As a retired SWA, I can only say this. There is no excuse for this. Even if there is no approach to the runway, you can/should pull up the runway in the FMS, extend the centerline to 5 miles, and look what that provides. Yep, an altitude to cross that point and thereafter a 3 degree/700 fpm profile to the runway. Complacency is never your friend, and this smacks of just that. By the way - we weren’t a bunch of “cowboys”. We were proud of our hand flying skills. But that should never take precedence over Safety of Flight.
I agree as a retired SWA pilot. No excuse to deviate from company procedure when all the nav aids are available. This is any easy airport to fly to. Using this runway was a short cut to save some time. Night flights are increased risk when you short cut procedures.
The public media was completely confused on this flight, my first thought was, I will get the accurate information from Juan Brown. Thanks, a thorough job as usual.
Same here. When I hear of incidents like this, I tell myself "wait a day and let's see what Juan has to say." If anyone can explain these things to this layman, it's Mr. Browne.
Journalists aren't aviation experts. They aren't transportation experts, climate experts, financial experts... Get my drift? Expecting them to be experts when reporting news is a failure on your part, they just report what is told to them.
Seriously, reading comments in various places by the general public about this are hilarious. MCAS nearly killed them, diversity hires, overworked so they fell asleep, they were trying to descend to breathable oxygen.... every idea under the sun
Retired controller here (Boston Center 1985-2016). This is definitely ATC automation at work. We provided approach control services in many areas that had no underlying TRACON. A low altitude alert, which we called an MSAW alert, was to be treated as a critical event which took precedence over most any other responsibility. That OKC controllers phraseology was the exact one we were to use in the event of an MSAW warning. That SWA crew sounded dog tired... Great job as always JB.
Thanks @AtCDave1 spot on here. I might fathom a guess that it's masters of capitalism and for-profit private enterprise who are beating those SWA crew dogs senseless with fatigue. This event is a clear and prime example why signicantly more heavy-handed federal regulation is necessary. Skies were much safer before the Reagan '80s, we all remember that fiasco.
As a retired FedEx B-777 Captain I would always put the end of the runway into one of the fix pages so that I can do simple math of 3-1 to calculate whether I’m high or low on a three degree glideslope. These guys were just asleep at the wheel.
At my 121 company we are required to back up all visuals with an instrument approach, and at night must have the terrain map up. Situations like these remind is why these measures are so important.
IMHO, any pilot (Part 121 especially) should be backing up the approach with an instrument approach loaded in the FMS, 100% of the time, regardless of company policy. It ain’t that hard!!
Indeed, modern GA GPS as well as airline FMS systems all have the ability to draw a visual to most runways anyway. At a minimum, there's no reason to leave that off.
Same here and I never do anything significant at night with AP off SID/StAR or any approach. WHY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT NEEDS TO BE? Just not worth it.
IIRC within the past couple of years, a Lufthansa crew approaching KSFO was cleared for a visual to the 28’s at night and refused the clearance. I believe they said their FOM specifically prohibited night visual approaches. They requested vectors for an ILS. This caused the NORCAL controllers a bit of upset to their routine and they were not happy. The resequencing for the ILS was time consuming to say the least. To their credit, the LH crew followed their company procedures even after the long, long flight from Germany.
I've done that approach from DEN/SLC to OKC many times and often around midnight. OKC was always very difficult to visually identify coming from that side and runway 13 was poorly light up and difficult to see until inside of 5 miles. I tried to always brief this and the threat of the many surrounding airports that can be mistaken. My airline also requires a instrument approach be flown at night even when in visual conditions.
Juan's last remark hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of new pilots coming on board at the airlines, and that is probably a factor in these incidents. New pilots may think they know all there is to know, but they don't. This crops up in a lot of industries. There is no substitute for experience, coupled with the right work ethic and solid values. The school of life teaches two valuable qualities: competence and humility.
But after some experience in the airlines you don't want any part of it. "Work ethic" suggests you do what everyone tells you or you're money motivated which is not an actual "work ethic." As a safety first CFI, the FAA and aviation regs don't support your view except for the humility and proficiency ("competence") concerns.
