Southwest 737 lands at LaGuardia with nose wheel stuck

Happened today evening. Southwest Boeing 737 landed with nose wheel stuck. Fortunately all passengers escaped unhurt (except the few who will claim trauma/anxiety/back pain to sue Southwest in an attempt to earn big compensation)

Between Asiana 777 at SFO, 787 fire at Heathrow and this, expect Boeing-airplanes-are-unsafe media propaganda to start in 3...2...1...

I'm glad everyone is okay. The last report I saw said five people had "minor" injuries.

Ditto, glad there were no Serious Injuries! Southwest has an Outstanding Safety Record and Consistently finishes High in the Consumer Surveys of Airline travelers! They have Good to Competive Fares, Lots of Flights and still don't charge to check your Bags and their OTP is usually Outstanding! If I Have to Fly (as infrequently as possible) I usually choose Southwest!

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

And I can not understand how Southwest can "lose" luggage? It's been years since I flew SW, but when I did if you hd a connecting flight (say PVD-BWI-AUS), you had to collect your bags at BWI and recheck them. They were not transferred for you between flights. So ho could they "get lost? :huh:

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!
And I can not understand how Southwest can "lose" luggage? It's been years since I flew SW, but when I did if you hd a connecting flight (say PVD-BWI-AUS), you had to collect your bags at BWI and recheck them. They were not transferred for you between flights. So ho could they "get lost? :huh:

Click to expand...

That must have been a long time ago. To do that now would require exiting security and rescreening. Luggage is transferred between connecting flights by Southwest Airlines.
When is the last time an airliner hit a dump truck at a grade crossing? Every mode has its strengths and weaknesses.

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

Click to expand...

To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.

jis said:

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

Click to expand...

To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.

Click to expand...

Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)

Texan Eagle said:

jis said:

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

Click to expand...

To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.

Click to expand...

Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)

Click to expand...

When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.

That is why the 777 Asiana plane had two crews aboard. Still landed short.

They were just not flapping hard enough

Here is an interesting video taken inside the plane through the (Southwest) landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqQ5TCB-jQ

Almost looks like they forgot to flare. But these looks can be deceptive, since the camera angle is not something that one can count on to depict the perspective correctly.

But on the face of it, it looks like yet another dorked up landing, this time nose gear first, causing collapse of the same.

"Going thru Security"? "Rescreening"? :huh: Those are unfamiliar terms to this Amtrak passenger! :giggle: (And yes it's been too many years since I've flown SW - and that's too short a time!)

the_traveler said:

"Going thru Security"? "Rescreening"? :huh: Those are unfamiliar terms to this Amtrak passenger! :giggle: (And yes it's been too many years since I've flown SW - and that's too short a time!)

Click to expand...

Keep mentioning that over and over again, and someone in the bureaucracy will surely fix it for you so that you can also experience the full monty

If they do see my full monty, they may get rid of TSA at airports too! (I even scare myself!)

It's either a 737 problem or a WN pilot error. It seems WN has had a bunch of these runway incidents recently, even though they still keep a good safety record. I've only flown WN once, and frankly, they are nearly useless to me because I almost never fly domestic. If they flew to Alaska or Hawaii, I might fly them again.

Domestic, it's Amtrak and Greyhound for the win!

Seems the NG collapse is worse than originally thought. The gear broke to the rear and penetrated the avionics bay. Serious damage.

jis said:

Texan Eagle said:

jis said:

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

Click to expand...

To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.

Click to expand...

Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)

Click to expand...

When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.

Click to expand...

Flight crews are not allowed to takeoff if they will time out at the destination. However, if they are delayed while already airborne, they may continue to the scheduled destination even if it means going over their hours of service. "Legal to start, legal to finish" is the term. Long-haul international, which has augmented crew members, the rules get a little more complex, and I'm not sure all the stipulations on that. USA-Europe flight will carry just 3 pilots, while USA-Asian flight will take 4. Not sure what the cut-off point is.

jis said:

They were just not flapping hard enough
Here is an interesting video taken inside the plane through the (Southwest) landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqQ5TCB-jQ

Almost looks like they forgot to flare. But these looks can be deceptive, since the camera angle is not something that one can count on to depict the perspective correctly.

But on the face of it, it looks like yet another dorked up landing, this time nose gear first, causing collapse of the same.

Click to expand...

