当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる
Back to Squawk list
  • 27

Passengers Experience in The Crash Landing of Southwest 345

送信時刻:
 
I read somewhere that technically what we experienced isn’t considered a crash landing, but in my mind when a plane hits the runway nose first, crushes the front landing gear, and skids 2,175 feet in a shower of sparks before stopping, it’s a crash landing. Our descent felt shaky, then without warning we hit the runway with a loud BANG. People whose seat belts were loose yelled in surprise as they were thrown into the seatbacks in front of them. (nickbradbury.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 12
Tis good there were no major injuries. I could see a loose belt in the air and the plane hitting CAT, but according to the story there were people in there with belts not buckled; on a landing? Gimme a break. You can't fix stupid I guess.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 4
I'm wondering why on that final walk-through performed by the FAs that they didn't observe those whose seat belts weren't secured and ensure they did so. It seems to me that it wasn't only the pax who weren't following protocol.
preacher1
Good Question, unless they just couldn't see them that good. Some folks do make an art of that.
akayemm
Right you are my friend.
I would supplement your comment in my capacity of a passenger by adding that I have distinctly noticed that FAs always stroll down the aisle AFTER the 'seat belts on' sign is on and she makes the announcement on the PA system. They are very polite in reminding personally. Even if the belt 'seems' a bit loose! I was negligent once and the concerned FA reminded me with her usual plaster cast smile to tighten up during the usual run down the aisle before taking up her 'station'.
And how could an old man like me ignore the plaster cast smile? ;-p
Doobs
That final walk thru the cabin is to see if the passengers have complied with the instructions delivered to them, by an announcement from the Cockpit..."Flight Attendants...prepare for landing". FA's check the carry on, devices turned off, seats are in the upright position, tray tables up and in the locked position. Preacher1, is so right. Pax have a gift of making sure that their seatbelt is "Fastened" but "Low and Tight"??? FA's cannot ensure that their seatbelt is "Low & Tight" across their lap. You look...it's buckled up....how tight??? Don't know. But they have been told at least 3 times. We are talking about "Take-Off" & "Landing". "Most Critical" segments of your flight. One would think that an "Able-Bodied" passenger with any kind of "Grey Matter" between their ears would follow the safety instuctions given to them from the Flight Attendants. The Flight Attendants cannot measure how "taut" the pax belts are. It's up to the pax to be responsible. I question, the FA's response to an abnormal landing. Given, SWA ,almost has had a clean record...I wonder if the FA's were caught off guard. If I was in an abnormal situation... like they were, I would "Evac" in a Seatttle second!!! Really...???? Assess conditions and get the hell out.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
My question was in response to preacher1 stating he saw a loose belt in the air. Now, about the evac, that's your area of expertise, but when you consider fire was seen and smoke was entering the cabin, their concern may have been evacuating into an inferno.
preacher1
Well the story is talking about loose belts and face smashings.
Doobs
Good Morning, Donna. I don't want to take the air out of Preacher's comment but just alittle more F.Y.I.- In that situation that SWA was in and most other unplanned mishaps...if the people don't kill you...the smoke definately will. As far as an inferno?...That is why Flight Attendants are trained to "assess conditions" outside the aircraft before opening an emergency exit and redirect passengers if fire is in their escape route.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
People like that deserve to get their face smashed!!!
dbaker
Ideally, they deserve a safe landing by an air carrier in a transport category aircraft.
preacher1
Well, yeah, that too, but I always thought that seat belts WERE for takeoffs and landings.LOL
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -3
How so??? If you're dumb enough to not follow directions nor have common sense, then hey...
dbaker
You're asking why I expect airlines to not do nose wheel landings and make the passengers evacuate down the slides?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -3
You replied to my comment which was they deserve what happens to them if they don't wear their seatbelt. I never said nose landings are the norm.
dbaker
I understand and I am of the opinion that no airline passenger deserves to be injured while flying on an airline.
preacher1
Well, as I kinda started this, I'll throw in another nickles' worth.
I agree with Daniel that no one should be injured flying, or any transport mode for that matter. That said, safety briefings are given for a reason and like THRUSTT, I have no sympathy for anyone that doesn't follow them. You don't have to bend up a nose wheel to have a bad landing and that is one time in a flight that you need to be ready for it.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
That's fine, you're more compassionate than I am. I don't tolerate ignorance which is why I am blunt.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