There are new pilots coming on board. That is NOT a factor here. This is a case of accepting a less the favorable alternative. Its a lack of PIC skill and ability. There is a published instrument approach to 13. Complete with course, altitudes and vertical guidance. The PIC CHOSE not to use it. Thats the problem. The controller undoubtedly assigned a visual approach and the crew accepted it! The crew permitted ATC to fly the aircraft for them. This is the problem. Its not new. Its an old problem. Its a crew accepted visual approach induced unstable approach. Look at statistics concerning unstable approaches. This is how you fix the problem: “requesting vectors to the RNAV 13 approach”. Or if you don’t want that runway then say “requesting vectors to the ILS 17R”. Or if you don’t want that one then say “requesting vectors to the ILS 17L.” Fixing these repeated issues is a matter of exercising PIC authority after deciding on the best course of action. Those reading can decide if that occurred here.
I am concerned that the First Officer did not know what was going on either. That is why he is there. To ensure no pilot error and a backup pilot for emergencies.
I agree! And the fact the Juan already has a job and family he loves makes me trust him more because he's not trying to massage the algorithm to get more views. He's just a guy with a strong sense of responsibility. If he were my neighbor he'd never have to shovel the snow in his driveway! 😁
About 20 years ago I was in the parking lot at work and the weather was cold, foggy and visability was 0.......out of nowhere, a Southwest 737 appeared, and it looked unreal! Then the engines spooled up and it was loud and powerful. My head rattled and every car alarm went off! The jet disappeared back into the clouds.
I was recently cleared for the ILS at PBI in my Aztec. Heavy to extreme rain reported short final. Two aircraft ahead of me -- the closest Spirit Airlines -- shot the approach with a smooth ride and landed. As I approached what should be glide slope intercept these was no glide slope. I reported no glide slope and continuing on the Localizer approach. Controller asked Spirit if they had a glide slope on the approach. They answered No. Thanks a whole hell of a lot Spirit. What approach were you flying?
Juan I ask for ILS at night even when "its clear blue and 22". Have been for over 40 years. Thank you for reaffirming that night is "instrument" conditions. No cowboy stuff here!
Back in April, My wife's southwest flight had a low altitude alert coming into land in Lubbock. They got down to 450ft AGL at 5 miles before finally arresting the descent. When the tower called out the low altitude alert, you could hear the alarm going off.
@@cassandratq9301 sometimes on some Boeing planes you can actually hear the cockpit alerts in the passenger cabin, I don't think you can adjust the alert volume, so maybe it's lack of sound proofing. I've heard the disconnecting autopilot warble at times
@@cassandratq9301 the OP might have been referring to something like a LiveATC feed as well. If there's a low altitude alert happening (or a traffic conflict alert, etc.) at the controller's station, the alarms are often audible when the controller transmits. You'd hear that on the recording.
@@Mulcher737 you’ve never heard an alert beeper going off in the background of an ATC transmission? Or are you talking about low altitude-related alerts specifically? I don’t know if the beeper goes off for them when somebody is too low on the approach. If you want to call that “BS,” that’s a little crotchety, but fine. I was only trying to be helpful. You hear this pretty often for traffic alerts.
When I heard the voices from the cockpit on VASaviation, that pilot sounded like he was 2 seconds from complete sleep. It was the voice of my husband saying, "I'm just resting my eyes. "
Good thing there aren't any tall radio antennas in Oklahoma. Recently retired, the last 10 years or so I almost always refused visual approaches at night, even if it was a familiar airport. Getting vectors for a published approach is just smart. With nothing to prove, the last thing you need at that point is a professional challenge. Stabilized and boring is my cup of tea.
There are TV antennas - The Edmond towers as they are called, even though they are all in North OKC just south of Edmond. The station I worked at was 1750’ AGL before it was taken down.. However there are no towers to speak of close to Will Rogers…
@@jcak552Fun fact, KWTV in OKC had the tallest structure in the world for a short time when their old tower was built in the 50s. WTV stands for World’s Tallest Video. It was the first structure built that surpassed the height of the Empire State Building.
Not a pilot, and total agree that stabilised and boring is definitely the cup of tea to have. BUT as every time there is an incident there are always lots of people saying the pilots should have been better aviators and not rely on the computers. I wonder if they felt is was a good night to have a refresher training? The didn't sound panicked, and had already decided to do a go around, and not going to try and get down at all costs from where they were at, to me sounds like they are pretty experienced.
Over at VASAviation, @jethro70 came up with the best explanation imho: if you look at the satellite view of the map, it appears they were thinking Old Highway 4 was runway 13. There’s a couple of crossing highways in just the right spot to be mistaken for the parallel rwys 17-35.
If that's the case it reminds me of a story I heard of a O'Hare jet mistaking Glenview Naval Air Station and coming in low over Northbrook. But I think that was during the day.
