Go arounds (whereby pilots abort a landing, typically on final approach) are routine maneuvers, and are typically very safe. After all, the whole reason to perform a go around is to avoid any risk. However, a recent Southwest Boeing 737’s go around at LaGuardia Airport raised some eyebrows, as the jet was apparently completely off course at a low altitude…
In this post:
Southwest 737 LaGuardia go around mess
On Saturday, March 23, 2024, the New York area saw absolutely awful weather, with strong winds and limited visibility. New York LaGuardia Airport is one of the more challenging airports in the United States to land on a nice day, let alone when the weather gets bad.
This incident involves Southwest flight WN147, flying from Nashville (BNA) to New York LaGuardia (LGA). The flight was operated by a roughly six-year-old Boeing 737-800 with the registration code N8554X.
VASAviation has an excellent visualization of what happened, with both the air traffic control audio and flight paths.
I’d recommend watching the video for yourself, though to summarize:
- Southwest flight 147 is cleared to land on runway 4, but then performs a go around, with the reason being that they were “too fast, too high with the tailwind”
- Southwest flight 147 swings back around for another approach; the JetBlue aircraft right in front of the Southwest 737 performs a go around, with the reason being wind shear
- As Southwest flight 147 makes its final approach, the aircraft goes off course, flying east of the runway, and reportedly gets dangerously close to the air traffic control tower
- As the plane approaches the airport off course, an air traffic controller yells “GO AROUND, GO AROUND,” and the plane climbs to 2,000 feet; what’s kind of wild is that according to flight tracking data, the plane was at an altitude of just 200 feet, while being completely off course for the runway
- At this point the air traffic controller says “say the reason that you were, like, not on the approach” (that’s a polite way to put it!)
- When asked about the reason for the go around, the air traffic controller says “it was not aligned with the runway at all, it was like east of the final, he was not gonna land on the runway”
- After this incident, the Southwest pilots sound rather shaken up, as you can hear the voices of both pilots trembling; it’s also interesting how the pilot communicating changes after that second go around, so I’m guessing the captain was initially the pilot monitoring, but became the pilot flying after that go around
- At this point the pilots state that their intentions to divert to Pittsburgh (PIT), though the plane ended up diverting to Baltimore (BWI)
What happened with this Southwest 737?
I think we can all agree this is one of the more unusual go around situations. It was a crappy day at LaGuardia, and there were many go arounds. However, the fact that a Southwest 737 was at an altitude of 200 feet while being completely off course is alarming, to put simply.
Perhaps what’s even more concerning is that the air traffic controller had to call the go around, as the pilots seemingly didn’t think anything was wrong. The aircraft was on an ILS (instrument landing system) approach for runway 4. The airport’s procedures require for that to be hand flown, with autopilot turned off.
Admittedly conditions were very challenging that day, with strong winds and limited visibility. But still, in those circumstances, one would think that you’d initiate a go around prior to being 200 feet up, nowhere close to the runway.
Hopefully this incident is investigated. It seems much more serious than many of the recent incidents that have gotten a lot of media attention, focusing on the 737 MAX or on United Airlines.
Bottom line
LaGuardia saw some awful weather on Saturday, causing many aircraft to perform go arounds. One Southwest 737 had a particularly noteworthy go around, whereby the plane descended to an altitude of around 200 feet, while being nowhere close to the runway centerline.
While mistakes happen and planes sometimes get a bit off course, one has to wonder what went wrong here that allowed pilots to be so far off course at such a low altitude, without even realizing it.
What do you make of this Southwest 737 go around incident?
The big question is why the decision to go around was not made by either pilot when the aircraft strayed from the Localizer course. For some unknown reason, for now, they were 1300-1400 feet right of course and continuing the descent below Decision Height without having the runway environment in sight.
Big no no. They’re lucky to be alive.
Part of the problem in this case and many others is the way we train pilots to perform go-arounds from precision approaches like the ILS. The actual instrument airspace allotted is a straight ahead climb for 1.5 nautical miles and is centered on the runway centerline--repeat, centered on runway centerline. Pilots, once the decision to go around are not taught to attempt to maintain the localizer course (ie runway centerline) and just to fly a...
Part of the problem in this case and many others is the way we train pilots to perform go-arounds from precision approaches like the ILS. The actual instrument airspace allotted is a straight ahead climb for 1.5 nautical miles and is centered on the runway centerline--repeat, centered on runway centerline. Pilots, once the decision to go around are not taught to attempt to maintain the localizer course (ie runway centerline) and just to fly a heading. The FAA's official definition of "fly runway heading" says to NOT apply drift--and so the aircraft does drift in crosswind scenarios away from runway centerline. This drift may cause a direction toward tower. The ILS for runway 16 left at SEA has higher minimums for category A aircraft than the other categories due to tower being close to the runway and assuming the slower climbing category A could drift toward tower in some crosswind scenarios. The FAA needs to change the definition of missed approaches for precision approaches to include the concept of maintaining runway centerline which is the TERPs criteria and change the definition of fly runway heading.
i am a pilot, and former usaf and CLE ARTCC controller....losing sight of the runway at minimums seems to be the case here. weather induced mishap - BUT one pilot looking out the window and one monitoring the localizer, i as usual, seems in question here. they waited too long to go around again, probably caught a sideways or tail wind gust, and ended up buzzing the tower. no one will know unless there's an incident report filed....
