Southwest 737 lands at LaGuardia with nose wheel stuck

[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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.