Man, if that's true they need some landmark to say, "I'm not a runway"! Juan hinted that GPWS may have alerted the crew (who sounded dog-tired) but one wonders how many similar roads on approach look like runways? Any stories or summaries of accidents or near-accidents caused by this, and ways they have been addressed? As an aside, this is an area where AI may help uncover commonalities in accidents. No one person at this point can have detailed understanding of all airplane accidents to this point. Machines will be able to pick out things we can't see, just too much data for one human mind to process.
@@RetiredEE airplane mishaps are possibly the most scrutinized events of the postwar world. The system we have developed via that scrutiny to prevent mishaps works. There is zero need to allow large language models into it. Stop trying to fix what isn’t broken, take this technoworship drivel elsewhere.
@cynvision Probably about 20 years ago in London there was a plane that lined up, at night (or fog?) to land on the A4 highway that is parallel to the main runways at LHR. Thankfully that was aborted for a go-around.
Juan, when you overlayed the KML data on Google Earth, it looked like they were lined up almost perfectly with a road. It'll be interesting to see if they believed that the road was the runway. At my airline, if a published approach is available, we have to use it to back up a visual approach. Many years ago, we had a similar thing happen. After a log day of flying we were cleared for the visual, the guy I was flying with said he the had the field in sight, but what he thought was the runway was a road that paralleled the runway. I kept asking if he had the runway in sight, because we were too high. I realized he must be looking at something else, and pointed out where the runway was. He was shocked when he realized he was looking at a road. We asked ATC for vectors back to the ILS as there was no way we could salvage the approach. This all occurred when we were on an extended base and did have the ILS to back it up, so eventually that would've made us realize the error, but it was a bit eye opening on what can happen after a long day of flying and being influenced by fatigue.
Hi Juan, Thanks for the great report on this potential tragedy. During my 31+ years at SWA, which was mostly PM flying, I always made sure to back up my visual approaches with a precision approach, if available. In this case, because of my infrequency in using rwy 13, I would have probably asked for 17L/R. As you mentioned, there are a lot of new, young, mostly great pilots coming in to the majors, and as Captains, we need to be especially vigilant about monitoring and teaching the newer guys and girls in the intricacies of arrivals at night, and backing up our visual approaches.
Right on. "mentor" is the key here. Two things need to happen: 1) Senior captains must get bonus or extra pay for being mentors. 2) Any pax who checks their luggage at the counter and doesn't even carry so much as a backpack on board must get extra loyalty program credits or points. #2 will not only greatly help and speed up the boarding process, but will also dramatically improve on-time perrformance because gate time won't be wasted checking bags at the jetway, etc; I've mentioned this idea to many crew and submitted this idea to SWA a few times now.
@@paulsherman51 Good comments, but, I must disagree with you on a couple of points. As a Captain, being a mentor demonstrating and instructing our newer FOs the intricacies of the terminal environment, when to slow down, descend, configure, etc, is all part of the job in my opinion. That's why you get paid the big bucks. For example, the 737 is obviously not the fastest airliner out there but it can be a difficult airplane to slow down and get ready to configure while in the terminal area. 2. Passengers used to check their bags in the 'old days' before the advent of roller bags. That how SWA was able to pioneer the '10 minute turn'. Of course, we also pushed back with passengers still in the isle way back then. It would be next to impossible to get passengers to give up the convenience of roller bags and bringing your luggage on board for the overhead bins. I just don't see that happening.
Very well said. I am a Captain and LCA for a major US airline...I teach my students the same thing...just get vectors for the ILS (or approach of your choice) at night. There are just too many traps out there to do otherwise.
There is a long wide road (just north of I 40) that runs in the same orientation as runway 13 approximately 5 miles to the Northwest from the airport. It could be possible that they mistook the road as the runway similar to the DreamLifter incident in Wichita a few years ago.
Quite possibly. Also, absolutely insane to imagine a commercial airplane full of passengers almost landed on a road and not a runway. Absolutely unacceptable.
I think this is probably right. The road also appears to run through a section of wasteland, too - which would have appeared to the pilots as a patch of dark surrounded by the lights of suburbs/city - much like airports do.
I don’t know, Juan. I’m a captain on a junior fleet at a major airline, and I fly with a disproportionate amount of new-hires as a result, and I’ve found them to be well trained and prepared. And they certainly aren’t eager to fly night time visual approaches with no autopilot. The turnover is a threat, but nowhere near the threat that fatigue is (and has always been) in the industry.
