# Southwest 737 lands at LaGuardia with nose wheel stuck



## Texan Eagle

Happened today evening. Southwest Boeing 737 landed with nose wheel stuck. Fortunately all passengers escaped unhurt (except the few who will claim trauma/anxiety/back pain to sue Southwest in an attempt to earn big compensation)

Between Asiana 777 at SFO, 787 fire at Heathrow and this, expect Boeing-airplanes-are-unsafe media propaganda to start in 3...2...1...


----------



## SarahZ

I'm glad everyone is okay. The last report I saw said five people had "minor" injuries.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ditto, glad there were no Serious Injuries!  Southwest has an Outstanding Safety Record and Consistently finishes High in the Consumer Surveys of Airline travelers! They have Good to Competive Fares, Lots of Flights and still don't charge to check your Bags and their OTP is usually Outstanding! If I Have to Fly (as infrequently as possible) I usually choose Southwest!


----------



## the_traveler

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed! 

And I can not understand how Southwest can "lose" luggage? It's been years since I flew SW, but when I did if you hd a connecting flight (say PVD-BWI-AUS), you had to collect your bags at BWI and recheck them. They were not transferred for you between flights. So ho could they "get lost? :huh:


----------



## PRR 60

the_traveler said:


> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
> And I can not understand how Southwest can "lose" luggage? It's been years since I flew SW, but when I did if you hd a connecting flight (say PVD-BWI-AUS), you had to collect your bags at BWI and recheck them. They were not transferred for you between flights. So ho could they "get lost? :huh:


That must have been a long time ago. To do that now would require exiting security and rescreening. Luggage is transferred between connecting flights by Southwest Airlines.
When is the last time an airliner hit a dump truck at a grade crossing? Every mode has its strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!


To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch  and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.


----------



## Texan Eagle

jis said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
> 
> 
> 
> To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch  and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.
Click to expand...

Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)


----------



## jis

Texan Eagle said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
> 
> 
> 
> To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch  and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)
Click to expand...

When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.


----------



## leemell

That is why the 777 Asiana plane had two crews aboard. Still landed short.


----------



## jis

They were just not flapping hard enough 

Here is an interesting video taken inside the plane through the (Southwest) landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqQ5TCB-jQ

Almost looks like they forgot to flare. But these looks can be deceptive, since the camera angle is not something that one can count on to depict the perspective correctly.

But on the face of it, it looks like yet another dorked up landing, this time nose gear first, causing collapse of the same.


----------



## the_traveler

"Going thru Security"? "Rescreening"? :huh: Those are unfamiliar terms to this Amtrak passenger! :giggle: (And yes it's been too many years since I've flown SW - and that's too short a time!)


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> "Going thru Security"? "Rescreening"? :huh: Those are unfamiliar terms to this Amtrak passenger! :giggle: (And yes it's been too many years since I've flown SW - and that's too short a time!)


Keep mentioning that over and over again, and someone in the bureaucracy will surely fix it for you so that you can also experience the full monty


----------



## the_traveler

If they do see my full monty, they may get rid of TSA at airports too!  (I even scare myself!)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

It's either a 737 problem or a WN pilot error. It seems WN has had a bunch of these runway incidents recently, even though they still keep a good safety record. I've only flown WN once, and frankly, they are nearly useless to me because I almost never fly domestic. If they flew to Alaska or Hawaii, I might fly them again.

Domestic, it's Amtrak and Greyhound for the win!


----------



## leemell

Seems the NG collapse is worse than originally thought. The gear broke to the rear and penetrated the avionics bay. Serious damage.


----------



## saxman

jis said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
> 
> 
> 
> To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch  and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.
Click to expand...

