Southwest vs. the FAA

[AP2B]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

You and I would probably disagree on what a good safety culture includes, so I won't get into it. Suffice it to say that taxiing at 30+ knots is not what I consider a safe operation.

I witnessed this for 3 years at IND on the ramp. It was kind of a joke around the line office.

Gotta get those flights turned yesterday!!!

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

You and I would probably disagree on what a good safety culture includes, so I won't get into it. Suffice it to say that taxiing at 30+ knots is not what I consider a safe operation.

But that's not what you said. You said:

The pilots shoulder no blame in this. The blame resides with a corporate culture that encourages cutting corners in order to run an ultra-efficient operation. It's a shame that a company with such great understanding of labor relations is so horrible on its safety culture.

First off, the pilots WOULD be to blame for taxiing at 30 kts. I don't see taxiing fast as a "corner cutting" issue. Well, maybe if you go in the grass for cutting a corner to tight.

What you were implying was that management puts pressure on people to pencil whip, ignore and shove things under the rug in order to get flights out on time. THAT would be cutting corners. For every SWA guy that taxis fast, I've seen at LEAST one that taxis at a normal speed. Never once heard of anyone getting reprimanded for taxiing too slow. I saw an Eagle ERJ taxiing so fast I thought he was gonna rotate on the taxiiway. Does that mean Eagle management pressures them to do so? Nope. It's the pilot's choice.

Now, you want a good example of a management team that DOES put pressure on people to cut corners, I can show ya a good one....

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

First off, the pilots WOULD be to blame for taxiing at 30 kts.

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. A fanatical devotion to on-time flights at any cost encourages this activity. The pilots on FLG3701 did many unsafe things, but I don't blame them for the accident. I blame Phil Trenary and the management team and training department that created a non-existent safety culture.

For every SWA guy that taxis fast, I've seen at LEAST one that taxis at a normal speed.

Beg to differ. It's extremely rare that I see an SWA airplane taxiing at a safe speed. Maybe 5% of the time. Gotta get that on-time arrival, you know.

Now, you want a good example of a management team that DOES put pressure on people to cut corners, I can show ya a good one....

Believe me, I'm all too familiar.

[zmiller4]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Dear God, please don't let us merge with this carrier.

Is that because you would have to suffer the injustice of a 48% average pay increase?

The pilots on FLG3701 did many unsafe things, but I don't blame them for the accident. I blame Phil Trenary and the management team and training department that created a non-existent safety culture.

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

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by zmiller4

Is that because you would have to suffer the injustice of a 48% average pay increase?

It just ain't worth it.

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

Nope. Trust me, until you've dealt with that management team, you really can't understand.

[Tram]

Originally Posted by Nick

Equally busted appears to be the FAA who let SWA's flight schedule coerce them into not grounding planes that should have.

At least that's what I got out of it.

Exactly what I was thinkin...

"Your planes are not safe, but we'll let you keep flyin' them!"

[Seggy]

[JDMcFly]

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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. A fanatical devotion to on-time flights at any cost encourages this activity. The pilots on FLG3701 did many unsafe things, but I don't blame them for the accident. I blame Phil Trenary and the management team and training department that created a non-existent safety culture.

Sorry, I have to still blame the pilots. They made a conscious decision to operate the aircraft in the way they did. I agree that the training dept here lacks a LOT, but the CA is still responsible for operating the aircraft in a safe manner. Switching seats, not checking the weight vs altitude chart and acting like juvenile school kids had nothing to do with the training dept. IMO, once you become PIC of a 121 aircraft "I didn't know any better" is no longer a valid excuse.

Beg to differ. It's extremely rare that I see an SWA airplane taxiing at a safe speed. Maybe 5% of the time. Gotta get that on-time arrival, you know.

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.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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. A fanatical devotion to on-time flights at any cost encourages this activity. The pilots on FLG3701 did many unsafe things, but I don't blame them for the accident. I blame Phil Trenary and the management team and training department that created a non-existent safety culture.

How in tune to the culture of Southwest are you? From what I've seen during extensive interaction with Southwest employees, their company promotes a very safety-conscious culture. They also do have a culture that encourages going above and beyond to get the job done, but never at the expense of safety. I think you are seeing things you want to see. You can talk all day about the BUR and MDW overrun accidents, but you'll see similar events at every major airline out there. We are all just one mistake away from being the next FLG3701, Comair 5191, or CorpEx 5766.

As for the crew of FLG3701, it absolutely astounds me that you will absolve them of any wrongdoing in the crash. Safety culture or not, to take an airplane and do what they did is a complete lack of professionalism. As professionals, we should know better than to joyride in a transport category aircraft.

[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?

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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/fortu...6543/index.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A961948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A964958260

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...048_faa10.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...22/ai_90627047

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by RedBelly

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]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by RedBelly

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]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

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]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by RedBelly

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

I'll concede that point.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by zmiller4

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

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

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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.

[PCL_128]

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]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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/loc...e.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.

[PCL_128]

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.