Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest Airlines Nose Gear Collapse at LGA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    ....just to add to the above, while NY Approach is not known for leaving you high, the nature of the crowded airspace means there are lots of times when their approach spacing is iffy. I see from what the NTSB has released that they increased their flap selection from 30 to 40 approximately 56 seconds prior to touchdown. That indicates to me that they wre eating u p the preceeding traffic and decided to throw some more flap and slow down. This was a permitted tactic at my airline until a year or so ago when we went to a straight 1000 ft stable parameter. Now, changing flaps inside 1000 ft would be considered 'not configured' and should cause a go-around (it will certainly cause a FOQA trigger). SWA may well use a 500 ft Stable criteria.
    Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      3WE, I think you're still confusing this forum with your bowling forum...
      I've never had complaints with how pins are set up when bowling, their altitude is always exactly correct.

      And, on the occasion that the pins are misconfigured figured, the automation has always detected it gone around for a re-set.

      I do however, hate sleepers and the dreaded 4-6-7-10 split. When I get such a split, I often deviate from my normal, stable approach to the threshold and and wing it with a hard landing...and I have run off the side many times.

      I need to be clear, I'm not much of a bowling expert, I only average 100 or less on the rare occasion that I bowl.

      Just don't tell me that beer isn't a contributing factor, even though, it's ultimately my responsibility to keep the ball under control.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Well, to me it looks like a hard landing and especially hard on the nosewheel, perhaps a 3-point one if not nose-first.

        You don't see the typical touchdown on the mains with the nose high and then the nose going smoothly down. It's "touchdown/WAM!" almost at once.
        Ok, good eye...now confirmed by other reports...You have an outstanding ability to analyze small, bouncy video files!

        I'm still impressed by the roll out, relative lack of noise and bumpyness, and the calm of the passengers.

        There's plenty of youtubes of "normal, rough, non-incident" landings and flights that show more response than this...usually with at title like NEAR TOTAL DISASTER!!!!!!!!!
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Vnav View Post
          I see from what the NTSB has released that they increased their flap selection from 30 to 40 approximately 56 seconds prior to touchdown. That indicates to me that they wre eating u p the preceeding traffic and decided to throw some more flap and slow down.
          Or.... that they were too high and needed more drag to increase the descent without blowing the airspeed or iddling the engines.

          Just out of curiosity, how much does the Vref (or Vapp) diminishes with flaps 40 vs flaps 30 in the 37? My guess is that you can count the knots with the fingers of one hand, and maybe you still have a finger or two to spare.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Vnav View Post
            I see from what the NTSB has released that they increased their flap selection from 30 to 40 approximately 56 seconds prior to touchdown. That indicates to me that they wre eating u p the preceeding traffic and decided to throw some more flap and slow down.
            OK...I can see another potential issue here. If they exceeded the limiting speed for flaps 40, the flap load relief system would let the flaps blow up to 30, which would increase the float a little bit. Not a big deal on a long runway, but maybe it was enough to be an issue on this approach. Granted, if that happened, the preferred maneuver would have been "TOGA, Flaps 15, Positive rate, Gear Up...," but maybe they chose to try to stick it on instead.
            The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

            Comment


            • #51
              Seem like they landed on the nosewheel first, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-ntsb-388757/
              "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

              Comment


              • #52
                New video from the A/C

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
                  I don't really mean this, but seems like they missed one of the last items on the landing checklist...

                  Prompt: "Ground approaching" Response: "Flare"

                  ...and one step back to reality....

                  Zillions upon zillions of routine landings, and this one time, you tunnel vision, zone out and just continue right on in to the ground...

                  (with potential lack of rest, fatigue, etc....)

                  Yes, just spewing unsubstantiated BS....
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    the aircraft flared reaching 134 KIAS and an attitude of 2 degrees nose up at 32 feet AGL, then dropped the nose to 3 degrees nose down at touchdown at 133 KIAS about 4 seconds later.

                    A flare, then a mid-air de-rotation. Why would you do this before main gear contact?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      the aircraft flared reaching 134 KIAS and an attitude of 2 degrees nose up at 32 feet AGL, then dropped the nose to 3 degrees nose down at touchdown at 133 KIAS about 4 seconds later.

                      A flare, then a mid-air de-rotation. Why would you do this before main gear contact?
                      Err... because the pilot(s) are / were IDIOTS... This wasnt just a simple mistake, they did something idiotic.
                      Yes, one can say all sorts of mitigating factors, time pressures, fatigue, YAWN, and any other thing - for example, the moon aligning with Venus or a rabbits foot etc... but again, the idiot behind the controls fekked up.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Joe H View Post
                        Err... because the pilot(s) are / were IDIOTS... This wasnt just a simple mistake, they did something idiotic.
                        Sorry, but this cues the standard response.

                        I imagine the pilots are not idiots.

                        And I imagine that you are not perfect either. Ever mis judge things when you pull inot a parking place at 3 MPH...don't get aligned just right???

                        It can be that subtle.

                        I also note that the vast majority of airline pilots on this board who deal with us ass-hat-parlour-talkers are liberal with the phrase, "there but for the Grace of God go I"

                        Evan- to lower the nose a little bit (change of 5 degrees) is not that big of a deal...kind of normal procedure pull up a little, push over a little...the plane has a lot of momentum and to move it faster or slower towards the "touchdown zone" some subtle "elevator pumping" happens...(I'll search for some video links)
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Power + Speed + Attitude + Flaps + Performance

                          V-Nav (since you worked the 737) or any other big-iron guys...

                          Shouldn't the ~134 knots that they were going (a very slow (but proper I assume) speed) call for more of a nose-up attitude?

                          (I know, it depends on other factors, including their vertical speed and moreso you can change your attitude and it'll take several seconds for other stuff to respond).

                          Still- it's doesn't seem that they are screaming along at a speed where the nose needs to be down and planted...
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Pumping the elevators

                            There's a whole other thread on this...

                            This Condor Boeing 757 made a stunning approach at Düsseldorf. The conditions were horrible due to a severe storm. The pilits of this Boeing 757-300 had to p...


                            Note the nose-up-nose-down oscillations especially in the latter parts of the approach.

                            To be clear, the youtube may depict a perfectly-OK, meets-standards approach.

                            On the other hand, it's a long period of a markedly nose-down attitude and I think we can say that they probably were not on a standard 3-degree glide path.

                            And- it's kind of at the last few seconds that the nosewheel finally goes above the main gear...maybe a little relevance to this SWA incident.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              I don't really mean this, but seems like they missed one of the last items on the landing checklist...

                              Prompt: "Ground approaching" Response: "Flare"
                              That might explain a quite hard landing, but not a -3° pitch attitude.
                              You don't approach with the nose so low.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                That might explain a quite hard landing, but not a -3° pitch attitude.
                                You don't approach with the nose so low.
                                They did flare. Then they did this:


                                the aircraft flared reaching 134 KIAS and an attitude of 2 degrees nose up at 32 feet AGL, then dropped the nose to 3 degrees nose down at touchdown at 133 KIAS about 4 seconds later.
                                ...followed by the unsuccessful unicycle landing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X