It's airline management fault if people loses faith in pilot qualifications.
If they keep advertising they focus in diversity rather than hiring the best for the job, they are destroying the value of merit and casting doubts in the prime of safety.
Politics games have no place in aviation safety and technical issues.
As a passenger on this flight, it was VERY scary! I’m thankful for air traffic controllers and pilots who listened and ascended quickly to avoid a disaster. I’m also thankful we didn’t know all the details at the time. The quick ascent was something else and something I don’t want to experience again.
As someone with over 40 years in the airline industry, most of it in safety training and accident investigation, from what I'm reading my guess is they should have broken off the approach far before. One of the previous carriers I worked with had a policy that if the approach was not stabilized at 10,000 feet, it was procedure to execute a missed approach. While I'm sure this resulted in many go-arounds or diversions that...
As someone with over 40 years in the airline industry, most of it in safety training and accident investigation, from what I'm reading my guess is they should have broken off the approach far before. One of the previous carriers I worked with had a policy that if the approach was not stabilized at 10,000 feet, it was procedure to execute a missed approach. While I'm sure this resulted in many go-arounds or diversions that after the fact could be judged as unnecessary, it probably saved more than a few lives.
I’m sure this pilot meant to say 1000 feet (about 3 miles from the runway) not 10,000 feet.
Sounds like the Female pilot was flying SWA147 on the 2 attempts at landing after the second go around the what I assume was the male captain takes over controls and the female is now on the radio. As a commercial pilot with over 30 years, I can tell you that standards ARE being lowered and people who fit the boxes are being allowed/pushed to continue on in the profession with the understanding that they...
Sounds like the Female pilot was flying SWA147 on the 2 attempts at landing after the second go around the what I assume was the male captain takes over controls and the female is now on the radio. As a commercial pilot with over 30 years, I can tell you that standards ARE being lowered and people who fit the boxes are being allowed/pushed to continue on in the profession with the understanding that they will “eventually” come up to standards. That and the whole change in attitude, lack of discipline is why I feel we are having many more of these type of incidents. Safety IS being compromised in all ranks of Aviation, from pilots to controllers, to the manufactures. Not good overall.
I'm not a pilot, just an interested member of the public, so I may be wrong . . . but why has nobody mentioned the apparently incorrect altitude read back by the JetBlue pilot at 1:02?
It’s not “anti-diversity,” it’s anti-“equity.” Because freaking Marxism. ffs.
Sounds like a DEI hire that obviously was hanging on the tail of the aircraft and has no business flying a 737 especially into LGA.
A sexist article followed with sexist comments. It's 2024. Get over it. That and they didn't sound shaken at all. Focused and professional. You guys hear a woman's voice and make assumptions just like you see assertiveness from a woman as aggressive. Grow up.
She almost crashed the airplane. Your virtue signaling doesn’t belong in aviation. Equity doesn’t belong in aviation. The male sounded severely shaken. The women hadn’t realized she almost killed a bunch of people in the plane and on the ground. Get a grip.
Flying widebody 400,000 pound L-1011s and
even A-300s out of LGA was considerably more complex in my flight operations.
Sounds perhaps as an ego trip, but it was
only Captain landing and take off.
I agree. I sat in the jumpseat of an Eastern L1011 taking off on RW31, and it scared the crap out of me. We barely got into the air before the end of the runway. BTW, Frank Borman came into the cockpit and said hi. It was great to shake the hand of someone who has been to the moon.
No “fly LGA” button? Not the weather, not the
plane, not race or gender, not the copilot but
only the captain! There is a fast Captain promotion involved here? Flying 30,000 hours
and Captain rated on 9 from L-188 to B-747
the lesson is never, but never exceed your
capability! Never push your luck but never
think it’s your last approach because it maybe!
How do you know the lady in the tower was black? She could have been Asian man with a bad cold for all you know.
Ok, I am a Captain with American Airlines. I landed that night at La Guardia, about 10:30 pm. It was probably the toughest landing I had in a long time. I almost went around myself, and now I’m thinking maybe I should have. In my opinion, in my 35 years with the airline I am seeing too many pilots relying on the automation, (autopilot, autotrottles, flight director), and losing basic flying skills. There is no...
Ok, I am a Captain with American Airlines. I landed that night at La Guardia, about 10:30 pm. It was probably the toughest landing I had in a long time. I almost went around myself, and now I’m thinking maybe I should have. In my opinion, in my 35 years with the airline I am seeing too many pilots relying on the automation, (autopilot, autotrottles, flight director), and losing basic flying skills. There is no way the autopilot could have kept the aircraft in the proper position this night. The winds were too rough. But too many pilot leave or depend on the auto pilot till 200 feet above the runway then trip it off and the try to hand fly.
This aircraft probably went to 200’ the pilot then tried to go around. In a 737 when you go around the autopilot trips off when the Toga (takeoff go around) buttons are pushed, and then pilot must hand fly the go around.
This pilot was incapable of doing it in the windy conditions because the winds were from 300 degrees at 25 knots. This would push him to the right of course.