bbabis
Bill Babis -2
Good luck in your "Ideal World" Daniel. Post back later and let us know how its working out for you. Most of us who still watch out for ourselves and others will buckle up and use any other means available to stay alive in today's world ruled by no common sense and stupidity.
davidrbarnes
"Ideally" Daniel is right. That's the whole point of the FARs, procedures, processes, etc. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world where we can assure perfect safety. But if (and that's a big "if" that remains to be proven) a carrier is adopting a process or procedure by which safety is compromised, then they are failing in their obligation to strive for the ideal.
PhotoFinish
Maybe some had their belts on, but didn't appreciate the need to make them snug. I don't think all people have sn appreciation fir mechanism if injury. If sometimes you have to insist with some people in cars to tighten their safety belts, these sand peope may be just as ignorant in the sky.

Then again, maybe some hit their faces on the seat in front of them, not because of the safety belt, but because they lacked a shoulder belt. This may be even more significant as seat pitch is diminishing. As a result, that seat back in front keeps moving closer and closer to passengers' knees, and in the event of a violent impact, closer to impacting their faces.

I can't defend stupid. But there are some reasons why faces and seats backs may meet suddenly and forcefully, even without stupid.
zuluzuluzulu
They say a good landing is one you can walk away from and a great landing is one where you can use the plane again for the next leg.
rh77
OK, the guy's blog post is "whatever". My question -- what caused the gear to fail? I know it may be a while until we find out. I fly Southwest quite a lot and find them to be very good at what they do. Compared with other airlines (including 733 and 737 AC variations), I've noticed that at least 90% of the time on approach, they tend to use the gear to slow the aircraft earlier than the others (sometimes before any flap input -- LE or otherwise). I'm sure the speeds are well within the tolerances of the AC and Co. policy, but has the idea of repeated use of this "higher-velocity gear deployment" been addressed?
daspork
Das Pork 1
Landing on the nose gear first is what caused it to fail - it's not designed for that. The plane needs to land on the main gear first followed by the nose. The nose gear was overstressed and failed as a result.
GaryGeissman
Thats why you use seat belts, tighten them up duh.
davidrbarnes
I think the guy's red clown nose says a lot...
akayemm
Some comments are really sickening.
A person dies in a car accident, may be due to his fault. So people here will declare 'He deserved to die'. Or some thing like 'Good riddance'.
A belt across shoulders and chest, even though loose, can prevent or reduce upward bounce. And that is how most passengers in upper class escaped serious injuries.
davidrbarnes
"Upper class"? Are you sure you're talking about the same incident? Southwest is a one class airline with only lap belts (last I checked). That said, I do agree with your comments about "deserved to die" being disturbing. That said, there's a measure of personal responsibility (like buckling your seatbelt in accordance with the safety briefing ("Low and tight," anyone?) that seems sorely lacking these days.
akayemm
I meant Asiana 214.
My apologies for the error of omission.
preacher1
I don't believe I have seen DESERVED TO DIE in this thread. I have seen deserve to get their face smashed or to that effect. I'm kinda like David; SWA is one class. You still have 214 on the brain.
dhiddessen
Whoa, baby! What a story! I'm happy that you and yours weren't hurt and that by itself is amazing in itself. Good luck to all of you.
LordLayton
Some people will go to great lengths to somehow sue an airline also.
LordLayton
A reminder, You have to sleep comfortably EVERY night just not one! Is your conscious worth only one nights rest? ...........count your true blessings we all do when we board any aircraft as safe as the business is!
rh77
Ah. Didn't know what officially happened. Yep -- that would do it.
jamesholt202
