderstanding about their use contributed to the accident that killed a child in MDW. Is it true that the training consisted of nothing more than a bulletin? But again, they were deactivated for many years. Why? As a cost saving measure. We'll have to disagree about the HUD. I find it to be a much less safe maneuver.

If you are perfect, than I salute you.

Not perfect. Far from it. Remember, my beef isn't with the SWA pilots, it's with the "hurry, hurry, hurry" culture and the attempts to save costs by deactivating equipment that enhances safety.

 

[Velocipede]

We'll have to disagree about the HUD. I find it to be a much less safe maneuver..

You know, I hate to disagree with you on anything, but I've got to ask how much HGS time do you have?

I much prefer a hand flown HGS approach to Cat III mins over the autoland system. Primarily because I prefer to fly an airplane over monitor one.

There are too many vagaries involved in autoland. Too many interlocking ground and flight systems that have to function perfectly. Then, it takes a momentary lapse to decide if the automation is really operating correctly before you punch the TOGA buttons.

At least with an HGS, you have some "seat of the pants" feel to what the airplane is doing in response to your physical inputs. You can make the missed approach decision in a much more timely, accurate manner.

But, hey, that's just one man's opinion.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You know, I hate to disagree with you on anything, but I've got to ask how much HGS time do you have?

I much prefer a hand flown HGS approach to Cat III mins over the autoland system. Primarily because I prefer to fly an airplane over monitor one.

There are too many vagaries involved in autoland. Too many interlocking ground and flight systems that have to function perfectly. Then, it takes a momentary lapse to decide if the automation is really operating correctly before you punch the TOGA buttons.

At least with an HGS, you have some "seat of the pants" feel to what the airplane is doing in response to your physical inputs. You can make the missed approach decision in a much more timely, accurate manner.

But, hey, that's just one man's opinion.

Hey, you're absolutely right, I don't have the HGS time. I'm going off of guess work here. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you guys also have autoland capability in addition to use of the HGS. My understanding is that SWA isn't authorized for autoland and can only do CAT II/III as a hand-flown maneuver with the HGS. The last time I did a CAT II was a few weeks ago at the end of a long duty day. I was worn out, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly it by hand. At least having the option is an increase to safety, in my opinion.

 

[RedBelly]

My understanding is that SWA isn't authorized for autoland and can only do CAT II/III as a hand-flown maneuver with the HGS. The last time I did a CAT II was a few weeks ago at the end of a long duty day. I was worn out, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly it by hand. At least having the option is an increase to safety, in my opinion.

So, you are saying HGS approaches are not as safe as Autoland. Respectfully, having zero HGS experience, you are not qualified to make that observation. The fact is, the HGS is not difficult to fly. It is an exceptional piece of hardware. It also has advantages during takeoff as well.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Respectfully, having zero HGS experience, you are not qualified to make that observation.

I'll concede that point.

 

[wheelsup]

Wait....WTF? That's some serious buck-passing right there.

Yep, definitely couldn't have said it better myself. He's completely delusional.

 

[Velocipede]

Hey, you're absolutely right, I don't have the HGS time. I'm going off of guess work here. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you guys also have autoland capability in addition to use of the HGS.

Yeah, but you can use either or both combined. 99% of the time, I'll hand fly the HGS just because I've seen the autoland do weird stuff too often to have 100% confidence in it.

My understanding is that SWA isn't authorized for autoland and can only do CAT II/III as a hand-flown maneuver with the HGS. The last time I did a CAT II was a few weeks ago at the end of a long duty day. I was worn out, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly it by hand. At least having the option is an increase to safety, in my opinion.

Just having the option doesn't increase safety, if the autoland system does something goofy at 50' in 600 rvr. I'll admit I used it a month or so ago in 600 rvr at DFW, but only because the F/O said he would be more comfortable if we used it.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Those 737 autolands must be finicky. I've never had a problem with the 717 autoland, even near the max crosswind component. What problems do you have with them? I've never heard our 737 guys complain.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Do 95% not use autothrottles, autobrakes, and autoland in CAT II/III conditions? I consider those to be safety items. Do 95% run off of a runway in BUR because they were in such a frickin' hurry (as usual) that they touched down without even being fully configured?

So considering Continental uses autobrakes, autothrottles, and these conditions were bordering on CATII, does this also mean their company breeds a culture of "we're in a frickin' hurry?" Or is it possible that sometimes we as pilots get caught up in situations where in hindsight a better course of action could result?

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/03/08/story_plane.html?sid=102

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A plane skidded off the runway at Port Columbus International Airport during the snowstorm on Friday night. The Boeing 737 was carrying 130 passengers when it went off the runway at about 11:30 p.m., 10TV News reported.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You're comparing that to the BUR crash? Have you read the BUR transcript? We don't know what happened with the CAL overrun yet, but I doubt it will involve touching down at 182 knots with the flaps not down yet. The CAL incident will probably turn out to be a classic case of a contaminated runway. There's nothing "classic case" about the BUR crash.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Yes, I have read the BUR transcript. I even have a video recreation of the event that our Human Factors Department made here on my computer. I have also read the MDW transcript. The point is, no airline is immune from pilots doing stupid things. At the same time, no airline is immune from pilots making a decision and looking in hindsight that a better course of action could have resulted in a different outcome.