The FAA and the airlines are to blame here.
Don’t know why the FAA and the airline are to blame? Do you mean lack of regulations or lack of sufficient training? Lack of sufficient experience? Your explanation lacks one gradient that has to do with situational recognition that actually involves preplanning!
Never start a flight especially an approach even VFR without planning for a what if?
Weather is unpredictable. Everybody does their best. In the end it all worked out. In aviation we learn from every ones mistakes. My compliments to all involved.
@Lucky... you buried the lead... What about the other go arounds. Two other birds went around.
Also, huge factor... tail wind!
I assume you mean "buried the lede."
CaptnToniLoren said it best.
To add, the approach for ILS RWY 4 shows a decision altitude above 200ft, so the flight crew should not have been at that altitude. HOWEVER it is possible the weather conditions were causing pressure changes and that would have made the difference between DA and below DA. Unfortunately METARs are not issued every second, and worse, they are not logged as a time-lapse. So... we'll never know that one....
CaptnToniLoren said it best.
To add, the approach for ILS RWY 4 shows a decision altitude above 200ft, so the flight crew should not have been at that altitude. HOWEVER it is possible the weather conditions were causing pressure changes and that would have made the difference between DA and below DA. Unfortunately METARs are not issued every second, and worse, they are not logged as a time-lapse. So... we'll never know that one. (GPS altitude doesn't have the pressure issue, but it's a slant altitude, not a true altitude. Radar altimeters will display real AGL but that's not transmitted via ADS-B or recorded outside of the CDR.)
The passengers on board that fight deserved a great experience, and even though they were flying SWA two go-arounds were enough for the flight crew and they diverted. THE PASSENGERS ALL LIVED and yeah, inconvenienced to have to get from BWI to LGA but OH WELL THEY ALL LIVED.
Flight crew - they switched mics sooner than described. The voice changed after the first go-around... but let's be 100% fair here... NO PENALTY EVER for a go-around. If a pilot (that includes pilot monitoring) decides it's go-around time, IT'S GO-AROUND TIME for everyone on board and damn the consequences because EVERYBODY LIVES. I'm pretty sure I can't emphasize that enough.
Finally, this has nothing to do with irrelevancies like "Boeing MAX" or anything. From the VASAviation video (those guys are good... I watch their stuff regularly on youtube) it's obvious the weather was a bitch. RVR was decreasing (until it wasn't) and the METAR showed RA[in] and low ceilings... and JBU indicated wind shear... so given all that, hey, free trip to BeeWee.
FAA Commercial Helicopter Pilot here. I don't fly 737s, don't fly into LGA, and in those kind of wind conditions I'd have gone to alternate as well. I respect the flight deck crew for their decisions and I'm sorry for all the paperwork they had to do afterward ... but EVERYONE LIVED.
Yes, looks like there was a change in air pressure on the ground right before the incident. The METAR states A2979, and this is also what TWR says at 1:42 to JetBlue.
Sloppy airmanship to say the least....I avoid flying SW as they seem to be asleep at the wheel so to speak...bunch of Republican cowboys with apparently a suicide wish.
Politics has NOTHING to do with this situation. geeezzzz
I hope the LGA VOR was not the one for guidance vs. I-LGA Localizer, since coming around for the second time by accident. The radar data shows the aircraft headed to the VOR.
This missed approach course is tracking the R-043 of the LGA VOR.
For the sake of clarity, probably should wait to hear what the pilots have to say. It’s easy to write and be critical of a situation when you’re sitting on the ground at your desk, drinking a cup of coffee and wondering whether you’re going to order the turkey sandwich or the chicken salad for lunch.
The number of mainline CAPTAINS (not FOs) at major US carriers who are literally in their late 20s / early 30s is disturbing and has been increasing. There is a WSJ article about this. This is the reason for these increased incidents. DEI is just a sideshow distraction. Partner is an FA at AA and I'm increasingly worried when I get a text that says something to the extent of "this captain is in his...
The number of mainline CAPTAINS (not FOs) at major US carriers who are literally in their late 20s / early 30s is disturbing and has been increasing. There is a WSJ article about this. This is the reason for these increased incidents. DEI is just a sideshow distraction. Partner is an FA at AA and I'm increasingly worried when I get a text that says something to the extent of "this captain is in his 20s". It will get worse as more of the boomers are reaching mandatory retirement age.
than you both for recognizing that DEI is a sideshow but the real issue is a generational transfer that is taking place in the industry.
You cannot expect decades of experience to be gained in a few years regardless of the job.
All of the Boeing slowdowns and the Geared Turbofan engine issues provide a very good time to do a top to bottom assessment of training, safety, and operational leadership.
I wonder considering they were flying a nice straight corse just off set to the right of the LOC, if there was an issue with an A/C or ground vehicle in the ILS Critical area. It would be strange to perfectly track the LOC at an offset like that especially without noticing.
If you listen to the transcript closely there is a very big detail that appears incorrect. After the SWA 147 go around, the transcript codes SWA147 as asking for the reason for the 2 go arounds. This is not being asked by SWA147 as the transcript indicates, but rather NY approach asking LGA TWR internally. You can tell by how LGA TWR responds saying he was not on the approach, he wasn’t going to land...