OK pilots here's your ATC opinion. No offence to those involved in this. Occurrences such as this are classified as either an incidence or an accident. Looking at the photos I would have to say this was an accident. If you want to use the word "crash" do so but this word and others such as it are used by those that would like to magnify what happened.
AT
Wasabi757
Don't know about airline operation but in part 90 or 135, collaps of landing gear is considered an incident. Passenger injury may elevate that to accident status though.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I get what you're saying, but gosh, I'd fervently hope a crash is an accident. (j/k)
preacher1
Well, that's kinda like pilot's terminology." A good landing is one you walk away from". It's all in how you look at it, BUT, it ain't anything that a Pilot wants, regardless of what you call it.
Doobs
James- I was a crew member on a DC10. We took off from Toronto. At 500ft we lost the #2 engine. There was fire externally from that engine but the cockpit did not get a "Engine Fire Indicator Warning". We were notified by. ATC and visual notifacation from AC in the pattern. Our aircaft was foamed to extiguish that fire and found out later that the gear was on fire , as well., Now...your question is what designates an incident vs an accident. I was told that if someone is injured, it's an accident. So...that flight from Toronto to Chicago, in 1994, is, in fact, an accident. We had a Crew Member injured and one passenger. It was a nearly perfect EVAC!
jamesholt202
Hey there Dee, as I read your post I am reminded about the FAA's phraseology for when an ATC sees something such as an engine shooting fire the length of the aircraft from an engine. We are mandated to say " it appears " then fill in the rest of the statement. This all is derived from the folks in the legal department. As a young pup in Okinawa I experienced this with an RF4 on takeoff dropped his external fuel tanks which hit the runway and ruptured the full AB's torched the pods and sent them down the RWY. I had to say "it Appears.....".
Doobs
James...I'm sorry but I was laughing so hard at your post...I couldn't get back to you till now!! And I'm still gafawing over it! Seriously? You just lost your load, which almost abliberated the runway and ATC says...it "Appears?" What were those Government officials thinking, when they put that one in the books?? Tell it like it is, for god sake!!
preacher1
That is sort of an understatement?LOL
Wasabi757
That answers my question. Injury changes the status of incident to accident.
hlclark1704
i'm curious what the prognosis is for this aircraft. Are there adequate facilities at LGA to repair the structural and electronics damage and to fly it out on a ferry fight to a major repair facility? Or might it have to be disassembled and shipped out in pieces?
cessna210g
The talk at work is Boeing is going to repair the aircraft at LGA.
PhotoFinish
If they can do the work at LGA, that would be the cheapest option. Moving a plane not by air is a technical challenge, and not cheap.

The flip side of being on the water, is that they can also bring in any bulky equipment or machinery necessary by water, even if not easy to move in a cargo hold. Though they should be able to fly in most needed equipment, eg. replacement nose gear/ other replacement parts, good old fashioned soldering equipment, etc.
preacher1
I can't see how anything in the NY area is cheap. Personally, I'd do minimal there to get it up for a low altitude ferry flight to the closest SWA maintenance base to where it could be completely tore apart. Probably cosmetic damage but engines prolly OK. New nose gear. Give the boys a compass, altimeter, and radidio and say giddyup.lol
cessna210g
Those engines are going to replaced. Both engines have FOD damage. Both engine pylons need to be inspected. There is damage to the airframe to. She is going to be a hanger queen for a while.
davidrbarnes
Excellent point. One has to wonder if, with all the work required, it might be approaching BER.
PhotoFinish
Ha! Ha! I can understand what you say about the relative costs in New York.

Cheaper only by comparison to the cost if craning and barging. The Enterprise cost millions to crane onto a barge at JFK, move to and crane onto the USS Intrepid in the Hudson (aka US Airways alternate landing strip.)

