Southwest Low Altitude Alert OKC
Reminiscent, but not quite the same. From the FAA Lessons Learned description:
"Approximately one minute later, the approach controller, noting that the reported altitude of Flight 401 was 900 feet, and knowing that the flight was assigned 2,000 feet, queried the flight crew as to their status saying, "How are things comin' along out there?" But, he did not specifically mention altitude in his radio call."
The controller in this case specifically mentions an altitude alert.
"Approximately one minute later, the approach controller, noting that the reported altitude of Flight 401 was 900 feet, and knowing that the flight was assigned 2,000 feet, queried the flight crew as to their status saying, "How are things comin' along out there?" But, he did not specifically mention altitude in his radio call."
The controller in this case specifically mentions an altitude alert.
They were on a long final for 13, just a lot lower than they should have been. Isn't that exactly what VSD would have shown?
But the point at which they were lining up on final (vicinity of WABUT) (and the fixes start to appear on the VSD) they were already descending through about 2400 MSL (~1100 AGL) and had long ago lost the plot with their vertical situation. And if they were mentally engaged with it, they'd know by conventional means that the segment altitude was 2600 until ELUCK still 4-5 miles ahead of them.
You're right. I hadn't been following the thread too closely and didn't realize 13 was their intended runway the first time. But I just saw the transcript someone posted. So yes, it might have helped.
But the point at which they were lining up on final (vicinity of WABUT) (and the fixes start to appear on the VSD) they were already descending through about 2400 MSL (~1100 AGL) and had long ago lost the plot with their vertical situation. And if they were mentally engaged with it, they'd know by conventional means that the segment altitude was 2600 until ELUCK still 4-5 miles ahead of them.
But the point at which they were lining up on final (vicinity of WABUT) (and the fixes start to appear on the VSD) they were already descending through about 2400 MSL (~1100 AGL) and had long ago lost the plot with their vertical situation. And if they were mentally engaged with it, they'd know by conventional means that the segment altitude was 2600 until ELUCK still 4-5 miles ahead of them.
Still don't understand why SWA has VSD on some aircraft but not on others.
Last edited by EXDAC; 24th Jun 2024 at 02:31.
I doubt they ever used RNAV or GPS instruments for navigation, this rather looks like a simple visual NVFR flight to me. They called out "field in sight" more than 10 miles out at a very low altitude over a built up and probably well lit area. Although my night flying days are long time gone, this sounds impossible to me even in a clear night with good visibility at this distance and angle. I guess their "field in sight" was a brightly lit highway or something similar.
The following 3 users liked this post by clearedtocross:
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think anyone following this would agree there was a complete loss of situation awareness. It was suggested that looking at the ND would have helped prevent that and, having been involved with VSD development, I wondered if VSD would have been displayed.
Still don't understand why SWA has VSD on some aircraft but not on others.
Still don't understand why SWA has VSD on some aircraft but not on others.
What year did VSD become available? I’m not sure it was even an option in the first 737-700s.
Southwest was the launch customer for the -700 in 1997.
I did find a presentation that may be of interest to those not familar with VSD. The link will download a power point presenation but not open it. There are also 'tube videos.
http://www.b737.org.uk/vsd.pps
Thread Starter
I doubt they ever used RNAV or GPS instruments for navigation, this rather looks like a simple visual NVFR flight to me. They called out "field in sight" more than 10 miles out at a very low altitude over a built up and probably well lit area. Although my night flying days are long time gone, this sounds impossible to me even in a clear night with good visibility at this distance and angle. I guess their "field in sight" was a brightly lit highway or something similar.
SWA used to be very keen on having common display presentation across the fleet. They had the display supplier develop a special "round dial" PFD format so their pilots could transition easily between the analog displays of older aircraft and the new "glass cockpit" aircraft. To the best of my recollection no other customer used that "round dial" option.
That desire for fleet commonality seems inconstent with buying the VSD option for some aircaft and not for others. If it's on some aircraft and not others are crews trained to use it?
That desire for fleet commonality seems inconstent with buying the VSD option for some aircaft and not for others. If it's on some aircraft and not others are crews trained to use it?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWA used to be very keen on having common display presentation across the fleet. They had the display supplier develop a special "round dial" PFD format so their pilots could transition easily between the analog displays of older aircraft and the new "glass cockpit" aircraft. To the best of my recollection no other customer used that "round dial" option.
That desire for fleet commonality seems inconstent with buying the VSD option for some aircaft and not for others. If it's on some aircraft and not others are crews trained to use it?
That desire for fleet commonality seems inconstent with buying the VSD option for some aircaft and not for others. If it's on some aircraft and not others are crews trained to use it?