If you listen to the transcript closely there is a very big detail that appears incorrect. After the SWA 147 go around, the transcript codes SWA147 as asking for the reason for the 2 go arounds. This is not being asked by SWA147 as the transcript indicates, but rather NY approach asking LGA TWR internally. You can tell by how LGA TWR responds saying he was not on the approach, he wasn’t going to land on the runway. This is not how ATC phraseology works when conversing with aircraft but rather internal hot button coms. Also the voice sounds different from SWA147 and not as “shaken up”. Anyways, this appears to indicate that SWA147 was not as oblivious to their situation as this article would have you believe.
For some reason the pilot flying wasn't able to keep the aircraft on the localizer course. For some other reason the pilot monitoring wasn't monitoring sufficiently and let the situation get very dangerously out of control without calling for a go around when it was obvious that it wasn't a stabilized approach. (I guess I'm stating the obvious here) The controller saved the situation from being a disaster.
The mistake was the first officer was hand flying the ILS and not making the corrections to stay on centerline. Should have gone around much sooner with the increasing deviations being observed. I have been an airline pilot for 35 years.
Actually the ILS to 4 at LGA has a note that it must be flown on autopilot. That note has been on the Jepp plate for years. If they were hand flying they were in conflict with the approach procedure.
36 years and counting flying for a major airline.
The chart says autopilot couple NA. Not authorized. Better read the notes on the approach
Wrong. Right on the plate for ILS to 4 says "Autopilot coupled approach not authorized"
I had to get nearly to the end before I got to your obligatory dig at Boeing.
You disgust me with your constant yammering on about how every issue is somehow the fault of Boeing.
Give it a rest.
Air traffic controller doing what air traffic controllers do. Great job
LGA Tower, proud of you!
DEI hire
Funny, I had a young captain miscommunicate a discrepancy to a minority check airman. Said captain blamed DEI for his inability to be understood. The very next leg this guy ignored me when I said he was too high for the RNAV approach. When he finally decided to go around CRM went out the window and he treated me to the worst go around next to the one in this article.
More than 90% of...
Funny, I had a young captain miscommunicate a discrepancy to a minority check airman. Said captain blamed DEI for his inability to be understood. The very next leg this guy ignored me when I said he was too high for the RNAV approach. When he finally decided to go around CRM went out the window and he treated me to the worst go around next to the one in this article.
More than 90% of ATPs are outside the DEI subset. It’s clear to everyone who’s really been screwing up.
All fine and dandy. But the FO flying this leg was a newhire female just off OE. Previous credentials I don’t know, so can’t comment if she was a DEI hire or hired on merit. But doesn’t look good for the stigma either way.
Outside of all this, the Captain screwed up by even allowing a wet behind the ears newhire (probably high mins) to take an approach into these conditions, and yet again by not calling a Go around way sooner.
And you know this how?
“the whole reason to perform a go around is to avoid any risk”
Performing a go around is a pilot or controller’s decision to mitigate one risk that has been judged as unacceptable (continuing an unstable or otherwise out of tolerance approach) while accepting another (executing a seldom-performed maneuver). It certainly does not avoid any risk.
DEI hire? Weak hand flying skills? Was there an erroneous localizer signal? Clearly a loss of situational awareness. Weather does not force you to continue an approach. Off course, go missed. Aviation has become extremely dangerous. Thousands of new hires. DEI over qualifications?
@ Johnny -- DEI hire? There has been a pilot shortage, and basically anyone with sufficient hours has been able to land a job at one of the legacy carriers in recent years. You have a ton of inexperienced pilots (including captains) at the major US carriers, at least in comparison to a decade ago. And a lot of those pilots are white dudes.
I know blaming some things on lack of experience isn't as...
@ Johnny -- DEI hire? There has been a pilot shortage, and basically anyone with sufficient hours has been able to land a job at one of the legacy carriers in recent years. You have a ton of inexperienced pilots (including captains) at the major US carriers, at least in comparison to a decade ago. And a lot of those pilots are white dudes.
I know blaming some things on lack of experience isn't as sexy as blaming it on DEI (well, for some percentage of the population), but let's be honest...
So you’re saying affirmative action/DEI has not been happening at the airlines? I’ve seen it first hand over the last 30 years. Time and time again less qualified people are given jobs. It’s no coincidence that we have the Gay Pilots Association, Black Pilots Association and Women in Aviation being the biggest hiring job fairs. Let us know how many hours the pilot flying had and what her experience was.
@ Johnny -- Sorry, what have you seen firsthand over the last 30 years? What do you mean less qualified pilots have been given jobs? You understand the mainline airlines have been hiring just about anyone with minimum hours due to the pilot shortage, right? People are able to bid on the captain's seat with just one or two years at an airline, in some case. Heck, United hasn't had enough people who wanted to...
@ Johnny -- Sorry, what have you seen firsthand over the last 30 years? What do you mean less qualified pilots have been given jobs? You understand the mainline airlines have been hiring just about anyone with minimum hours due to the pilot shortage, right? People are able to bid on the captain's seat with just one or two years at an airline, in some case. Heck, United hasn't had enough people who wanted to be promoted to captain. That has nothing to do with race or gender, as this has applied to young white guys as much as anyone else.