Since I work very closely with Flight Standards and ALPA Safety with my "other" job, I get to see a lot of things that the general public nor our line pilots see. We use these events to learn from ourselves. Let me ask you this: If you saw FOQA data of a crew that swings gear at 300 feet and +200 knots, then takes the last [90-degree] turnoff on a 12,000 foot runway at 60 knots, would you feel that they had an unsafe culture? Would you feel the crew was unprofessional? Because that did happen... in a B777... for a major US airline. Nobody is immune...

Two accidents and one fatality in the history of the airline does not make an unsafe culture. Southwest does have a "get'r done" approach to flying, but not at the expense of safety. I have done a lot of research into their corporate culture and standards, and I am very impressed at the way they do things. They even have a section in their Flight Operations Manual dedicated to the importance of standardization, putting safety over on-time, and professionalism versus foolish pride. I didn't see the section that says, "taxi fast and be on-time or else."

Now, back on track with the original topic of the thread, I am just anxious to see the outcome of the hearings on this matter. I'd rather see all the facts before I make a judgment.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The point is, no airline is immune from pilots doing stupid things.

Yes, but airlines can reduce the risk by not rushing their pilots around all the time.

Let me ask you this: If you saw FOQA data of a crew that swings gear at 300 feet and +200 knots, then takes the last [90-degree] turnoff on a 12,000 foot runway at 60 knots, would you feel that they had an unsafe culture?

I can't answer that question without knowing who it was. My opinion of SWA isn't based on a single accident, but on observations of their operation over a long period of time. The "hurry, hurry, hurry" mentality is a detriment to safety.

Two accidents and one fatality in the history of the airline does not make an unsafe culture.

And it doesn't necessarily make a safe culture, either.

They even have a section in their Flight Operations Manual dedicated to the importance of standardization, putting safety over on-time, and professionalism versus foolish pride.

Doesn't everyone have that section in their FOM? It's kind of a given. Doesn't really say anything about their airline. Pinnacle had a section in the FOM called the Guiding Principles. It talked about safety above all else, caring for the employees, etc... It was obviously complete bullsh--. We called it the "guideless principles."

 

[kellwolf]

Yes, but airlines can reduce the risk by not rushing their pilots around all the time.

And pilots can reduce the risk by not rushing. See where this is going? Who's gonna be to blame ultimately in an accident/incident? The pilot or the company. The CEO wasn't at the controls, and the pilot makes a conscious decision to hurry. If a guy runs off the runway and starts calling out the company on a poor safety culture, he's gonna look like a whiner. No one was standing behind his seat with a gun saying "Taxi fast." THEY are the ones that made the choice.

Like I said, I worked there for three years. I wasn't a pilot, but I worked at a pilot domicile. I NEVER in those three years got the impression or even any indications that they put on-time performance over safety as you're claiming.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And pilots can reduce the risk by not rushing. See where this is going?

Yes, it's going into a fantasy land where pilots can buck the culture of their airline. Sadly, it usually doesn't work that way. If everyone else is rushing to get flights out on time, and you're the one Captain that refuses to rush around, you're drawing a target on your back. This is why I never even applied to SWA. I didn't want anything to do with their "git'r done" philosophy.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Yes, but airlines can reduce the risk by not rushing their pilots around all the time.

How exactly does SWA rush their pilots around? From all I've seen, their schedule is no different than most other airlines. Doing things quickly does not necessarily mean you are doing things unsafe. It is only when you start rushing so much that you begin missing things, and do nothing about it, then there is a problem.

Yes, rushing and doing nothing to rectify the situation was the leading cause in the BUR accident. However one flight out the thousands upon thousands SWA has flown since 1971 does not signify a culture that puts on-time over the safety of their customers.

We can find examples of accidents at every other major airline where rushing has caused an accident. How about American Airlines 1420 in LIT? KLM in Tenerife (that was a Training Captain and the poster child for the company)? American Airlines in Cali, Colombia? Air France A-340 in Toronto?

The fact is, management at every airline wants flights to leave on-time. It is only when the pilots themselves succumb to this pressure and begin to cut corners does problems arise. I do not see this militant, "on-time or else!" culture that you are proclaiming at SWA. Maybe it was prevalent at Pinnacle, but that doesn't mean every airline in the world operates like that. I'll tell you right now I've worked for two airlines that stressed on-time percentages, but never at the expense of safety. Velocipede made mention of how Captain's authority is degraded by dispatch and scheduling. That is only true if that Captain allows it to be. I've taken some questionable delays (like when I held a flight because a customer left his laptop at the frequent flier club), and I've never heard anything about it. I'll do everything in my power to get the flight out on-time... But if I have a good reason to delay, then so be it.

Here is a story: One of our pilots at my previous company was out flying when his wife went into labor. He was also a commuter. Enroute to Chicago, he called operations to find out what time a SWA flight for his home city was leaving. It was about the time he was due in. After landing, our crew van driver picked him up and rushed him over to the gate. He was a bit late, but the flight was still there. When he got up the jetway, the crew was waiting for him... The Captain chose to delay the flight for 15 minutes so he could make it and get to see his wife.

Yes, SWA really puts on-time above all else.