VSD was not an option for the original NG aircraft, or not purchased due to classic (-200/-300/-500) commonality, and the only airplanes with it now are the Max8s.
I doubt they ever used RNAV or GPS instruments for navigation, this rather looks like a simple visual NVFR flight to me. They called out "field in sight" more than 10 miles out at a very low altitude over a built up and probably well lit area. Although my night flying days are long time gone, this sounds impossible to me even in a clear night with good visibility at this distance and angle. I guess their "field in sight" was a brightly lit highway or something similar.
Rozy1, would you be able to comment on the likelihood of this happening vs not happening, here?
In my outfit we can do night visuals, but with quite a few restrictions, one of which is that distance is checked against height by other means, which seems sensible given the subject of this thread.
You may well ask: if it was late at night and the crew sounded like they were half asleep, why didn’t they just do the ILS/RNAV and let the AP take the strain until shortly before landing? Part of the answer would be that tiredness/fatigue is insidious and almost impossible to self-diagnose: you can implement what you realise the next day wasn’t the greatest idea but it seemed fine at the time because half your synapses were on strike.
[war story]Some years ago, I was midway across the Pond at 2am with an FO who had come from another Boeing LH type. We were talking about the differences and similarities between this and the other, and the subject of flight deck humidity came up. He said the side air vents on his old steed had an arrangement where the air could blow over some water you put there, thus making the air a bit less dry than the Atacama Desert. We agreed that obviously this had carried over into the newer model, so I tipped a litre bottle of water into my vent. There was a brief hiatus where I genuinely thought that it was working and you could feel that beautiful moisture making its way into the cockpit, then with a loud gurgle it regurgitated the whole lot over us and the rest of the fight deck. I mean stupid or what? But we were convinced that it was a brilliant plan because diurnal mammals should be safely tucked away in bed at that the of night...[/war story]
You may well ask: if it was late at night and the crew sounded like they were half asleep, why didn’t they just do the ILS/RNAV and let the AP take the strain until shortly before landing? Part of the answer would be that tiredness/fatigue is insidious and almost impossible to self-diagnose: you can implement what you realise the next day wasn’t the greatest idea but it seemed fine at the time because half your synapses were on strike.
[war story]Some years ago, I was midway across the Pond at 2am with an FO who had come from another Boeing LH type. We were talking about the differences and similarities between this and the other, and the subject of flight deck humidity came up. He said the side air vents on his old steed had an arrangement where the air could blow over some water you put there, thus making the air a bit less dry than the Atacama Desert. We agreed that obviously this had carried over into the newer model, so I tipped a litre bottle of water into my vent. There was a brief hiatus where I genuinely thought that it was working and you could feel that beautiful moisture making its way into the cockpit, then with a loud gurgle it regurgitated the whole lot over us and the rest of the fight deck. I mean stupid or what? But we were convinced that it was a brilliant plan because diurnal mammals should be safely tucked away in bed at that the of night...[/war story]
The following 2 users liked this post by FullWings:
I have no particular knowledge about this airline, but the general culture in the US (and SOP for 2 other airlines I can speak for personally) is that an approach, if available, must be loaded for backup. I would be stunned if they did not have that done. But then again, stunning things do happen in aviation.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no particular knowledge about this airline, but the general culture in the US (and SOP for 2 other airlines I can speak for personally) is that an approach, if available, must be loaded for backup. I would be stunned if they did not have that done. But then again, stunning things do happen in aviation.
Rozy1, would you be able to comment on the likelihood of this happening vs not happening, here?
Rozy1, would you be able to comment on the likelihood of this happening vs not happening, here?
Them loading it and then blowing it off in favor of some visual illusion/wrong row of lights/etc, I can see. But not loading it at all, sounds out of this world.
See airplanecrazy's annotation of post 19.
I would assume that SWA trains a standard procedure for setting the MCP altitude on a visual approach. Setting and respecting the loaded approach constraints until passed them would be one possible procedure. What procedure would explain the altitude selections reported by ADS-B Exchange and the complete disregard of the altitude selection after passing abeam WABUT?
See airplanecrazy's annotation of post 19.
See airplanecrazy's annotation of post 19.
Instead, I see the much more egregious disconnect being the lack of lateral awareness of what segment you're on (or near) and the associated altitude. (Again.... assuming that they did have the RNAV approach loaded)
@Exdac, put us all out of our misery and get a copy of SW's SOPs. Otherwise, I see no point in these incessant questions, which nobody but a SW pilot can answer, and which are getting the topic nowhere.