Flight crews are not allowed to takeoff if they will time out at the destination. However, if they are delayed while already airborne, they may continue to the scheduled destination even if it means going over their hours of service. "Legal to start, legal to finish" is the term. Long-haul international, which has augmented crew members, the rules get a little more complex, and I'm not sure all the stipulations on that. USA-Europe flight will carry just 3 pilots, while USA-Asian flight will take 4. Not sure what the cut-off point is.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> They were just not flapping hard enough
> Here is an interesting video taken inside the plane through the (Southwest) landing:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqQ5TCB-jQ
> 
> Almost looks like they forgot to flare. But these looks can be deceptive, since the camera angle is not something that one can count on to depict the perspective correctly.
> 
> But on the face of it, it looks like yet another dorked up landing, this time nose gear first, causing collapse of the same.


Heard a preliminary finding on the news earlier that confirms officially your observation....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

saxman said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
> 
> 
> 
> To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch  and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flight crews are not allowed to takeoff if they will time out at the destination. However, if they are delayed while already airborne, they may continue to the scheduled destination even if it means going over their hours of service. "Legal to start, legal to finish" is the term. Long-haul international, which has augmented crew members, the rules get a little more complex, and I'm not sure all the stipulations on that. USA-Europe flight will carry just 3 pilots, while USA-Asian flight will take 4. Not sure what the cut-off point is.
Click to expand...

That seems different from the bus industry. US bus drivers are not allowed to go over their maximum driving time of 15 hours, so even if they are in the middle of the desert, Greyhound drivers are often forced by law to leave the bus for rest, and stranding a load of angry passengers.

The maximum duty time is 10 hours, so the above only happens if the bus gets a running delay of over 5 hours.

Edit: error


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Southwest does have an exemplary safety record compared to other major airlines, but it's also true that they do not have a _perfect_ safety record. Neither does Qantas or most of the other airlines people tend to bring up, apologies to rainmen everywhere. Southwest has been sited for numerous safety violations resulting in millions of dollars in fines. That being said, loss of landing gear on a commercial sized aircraft is not likely to result in serious injury or death. The bulk of the risk is to the future use of the aircraft. Those injuries that do occur often result from the evacuation process rather than from the landing itself. I live in one of the original three cities that Southwest started. They sell non-stop flights to 18 locations (LAX, SAN, LAS, PHX, ELP, DEN, MEX, HRL, DAL, HOU, STL, MDW, CUN, BNA, ATL, TPA, MCO, & BWI) and their walk-up fares are competitive. It's easy to choose them if you're in a rush or just don't want to risk a missed connection.



PRR 60 said:


> Every mode has its strengths and weaknesses.


Thanks for that fresh breath of sanity.


----------



## leemell

The NTSB confirmed what we had already guessed, the 737 did a wheelbarrow landing, nose gear first. They apparently did not flare in time. We see.another student technique like the 777 landing short. Letting the speed bleed off.  :angry2:


----------



## railiner

One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight.

That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident


I've discovered that many Southwest flights travel long distances with many stops in between, breaking the flight onti many segments. This probably helps to reduce pilot fatigue.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident


If I recall correctly current regulations require a minimum number of automatic landings for US carriers.


----------



## Texan Eagle

railiner said:


> I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident


Southwest does not make its own planes. They use the same Boeing 737s that other airlines do. If the plane has facilities for computerized flying, the Southwest model will also have it. Also, Southwest does not have its own dedicated set of airports and control over weather conditions, they are impacted by unfavorable weather as much as other airlines so they need to have everything that other airlines have for ILS conditions and near-zero-visibility landings.


----------



## Ryan

It's not a question of what they have, it's a question of how they use it.

That said, there can be a lot of variability even in cockpit equipment between the "same" planes.


----------



## jis

It looks like it was definitely a botched landing per latest from NTSB:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_26_2013_p0-601074.xml

Now the question is why was it botched.

They were actually 2 deg pitch up a little before they went 3 deg pitch down and slammed the nose gear into the the runway first. Did they mistakenly believe that the main gears had touched down and proceeded to bring the nose gear down, while in fact the main gears had not touched down?