So how can you argue that minorities are being given special treatment, when white guys with minimum hours are getting these jobs as well? Or have you heard from a lot of white guys in the past few years who haven't been able to find work at an airline?
I’ve seen minorities and women with far less qualifications get hired. Ive flown with some that shouldn’t be in the cockpit. And when they can’t pass upgrades they are given extra training over and over. A United check airmen told me exactly what I have stated. An Alaska check airman told me the same thing. Just because the last few years has been a hiring boom doesn’t mean it’s not happening. The Atlas 767 crash...
I’ve seen minorities and women with far less qualifications get hired. Ive flown with some that shouldn’t be in the cockpit. And when they can’t pass upgrades they are given extra training over and over. A United check airmen told me exactly what I have stated. An Alaska check airman told me the same thing. Just because the last few years has been a hiring boom doesn’t mean it’s not happening. The Atlas 767 crash in Houston was clearly affirmative action in allowing that guy to get hired after countless checkride failures and upgrade failures. Yet the woke swept in under the rug. It was only a cargo crew and not 200 people on a commercial flight. https://abc13.com/plane-crash-ntsb-report-cargo-boeing-757/6317054/
If there was no DEI/affirmative hiring no one would ask the question if it had a factor. But there is and so the question will be asked. Every time. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html
And for the record I've flown with white men who shouldn’t be in the cockpit. I’ve flown with women and minorities who were outstanding and highly qualified. It just scares the crap out of me that this happened. Not only for the people on the plane, but if they would have hit the terminal, thousands could have died.
And for the record I've flown with white men who shouldn’t be in the cockpit. I’ve flown with women and minorities who were outstanding and highly qualified. It just scares the crap out of me that this happened. Not only for the people on the plane, but if they would have hit the terminal, thousands could have died.
Excellent article by the way.
You still need qualifications to fly a plane, no matter how "diverse" you are. No one gets plucked off the street and put in a cockpit cos DEI. The whole anti-diversity stuff is pretty gross. At what point are some passengers going to refuse to fly because they see, I dunno, a female pilot and assume she has no qualifications?
As an American, I find Johnny’s comment disgusting. You have two white folks in the cockpit, a black woman in the tower saves the day, and you blame DEI. Delete your account.
Just because you are offended does not mean my statements are false. It was a woman that almost crashed that plane. DEI is happening. You can’t change the facts. You can’t cancel all unpleasant discussions.
To be fair, it was a crew that almost crashed the plane. Both pilots working together under CRM. There was clearly not clear and concise CRM, both pilots are at fault when something goes wrong. To this incident, this was a new hire who was not authorized to be flying that approach, the male Captain should have been flying the aircraft based on FAA legalities. So he was in the wrong. However you look at...
To be fair, it was a crew that almost crashed the plane. Both pilots working together under CRM. There was clearly not clear and concise CRM, both pilots are at fault when something goes wrong. To this incident, this was a new hire who was not authorized to be flying that approach, the male Captain should have been flying the aircraft based on FAA legalities. So he was in the wrong. However you look at it, the crew had a breakdown in CRM, the localizer was not tracked. Sounds like the AP was on, when it’s not authorized for that approach. You cannot say it’s due to a DEI hire, what you can say is it was due to a low time 737, new hire pilot, tail winds, windshear and an obvious breakdown in CRM.
I’d also hazard to say both these pilots after sitting down with leadership in HQ will receive training.
No. The AP would do a better job even with winds. It's just a We all know the female pilot was flying both approaches which is why she wasn't on comms until the captain took over after the second disaster attempt. How did she ever reach the airlines? She definitely had EVERYTHING handed to her. DPEs who went easy on her. Mommy and daddy unlimited money. Airlines who saw she's a pretty female and females...
No. The AP would do a better job even with winds. It's just a We all know the female pilot was flying both approaches which is why she wasn't on comms until the captain took over after the second disaster attempt. How did she ever reach the airlines? She definitely had EVERYTHING handed to her. DPEs who went easy on her. Mommy and daddy unlimited money. Airlines who saw she's a pretty female and females are rare in aviation and just hired her. She's not qualified to be an instrument pilot let alone airline pilot. Holy smokes. Sure it was windy but other airplanes landed just fine, and certainly weren't like more than full deflection off the localizer course and way below glidepath. Captain clearly wasn't monitoring at all because of complacency and because he's attracted to her. But after the second disaster attempt he took over. Absolute shennanigans we have imbeciles like her flying. The only reason she's survived is by sheer luck. Only flown in better weather and with autopilot flying the approach course whenever she was on the controls. Southwest I hope does an internal investigation and fires them BOTH. Clearly a garbage female pilot not deserving of an instrument rating at all who needs to redo the instrument checkride and a captain who needs to be told to stop being complacent
couldn't agree more, Lizzie. Good for you ! what an As@*le !
Your feelings don’t keep airplanes from crashing. Woke Ideology has no place in aviation safety. We are all lucky that aircraft didn’t crash into the terminal. The tower saved their lives. There is DEI in airline hiring. Call all the names you want. Won’t change the facts Bradley
"And for the record I've flown with white men who shouldn’t be in the cockpit. I’ve flown with women and minorities who were outstanding and highly qualified."