The 737 is intended for continued commercial passenger flight, so should cost the same or even more to crane and move a longer distance to wherever the repairs might be undertaken. Plus, whatever the repairs cost needs to be added on, and must be substantially less, by more than the transportation cost, to justify moving due to cost alone. They may have to move for other reasons, such as limited available space at LGA to perform repairs.

Remember, the gear was pushed through an electrical compartment, that was a likely passage for quite a bit of electrical cabling, and whoi knows what else (hopefully not flight control hydraulics).

All this before considering the damage to the fuselage and engines. You want to be absolutely sure the plane is airworthy before shuttling it anywhere through the air.

But I could understand to desire to get to a less expensive space asap. If the hydraulics are all uncompromised and functional, the plane structurally sound; altimeter, compass and radio might not be the worst of options given the alternatives. I may suggest switching out the engines for the ferry flight (unless all the mx diagnostics suggest that would be entirely unnecessary, with extended ground tests at full power). You don't want to blow the engine(s) on take-off from LGA. There's no where to go from LGA without having gotten some altitude, but dropping into the East River.

Frying pan into fire would become appropriate in that case. Might as well junk it before dropping it in the drink, and not risk creating potential harm for others.

So if SW can rent some hangar space at LGA, might be the cheapest and safest option yet. A safe flight out to a SW facility would be another option after substantial work (gear repair, diagnostics).
JetMech24
The previous nose gear collapse aircraft in CA got a temp repair and was flown VFR, gear down and pinned, under 250 knots, and under FL100 up to Everett, WA for Boeing AOG to repair. NY is a bit too far I'm sure, but it is possible to fly it elsewhere if need be to get fixed.
Wasabi757
There was a show on TV, I think discovery, about tough fixes. One of the episodes was about a large Boeing that needed its aft pressure bulkhead replaced in the field because of an accident. It involved a huge team being brought in from Boeing to a rented facility that removed everything necessary to do the replacement, including all parts of the tail section and aft fuselage. Remarkable to say the least. And yes it was the most cost-effective option
davidrbarnes
For what it's worth, when the AA 767 retracted it's nose gear on the ground (maintenance induced), damaging avionics including IRU racks, Boeing came to AFW and performed all repairs.

I'd say it's a safe guess that the damages here are similar, if not more severe.
PhotoFinish
Yeah, yeah that's probably the safest and most practical option.aubr cheapest too.

You can pay for a lot of expensive hotel rooms and expensive hangar space, with the savings of from not dropping it in the drink, or with the money it would cost to transport by water.

Airworthiness is never overrated!
PhotoFinish
Worst case scenario, they're right on the water so they could crane that plane onto a barge and move it to any facility on the eastern seaboard that is accessable by water.

The Heathrow situation is a bit more problematic for various reasons - new plane with limited repair equipment and repair expertise available, land locked airport, overseas, and nowhere near the manufacturer's facilities. But at least at Heathrow, they're more likely to have not only more repair facilities but also more room for any equipment they do need to bring in. LGA is just so tight, is is less likely to have extra equipment around, and there is little room to spare.

