Approach control recording here - SWA1380 comes in at around the 14-minute mark: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kphl/PHL-App-North-Arrival...
The captain is cool as a cucumber. The controller is sweating bullets!
The captain is cool as a cucumber. The controller is sweating bullets!
Wow, yeah. 17:03: "Now is your airplane physically on fire?" "No, it's not on fire, but part of it's missing."
The poor pilots might not have even known that the passenger was only partially pulled out the window. It's even more impressive that the captain was able to act so calmly when she might have been under the impression that a passenger had just been ejected from her plane!
Meaning, don't fly over downtown so that if your plane comes apart you won't kill large numbers of people below you.
Pretty intense stuff.
Pilot: Southwest 1380, we'd like to turn - to start turning inbound.
Approach: Southwest 1380, turn, just start turning southbound there. There's a Southwest 737 on a four-mile final. You'll be turning southbound. Start looking for the airport, it's off to your right and slightly behind you there, and altitude is your discretion. Use caution for the downtown area. Maintain, advise you maintain at or above 2200 per the MVA.
I believe this is the point, 34 minutes into the flight, at which the pilot then turns southbound toward the airport, passing almost directly over downtown Philadelphia:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1380/history/20180417...
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Minimum_Vectoring_Altitu...
"The minimum vectoring altitude in each sector provides 1000 ft above the highest obstruction in non-mountainous areas and 2000 ft above the highest obstacle in designated mountainous areas. The MVA is the lowest altitude that meets obstacle clearance requirements in the airspace specified. "
In this the MVA appeared to refer to the controller's instructions for the altitude required to pass 1000 feet above the tallest buildings in the downtown area. Again, the "caution" related to downtown was mentioned in between the controller's statement that the pilot could use her discretion for the altitude and the statement that he "advise[s]" her to "maintain at or above 2200 [feet] for the MVA" in that region.
So in context, I believe the controller was just advising the pilot to attempt to maintain enough altitude to pass safely above the downtown buildings, rather than to avoid flying over the downtown area at all. Again, it appears that she did fly over the downtown area as part of her approach. At the time of its southbound turn, the plane was at an elevation of about 3300 feet and then it passed over downtown at an elevation near 2600 feet or so.
[Edit: I saw another transcript that said "per the MVA" instead of "for the MVA", and I've corrected my transcript above. This makes me even more convinced that the "caution for the downtown area" refers to an established precaution, although other aircraft might not have a reason to come as close to the downtown buildings on a typical approach.]
Listen to some guard frequencies with aviators displaying such a lack of professionalism it may make you question how we’re allowed to fly.
What you’re hearing is hundreds or thousands of hours of flight time; many of which are spent practicing forced landings, and the radio language that becomes second nature.
VHF requires you to be incredibly clear when speaking, a single shared frequency enforces short messages that are to the point.
I can pretty much guarantee neither of the flight crew thought about any potential inquiry until after they had made a safe landing; as that would’ve been their only focus.
The pilot sounds cool, but I'm not sure she's calm. The initial communication with approach complaining about frequency changes (before even identifying) strikes me as odd.
More concretely, many of the transmissions are without identification or readbacks, some stepping on other stations.
Perhaps I'm overthinking, but to my ear, it's the pilot who's bricking it.
Similarly, the controllers aren't just managing the traffic in their area. They're also coordinating with their management, other controllers that are managing neighboring sectors, emergency management folks, etc.
First mention of the emergency is around 11m20.
Only after all those things are done, should you take time to talk to the controllers. In these situations, you do what's necessary and then, when convenient, you advise the controllers of the actions you are taking.
"Uhhh, I don't know, the landing was good but she could have been a little quicker on her speech. 8/10 would consider further training."
As for her speech patterns, she's trying to be extremely clear and specific with her speech while dealing with stuff like emergency checklists and keeping the plane aloft. As anyone in a life-or-death crisis should be doing. Speaking precisely and clearly is worth overwhelmingly more than speaking quickly and getting something wrong.
This is perhaps the grossest backseat-driving I've seen on Hacker News and I have seen some gross ones.
I always like referencing this incident from a few years ago as an example of that:
Her calm is impressive. That's what pilots are paid for.
On the one hand, I'd definitely be happy to see her on my next flight, but on the other, she's a woman so all her responses have to be seen through some mechanism where her emotions have betrayed her.
Or trying to navigate to a diversion airfield without first communicating to ensure that it is usable.
Aviate, then navigate and communicate.
A very obvious example where the Rules explicitly tell pilots to disobey ATC is instructions from local technology that isn't co-ordinated with the ground, such as Ground Proximity Warning System and Traffic Collision Avoidance System. If these systems decide that overall "Climb, Crossing Climb, Climb Now!" is the correct instruction, but your controller suggests descending, the Rules are clear that you should all obey the machine and it will probably be fine because the machine is doing its own real time conflict resolution and re-assessing the local situation.
The Rules say you should tell the controller why you didn't obey their instructions but again, not as a greater priority than flying the plane.
I was referring to § 91.123 (a), which reads in part (emphasis added): “When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.”
I.e. when ATC tells you “turn left heading 135,” unless you have a very good reason not to, you must turn left to heading 135.
The part I didn’t emphasize is of course exactly what you’re saying.
I suppose another way to phrase what I meant is that while ATC is the boss “in the small,” the PIC is the boss “in the large,” and I don’t think non-pilots think of it that way.
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=se14.2.91_1123 :
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=se14.3.121_1557 :
(a) In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter, to the extent required in the interests of safety.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 :
§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
As someone with a relevant background, I think it's entirely wrong, but it's presented in an entirely respectful manner. Saying something that is very clearly wrong is good because then we can explain why it's wrong. Or am I missing something?
Every aviation incident discussed in /r/aviation is full of armchair analysts and critics. People on the internet like to put out controversial opinions about what people have done to feel relevant. Much like you ended up doing ascribing this to a sexism issue despite it being based on pace of speech.
It's like a non-programmer opening up some source code, then leaving a comment that the letter X is used too much because it's not used that much in articles on the NY Times.
A "respectful manner" first involves asking oneself, "what are the important aspects of flying an injured plane that I am ignorant of? In light of that, are my criticisms valid?" From where I sit, the original post did none of that. Nope, just "derpy, derp, she did not do it the way I, a person who has probably never flown a plane or handled a radio in an emergency situation, would do it." To put it more bluntly, it came across like someone talking out their arse.
Note also that downvotes don't prevent responding with why something is wrong.
Think of what it means if downvotes are symmetric with upvotes. Upvotes are given for being right, being funny, being respectful, and a variety of other reasons. Nobody really asks why something is being upvoted. But people often take downvotes personally or assume they mean something specific, and people often ask why downvotes are being cast.
Also be aware that the HN guidelines recommend not discussing voting, but your question is honest and you're newer here, so I hope this helps.
I enjoy browsing HN because the conversation are usually of a higher intellectual calibre, and I am here to learn as much as to contribute knowledge that is within my own domain.
Therefore I believe it is a high priority to keep the signal to noise ratio well pegged in the 'signal' zone. Comments like the above are merely 'noise' which is based on ignorant preconceptions and doesn't really elicit meaningful discussion or move the conversation forward in any way.
I rarely downvote, but do so when I think the post does not add significant value to the topic at hand.
Curious if you'd give this kind of scrutiny if the pilot were a man.
(Disclaimer: ex-USAF here though not air crew.)
https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/tammie-jo-shults-pilot-southw...
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-pilot-who-saved-that-s...