Texan Eagle said:


> Between Asiana 777 at SFO, 787 fire at Heathrow and this, expect Boeing-airplanes-are-unsafe media propaganda to start in 3...2...1...


And ironically none of those are turning out to be the fault of the plane. Apparently two confused pilots and one twisted pair of wires will do it.


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> It's not a question of what they have, it's a question of how they use it.
> That said, there can be a lot of variability even in cockpit equipment between the "same" planes.


There can be, indeed. Like anything else, there are all kinds of optional equipment, And there are differences not only in the aircraft, but in each airlines operations manual, as well. The FAA does mandate a certain level of equipment, for different "category" landings, A carrier does not have to have everything, but it behooves them to have it, to remain competitive with those that do....


----------



## saxman

railiner said:


> One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident


Sort of true. Pilots hand flying the aircraft is common among all US carriers, not just Southwest. All US carriers allow their pilots to hand fly the aircraft pretty much whenever the pilot wants to. It is required, however, to have the auto-pilot on in RVSM airspace which is FL290 (29,000) and above. Most pilots turn the autopilot on when he start to get "bored." Usually that's when they're going straight and in a constant climb and all the maneuvering out of the terminal area is complete. Hand flying an aircraft though is not really fatiguing though and sometimes when things get busy, it's actually less work to hand fly the thing than it is to constantly be pressing buttons. This is especially true when setting up for a visual approach. It's just easier to click the AP off and steer using the controls. (It's way more fun too!)

I think the general public thinks that the AP flies the whole time and nothing is done. Well thats mostly true when you get to cruise flight, but the pilots still have to constantly tell the AP what to do. They still have to tell it to climb and descend. When ATC gives headings, they have to push buttons to do just that. No airliner can takeoff with the AP and most of them you cannot turn it on until above 600 feet. (Other a/c may be different) 99.9% of landings are also hand flown, and most aircraft does not even have that capability. And those that do, the auto-land feature is actually much more involved (fatiguing) then a hand flown landing. I could be wrong, but I do not think any of Southwest's planes come with the auto-land feature.


----------



## railiner

Thanks Saxman, for the professionel's explanation....

One thing that I wonder about....isn't there sometimes a noticeable difference in the skill level of a pilot, even a pro...so that the AP will actually deliver a smoother, more efficient, and consistant turn, climb, descent, etc., than a human can?

From a passenger's view, I sometimes think I can tell when an approach is being hand-flown or AP flown. It seems that especially, the throttle position is being 'fine-tuned' more when hand flown......?

As for fatigue, it would seem to me that constantly checking the instruments while making adjustments would be fatiguing...and would take pilots attention away from what was out the window a lot more during a visual landing....


----------



## RRUserious

The less you give someone to do, the more their mind vegetates. I had a job of monitoring. I had to find ways to excite myself without losing track. It's quite a problem. And my impression is that the uniquely human contribution is harder to summon after a few dull hours. Maybe they should give pilots games to play in their relief hours. But kill the games when certain situiation require them to shift to total pilot mode. I think the safety authorities should at least test the premise.


----------



## railiner

Having to constantly monitor something is really hard work....look at the recent scandal with TSA agents ignoring the monitors of carryon bags, and the lack of discipline thereof.

I certainly would not want their jobs. Another tough one is for the U.S. Mail clerks at the sorting machines.....these are the unfortunate ones that occasionally "go postal" when they can't stand it any longer. In fact, I feel sorry for anyone in their daily occupation,that is 'chained to their desk'.....I like a job that allows mobility, some physical exercise, and varying mental challenges to solve rapidly changing situations


----------



## RRUserious

Monitoring really involves some of the weakest human capabilities. Anytime you move a human from doing something to simply monitoring. You are moving away from strength.


----------



## saxman

railiner said:


> Thanks Saxman, for the professionel's explanation....One thing that I wonder about....isn't there sometimes a noticeable difference in the skill level of a pilot, even a pro...so that the AP will actually deliver a smoother, more efficient, and consistant turn, climb, descent, etc., than a human can?
> 
> From a passenger's view, I sometimes think I can tell when an approach is being hand-flown or AP flown. It seems that especially, the throttle position is being 'fine-tuned' more when hand flown......?