-Is this your way of saying "I'm not racist"? So what is your obsession with race and gender then? If you've flown with people of all races and genders and there are fantastic and terrible pilots everywhere, then why would you think "DEI hire" is helping the conversation...
"And for the record I've flown with white men who shouldn’t be in the cockpit. I’ve flown with women and minorities who were outstanding and highly qualified."
-Is this your way of saying "I'm not racist"? So what is your obsession with race and gender then? If you've flown with people of all races and genders and there are fantastic and terrible pilots everywhere, then why would you think "DEI hire" is helping the conversation here? Why not ANYTHING else?
And by the way, DEI generally doesn't mean lowering standards, it means expanding reach to people who have been left out. Because as you say, skills don't typically depend on race/gender.
What exactly is wrong with encouraging people who are underrepresented in aviation from applying for jobs, Johnny? It’s not “woke ideology” to encourage people who already are qualified or who can get a qualified to apply for jobs.
Affirmative action took thousands of pilots who were less qualified than other applicants. I’ve talked with numerous check airman and sim instructors who said they have many of these people who should not be there. I’ve seen it firsthand. They don’t meet standards yet are given additional training and chances. The Atlas 767 crash was a direct result of this. There is no place in aviation for wokeness
Nothing wrong with encouraging these people. But hiring just because and not the most qualified is dangerous. The public deserves the utmost in safety. The are not paying for “equity” first and experience second. No one goes in for major surgery and wants the person with the least experience just because she/he is underrepresented. There is no place for wokeness in aviation.
Affirmative action took thousands of pilots who were less qualified than other applicants. I’ve talked with numerous check airman and sim instructors who said they have many of these people who should not be there. I’ve seen it firsthand. They don’t meet standards yet are given additional training and chances. The Atlas 767 crash was a direct result of this. There is no place in aviation for wokeness
Sounds like Johnny is a disgruntled DEI hire.
Johnny, do you there is a world outside the US where people of other races fly airplanes regularly? There are countries where almost every pilot is black and thousands of flights take off and land every day. Same with Asians. Those countries have women, too, and most of those women are of color. And they fly too! Airlines like Emirates do sometimes go “woke” and make DEI hires by employing white men. My bet is...
Johnny, do you there is a world outside the US where people of other races fly airplanes regularly? There are countries where almost every pilot is black and thousands of flights take off and land every day. Same with Asians. Those countries have women, too, and most of those women are of color. And they fly too! Airlines like Emirates do sometimes go “woke” and make DEI hires by employing white men. My bet is those white men are just as qualified as the Emirati pilots. At least, I hope they are.
Do show us a link to the higher proportion of accidents that involve “DEI hires”. It doesn’t exist. The accident rates are the same. It seems like you were saying that there are male white check airmen passing pilots who don’t meet the standard. Do report them to the FAA, as they are a danger to aviation.
The Atlas 767 is a perfect example of a DEI hire crashing an airplane. Look it up. Failed numerous check rides. Failed upgrades. Still hired to fill the quota. People are dead because of an asinine policy. Not even mentioned in msm because we can’t offend the woke revolution. With the recent surge in DEI hiring there will be more accidents. There will be deaths. But you’ll probably make some kind of excuse.
Does it give everybody the warm fuzzies that airlines are focusing their hiring based on DEI? United for example is aiming for 50% female and minorities while excluding highly qualified candidates that happen to be white males. I believe that's called discrimination.
Does it give you the warm fuzzies to blame every incident on women or black members of airline staff before you have any idea of the cause of an incident? Anyone in a cockpit is qualified - period. No one is flying a plane because they got plucked off a street. It's well known that a lot of senior staff left airlines during Covid and perhaps some more junior staff with fewer flying hours are...
Does it give you the warm fuzzies to blame every incident on women or black members of airline staff before you have any idea of the cause of an incident? Anyone in a cockpit is qualified - period. No one is flying a plane because they got plucked off a street. It's well known that a lot of senior staff left airlines during Covid and perhaps some more junior staff with fewer flying hours are stepping up. But, hey, no fun in focusing on that - how about we blame women and minorities instead. Yay!
The Atlas accident (Also known as the worst 121 accident in the US since Colgan) was a DEI flunky who should have never been on the flight deck of an airplane, and probably never behind the steering wheel of a car. What the NTSB report on that accident doesn't mention is that he was washed out of training, sued the company, so they let him back in and Santa Claus'd him through the program. (Seriously...
The Atlas accident (Also known as the worst 121 accident in the US since Colgan) was a DEI flunky who should have never been on the flight deck of an airplane, and probably never behind the steering wheel of a car. What the NTSB report on that accident doesn't mention is that he was washed out of training, sued the company, so they let him back in and Santa Claus'd him through the program. (Seriously though, you should read the accident report. The guy would get flustered in the sim and just start hitting random buttons)
The tower at LGA is listed at 233'. Lucky...
Was on this flight. Can confirm it was terrifying.
Company rumor mill says that the pilot flying this approach was an inexperienced 23-year-old first officer who hasn’t yet learned to master the aircraft. Please investigate this further.
interesting. that raises the question of whether the captain erred in thinking a new first officer should have attempted the landing
Gotta learn to land on windy days sometime....