Sure looked like he was lining up for landing at KPWA before making that last turn to join final, which has a similar runway configuration as KOKC. After the go around the controller was being very explicit about him looking to his right and to his 1:00, specific distances, etc.
@@Turd_Furgeson Wiley Post is close to both Yukon and Mustang, right next to Lake Overholser…unfortunately Will Rogers was about 10 miles away for the SWA pilots! 😵💫
The Navy has the "APPROACH" magazine with a section called "Anymouse".. originally called " Anonymous ", but thanks to a misspelling, by a reader .. " Anymouse " was adopted as the sections title.
I retired 11years ago from a major carrier. I put in 35 years. We were well versed in the FAR requirements that mandated an air carrier crew MUST tune identify and display the most accurate approaches for the intended landing runway regardless of a visual approach or not. You are also mandated to not descend below the posted final fix altitude till passage of that fix. This applies even on a visual approach. Doesn’t look like the SW crews believe in this FAR.
As a captain for a major airline, as well as retiring in about 1yr, knowing I can be wrong, I encourage my fellow pilots to call me out if they believe I am wrong. I truly believe this is a GREAT policy/ procedure but DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS AN FAR...
I will have to admit I searched the AIM and could not find that requirement. I know for 35 years it was our company requirement. These type of requirements are usually FAR driven. It could be in TERPS but I do not have that. I personally met a C-130 crew in base ops still covered with dirt after crashing into the Nevada desert 6 miles short of the runway on a night VFR landing and had a former squadron member hit trees 8 miles from the runway on a night VFR approach. He landed safely. I am a believer in loss of depth perception at night!
Thank you Juan. I always withhold my immediate reaction until I hear what you have to say. I'm not a pilot; but I thoroughly enjoy aviation in general.
Great analysis Juan. I studied the sectional chart to see if I could find a lighted feature that could have tricked the crew into thinking they were looking at a runway. I couldn't find one. For the non-aviation folks- as pilots we often refer to the 3 to 1 rule. It's actually more like 18 to 1. It's three nautical miles (about 18,000') travelled to 1K' of altitude. Cheers
This is how that Southwest flight a few years ago landed at a county airport when they were supposed to land in Branson, Missouri. Visible approach at night again.
Juan great video but just a heads up, SWA is a 100% NON-WAAS fleet... so all LP and LPV minimums are PROHIBITED at SWA. they would use the LNAV mins and convert the MDA to a DDA (add 50ft to the MDA and treat it like a DA). So the minimums would be 1750 MSL. They would then fly the aircraft in LNAV and VNAV PTH mode down to the LNAV mins DDA. All that being said, SWA rarely actually sets minimums on the EFIS. If they are doing a visual approach OR a straight in instrument approach but weather is VMC, they will set touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) for the minimums. This is what the AOM says to do. Let me know if you have any questions. Other than that, great video sir!
I've been in the airlines for 10.5 years now. Including the one in question. To this date, I've never done a visual approach without some sort of approach guidance when it was available. When I don't have guidance I always draw a 3 and 5 mile ring on the MFD so I know visually where I need to be configured and at 1000'. I'm not here to prove anything other than I can hopefully retire on a birthday rather than on the news. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of pilots out there who think seat of the pants flying and being a bad ass is a good idea in a transport category airplane.
I’ve only flown general aviation for 25 years and currently fly a Cirrus. I always fly approaches to the airport if it’s available regardless if it’s day VFR but especially at night. It provides much greater SA and keeps me protected from obstacles and terrain.
My home airport is about 30 miles south of OKC. A few years ago I was doing touch and go's at our 5000ft strip (KCHK) and a pilot comes on the radio and says "Southwest Flight 7***, short final Runway 18", which was pretty shocking considering that I was in the pattern and there is no tower at our airport. It turns out the guy actually was a Southwest Airlines pilot but he was on his day off landing his SuperCub, and force of habit, he called out his Southwest flight rather than his Cub tail number. I'm starting to wonder if this was the same guy?🤔😀
That crackly “I’m to cool for you to be in my presence” pilot voice drives me nuts. Comair 5191 cvr has the same exact voice and look what happened to them.
It's so crazy cuz this is something that would've resulted in a crash 20-30 years ago but thankfully we've built in enough safety measures since then that this was caught early enough to save everyone on board.
Over residential area at night when street lights are on. Visual approach means looking out the window. One can estimate above ground altitude by looking at the street lights going by especially at around 500 feet above ground. I'd have had their blood drawn and checked for 'shrooms.
