Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Southwest Airlines Captain Of Flight 345 Took Command Before NY Accident: NTSB
(If this is a duplicate, I apologize). "NEW YORK -- The captain of a Southwest Airlines plane that landed on a collapsing nose gear at LaGuardia Airport took control from the first officer just 400 feet from the ground, the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday." (www.huffingtonpost.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As far as whether the Captain of the flight was a female--the initial ATC call-in to the Tower was a female so we can probably say she was the pilot not flying at the time. So, since the Huffington article said of the copilot, "he's logged about ___ hours . . ., we can easily deduce that the Captain was a female who took over the controls for the landing.
Friends(all expert fliers), as a student of management backed by engineering I am at a loss of understanding about the conduct of BOTH pilots in this Southwest 345 case as well as that of Asiana 214.
As per google ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_officer_(civil_aviation) ) the tasks of copilot(right seat) are as follows amongs many other :-
..... " In commercial aviation, the first officer is the second pilot (sometimes referred to as the "co-pilot") of an aircraft. The first officer is second-in-command of the aircraft, to the captain who is the legal commander. In the event of incapacitation of the captain, the first officer will assume command of the aircraft.
Control of the aircraft is normally shared equally between the first officer and the captain, with one pilot normally designated the "pilot flying" (PF) and the other the "pilot not flying" (PNF), or "pilot monitoring" (PM), for each flight. Even when the first officer is the flying pilot, however, the captain remains ultimately responsible for the aircraft, its passengers, and the crew. In typical day-to-day operations, the essential job tasks remain fairly equal." ......
In this back ground how and why the person on the right seat FAILS to notice the birth or genesis of a disaster or a catastrophe? Whether due to error of person on left seat or any other reasons. And nip the bud in the evil , as the saying goes.
And vice-a-versa?
Interestingly in same link, 'google' talks of hierarchical aspects of pilot/copilot issues as well ! (cf. both these flights, trainee vs. trainer)
I guess BOTH pilots are always equally responsible and guilty in every case. Unless proven otherwise.
As per google ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_officer_(civil_aviation) ) the tasks of copilot(right seat) are as follows amongs many other :-
..... " In commercial aviation, the first officer is the second pilot (sometimes referred to as the "co-pilot") of an aircraft. The first officer is second-in-command of the aircraft, to the captain who is the legal commander. In the event of incapacitation of the captain, the first officer will assume command of the aircraft.
Control of the aircraft is normally shared equally between the first officer and the captain, with one pilot normally designated the "pilot flying" (PF) and the other the "pilot not flying" (PNF), or "pilot monitoring" (PM), for each flight. Even when the first officer is the flying pilot, however, the captain remains ultimately responsible for the aircraft, its passengers, and the crew. In typical day-to-day operations, the essential job tasks remain fairly equal." ......
In this back ground how and why the person on the right seat FAILS to notice the birth or genesis of a disaster or a catastrophe? Whether due to error of person on left seat or any other reasons. And nip the bud in the evil , as the saying goes.
And vice-a-versa?
Interestingly in same link, 'google' talks of hierarchical aspects of pilot/copilot issues as well ! (cf. both these flights, trainee vs. trainer)
I guess BOTH pilots are always equally responsible and guilty in every case. Unless proven otherwise.
Oops..."learning" tool....keyboard error...
What I'm about to say is certainly unscientific and possibly unfounded, but I've been reading on several aviation forums that Southwest pilots are known for companywide culture of "get-there-itis" due to their reliance on quick turnarounds in order to maximize airframe utilization. This has led, from what I understand, to some rougher than usual landings from time to time and, *perhaps* a nose dive at La Guardia.
This sounds absolutely insane to me, but is it possible?
This sounds absolutely insane to me, but is it possible?
That's what some people are saying in forums. Not sure if true or not.
In this situation they were behind schedule because of weather related delays in crowded airspace at an airport that becomes severly capacity constrained in adverse weather conditions.
There may have been some pressure to get down.
In this situation they were behind schedule because of weather related delays in crowded airspace at an airport that becomes severly capacity constrained in adverse weather conditions.
There may have been some pressure to get down.
Safety first... Unless someone's money is on the line, I guess.
It's truly remarkable how much people preach doing things the right way, in aviation and every other line of work, but when it comes down to it they just want you do get it done. And we're all shocked... SHOCKED!... when something bad happens.
It's truly remarkable how much people preach doing things the right way, in aviation and every other line of work, but when it comes down to it they just want you do get it done. And we're all shocked... SHOCKED!... when something bad happens.
Yea, and if taxi is defined as a brisk walk, then the SWA crews never heard of it.
Ditto (^ ^ ^ )