The AP will always be more smoother than the pilot. But that's because it can fine tune the trim settings to move the flight control surfaces at a much slower rate. It's just humanly impossible to be THAT smooth. BUT, the AP isn't perfect though. Many times the pilot can be smoother on the controls than the AP can when the trim settings are just way off and it takes awhile for the AP to catchup with the trim. It's just better to grab the yoke and put the plane where you want it, then turn on the AP. It's a concept very difficult to explain though, assuming you know what trim does. As far as skill level of the pilot, you really can't tell at all. A bad pilot can make a smooth bank and turn, and a good pilot can make a jerky one. As far as power changes, that all depends on outside forces. On a rough, windy day, on final approach, the power/thrust is going to need to change rapidly to maintain the approach speed. On a smooth day, maybe not as much change is needed, but it's still there. It also depends if the a/c has auto-throttles. Mine does not, so even though the AP is on, as it levels off or descends, we still gotta adjust the thrust levers.



railiner said:


> As for fatigue, it would seem to me that constantly checking the instruments while making adjustments would be fatiguing...and would take pilots attention away from what was out the window a lot more during a visual landing....


We're checking the instruments whether the AP is on or not. After lifting off, most of our attention is inside anyway. Sure we look outside to check for traffic, but sometimes we're in the clouds, so there is no need to. On landing, we're still mostly eyes inside about half the time or even more than half. It's constant back and forth really just to make sure we're lined up on centerline and still "looks" like we're on glide path. I guess it can be fatiguing, but I don't think about it like that. It's the most fun part too. Hope that answers some questions.


----------



## RRUserious

Makes me wonder how runways are chosen. I would think ideally both landings and takeoffs would face a headwind. But since winds can be both variable _and _from all points of the compass, I'm guess the air traffic control tower just tries to optimize and the rest is up to the plane. Despite all this it is very rare for planes to botch a landing, so the machinery and the crew must be very very skilled at this.


----------



## Ryan

Runway choice depends a lot on the airport layout (what runways are available) and the prevailing traffic patterns. For example at BWI, usually runway 28 is used for takeoffs and 32L is used for landings. This works out nicely since the wind is usually from the West/Northwest and it means a short taxi from the gates to the beginning of 28 and from the end of 32L to the gates (both of which can be done without taxiing across an active runway). Obviously if the winds go out, they'll swap things however they need to in order to get the winds right.


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Saxman, for the professionel's explanation....
> One thing that I wonder about....isn't there sometimes a noticeable difference in the skill level of a pilot, even a pro...so that the AP will actually deliver a smoother, more efficient, and consistant turn, climb, descent, etc., than a human can?
> 
> From a passenger's view, I sometimes think I can tell when an approach is being hand-flown or AP flown. It seems that especially, the throttle position is being 'fine-tuned' more when hand flown......?
Click to expand...

The AP will always be more smoother than the pilot. But that's because it can fine tune the trim settings to move the flight control surfaces at a much slower rate. It's just humanly impossible to be THAT smooth. BUT, the AP isn't perfect though. Many times the pilot can be smoother on the controls than the AP can when the trim settings are just way off and it takes awhile for the AP to catchup with the trim. It's just better to grab the yoke and put the plane where you want it, then turn on the AP. It's a concept very difficult to explain though, assuming you know what trim does. As far as skill level of the pilot, you really can't tell at all. A bad pilot can make a smooth bank and turn, and a good pilot can make a jerky one. As far as power changes, that all depends on outside forces. On a rough, windy day, on final approach, the power/thrust is going to need to change rapidly to maintain the approach speed. On a smooth day, maybe not as much change is needed, but it's still there. It also depends if the a/c has auto-throttles. Mine does not, so even though the AP is on, as it levels off or descends, we still gotta adjust the thrust levers.



railiner said:


> As for fatigue, it would seem to me that constantly checking the instruments while making adjustments would be fatiguing...and would take pilots attention away from what was out the window a lot more during a visual landing....