If the EGPWS (Enhanced) hadn't gone off yet, it probably was about to do so. At night, I would have had whatever approach available for said runway, pulled up and in use. But, as Juan said, i would fly a few more miles and use the ILS to 17R.
Fatigue is a very dangerous physiological condition and I've been averaging a call to scheduling to drop the 'F' word 3 to 4 times a year since starting this particular 121 employer, mostly due to flips from night to day or day to night (cargo). I just won't do it. Having said that, I hand fly at night all of the time when I'm feeling alert, climbing AND descending, it's an important skill to keep under your fingers and in your eyes and scan, but you have to be alert. You have no business flying, autopilot or none, if you're tired, 121, GA or military. OF COURSE, whether day or night, back yourself up with the ILS or Vnav approach and brief, brief, brief what you intend to do... and then DO it. I keep my 'significant other' in the loop and I keep a running narrative on what I'm doing and what I'm planning to do (i.e. "I'll call for the gear in another 2 miles"). I will count down the 3-to-1 slope when I need to, and a SOP callout is altitude crossing the FAF anyhow, 1000' stable and 500' speed/sink rate. I always communicate when I'm visual and leaving the G/S to follow the PAPI (or VASI) and this is usually around 300 feet, especially when the angles don't coincide. I proactively call out 'correcting' airspeed deviations when I'm hand flying and I fly my own thrust levers too because I can correct a deviation faster than the autothrottles can (as in gusty conditions). You're right: lots of newbs out there and at least 2 generations of flight deck wisdom have been flushed down the lav. It's going to get worse before it gets better, and over reliance on automation is NOT going to fix it.
Right on main man. I don't fly airlines since they tried to ram me through the training to the flight line while I was still not comfortable with the operation and they don't give a shiznit about it.
@@erickborling1302 Well, airline training has always been 'drinking from the firehose' and it does get easier the more experience you accrue. You eventually start seeing patterns and know what to expect generally speaking from the training dept. I've flown for 9 airlines at this point, from regionals to cargo to international (China, India and Japan), so I consider myself fairly experienced. I have been teaching in the sim on my days off for the last 3 years for my previous employer, passing whatever I have down to the next generation. I look out for all of my students and give them what they need to pass and be successful; more often than not it boils down to an instrument scan, and all too often it boils down to the primary-supporting technique. I want to know what the heck the GA instructors are teaching these days because it's... agricultural, as my old UK buddy would say. Very agricultural. Nobody looks at their VSI any more. Excellent instrument, once you get it in your scan (and know how to trim) you can hand-fly +/-10'.
So glad they did a go-around. Kelsey is always saying _if in doubt, go around_ and it sounds like these guys didn't hesitate. So many disaster debriefs / accident reports come to the conclusion _they shouldn't have tried to land this, they had the fuel to try again._
Juan, it was mentioned in the comments on VAS that they were likely lining up for Old Oaklahoma 4... check it out on the map. It's exactly where they did their go around. It makes sense! Using google earth pan around into the same approach they were on, you will see it.
I feel I have to comment on this, as a person who loves to fly as much raw eyeball visual approaches as possible, I’ve always found the culture in the USA of giving visual approaches to landing traffic, often in not good visual conditions, a recipe for possible disaster. I have no idea why USA ATC favour this approach strategy, as opposed to in Europe where we are always offered a procedure or vectors to an instrument approach. In that case, in suitable conditions you can then request the visual if you wish. I was flying into the East coast airport and was regularly amazed at the weather conditions for which visual approaches were given and accepted, because for many of those days, it was not visual conditions. So ok, back then it was obvious to me, that those pilots were not actually flying visually, they were constructing or using some FMC or ILS approach to get near the assigned runway. I can’t help feeling that’s it’s just an imbedded culture in the USA that nobody has woken up to. Instead, they will tighten SOP’s in response to these incidents, putting further onus on the pilot. ATC needs to look at this. But what do I know, it’s just the feeling I got operating into there. And this is not about lacking a macho can do attitude, it’s about the fact that at certain times, with reference weather, day/night, traffic flow and density, arbitrarily issuing visual approaches, are not the right way to go. If you can’t clearly see and identify the runway, or at very least the field in a well known familiar airport, it’s not a visual approach.
As I watch your excellent coverage of incidents like these, I think of my mom who said to every plane she saw or heard in the sky, without fail, “Stay up there, plane!”. It makes much more sense to me now than it did as a child; though that habit of hers unfortunately has contributed to my fear of flying. ✈️
Good on them for not trying to salvage a bad situation. Getting in 15 minutes late is a small price compared to some of the stories we've seen where they know it's going bad and just press on.