Heard a preliminary finding on the news earlier that confirms officially your observation....

saxman said:

jis said:

Texan Eagle said:

jis said:

the_traveler said:

Another reason to take Amtrak. I can't remember the last time a train "landed" at station and the front truck of the locomotive was stuck in the "up" position or collapsed!

Click to expand...

To compensate for that Amtrak trains like to simply jump off the track from time to time and land in a ditch and on a rare occasion even take a leap into a river.

Click to expand...

Or just break down in the middle of nowhere and sit for two hours. Or twelve. Or hit a truck. Or a pedestrian. Or a bear. Or the crew times out and everyone has to wait for hours for a new one to come in (now ain't I glad that doesn't happen mid-air on a flight?)

Click to expand...

When a crew times out on a flight they usually have a second crew on board, e.g. on long intercontinental non-stops. But there are a few occasions when they have had to make unscheduled stops due to crew expiring even on planes. They do have to plan a bit ahead since planes tend not to stay aloft if you just roll to or flap to a standstill as the case may be.

Click to expand...

Flight crews are not allowed to takeoff if they will time out at the destination. However, if they are delayed while already airborne, they may continue to the scheduled destination even if it means going over their hours of service. "Legal to start, legal to finish" is the term. Long-haul international, which has augmented crew members, the rules get a little more complex, and I'm not sure all the stipulations on that. USA-Europe flight will carry just 3 pilots, while USA-Asian flight will take 4. Not sure what the cut-off point is.

Click to expand...

That seems different from the bus industry. US bus drivers are not allowed to go over their maximum driving time of 15 hours, so even if they are in the middle of the desert, Greyhound drivers are often forced by law to leave the bus for rest, and stranding a load of angry passengers.

The maximum duty time is 10 hours, so the above only happens if the bus gets a running delay of over 5 hours.

Edit: error

Southwest does have an exemplary safety record compared to other major airlines, but it's also true that they do not have a perfect safety record. Neither does Qantas or most of the other airlines people tend to bring up, apologies to rainmen everywhere. Southwest has been sited for numerous safety violations resulting in millions of dollars in fines. That being said, loss of landing gear on a commercial sized aircraft is not likely to result in serious injury or death. The bulk of the risk is to the future use of the aircraft. Those injuries that do occur often result from the evacuation process rather than from the landing itself. I live in one of the original three cities that Southwest started. They sell non-stop flights to 18 locations (LAX, SAN, LAS, PHX, ELP, DEN, MEX, HRL, DAL, HOU, STL, MDW, CUN, BNA, ATL, TPA, MCO, & BWI) and their walk-up fares are competitive. It's easy to choose them if you're in a rush or just don't want to risk a missed connection.

PRR 60 said:

Every mode has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that fresh breath of sanity.

The NTSB confirmed what we had already guessed, the 737 did a wheelbarrow landing, nose gear first. They apparently did not flare in time. We see.another student technique like the 777 landing short. Letting the speed bleed off. :angry2:

One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight.

That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident

railiner said:

One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident

Click to expand...

I've discovered that many Southwest flights travel long distances with many stops in between, breaking the flight onti many segments. This probably helps to reduce pilot fatigue.

railiner said:

One thing that I have read somewhere (can't recall where or when), is that Southwest aircraft pilots always 'hand-fly' their aircraft, in the traditional way, as opposed to flying it like a computer operator. That, if true, has its own pro's and con's.....for one thing, it keeps basic flying skills sharp and current, but it also means more pilot fatigue on a longer flight, and it doesn't utilize the benefits of an auto-land in zero-zero visibility. I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly current regulations require a minimum number of automatic landings for US carriers.

railiner said:

I don't know just what level of automation Southwest has---surely they must have a basic auto pilot for straight and level flight. That said, I don't mean to insinuate that it had, or didn't have, any bearing on this accident

Click to expand...

Southwest does not make its own planes. They use the same Boeing 737s that other airlines do. If the plane has facilities for computerized flying, the Southwest model will also have it. Also, Southwest does not have its own dedicated set of airports and control over weather conditions, they are impacted by unfavorable weather as much as other airlines so they need to have everything that other airlines have for ILS conditions and near-zero-visibility landings.

It's not a question of what they have, it's a question of how they use it.

That said, there can be a lot of variability even in cockpit equipment between the "same" planes.