We're checking the instruments whether the AP is on or not. After lifting off, most of our attention is inside anyway. Sure we look outside to check for traffic, but sometimes we're in the clouds, so there is no need to. On landing, we're still mostly eyes inside about half the time or even more than half. It's constant back and forth really just to make sure we're lined up on centerline and still "looks" like we're on glide path. I guess it can be fatiguing, but I don't think about it like that. It's the most fun part too. Hope that answers some questions.

Yes sir....it certainly does answer some questions. Thanks again for the clear explanations....


----------



## railiner

RRUserious said:


> Makes me wonder how runways are chosen. I would think ideally both landings and takeoffs would face a headwind. But since winds can be both variable _and _from all points of the compass, I'm guess the air traffic control tower just tries to optimize and the rest is up to the plane. Despite all this it is very rare for planes to botch a landing, so the machinery and the crew must be very very skilled at this.





Ryan said:


> Runway choice depends a lot on the airport layout (what runways are available) and the prevailing traffic patterns. For example at BWI, usually runway 28 is used for takeoffs and 32L is used for landings. This works out nicely since the wind is usually from the West/Northwest and it means a short taxi from the gates to the beginning of 28 and from the end of 32L to the gates (both of which can be done without taxiing across an active runway). Obviously if the winds go out, they'll swap things however they need to in order to get the winds right.


All things weather-wise being equal, the "prevailing traffic pattern" can also depend on politics---as in which neighborhoods have influence in keeping air traffic away. Or even special events, a prime example the temporary change in pattern to accommodate the US Open Tennis tournament near LGA.....


----------



## RRUserious

Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

RRUserious said:


> Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.


Minneapolis? They have pretty big airport and it seems just the right size to me. I've passed through on NWA internation flights. Sure, the airport dosen't look great, but it works OK.


----------



## RRUserious

I agree. But they wanted to bunch takeoffs into four narrow bands, rather than having planes take off in all directions. Well, that stirred up people who thought "Oh no, more planes over my house". Guess they don't understand there are limits in how you can guide planes to support the amount of travel the region wants. But thousands of homeowners knew of the noise when they bought their houses. Like the rest of us they could have said "I like the house but I don't like the noise" and bought in another part of the metropolitan area. As I said, they want two incompatible things. And government is supposed to make it happen.


----------



## railiner

The thing the government should have done, was when they had the chance......by that I mean when newer airports were built, they should have zoned the land around it for non-residential use, to prevent homes from being developed in the vicinity, and only allowed industrial type development.

I happen to live under the "Expressway Approach" to LGA runway 31. Years ago, the early turbojets made a deafening roar when passing over, rattling the windows, especially when they took off our way. Back then we had no air conditioning, so it was especially bad in the summertime. Nowadays, the modern high- bypass fanjets are much quieter, and with our windows closed and the A/C on, we don't even notice them.


----------



## RRUserious

Problem someplaces is that isolated airports have real estate developers buy land and build under flight paths. And no airport authority can afford to buy up that much land. But it is stupid to buy a house where planes take off and then complain because "there's plane noise". If no one bought those houses, the developers wouldn't spend the money to get the land. But home buyers can be suckers frequently. Then they get buyers' remorse when it sinks in that the flight paths go over *them* but not over people a few miles this way or that. Luckily nowadays, with all the many online forums, home buyers can read the complaints of the suckers and buy more knowledgably.


----------



## jebr

Swadian Hardcore said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Minneapolis? They have pretty big airport and it seems just the right size to me. I've passed through on NWA internation flights. Sure, the airport dosen't look great, but it works OK.
Click to expand...

The airport is located a lot closer to the city cores (and, hence, dense residential development) than some airports (such as Denver.) Match that with some people who want quiet, and there's a storm a-brewing.