I live in the OKC / Yukon area, and although I am not a pilot, my gut assumption is they were lined up on old Hwy 4 which is almost directly lined up with R13 about 8km out. That whole area is saturated in the communities lights EXCEPT for this little section just after the High School! (well lite and Texas sized football stadium btw). That area is basically oddly forested and from the air at that time of night, likely looked like an island of property not lit and a lit up runway at the same degree direction as the runway. I am interested in hearing more to see if my hunch is correct.
Strangely enough, the voice of the pilot did not noticeably change between the transmissions he made when he was just fatigued and the later transmissions when he was fatigued and also knew that he had just crapped in his own mess kit.
It's not any fault of any pilot or crew -- it's capitalism and the industry forcing these insane schedules. Competition and profit have gotten way out of control. Unions and organized labor today aren't helping much, either.
Oh boy, here we go again! We had a similar night visual GPWS incident at my airline at OAK night visual RWY 30. My last 15 years with tighter stabilized approach criteria, I have not ever flown any VISUAL approach without an UNDERLINING approach procedure. Always I request a named fix on the approach no closer than 10 miles out, noting that PUBLISHED ALTITUDE STEP DOWN my lowest let down altitude. Any terrain issues or unfamiliarity with the area, I follow the LINKED ROUTING to the approach, NEGATING get home/hotel pressure. At night time, AUTOPILOT is essential with terrain and fatigue issues. I can not recall any airport runway that we service that does not have an PUBLISHED APPROACH PROCEDURE.
I wish the ATC audio started a few seconds earlier so we could hear their last assigned altitude. Seems to me the lowest they could have been vectored was 2800 msl, but they were at 2200-2000 when cleared the visual. ( if that audio is synched to the radar). I’m wondering if they might have had the RNAV 13 built, set minimums while a long way out expecting to intercept the VNAV path, then inadvertently hit FLCH instead of VNAV. I just saw someone do this in a sim trainer. I agree it doesn’t look like they were on AP, maybe just following the pitch bar blindly. Just a thought.
My mom sent this story to me this morning and I instantly thought about Eastern Airlines 401 from 1972. Different technology, very different circumstance but it has similar parallels.
If you're not familiar w/ the Eastern 401 mishap, the crew flew an L-1011 into the Everglades at night. The captain and FO were trying to get the nose gear light to illuminate while the FE was in the equipment bay trying to see if the nose gear was down. While reaching across to the right side of the instrument panel, the captain accidentally brushed his control column, disengaging the AP. No one heard the chime. Bad stuff can happen when no one is flying the airplane.
Visual approaches are part of an IFR flight. I have taken the visual over shooting an approach many times during a part 91 operation. Doing so in a part 121 operation maybe fine in daylight into a very familiar airport. At night not so much. Juan explains well!!❤🎉
Hey Blancolirio, please do a video about the mid air collision of 2 crop dusters out here in Idaho this past week, one of the pilots was my nephews flight instructor and unfortunately it took his life and the other pilot is in critical condition right now
Thanks Juan for all you do. It would be hard to believe that they didn’t get any warnings in the cockpit. ATC on point to help out…. Would definitely like to know what these guys were thinking about🤔
Juan-Can you please do a follow-up with the differences between Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) and the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASARS)?!
Before all of this automation and data collection was a thing, how many times do you think things like this happened and nobody ever knew about it? I bet it happened a lot, and the good old boy club just always kept it quiet.
“LNAV, VNAV, VNAV Path, cleared for the approach, set the minimums” It’s a catchy jingle that keeps you out of trouble. 1700’ would be set for the minimums on the 737 since the published mins are 1640. I would suspect probably not in VNAV regardless of the autopilot being on or off
We do love your practice of not wasting any time during your safety reviews. Waay too many youtube creators spend 90% of the video on fluff or other nonsense.
Good job Juan..... After midnight & that far from the airport & on the miss applying lots of power it's no wonder citizens were woke up/ car alarms went off! I'd guess that this flight was the last leg of the day for this crew-- --how many hours on duty / flying hours by this time for this crew by then? How bout some of that old fashioned "altitude awareness" with all that automation in the cockpit..... One could "almost" hear the fatigue in both the crew (and to some extent) as well as the controller. Time-on-duty for the day for the controller should be checked in also-- --was there a staffing issue also that night? Thank You.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant decrease in experienced pilots and line instructors due to retirements. This has resulted in lower overall experience in the cockpit.