Would be interesting to see how either case gets worked out.
ldoord
Just a question, is there not a fine that could be issued for not following the direction of a flight attendant.... Like securely fasten your seat belt, were fixing to land. And does the 737 have or use AoA equipment?
tomkennedy
So amazed to hear people were unbuckled or loosely buckled for landing! Maybe it's time to dangle the threat of a 'no-fly' list in front of them. They put themselves and others in danger.
steve34613
It was a crash landing; passengers were hurt and damn it, there were still airport employees that would steal from you! Give me a break!
LordLayton
The very fact that things unfolded with a lot less turmoil as could have been as every human has to learn 20/20 hindsight included in the training of "regular flight attendants who have empathy and loved ones of their own" I would say your situation was handled in a non litigious professional manner with YOU the customer's SAFETY as a PRIORITY! These professionals do not take on jobs to negate your importance. To judge anything otherwise will wake you in the middle of the night asking whether you were handled properly to ensure your safety which I'm sure was handled in those trained conditions under human pressure to ensure just that. In other words tell your scum sucking bottom feeding Whaaaaambulance chasing lawyers to F**k OFF so you can get a full nights sleep!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
Perhaps a little too much Friday night revelry, Leighton?
ldoord
Dave Barnes are you former Tomcat Pilot? Blacklion?
davidrbarnes
I am not. Sorry!
ldoord
Thanks, we had a D. Barnes in my squadron.. Have a good one.
bevandter
A long time friend of mine a retired A340 captain with Air Canada ssaid to me when I asked him about the Air France A340 run off on 24 Left at Toronto Int a few years back that it was a no brainer "pilot error". Air France tried to blame YYZ ATC because they failed to warn them about weather (it wasn't great but not a big deal). They touched down one third of the way down the runway (24 left) and waited 6 seconds to actvate the reversers. Guess what; luckily all survived. It took two years to finally show that these guys screwed up. Check out the Air France crash off the coast of Brazil a few ye
ars ago. PILOT ERROR. Some countries never want to admit that their airlines could be at fault; it must be something else. Just watch Mayday on Discovery and d hope you are not a victim of pilot error. We still fly because we know aircrew doesn't want to die either and that air travel is by far the safest way.
preacher1
Just kinda like driving. I don't think anyone leaves the house expecting to go wreck their car.
bbabis
But some, because it is beyond their scope of ability, intellect, or knowledge are destined to. Pilots are the same.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Gosh, I sure hope not. Everyone, EVERYONE makes mistakes. I just hope not while in control of a moving vehicle, be it auto, truck, boat, aircraft, surfboard, bike, etc.
akayemm
Do you mean 'every one'?
General view on this forum is that only a certain class of people/pilots make mistakes, like Koreans/Asians/Orientals.
PhotoFinish
The question is not whether people make mistakes, but whether they allow the mistakes to result in hull loss, loss of life and life-long disability, when they're in the pointy end.
akayemm
How often do you come across with accidents where nature and quantum of damage is predetermined or precalculated ? Or do you mean that some cause it with prior knowledge or prior deliberations ?
Or I am not understanding what you mean?
PhotoFinish
You're looking at it all wrong.

Take the Asiana 214 flight as an example. Another crew could've also set the wrong FD mode or forgotten to couple the autothrottles. But it was the Asiana's pilots failure to monitor airspeed and altitude on final that allowed a simple mistake to reach catastrophic results.

A more proficient crew would've monitored the basics of flight on final approach, and would've caught the mistake in time to recover.

Can't forget to fly the plane.
akayemm
Why philosophise a simple mistake of omissions and commissions. Or else how any accident happens? Because people make mistakes. road accident, fire accident and so on.
These pilots made mistakes. Every body knows. Including the lawyers likely to prosecute and judges likely to hear the case.
And do you mean, NO accident has been caused by a proficient pilot? Or do you mean, non proficient pilots ARE ALSO invited to fly, to cause accidents?
More proficient or less proficient! How do you define it? By accident ?
PhotoFinish
No, I'm Judy saying that a proficient pilot wouldn't have made that mistake. He or she would've made lots of visual approaches on beautiful clear days and wouldn't be confused of which settings to use.

In the alternative, a pilot who happened to make a setting mistake that was proficient would be monitoring airspeed and altitude, and would've caught and corrected the mistake.