This is a very difficult approach. There is no way in hell the first officer was flying the airplane.
Sounds that way…..the non flying pilot operates the radios….the first 2 attempts/go around radio calls are by the male. He wouldn’t be talking AND flying. After the tower directed go around the male suddenly is no longer making radio calls. Says to me that the male took control of the aircraft and designated the female to handle the radios. After the first go around if the male was the captain and the female FO was...
Sounds that way…..the non flying pilot operates the radios….the first 2 attempts/go around radio calls are by the male. He wouldn’t be talking AND flying. After the tower directed go around the male suddenly is no longer making radio calls. Says to me that the male took control of the aircraft and designated the female to handle the radios. After the first go around if the male was the captain and the female FO was flying I would have assumed control of the aircraft and made the second attempt to land myself. Curious what the limits are for FO’s at SWA in regards to winds/visibility limitations. Usually there are crosswind limits for FO’s.
... all of the DEI stuff is stupid ...
Funny how public perception is the captain took over.... Could be the other way around. They could have switched roles for many reasons. the vast majority of FO's have well over a decade or even a life long experience in their position and do not upgrade due to seniority. In some of these cases, Pilot Monitoring the much tough position to be in..I can assure you all airline pilots are well trained and can handle windy landings regardless of what seat they are in.
The idea to divert to PIT was probably influenced by the wind storm pulling away at that point. Of course as Antwerp pointed out, it was still strong but lessening at BWI. Plus BWI has couple thousand more feet of runway than LGA. Perhaps the pilots were worried that they may have had a technical issue?
SO tell me what the 737 has to do with this incident as you repeatedly use "737" in your post? This is clearly a pilot/flight condition issue certainly not the plane. This is a perfect example of over heating an issue with Boeing does this mean YOU are not flying 737's / Boeing ac ? Just adds to the hysteria.
Disclaimer I am not a fan right now of Boeing and it's issues many of which go right to the top. I am ex USAF driver, very long time ago.
Because it's the plane involved? The article also used the words "plane" and "aircraft" as well. I suspect the use of the term "737" is A) to identify the type, and B) so it doesn't get repetitive saying "plane" and "aircraft".
@Ghostider5408 I noticed that. I feel he did so for clicks. I mean, it's Southwest, they only have 737s, everyone who follow this blogs knows that.
Thank you for the article. As a 25 year Airline Pilot, I find it a pretty accurate portrayal of the reality faced by Flight Crews. With 16,000 hours in the Air, four type ratings and an Instructor rating, I can tell you that this had ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE WEATHER.
That is, the weather without a doubt compounded matters of crew workload, Crew Resource Management (CRM) and aircraft performance. Did you hear:
...Thank you for the article. As a 25 year Airline Pilot, I find it a pretty accurate portrayal of the reality faced by Flight Crews. With 16,000 hours in the Air, four type ratings and an Instructor rating, I can tell you that this had ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE WEATHER.
That is, the weather without a doubt compounded matters of crew workload, Crew Resource Management (CRM) and aircraft performance. Did you hear:
Windshear report? The LOW ALTITUDE ALERT given to the JetBlue Flight? PRESFR was listed in the METAR. These are classic harbingers of exactly what happened.
If ONEMILEATATIME will allow, I have the METAR, weather RADAR AND WINDS ALOFT DATA at almost the exact time this happened.
While this is not an absolving the flight crew of error, this was predicated by the weather. This was one of our many notable days in flying due to the weather.
Might I suggest removing humans from the workload and let computers who can perform under heavy workloads without affecting decision time of being humans.
Maybe it's (way pass the) time we train ChatGPT to fly the plane.
As much as Tesla self driving crashes, humans crashes are far higher.
AI? Really? They can't even get the grocery store scanner to work properly. GMAFB
I can't figure out why they needed to divert to PIT (and why PIT considering it's no where near LGA) other than to try to get out of explaining themselves. At least BWI acts as a hub for Southwest.
if you listen to the recording, they seemed to suggest PHL first and then realized their alternate was PIT. I'm not sure we know what their alternate was but an alternate has to be filed with the flight plan. If it really was PIT, there might have been concerns at the time the flight plan was flied that another airport in the NE could have been too close to whatever weather would have been going...
if you listen to the recording, they seemed to suggest PHL first and then realized their alternate was PIT. I'm not sure we know what their alternate was but an alternate has to be filed with the flight plan. If it really was PIT, there might have been concerns at the time the flight plan was flied that another airport in the NE could have been too close to whatever weather would have been going on at LGA - or any number of other reasons.
At some point, they changed their mind again which is ok to do. They just seemed to stumble trying to remember what they were supposed to do. and most importantly, there undoubtedly was a collective decision in the cockpit that those two pilots were not willing to try another LGA landing.
It doesn’t work the way you think. The weather for an Alternate Airport has to meet certain criteria…ceiling and visibility…and that does not always work with logistics in terms of what’s closer for passengers or a hub for an airline.
Part 121 Regs require certain weather to exist to qualify as an Alternate Airport at time of dispatch. Then, when the flight is active, the Flight Crew makes a decision about current weather at...