Covid distancing scabs unfortunatley instilled a safety-second attitude that drove safety-first pilots out of the business so now you got more hazard-ignorant pilots, and pilots who refuse to compromise safety have left the business for the tiny-house real estate biz.
Every mile is 300 feet above AGL 3:1, also I don't think SWA can do LP approach so they would have to do LNAV with an MDA adding 50 feet to make it a DDA.
Looking at the satellite map view, there is a major road, in Yukon, running in the same direction as Rwy 13. Wonder if they confused that road with the runway.
For the first incident it seems like they mistook something on the ground as the airport. Why would they have a stable 8 -900 ft decent rate 9 miles from the airport?
As an old pilot... I hear ya, brother. 😅 On the bright side, that NOTAM for that tower, 500' above the ground, 9 west of the field, finally comes into play. 😂
So many things.... first off, as a retired controller, no such thing as "you good out there?" in the 7110.65, it's "Low altitude alert, SWA 4069 check your altitude immediately, the (MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA) in your area is XXXX". Secondly, they're lucky they were in Oklahoma City, where it's as flat as a pancake, hell I went to the Academy there, I know. Thirdly, we continue to see these accidents and near accidents based on pilot complacency and lackadaisical behavior. Aviation is still statistically the safest form of transportation, but it is ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE OF MISTAKES. That's why I quit flying. I got to the age where I thought to myself... you know...I'm going to end up killing myself and maybe my family. There is no excuse for this on a commercial flight.
I agree re the phraseology. The use of colloquial language in a situation of high risk seems most ill-advised. It could mean many things and could have cost vital seconds if the crew were not prompted to climb immediately. Of course, if the crew were non-native (and non-US-English-speakers), this would have been even more of an issue.
@@Shamrock100 Yep, I'll admit I was against standardizing to ICAO "Line up and wait" phraseology, but it's fewer words and clearer than "Taxi into position and hold", so I eventually got on board, pun intended. And having worked thousands of international flights and foreign aircrews in the U.S., once you get "off script" it can be very confusing and possibly dangerous. I've also been seeing a trend now that U.S. pilots are using "Mayday" domestically, when I was working, it was rarely used, instead, a pilot would say "We're declaring an emergency", or the controller would say "I'm declaring an emergency for you." Waste of precious time.Efficient and effective communication should always be the goal, because flying the dang airplane is most important.
@keithbrown9198 The more we realize just how low + slow the plane was, I'd be inclined to say. "whatever was said, worked + we don't know for sure the "correct" language would have been understood in time", while we know this was. So bravo to that controller!
@@cassandratq9301 Well I agree the controller alerted the crew in time, but that was probably only because he got alerted by automation (MSAW), but it was still unprofessional not to use correct phraseology. If you are a pilot, and you don't understand standard phraseology, then you don't have proper training. Period. End of sentence.
I just learned that the most dangerous time in the flight is right during the approach to landing phase! the workload starts to go up since you are going from a cruise environment to a terminal environment and you are at your lowest energy levels meaning usually max fatigue. This flight was a perfect example of this.
What's terrifying is they weren't just low, they were slow. 121 kts according to the data you showed. Nobody is talking about the airspeed but they were barely going fast enough to recover. A couple seconds later getting back on the throttles and.....
Yeah I understand that big sigh when talking about that HI incident.. Enough said!!! I bet when he hit that go-around button in this last one, it woke up anything for a half mile at least
I was introduced to ATC's "Low alt alert" system one afternoon at DFW ... mercy maybe 15-17 years ago. I was a S80 FO. Weather wasn't horrible, but wasn't VFR either. Vectored for the ILS 18R ... we are outside the GS intercept/FAF, VMC ... top the overcast was ~ 2000 agl, ceiling was about 1000 agl. We get this "low alt alert" from tower just like SWA got in this vid ... but we were NOT low alt. Well above the cloud deck we were about to enter and above the GS Intercept altitude with the flight director having captured both the LOC and the GS. tracking the LOC AND GS, IDENTIFIED. IDK what happened there ... but this ATC system had a short term malfunction. Maybe the S80s Mode C had a "burp?" If the data is accurate in this video .. wasn't a short term malfunction. I don't have a problem with autopilot off ... even late at night ... but I wonder why they took the shorter runway when the longer runway MIGHT have added a couple miles in vectoring, but would have an ILS (GS) reference. taxi time? Thanks Juan. lotta gotchas out there.
begs the question if they were doing a visual approach (therefore not monitoring instruments) how could it be that they allowed the airplane to descend to within 500 ft of the ground in an area that apparently had sources of illumination?