Failing to monitor airspeed and altitude is nit a mistake. It is failing the minimum requirements for competent command of a large airliner with 300 souls.
Doobs
Photo...I didn't know your name was Judy! I agree. Simply saying. If you can not hand fly and land an aircraft in perfect VFR conditions...especially with 300 souls onboard, either you go back to Basic Training and learn the fundaments of flying or find a different profession that won't put people in harms way.
F.Y.I.- after Asiana clipped the seawall...evidently a couple more asian airliners approaches came up short but they had the sense to go around.
akayemm
Near miss or an accident !
Difference lies in how the concerned pilot/s make last second corrections !
No ?
Nice to know the names, Judy and Dee ! Judy - woman's name and Dee ? Pardon this Q
In my case, A.K., man's name, stand for Anil Kumar, first and middle names, Mittal - last name/surname/family name.
Er.? Like Dr. for doctors, Er. for engineers ! Interesting . No ?
akayemm
In retrospect, the initial conclusion based on observations gathered from this forum is that the two pilots 'perhaps' got into an argument of sorts and failed to follow (grossly) the basics of VFR procedures like speed, height and approach angle(glide path) etc.
These guys might have been 'proficient' pilots on record but at the fateful moment, they failed miserably. And that is what matters in real life.
I am not an aviator. I am repeating what I learnt here.
PhotoFinish
Without the cockpit voice recorder, I can't tell you with any certainty what they were doing or saying.

But based on the briefed and witnessed trajectory of the plane, I can tell you what they weren't doing - monitoring airspeed and altitude.

I can't say with any conviction whether they were arguing.

But, we can tell from the data that they were struggling to keep the plane lined up with the runway centerline. This struggle might've been the cause of the distraction or yet another symptom of whatever else was going on in there.

Until proven otherwise by facts, I will always choose the simplest explanation and most benign explanation.

Fatigue after a 10-hour flight is a strong possibility. Also, distraction could also be an issue. The beautiful view. Trying to line up the plane. Not feeling confident with visual approaches. Feel flustered. Setting a mode incorrectly. Not feeling confident in manual piloting skills. Not sure which is the correct flight mode. Switching repeatedly between modes. Leaving the FD mode set improperly.

Any and all of these can be part of the chain of events that led to a fatal crash.

There may it may not have been an argument. I have heard no evidence to that effect, apart from some baseless speculation on some FA thread. Baseless speculation by an experienced pilot is still baseless speculation until proven otherwise.
preacher1
More than likely, LACK of argument based on social status, regardless of who should have been top dog in the cockpit.
PhotoFinish
That sounds more plausible.
preacher1
Donna, you can hope but do you have any other explanation for all the fatalities in a given year. I can't believe they are ALL accidents.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
No, of course not. Nor was I implying such. I was just responding to Bill saying some because it's beyond their scope of ability, intellect or knowledge. THAT is scary.
bbabis
Everyone, and I'm sure you also Donna, know people or situations that are just accidents waiting to happen. Then they do. It is as simple as that. Every profession and mode of transportation has them. We all wish that we could prevent them, but we can't. All we can do is hope and pray that we or loved ones are not the ones affected by them.
Jbabemd80
I found it amazing that this guy goes on for a while about his bags? YOU LIVED, no offense but that is the typical American attitude. I was just in a plane crash, where's my god dam bag?? You better get me my bag, I have a million kapillion dollars worth of everything in there. My bag hasn't been found yet? What do you mean? Why can't I get my bag back from the crashed airplane? You people weren't prepared for this? This is terrible customer service, my family needs our electronics, we wont know how to talk to each other otherwise. Seriously? Priorities, He mentioned his family in one sentence and spent two paragraphs on his bags. #flyingpublicsucks
cuthbert31
Did anyone notice that he left the aircraft BEFORE his family? I know on SWA families don't often sit all together but something strange about deplaning first and waiting for your kin to follow. He aptly wrote that there was time to become organized (persons taking their luggage from overheads etc)so there was time to belt out a quick plan to the son or even assemble him in front of you to egress first...Just Sayin!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
Yeah, he's a moron!!!
preacher1
preach on brother!!!!

[This poster has been suspended.]

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!