Of course, there's plenty of places outside the flight paths, and you still live in, you know, the city. Noise is a part of life, I'd presume. If someone wants quiet, there's a lot of exurbs and rural areas for them to live in.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jebr said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Minneapolis? They have pretty big airport and it seems just the right size to me. I've passed through on NWA internation flights. Sure, the airport dosen't look great, but it works OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The airport is located a lot closer to the city cores (and, hence, dense residential development) than some airports (such as Denver.) Match that with some people who want quiet, and there's a storm a-brewing.
> Of course, there's plenty of places outside the flight paths, and you still live in, you know, the city. Noise is a part of life, I'd presume. If someone wants quiet, there's a lot of exurbs and rural areas for them to live in.
Click to expand...

And then they'll complain about the smells & long drives to the store.


----------



## RRUserious

I agree. This is a city. Noise is part of the definition. I do like remote places with zero noise, but I f ound out sometime early in life my nerves were tuned to city noise and I could only separate from it for a limited time. Maybe people who have trouble with it didn't live in it from early childhood like I did.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jebr said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Minneapolis? They have pretty big airport and it seems just the right size to me. I've passed through on NWA internation flights. Sure, the airport dosen't look great, but it works OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The airport is located a lot closer to the city cores (and, hence, dense residential development) than some airports (such as Denver.) Match that with some people who want quiet, and there's a storm a-brewing.
> 
> Of course, there's plenty of places outside the flight paths, and you still live in, you know, the city. Noise is a part of life, I'd presume. If someone wants quiet, there's a lot of exurbs and rural areas for them to live in.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. Many Americans choose to live in the suburbs anyway, and inside the city you can't avoid noise one way or another. Many frequent flyers prefer a centrally-located airport instead of having to travel a long way out of town, like IAD or EWR.

ORD seems OK, there's an expressway and heavy rail straight to O'Hare from Downtown Chicago.


----------



## JayPea

AmtrakBlue said:


> And then they'll complain about the smells & long drives to the store.


That very thing happens the rural area where I live. People move to get out of the city then complain about dust, gravel roads, noise and smells from farm animals and farm machinery, and longer response times for emergency vehicles. And boy, do they ever get freaked out by low flying crop dusters!  .


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I don't see the problem. Many Americans choose to live in the suburbs anyway, and inside the city you can't avoid noise one way or another. Many frequent flyers prefer a centrally-located airport instead of having to travel a long way out of town, like IAD or EWR.


While EWR may be away from New York, it is hardly out in the sticks. It is right in the middle of densely populated area which was densely populated before EWR came into existence. And EWR was the first airport built in the New York area and has been in continuous commercial service since it was built.
Both JFK and LGA were also built in areas that were only somewhat less populated than they are now.

Meanwhile New York TCO has changed flight paths all over creation having them suddenly appear over places that are nowhere near the airport with planes flying overhead suddenly as low as 3 to 6k feet. So contrary to the way it is being made out by some, it is not all the fault of the hapless homeowners. How heck is someone in Rumson NJ supposed to know ahead of time that they will suddenly be in the approach path of Newark?


----------



## RRUserious

Noise is a "problem" in New York? Gotta be kidding.


----------



## jis

The point is that there are areas that are affected by flight paths into and out of the PANYNJ Airports which are nowhere near New York, at least the noisy part of it. The far suburbs of New York are actually quite quiet. There is a lot of population connected with New York that does not live in the 5 boroughs, or even in the noisy satellite cities like Newark.


----------



## gswager

JayPea said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then they'll complain about the smells & long drives to the store.
> 
> 
> 
> That very thing happens the rural area where I live. People move to get out of the city then complain about dust, gravel roads, noise and smells from farm animals and farm machinery, and longer response times for emergency vehicles. And boy, do they ever get freaked out by low flying crop dusters!  .
Click to expand...

Right on! It's fun to watch crop dusters. Those pilots are daredevil. In my fire district which I volunteer, two planes went down after clipping power lines. Lucky, they walk away.