Local news in Tampa just reported a SW airlines flight was diverted after dropping to 170’. I’m assuming AGL they didn’t say. Looking forward to learning what’s going on.
Very obvious you’re really wanting to say something, but can’t, or won’t. I understand I’ve been there too. Excellent reporting so we understand what’s happening.
Looks like pilot error . The questions would be.... did they think they had turned on the ILS nav approach at the beacon and found out that they had not completed the check list for landing ? Did the instrument miss function ? The beacon is well lit by electric lights on the ground, inferring that they were not looking at the altitude during the approach? I am sure any private pilot with a night rating would be able to land an aircraft from the beacon?
If the airfield has something to dial in you dial it in no matter what day or night. That was SOP everywhere I ever worked 121 or 135. WT F was going on with those dudes 500 AGL nine miles out 🤬🤬🤬. We need the rest of the audio from cruise through the decent.
Highly relevant point. This incident might be the air equivalent of so many night time accidents on the road where drivers are blinded by super bright automobile headlights. Why is there no federal regulation on light intensity or color spectrum?
Thank you Juan. Your professionalism is unmatched. I look forward to your analysis of the June 17 crash of the Cessna 421 in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
I suspect SouthWest has a cultural norm of doing visual approaches at night. A few years ago there was that SW plane in Missouri that landed at the wrong airport.
It was midnight on a flight from Las Vegas. Doubt many were awake and paying attention. One person on the flight posted that they didn’t know anything was unusual
It's worth mentioning that the ASAP program is not to be used if you intentionally deviate from published procedures, at least if you're a mechanic. If the paperwork says inspect the removed wheel for the spacer, and you don't, and then the new wheel fails because the spacer wasn't there, you are on the hook for the issue. Not every mistake is covered.
Rule #18 of the RULES OF THE AIR. "You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck."
There is a MANDATORY Age-Related Retirement for Pilots for a REASON -- even the BEST PILOT in the world eventually has too slow of a Brain Reaction and too slow of a muscle reaction to keep ahead -- we just recently lost one of the top ten pilots in the world -- DUE TO PILOT ERROR ..
@@BradHartliep-kn9ud so true. It's reality, and like it or not you need to face it and accept it. I'm 68, so I'm not being ageist. Recognizing your limitations is one of the unpleasant parts of getting older. I hate to think about having to give up driving, I can't imagine what it would be like to have to give up flying when you love it.
Are they hiring pilots based on skills and experience or are there other priorities! This is basic flying. Are they receiving proper training on visual approaches. I use to teach in South Korea and every simulator session had to include a visual approach to a challenging airport using very strict procedures and criteria. Is that being done at SW and other US carriers?
No, you are using 3xAlt to give you distance when it should be 3xDistance to give you a 3 degree GS. It is 300’ for each NM. I was originally told 3xalt to check if you were the correct altitude. I was re-educated when I started flying with the British. When I arrived at VC10 training I was introduce to a book “HANDLING THE BIG JETS” D.P. DAVIES. This was the Bible of British Airline Flying. I know it was the basis of the interview at Cathay Pacific. I was introduced to it in 1971 and used the distance method in the first rule for my minimum altitude. Due to terrain you may be required to be higher or due to airspace restrictions especially with multi multiple airports like the NY area you may have to be lower. If neither applies you should;d never be below a three degree profile of 3x distance from touchdown. 3x1=300’, 3x3=900’, 3x5=1,500’, 3x10=3,000’, 3x20=6,000’, 3x30=9,000, 3x50=15,000’, 3x100= 30,000, 3x150= 45,000. Then 5xGroundspeed=V/S required to fly the 3 degree profile. 150= 750FPM, 250= 1,250FPM, 300= 1,500FPM, 500=2,500FPM. The TWA accident on I believe 12/1/74 going to IAD the TWA flight descended to 1,800’ because of a misunderstanding. They actually went lower because of an altitude error, I believe 1,675’. They hit Mt. Weather which was 25 NM from IAD. Simple math says they should have been at least 7,500’.
The controller’s phraseology did not follow the ATC manual. From the ATC 7110 PHRASEOLOGY− LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign), CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY. and, if the aircraft is not yet on final approach, THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR AREA IS (altitude),
