British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Trailer Park (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/)
-   -   Planespotting (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/planespotting-742453/)

Scouse Express Jan 13th 2014 11:05 am

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by Yorkieabroad (Post 11077035)
Go up quick when they're empty, don't they!


Yep - Pity that woman couldn't have moved her Noggin out of the way.

markonline1 Jan 13th 2014 12:37 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
Totally inconceivable how this could happen! This could have ended badly. I'll be amazed if that crew fly again for Southwest.

civilservant Jan 13th 2014 1:08 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
While I agree the flight crew are unlikely to fly again, you shouldn't be too rash to blame them - the technology can easily lead a pilot astray. You miss a single punch on the FMC and you can end up in a mountain.

(American Airlines 965)

Pulaski Jan 13th 2014 1:34 pm

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 11077157)
While I agree the flight crew are unlikely to fly again, you shouldn't be too rash to blame them - the technology can easily lead a pilot astray. You miss a single punch on the FMC and you can end up in a mountain.

(American Airlines 965)

Agreed, but 18 years ago it seemed more reasonable. Now people have GPSs and smart phones such that perhaps a third of the passengers on the SWA flight had the technology to ascertain that they were in the wrong place (yes, I know they aren't allowed to use it in flight, but hypothetically they could), but the aircrew apparently did not, or failed to use it/ use it properly. :unsure:

Given that it is just about possible for a plane to plot it's own course from A to B, it is mystifying that the air crew could land in the wrong place by nine miles! Excuses may be given, but it is a bizarre lapse of technology and professional judgement.

Scouse Express Jan 13th 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
1 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 11077184)
Agreed, but 18 years ago it seemed more reasonable. Now people have GPSs and smart phones such that perhaps a third of the passengers on the SWA flight had the technology to ascertain that they were in the wrong place (yes, I know they aren't allowed to use it in flight, but hypothetically they could), but the aircrew apparently did not, or failed to use it/ use it properly. :unsure:

Given that it is just about possible for a plane to plot it's own course from A to B, it is mystifying that the air crew could land in the wrong place by nine miles! Excuses may be given, but it is a bizarre lapse of technology and professional judgement.

Apparently, the Pilots of SW have a reputation for "Flying On Visual" rather than Instruments. Hence the mess they now find themselves in.

The Photo below shows the aftermath of a Landing at Chicago Midway, a few years ago.


Jim.

Brit3964 Jan 13th 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by markonline1 (Post 11077132)
Totally inconceivable how this could happen! This could have ended badly. I'll be amazed if that crew fly again for Southwest.

Unless they had the wrong airport ID loaded into the FMS, which is highly unlikely given the flight plans are pre-installed before flight, it's pretty hard to get the wrong airport. Standard Pt 121 ops usually require the crew tune localizer frequencies or GPS final approaches into the system even when on a visual approach. I know I do it every time I fly anywhere.

Probably more likely they got disorientated at night and thought they had the right runway without cross-checking their instruments. Got lazy in other words.

As for crosswind landings, my favorite one was when I jumpseated in an Atlas B747-4F going into STN 2 years ago. Shitty weather, rain and wind gusts to upper 30's mph made the landing fun. I heard the cockpit radalt digital voice countdown 50..40..30..20..10.. then a hard bang as we hit the ground!

My crosswind landings are never that hard ;)

markonline1 Jan 13th 2014 2:47 pm

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 11077157)
While I agree the flight crew are unlikely to fly again, you shouldn't be too rash to blame them - the technology can easily lead a pilot astray. You miss a single punch on the FMC and you can end up in a mountain.

(American Airlines 965)

Sorry, but they are wholly to blame. Landing that aircraft at the wrong airport could have had catastrophic consequences. I'd like to know whct the controller was doing too. I understand they don't have radar at the airport they were Diego land on, but the controller should have been keeping a fairly constant visual on the aircraft. You would have thought he might have pipped up. Having worked in aviation for 15 years, I see a lot of these stories where the press has made more of it than actually happened to beef up the story. In this instance though, the crew have ****** up!

Brit3964 Jan 13th 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
I just heard on the news that the SW crew were grounded after landing. My guess is there are a couple of pilot jobs going at SW now.

Beaverstate Jan 13th 2014 7:58 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
Redneck Ultralight solo without instruction. Humo(u)rs yet uplifting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arJhhUHDtQk

Pulaski Jan 13th 2014 10:22 pm

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by markonline1 (Post 11077239)
...... Having worked in aviation for 15 years, I see a lot of these stories where the press has made more of it than actually happened to beef up the story. .....

I used to believe that media reporting was accurate, complete, and unbiased. Then I got involved "on the inside" of a major (non-aviation) news story when I worked in the UK. During the course of the story I closely monitored the news and quickly learned that media stories may be a bizarre patchwork of information received directly from the source (e.g. a spokesman or press release) and other hard facts, supplemented with old (stale) data that often is no longer relevant. Then any gaps in the story are filled with information from other unofficial sources such as unappointed, self opinionated, busybodies, third party information of little relevance such as spurious comparisons to other situations that aren't actually comparable, and then any remaining holes are filled in with deductions, supposition, and guesswork by the journalist.

The result of this pigs breakfast is that the story, as reported, may have a kernel of truth, but it may be wrapped in layer upon layer of incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise irrelevant information, sometimes rendering the story almost unrecognizable to someone "on the inside" who knows what the actual facts of the matter are. :unsure:

In twenty years nothing has persuaded me that the above explanation is not true to some degree for the majority of media reporting. :ohmy:

Pulaski Jan 15th 2014 8:50 am

Re: Planespotting
 
Are you still longing for that DC10 experience?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...109_134728.jpg

And Here's the story and some more pictures.

watchamacallit Jan 18th 2014 5:22 am

Re: Planespotting
 
I'm a plane fan and almost crash when driving near JFK or Newark because I am constantly watching the aircraft instead of the traffic :)

civilservant Jan 18th 2014 5:47 am

Re: Planespotting
 
The first interim report was released by the NTSB for southwest incident.

1) It was dark
2) FO had only flown there once before, Captain never had.
3) Runways are nearly identical orientation
4) They flew a VFR approach

Bearing in mind all those factors, it's an easy mistake to make. Fact is, VFR at night is a bad idea. Especially if you aren't familiar with the airport environment.

markonline1 Jan 18th 2014 6:15 am

Re: Planespotting
 

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 11084842)
1) It was dark
2) FO had only flown there once before, Captain never had.
3) Runways are nearly identical orientation
4) They flew a VFR approach

And bearing in mind 1,2 and 3, they did 4! An amazing lack of judgement!!!!

Pulaski Feb 10th 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Planespotting
 
Perhaps the best 47 minutes of TV you'll ever see!



All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:48 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.