----------



## RRUserious

gswager said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then they'll complain about the smells & long drives to the store.
> 
> 
> 
> That very thing happens the rural area where I live. People move to get out of the city then complain about dust, gravel roads, noise and smells from farm animals and farm machinery, and longer response times for emergency vehicles. And boy, do they ever get freaked out by low flying crop dusters!  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on! It's fun to watch crop dusters. Those pilots are daredevil. In my fire district which I volunteer, two planes went down after clipping power lines. Lucky, they walk away.
Click to expand...

Kinda funny. People talk about the danger of wind generators to birds. Wires all over the landscape present risks to human's too. I can't remember the ratio, but if you look at NTSB charts of accidents, light planes crash very often. Airliner crashes are rare by comparison.


----------



## JayPea

RRUserious said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then they'll complain about the smells & long drives to the store.
> 
> 
> 
> That very thing happens the rural area where I live. People move to get out of the city then complain about dust, gravel roads, noise and smells from farm animals and farm machinery, and longer response times for emergency vehicles. And boy, do they ever get freaked out by low flying crop dusters!  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on! It's fun to watch crop dusters. Those pilots are daredevil. In my fire district which I volunteer, two planes went down after clipping power lines. Lucky, they walk away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda funny. People talk about the danger of wind generators to birds. Wires all over the landscape present risks to human's too. I can't remember the ratio, but if you look at NTSB charts of accidents, light planes crash very often. Airliner crashes are rare by comparison.
Click to expand...

I heard a comedian one time refer to windmills as "condor Cuisinarts" :lol: :lol: :lol: It doesn't surprise me that there are many more light plane crashes compared to those of airliners. What surprises me is how at least in the area where I live such accidents don't result in more loss to life and limb. Several years ago a crop duster and Navy jet collided in midair near here. Both pilots survived with relatively minor injuries.


----------



## RRUserious

Well, Hale Boggs and Paul Wellstone both died in light plane crashes. So lots of them are fatal.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem. Many Americans choose to live in the suburbs anyway, and inside the city you can't avoid noise one way or another. Many frequent flyers prefer a centrally-located airport instead of having to travel a long way out of town, like IAD or EWR.
> 
> 
> 
> While EWR may be away from New York, it is hardly out in the sticks. It is right in the middle of densely populated area which was densely populated before EWR came into existence. And EWR was the first airport built in the New York area and has been in continuous commercial service since it was built.
> Both JFK and LGA were also built in areas that were only somewhat less populated than they are now.
> 
> Meanwhile New York TCO has changed flight paths all over creation having them suddenly appear over places that are nowhere near the airport with planes flying overhead suddenly as low as 3 to 6k feet. So contrary to the way it is being made out by some, it is not all the fault of the hapless homeowners. How heck is someone in Rumson NJ supposed to know ahead of time that they will suddenly be in the approach path of Newark?
Click to expand...

But for frequent flyers, they are often travelling for business instead of leisure. You can get to JFK easier than EWR if you need to fly at the last-minute. EWR also has less flights, and it seems very dirty to me, maybe even dirtier than LAX.


----------



## jis

And this has exactly what to do with the discussion on hand regarding approach paths and what residential areas they fly over?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> And this has exactly what to do with the discussion on hand regarding approach paths and what residential areas they fly over?


:blush:


----------



## AlanB

Swadian Hardcore said:


> But for frequent flyers, they are often travelling for business instead of leisure. You can get to JFK easier than EWR if you need to fly at the last-minute.


If one is in Manhattan, both airports are equally accessible if one is taking a train. If one is driving, I'd give a slight edge to EWR.


----------



## RRUserious

Is JFK cheaper to get to from Manhattan?