It doesn’t work the way you think. The weather for an Alternate Airport has to meet certain criteria…ceiling and visibility…and that does not always work with logistics in terms of what’s closer for passengers or a hub for an airline.
Part 121 Regs require certain weather to exist to qualify as an Alternate Airport at time of dispatch. Then, when the flight is active, the Flight Crew makes a decision about current weather at different locations.
In this regard, we definitely consider geography and airline support, but the actual weather conditions take precedence.
The storm was prevalent all over the Eastern seabord cities on Saturday. However conditions were improving in the DMV so they did end up going to BWI. Initially I assume they were trying to avoid the tail end of the storm but operations told them by then it had passed at BWI.
It was probably the preferred alternate based on the weather conditions. BWI may have already been listed as a second alternate or changed by the dispatcher after the missed approach .
there is no "this is worse than the other incidents we have seen so let's investigate".
Aviation in the US is safe because it maintains exceptionally high standards.
EVERY INCIDENT that is a departure from normal should be investigated - and this almost certainly will be.
A plane that was that low to the ground and that far off course requires investigation. Period. Full stop.
But let's also not forget that the FAA or...
there is no "this is worse than the other incidents we have seen so let's investigate".
Aviation in the US is safe because it maintains exceptionally high standards.
EVERY INCIDENT that is a departure from normal should be investigated - and this almost certainly will be.
A plane that was that low to the ground and that far off course requires investigation. Period. Full stop.
But let's also not forget that the FAA or NTSB said it was investigating EVERY ONE of the United incidents and it was the CUMULATIVE number of incidents in such a short period of time that precipitated the FAA's decision to institute a top to bottom review of United's safety procedures which clearly involve PILOT and MAINTENANCE safety issues.
Obviously, this incident could have been catastrophic. Whatever finally kicked in to keep it from getting that far needs to praised while figuring out how the situation deteriorated in the first place.
@ Tim Dunn -- That's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the media picking up on incidents like a United aircraft returning to the gate for a maintenance issue after pushback, which is something that happens on just about every major airline every day.
is the FAA investigating the United return to gate? then if not, it doesn't matter what the media reports. The media for weeks kept hyping the "Boeing" component of UA's safety issues and any reasonably intelligent industry observer could see that nearly all of the issues had airline connections.
This incident should be investigated and should have been regardless of the airline. Does that mean that, even if there is a finding of pilot error...
is the FAA investigating the United return to gate? then if not, it doesn't matter what the media reports. The media for weeks kept hyping the "Boeing" component of UA's safety issues and any reasonably intelligent industry observer could see that nearly all of the issues had airline connections.
This incident should be investigated and should have been regardless of the airline. Does that mean that, even if there is a finding of pilot error (likely) that there are systemic issues at Southwest? Just because of one incident - no.
The FAA is investigating UA's operations because of the string of pilot-related incidents that actually go back a year. And let's remember those included a couple of hard landings with aircraft damage, a low altitude flaps issue that took a 777 dangerously close to the Pacific ocean, and a plane ending up in the grass. Those are just a few of the UA incidents and doesn't even include maintenance issues.
Again, stating that "this was so much worse so should be investigated/ why is airline X being investigated" is a completely wrong mindset.
All of these incidents should be investigated and usually are; returning to the gate IS routine and is not an erosion to safety and likely was not investigated.
If the FAA senses too many incidents in too short of a period of time, they will look for common threads and that is what they are doing at United.
The repercussions for United remains to be seen but the message seems clear that United's growth was too much, too fast and they will be forced to slow down which is the antithesis of what UA execs have been wanting to do
> the message seems clear that United's growth was too much, too fast
Clear to you and only you, apparently.
What's DL's excuse for their engine panel falling off on a flight today?
Ben with some complete and total bait here. This is obviously pilot error, but Ben calls out what, a dozen times that this is a Boeing 737? We all know Southwest flies exclusively 737’s. Stop perpetuating fear in uninformed fliers.
@ Tyler -- I always repeatedly mention the aircraft type when covering any sort of story like this. I mean, I also repeatedly mentioned how the Air India aircraft that diverted to Russia was a 777, and it was nothing against the 777 or Boeing. It's just that mentioning the plane type is one way to reference a particular flight.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/air-india-777-stranded-russia/
Well, at least one of the FAs had sung the safety instructions to the tune of a Taylor Swift song so everyone was fully prepared for an emergency evacuation.
Speaking of aviation incidents, Qantas A330 had an engine failure or something like that.
Of course I'm not saying this to make Airbus look bad.
Here before braindeads blame Boeing and becomes the most liked comment
Like all the incidents recently, regardless of what happened comments would be one of the two.
Blame Boeing.
Blame DEI.
Well, the influence of DEI here cannot be ruled out.
What aholes. Uv 4gotten Tammie Jo Shults on WN1380. Shut up.
Was this co-pilot Tammie Jo Shults? No, she wasn't. Nor did she sound like someone with the abilities and confidence of Captain Sully either. Just because you can name off an expert female pilot doesn't mean that this example is free of scrutiny.
So when there's an article about a white guy making an error, I assume you'll be on here saying something about how white men are given a pass despite lackluster training/experience? Right?