Posted on 12/15/2005 1:06:39 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser
That makes sense, but according to the article:
A former Southwest pilot with 13 years experience said the airline's decision not to use autobrakes has historically had more to do with on-time performance than safety.
Bert Yetman of the Professional Pilots Federation said that during his tour with Southwest, pilots were told to slow planes to 80 knots using reverse thrusters before applying braking systems.
That allowed planes to stay in the air as long as possible -- with 10-minute turnaround times -- avoiding the "brake cooling period" required when brakes are used at speeds higher than 80 knots, Yetman said.
"Safety does not come into question. It's how long the runway is and how quick you want to turn around," he said.
The pilot told investigators autobrakes were at a high setting and "deployed virtually the moment the plane lands on the runway," NTSB officials said.
"Wonder why this is being leaked before the investigation is completed?"
To prevent lawsuits from the survivors against Southwest... it is "pilot error," against explicit Southwest policy, and therefore Southwest is not liable for the deaths or injuries.
Interesting ... it's almost always the pilot who is found at fault. Seems to me even the data is misconstrued to put the pilot in the worse possible light.
good add'l info there - forgot about brake cooling times...
The best part of FR is how quickly one can get clarifications on stories.
It is hard to imagine how reporters get to keep their jobs when they report only 1/10 of every story.
Thanks.
Did the plane have snow tires?
Reporters are the biggest gossipers and "assumers" of truth out there - aviation reporting is atrocious; I can only imagine what it is like for other industries...
AGREED!!!
And I can't believe that the story just died... he should be brought up on criminal charges for doing what he did.
1@#$!@(#($
That is what brake fade is all about...heat. Over heating the brake friction surfaces reduces braking power. The heat quickly soaks to the hydraulic fluid, reducing such even more.
Haul your vehicle down quickly from 100 mph, then drive off and try to stop in a normal manner...your brake pedal (non ABS) may go soft and the vehicle will not stop as expected. For ABS, you may still have pedal but less stopping power.
I should be careful not to impugn the motives of any good FReepers out there who might be reporters - I was commenting more on the group as a whole....
Nope. Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is on the hook for what its employees do, even in violation of the company's policies, unless it is a gross violation from the employee's scope of employment. That's been the law for centuries. In this case (assuming the facts as they are depicted in the article), the pilot's use of the autobrake system is reasonably foreseeable, since it would appear to be an attractive feature that the pilot could use in his typical duties, that is, landing planes. A mere policy against its use, without more, does not protect Southwest from liability for the acts of its employees.
studded tires and chains. But I guess the chute didnt pop.
I can't imagine that, especially with snow on the ground.
Now I'm not a pilot, or even a novice aviator...but I've flown into Midway plenty of times to know that if its a commerical airliner (a big plane 737, DC9, DC10, etc.) and landing at Midway...the reverse thrusters are going to be used.
Again, I'm not a pilot, but if the autobrake system is a mechanism that only controls the hydraulic brakes on the landing gears...without use of the reverse thrusters...than I would suspect the pilot IS negligent. Landing at Midway on a nice day seems to be challenging enough...add snow and ice and I'd suppose its pretty difficult without having any thrust going backwards.
The idiot press is reporting this as some sort of pilot
error, when it appears that the SWA policy is intended
to sacrifice safety in the interest of fast gate
turnaround, by deferring brakes until after thrust reverse.
See:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=276e8d7b-2da3-4822-b74c-33625a53ecd6&
Also, the crew reported that the reversers did not
promptly engage.
As I assemble this, had they not pre-engaged auto-braking,
the ship might have gone way off-field, into structures,
with dramatically more than 1 fatality.
One factor not stated in the article was what was the condition of the runway? Had it been swept and how recently? Also, did airport operations do a friction test of the runway and obtain a mu value?
I AGREE!!!
Especially GA/Sport Aviation crashes... "The plane was doing these loop-da-loop things and then it just crashed"...
WTF does that mean?
Southwest has a long way to go before they can prove that they are not liable for deaths or injuries. One of their airliners failed to land properly, crashed through a fence, and killed a 6 year old. There are several questions they have to answer correctly to get off (and I'm not even going to start discussing this in the full incident-report context):
1. Did their procedures explicitly forbid this method of landing?
2. Was the pilot and co-pilot trained on the procedure?
3. How was the effectiveness of the training evaluated? How did the pilot and co-pilot rate (with documentation)? If there was a problem in training, what was the corrective action, and how was it determined that the corrective action was effective?
4. Were the pilot and co-pilot trained on the consequences and problems with this method of braking, and again how was the effectiveness of the training evaluated and what corrective actions were assigned (with documentation)?
5. Was management ever aware that pilots and co-pilots failed to land the companies aircraft according to procedure? Why not?
6. How was compliance with procedures determined (a monitoring program?)? How was the effectiveness of the monitoring program evaluated?
7. If there were problems in the past with pilots intentionally not following procedures, were the pilots disciplined, and what was the results?
As you can guess, I've been in many situations where questions like these are asked. I have only probed the corporate training policy. There are hundreds more questions that can be asked, and if the airline gets one wrong, they would probably lose a civil suit.
You're right, it isn't. Several aviation types have corrected my misconception. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.