----------



## jebr

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot the political thing. Everytime MSP wants to try new things, the activists are out in crowds. Everybody wants an airport, nobody wants the noise. Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Minneapolis? They have pretty big airport and it seems just the right size to me. I've passed through on NWA internation flights. Sure, the airport dosen't look great, but it works OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The airport is located a lot closer to the city cores (and, hence, dense residential development) than some airports (such as Denver.) Match that with some people who want quiet, and there's a storm a-brewing.
> 
> Of course, there's plenty of places outside the flight paths, and you still live in, you know, the city. Noise is a part of life, I'd presume. If someone wants quiet, there's a lot of exurbs and rural areas for them to live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see the problem. Many Americans choose to live in the suburbs anyway, and inside the city you can't avoid noise one way or another. Many frequent flyers prefer a centrally-located airport instead of having to travel a long way out of town, like IAD or EWR.
> 
> ORD seems OK, there's an expressway and heavy rail straight to O'Hare from Downtown Chicago.
Click to expand...

Other people complain about it, though. I've learned to just shrug my shoulders at the whole debate, since I think it's ridiculous.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/179530671.html


----------



## AlanB

RRUserious said:


> Is JFK cheaper to get to from Manhattan?


NJT to EWR is a quarter cheaper than the LIRR to JFK, $6.75 vs. $7 respectively, assuming that you're traveling on the LIRR during off peak times. Otherwise the difference jumps to $2.75. If one is willing to sacrifice time for cost savings, then one can take the E subway train for $2.50 to Jamaica.

The AirTrain costs are the same; so no advantage there.


----------



## jis

Or if you want to be really cheap with lots of time on hand I suppose you can still do A to Rockaway Blvd or F to Kew Gardens and then Q10 to JFK if my memory serves me correctly, which it may not be.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Or if you want to be really cheap with lots of time on hand I suppose you can still do A to Rockaway Blvd or F to Kew Gardens and then Q10 to JFK if my memory serves me correctly, which it may not be.


You would take the E or F to Kew Gardens, then the Q10, or take either to Jamaica, and then the Q3. With a multride Metrocard, only $2.50 including free transfer subway to bus. You can do similar to EWR.....take PATH from any station in Manhattan to Newark, then take the local NJT bus (route 62?).........


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you want to be really cheap with lots of time on hand I suppose you can still do A to Rockaway Blvd or F to Kew Gardens and then Q10 to JFK if my memory serves me correctly, which it may not be.
> 
> 
> 
> You would take the E or F to Kew Gardens, then the Q10, or take either to Jamaica, and then the Q3. With a multride Metrocard, only $2.50 including free transfer subway to bus. You can do similar to EWR.....take PATH from any station in Manhattan to Newark, then take the local NJT bus (route 62?).........
Click to expand...

Yes. Route 62.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you want to be really cheap with lots of time on hand I suppose you can still do A to Rockaway Blvd or F to Kew Gardens and then Q10 to JFK if my memory serves me correctly, which it may not be.
> 
> 
> 
> You would take the E or F to Kew Gardens, then the Q10, or take either to Jamaica, and then the Q3. With a multride Metrocard, only $2.50 including free transfer subway to bus. You can do similar to EWR.....take PATH from any station in Manhattan to Newark, then take the local NJT bus (route 62?).........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Route 62.
Click to expand...

And you can also do a similar subway to bus transfer at Jackson Heights to reach LGA for $2.50....there are numerous local bus routes serving JFK and LGA.....


----------



## RRUserious

Guess not everything in New York is through the roof expensive.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Getting around New York is still more expensive than many other cities. A base fare in Denver is $2.25, in Philadelphia it's still $2.00, and in Los Angeles it's only $1.50! I've never used the MetroCard though, because I haven't lived in NYC.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The pilot who was at the controls when this accident happened has been fired by Southwest. Details are at Bloomberg.


----------



## saxman

I heard the pilot was not very well liked there. Taking the controls at a few hundred feet from the other pilot is generally not a good idea, unless doing so would prevent bending metal.


----------



## jis

What was the guy exactly trying to do. See if he can land without flaring? Seems there was a serious CRM issue there somewhere.


----------

